• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun Lobby Manipulation Protects Terrorists!

jjm

Golden Member
With Ashcroft and his gun cronies, it's okay to listen in on attorney-client discussions and conduct military tribunals, but don't let anyone find out if accused terrorists might have tried to buy guns. What a country!


Justice Dept. Bars Use of Gun Checks in Terror Inquiry
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

In Depth
Crime and Courts

The Justice Department has refused to let the F.B.I. check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had bought guns, F.B.I. and Justice Department officials say.

The department made the decision in October after the F.B.I. asked to examine the records it maintains on background checks to see if any detainees had purchased guns in the United States.

Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the request was rejected after several senior officials decided that the law creating the background check system did not permit the use of the records to investigate individuals.

Ms. Tucker did not elaborate on the decision, but it is in keeping with Attorney General John Ashcroft's strong support of gun rights and his longstanding opposition to the government's use of background check records. In 1998, as a senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft voted for an amendment to the Brady gun-control law to destroy such records immediately after checking the background of a prospective gun buyer. That amendment was defeated.

"We intend to use every legal tool available to protect American lives," John Collingwood, an assistant director of the F.B.I., said, but he added that "applicable law does not permit" the background check records to be used "for this purpose."

The Justice Department's action has frustrated some F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials who say it puts the department at odds with its own priorities. Even as the department is instituting tough new measures to detain individuals suspected of links to terrorism, they say, it is being unusually solicitous of foreigners' gun rights.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the nation's largest group of law enforcement executives, has already written one letter to the F.B.I. opposing Mr. Ashcroft's policy on gun records, and is drafting a second letter questioning the decision not to check the gun records.

"This is absurd and unconscionable," said Larry Todd, the police chief of Los Gatos, Calif., and a member of the group's firearms committee. "The decision has no rational basis in public safety.

"It sounds to me like it was made for narrow political reasons based on a right-to-bear-arms mentality," he said. "If someone is under investigation for a terrorist act, all the records we have in this country should be checked, including whether they bought firearms."

Yesterday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, wrote to Mr. Ashcroft, saying, "If the Department of Justice is not using the N.I.C.S. database as part of the investigation, I am very concerned that the F.B.I. is being unnecessarily limited in the tools that it can use to bring the perpetrators of this heinous attack to justice." N.I.C.S. is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The conflict over how to deal with the records of background checks of gun buyers predates Sept. 11.

Under the system, a gun dealer faxes in a form filled out by a prospective buyer to either the F.B.I. or a state law enforcement agency; the authorities then run a computerized search to make sure that the buyer does not fall into one of several categories of people prohibited from buying a gun.

The records of those background checks, known as audit logs, have long been a point of contention for some gun-rights advocates, who contend that they create a de facto national gun registry.

The F.B.I. preserves the records for 90 days; it has said it needs at least that long for investigative purposes and to make sure the system works. The Justice Department, however, is expected to announce soon that it is switching to destruction of the records within 24 hours.

On Sept. 16, said Mr. Collingwood, the assistant F.B.I. director, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked the F.B.I. to check a list of 186 names of detainees against the background check records.

The F.B.I. got two "hits," other F.B.I. officials said, meaning that two of the detainees had been approved to buy guns.

But the next day, after a further review by F.B.I. and Justice Department lawyers, the bureau's unit that maintains the records "was advised that reviews for this purpose were not permissible under the current statutory and regulatory scheme," Mr. Collingwood said.

"That was confirmed after a request that the matter be reviewed again," Mr. Collingwood added, apparently a reference to what other F.B.I. officials said was an appeal to the Justice Department by a senior F.B.I. official.

Among those in the Justice Department who opposed letting the F.B.I. use the records were Viet Dinh, the assistant attorney general for legal policy and a political appointee close to Mr. Ashcroft, as well as a second top department official, Ms. Tucker said.

The dispute about the records centers on two issues: which people can be checked and how the records may be used by investigators.

Until now, F.B.I. officials said, it was permissible to check the records if someone who had been approved to buy a gun should not have been allowed to. The prohibited categories include foreigners of several different statuses, like an illegal immigrant or someone in the country for less than 90 days. Investigators believed that many detainees fell into those groups and sought clearance to check whether they had bought guns.

But in what several officials called a reversal of existing procedure, Mr. Dinh ruled that these checks were improper, reasoning that they would violate the privacy of these foreigners. F.B.I. officials said foreigners normally did not have privacy rights unless they have achieved permanent resident status.

"It is like there is a gun-rights exception to the war on terrorism," said Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. Mr. Nosanchuk was a Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton administration who helped to write many of the gun-records regulations.

The records may be reviewed to assure the system functions properly, but a second issue is whether they can be used by investigators.

Current rules state the records can be used "for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting, and/or enforcing violations of criminal or civil law that may come to light during N.I.C.S. operations."

Mr. Nosanchuk said, "A fair interpretation is that if there is a terrorist act, and that if you have a basis to think a person was in a prohibited category, it would be O.K. for law enforcement to check the records to see if a person purchased a gun."

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, declined to comment on whether the Justice Department's ruling may have hindered the Sept. 11 investigation to protect gun rights.

But he said the fact that the F.B.I.'s initial check found that two detainees had been wrongly cleared to buy guns was "testament to the lack of attention focused on building the N.I.C.S. by the Clinton administration."

While it cannot be determined how many detainees bought guns, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did check some names against its database of guns that have been used in the commission of crimes. It found that 34 guns seized in crimes had been bought at some point by people on the detainee list, an A.T.F. agent said.


Link
 
If these people don't have the rights to due process and the such, why should they have their firearm rights protected?
 
There is some manipulation going on alright, but as usual, its not the gun lobby.

The NICS records are ONLY kept for internal auditing purposes. They CANNOT be used in a criminal investigation UNLESS the suspected criminal activity AROSE from the NICS check. This is CLEARLY spelled out in the law, and explained adequately in the article:

"Current rules state the records can be used "for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting, and/or enforcing violations of criminal or civil law that may come to light during N.I.C.S. operations.""

IOW, if during an NICS background check, or a periodic non-specific audit of the system, information is brought to light that may be useful in another on-going criminal investigation, then that information may be used. But, NICS records are not to be used for "fishing expeditions". That is clear.

In the typical antigun fashion, Mr. Nosanchuk distorts the CLEAR meaning of these rules: "A fair interpretation is that if there is a terrorist act, and that if you have a basis to think a person was in a prohibited category, it would be O.K. for law enforcement to check the records to see if a person purchased a gun."

Of course, that interpretation is not a fair or reasonable one, it is specifically AT ODDS with the current law. But, what can you expect from people who say a "fair interpretation" of the phrase "the right of the people" means the National Guard?
 
tcsenter - Thank you for explaining so well how the gun lobby manipulated the crafting of the original law. I agree 100%. Your analysis is absolutely correct and points the way beautifully to the fact that those who watered down the background check law did so to the detriment of our country. Clearly, then, it's the gun lobby and all who support them who are traitors to the American people. They desire to protect gun owners even if it means reducing the protection of our country. The direct connection here is indisputable.
 
Anti-Gun lobby what a bunch of manipulators...

9/11 had ZERO guns involved!!!

Anti-Gun lobby just hates to admit that...


WTH would checking those records prove?
Heck, if anything those records may actually prove some of those terrorists were DENIED gun permits.

That entire post/article is/was a fishing expedition...
 
By the same token, what would eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations prove? If there are going to be restrictions on privacy of suspected terrorists, why is the Justice Dept. doing it discriminately in regards to what methods are used? I think that was the point in the article.
 


<< Thank you for explaining so well how the gun lobby manipulated the crafting of the original law. I agree 100%. Your analysis is absolutely correct and points the way beautifully to the fact that those who watered down the background check law did so to the detriment of our country. Clearly, then, it's the gun lobby and all who support them who are traitors to the American people. They desire to protect gun owners even if it means reducing the protection of our country. The direct connection here is indisputable. >>

haha, your attempt to divert attention away from your fraudulent suggestion that the Justice Department has a choice here falls flat. You wrote:

"With Ashcroft and his gun cronies, it's okay to listen in on attorney-client discussions and conduct military tribunals, but don't let anyone find out if accused terrorists might have tried to buy guns. What a country!"

What you clearly implied was that Ashcroft and the Justice Department have some choice in how they utilize these records, and that Ashcroft was 'catering' to the progun lobby with his decision. You are incorrect. These rules were passed long before 9/11. The Justice Department is upholding the law. If the law allowed these "fishing expeditions", Ashcroft would uphold that law.

The purpose of the NICS system was NEVER to maintain a "registry" of gun owner data that could be accessible to law enforcement for fishing expeditions. That sort of activity is prohibited by the Firearms Owner Protection Act and the NICS law itself. The Justice Department is allowed to keep and use the records ONLY for specific purposes, and fishing expeditions aren't one of them.

If you want Ashcroft to allow them, change the law.

<< By the same token, what would eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations prove? >>

It would "prove" nothing, since no information gathered from this surviellance is admissable in court. It is used for gathering information that may shed light on future terrorist attacks, to PREVENT them.

<< If there are going to be restrictions on privacy of suspected terrorists, why is the Justice Dept. doing it discriminately in regards to what methods are used? I think that was the point in the article. >>

Because the law allows them to in certain circumstances, but not in others. This isn't about the "privacy" of suspected terrorists, its about the manner in which the law authorizes that a database can and cannot be used.
 
As in the case of eavesdropping, it is quite credible that the database be used to check against possible purchases of guns by terrorists. Both instances could be regarded as "fishing expeditions" and both could lead to information regarding possible terrorist activity. Regardless of whether or not guns were involved in the WTC, that is not the issue, checking these records could give the FBI possible leads to other activites suspects may be involved in.
 


<< As in the case of eavesdropping, it is quite credible that the database be used to check against possible purchases of guns by terrorists. Both instances could be regarded as "fishing expeditions" and both could lead to information regarding possible terrorist activity. Regardless of whether or not guns were involved in the WTC, that is not the issue, checking these records could give the FBI possible leads to other activites suspects may be involved in. >>

True, but the law prohibits the records to be used in this manner, period.

The attorney-client privilege has never been absolute, there have always been exceptions based on need and circumstances. Further, the attorney-client privilege is not a statutory right, it is a long-standing legal principle and is implicitly protected by the constitution. This means that the restrictions on abridging the attorney-client privilege are not codified by law and are more open to changing interpretation. No right is absolute. The debate among serious legal scholars has never been whether or not a right 'CAN' be violated, but what burden of need must be met before it is justified.

IOW, its not the 'if', but the 'when'.
 
The law was written this way to prevent a back door attempt at registration. And I'm elated to see that it's being upheld.

No manipulation, JJM, only common sense. Registration has, in every national case in history, been used to facilitate confiscation.
 


<< The law was written this way to prevent a back door attempt at registration. And I'm elated to see that it's being upheld.

No manipulation, JJM, only common sense. Registration has, in every national case in history, been used to facilitate confiscation.
>>



AMEN
 


<< The law was written this way to prevent a back door attempt at registration. And I'm elated to see that it's being upheld.

No manipulation, JJM, only common sense. Registration has, in every national case in history, been used to facilitate confiscation.
>>


Well, I guess we all have to give up some freedoms for security 🙂
 


<<

<< The law was written this way to prevent a back door attempt at registration. And I'm elated to see that it's being upheld.

No manipulation, JJM, only common sense. Registration has, in every national case in history, been used to facilitate confiscation.
>>


Well, I guess we all have to give up some freedoms for security 🙂
>>



As a libertarian, guess my come back? 🙂
 
The anti-gun lobby will do anything...

This law was carefully crafted for a reason, but because it doesn't fit some group's agendas it's now considered "traitorous".
 
tcsenter

Nice work! Great postings they were very clear and consise on this hot issue.

Its too bad the jjm didnt take the time you did to reasearch his position before making a fool of himself.
 
Traitorous or not, you can't expect the immigrants to be the only ones to give up their rights and freedoms.
Bottom line, if a terrorist has been buying guns, the FBI needs to know about it. There is no way around it. If you want to wait till something tragic happens to let them do that, you can do that.
 
<<REGISTRATION has, every national case in history, been used to facilitate confiscation.>>


That's one of the all time dumbest statements I've ever heard!

Birth Certificate
-- You have to register your baby. You parents out there, any jack booted thugs been by to take yours yet?

Driver's License -- You have to register AND take a test. Anyone had, ummm, themselves confiscated by the government through this evil plan?

Automobile Registration -- And yet I still have my Honda EX wagon, my Fiat 128 spyder, and my 1971 Olds Delta 88 Royale convertible with it's 455! How can this be?

Deed to your House -- I've just completed a thourough search of my property, and I couldn't find even one single government agent bent on confiscation anywhere.

Voter Registration -- I just knew that participatory democracy was just an elaborate sham to get us all to register! Ooooooooooo!!

And On and On and On -- The non brain dead one's here already get my point, Amused One. But don't fret, you'll be receiving your bound braille Cliff Notes with the simple explanatory line drawings by, that's right, registered mail! AHAHAHAHAHAHA, just sign here, sport!
 
Hmmm, even if these people, or those like them (i.e. criminals) were checked, exactly how many weapons do you think would be found that were actually legal?????? Let's see.....if I'm in the country either illegaly, or with falsified documents, or, if I'm about to committ a crime or act of terrorism, I'd think the last thing I'd do is go purchase a gun legally even if I did use false information because of cameras, etc.! Those whom may have been checked under this would not have been stupid enough to allow an easy loohole such as this................😉
 
Ashcroft reminds of that speech in Braveheart just exchange in the first part "lives" with "freedom" and then in the end "freedom" with "guns".

They may take our freedom but they will never take our guns!
 
Perknose, I was speaking of gun registration.

And my point stands. Every country that has passed gun registration laws has, later, used those registration records to facilitate confiscation.

 
The same people who criticize our loopholes for preventing things from getting done are now praising them for the same reason. So the Justice Department has made the law "work" for once. Woohoo. What exactly does that accomplish other than differentially investigate suspects? "We will eavesdrop on your conversations with your lawyer but we won't search your background checks." There is no logical basis for that statement.
 
Amused One, I'm impressed. You didn't flame me, you clarified your position, and your clarified position has merit. Spoken like a man. Now . . . what about gub control? 🙂
 


<< The same people who criticize our loopholes for preventing things from getting done are now praising them for the same reason. So the Justice Department has made the law "work" for once. Woohoo. What exactly does that accomplish other than differentially investigate suspects? "We will eavesdrop on your conversations with your lawyer but we won't search your background checks." There is no logical basis for that statement. >>



I never once praised the loophole being used to violate attorney/client privilege. I think it's a damn shame.
 


<< <STRONG>Amused One, </STRONG>I'm impressed. You didn't flame me, you clarified your position, and your clarified position has merit. Spoken like a man. Now . . . what about <STRONG>gub</STRONG> control? 🙂 >>



What's a gub?
 


<< <STRONG>Amused One, </STRONG>I'm impressed. You didn't flame me, you clarified your position, and your clarified position has merit. Spoken like a man. Now . . . what about <STRONG>gub</STRONG> control? 🙂

Awwww . . . then you had to go and add your <STRONG>edit: </STRONG>
>>



Heh, I removed it 🙂
 
Back
Top