NRA challenges gun-control Democrats

Source: Associated Press

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - For the first time since taking control of Congress, gun-control Democrats are taking on the National Rifle Association. The NRA seems to be nipping the effort in the bud.


At issue is whether Congress should loosen restrictions on local law enforcement agencies' ability to gain access to gun-purchasing data they want to trace the movement of illegal guns around the nation.

The restrictions on such "trace data" began almost four years ago when Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., succeeded in limiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or ATF, from publicly revealing information from its gun trace database.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_go_co/congress_gun_control

---

Yet another example of how the NRA impedes law enforcement in this country.

We have the right to safety, and if I have a reckless and dangerous neighbor that would have one of those things, I have a right to know. Due to the NRA, that information is wrongfully kept private. If our party had guts, we wouldn't be fighting to make that information available only to a few cops. We would be fighting to make it available to all.

It's amazing to me that LAW ENFORCEMENT doesn't have access to this information.

Shame on the NRA for Aiding Criminals

Neither the Tiahrt amendment, nor any other legislation currently in the works, is designed prevent the tracing of actual crime guns.

We already have a tracing mechanism that is independent of all attempts to build databases of firearms owners.

Truth be told, the only ones aiding criminals may well be, unwittingly, the gun-control advocates themselves.

Too bad virtually every law enforcement agency in this country disagrees with you.

not to mention the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is hardly a friend of the NRA.

But methinks this whole thing would be a non-issue were it not for the background context, i.e. gun-ban groups in the '90s trying to spin trace stats to make rifles look like a crime problem (they're not).

If it weren't for those pushing for more gun bans, I don't think non-law-enforcement access to trace data would even be an issue.

IMHO, this issue ranks way below gun bans on the scale of importance, though some may see them as a means to that end. I'm not sure if I do or not, but I do know the annual appropriations amendment doesn't do everything that has been ascribed to it. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Whether the Tiahrt Amendment is "designed prevent the tracing of actual crime guns" or not, that is its actual effect. Nice weasel language, there.

And just how effective can a gun-tracing system be that is "...independent of all attempts to build databases of firearms owners"?

Sounds like typical NRA shilling to me.....

gets the facts straight before you resort to HTML

I have no problem with limited, targeted investigations in response to probably cause or credible allegations. However, the privacy given to those records was central to the give-and-take that made the Gun Control Act and the Brady Act possible in the first place.

Anti-gun militants have no business knowing what honest citizens have purchased. If gun purchase transactions were public information, wouldn't that make it a lot easier for thieves looking for firearms to steal?

Who's really supporting the criminals here?

You write: 'Anti-gun militants have no business knowing what honest citizens have purchased. If gun purchase transactions were public information, wouldn't that make it a lot easier for thieves looking for firearms to steal?"

And yet they want to make it HARDER for law enforcement to enforce the law

And who are "they"?

in a hail of Second Amendment-protected ammo-that-never-existed-back- when-slavery-was-legal, well, of course that has to stay top secret.

Registered sex offenders have been convicted of crimes.

We're still talking about public safety

I don't want wannabe gun thieves knowing what I own and where I live.

Registered, law abiding gun owners have nothing to be afraid of and neither do you, unless of course, you are not one of them.

:hi:

Like, you know, getting licenses and registering cars, and such?

before you can carry a gun in public, just like you need a license to drive a car in public?

I didn't think we were...

I do have a problem with gun registration, though, primarily because there is a strong and very well funded lobby trying to ban half the guns on the civilian market, and the main obstacle to confiscatory bans is the lack of a "who owns what" list.

You don't need to register your car or get a license to keep it on your property; only to drive it on public roads.

I can't look at your 1040 just because I feel like it, and you can't get a copy of mine.

If a law enforcement agency has a REASON to look at it, they can follow due process and get a court order.

That's how things are done in a civilized society.

A Court Order isn't Going to Show Gun Ownership History

The history of the ownership of a gun CAN be traced. Nothing has been proposed to change that.

LOL.

Are you getting confused?

These amendments are always sticky wickets. If the amendment is repealed, only big gun stores may be able to get new ATF licenses, and the last thing we want to do is stifle honest small businesses in America.

Plus, there's some concern over how much snooping would be enabled if the Tiahrt Amendment were to be deep-sixed.

:sarcasm:

Post your real name and address, and an inventory of all the potentially lethal items you keep in your home.

Knives, power tools, motor vehicles, toxic chemicals, blunt objects, flammable liquids, etc. All of it.

.........and I post them here where law enforcement has every opportunity to track them through my internet service provider.

Registered, law abiding owners of potentially lethal possessions have nothing to be afraid of and neither do you, unless of course, you are not one of them.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about from warrantless surveillance/denial of civil rights to those on administration watchlists/elimination of habeus corpus/illegal detention and torture, right?

:sarcasm:

That's why we have to give up all our freedoms...the terrah-ists hate us for our freedoms...

even stand-up to the neocon lobby and the White House over continuing the war in Iraq.

Also, these are the same 'people' that prevented an provision in passed legislation that would have required the President to request authority from Congress before launching an attack on Iran.

No, the Democrats won the 2006 elections in part by keeping their mouths shut over 'gun-control'.

It would be wise that they do so again.

Gun nut cases like chuck shoomer and RRahm Emanuel aren't welcome in our country up here.

We have NOW a Dem congressman because he kept those idiots out of the fray.

And then little cowards like RRahm Emanuel or whatever the fuck he calls himself lately come up here with their idiotic ideas on gun control

He needs to go back to chicago and mind his own business

Then we can elect leaders within that organization who support sensible sales and ownership of firearms.

........besides cons like to stuff ballot boxes.

:(

Or a life member, before they allow you to vote.

IN CAPS: LOL.

Figures...

:shrug:

Define "sensible."

If you mean de facto "gun rights for hunters only" (the DLC mantra that cost the House and Senate in the '90s, and the '00 election via TN and WV), no thanks. Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.

My wife and I would like to keep our handguns and modern-looking carbines, thanks. :hi:



-----------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

They've supported every Republican President since Reagan in 1980.

The NRA raised $20 million dollars for Bush in 2000.

And they raised $24 million dollars for him in 2004.

The point is to have a million gun laws so you can rag about
houw terribly many gun laws there are, while still ensuring
that no gun law can actually be effectual.

A sane society would have seen through this shit years ago,
but we are nowehre near sane as a society.

Tesha

insane, entertained, and mentally enslaved

The Fraternal Order of Police and the ATF itself _support_ the Tiahrt Amendment.

http://www.kansas.com/205/story/102261.html

The main reason it exists is to protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations. Most law enforcement agencies prefer to keep their targets and investigative methods private, lest their targets be forewarned. The Brady Campaign has deliberately lied about how the amendment affects law enforcement organizations, claiming that they are prevented from accessing data on crooked gun dealers. In truth, law enforcement agencies have unrestricted access to the gun trace data but citizens do not. Repealing the amendment will make it more, not less difficult to bust illegal gun dealers.

Methinks this portion of the OP article is very relevant.


Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

History quiz:

Which party controlled the whole trifecta in September 1994?

Which party was seen as being primarily responsible for the Feinstein ban?

How did the status of said trifecta change in January 1995?

How did the pro/anti gun balance in the House and Senate change between Feb. 1995 and January 2005?



(For those who don't know, gun owners continued to pick up pro-gun seats, both (D) and (R), all the way through the 2004 elections, until the DLC/DNC finally dropped the ban-more-guns crap in '05/'06.)



--------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)