Thursday, November 20, 2003

From Merriam-Webster;

Incremental: a policy or advocacy of a policy of political or social change by degrees: gradualism

See also Sen. Lautenberg.

Seems that democratically elected senator is trying to push another "common sense" gun law through the senate. It's a law that would require everyone who made a successful purchase of a firearm to be reported to the Justice Department if they're on a terrorism watch list.

From the CNN article:

"The Justice Department says the Brady gun control law prevents it from sharing information about successful transactions by suspects on its watch list -- or anyone else. The department says the law allows it to report attempted purchases only."

This is dangerous for a number of reasons. The biggest problem with the NICS or "instacheck" system is that until you try to purchase a firearm you may not know you're disqualified, but when you make that attempt you've broken the law. In other words a person thinks his record is clean & goes in to purchase a .22LR rifle for his son’s upcoming birthday. But the instant check (instant my ass!) denies him because unbeknownst to him his wife has filed a restraining order against him as the first step in a divorce proceeding. So not only does he not get to purchase the firearm he's now a criminal, because it's against the law to attempt to purchase a firearm when you're prohibited from doing so.

& that particular scenario was brought to us by Lautenberg, who pushed a bill through bearing his name that made restraining orders disqualifiers for purchasing a firearm.

"Government sources said 13 people named on the terrorism watch list have tried to buy guns, but the sources would not say how many of those attempts were successful."

Well unless someone's been breaking the law then since 13 attempted purchases were reported then none of them were successful, as a successful purchase wouldn't have been recorded. The reporter just stated that the Justice Department said it's illegal for them to keep records of successful firearms transactions. So if 13 people were reported as attempting to purchase then they bloody well wouldn't be mentioned if they were successful now would they? Honestly, can reporters not read their own freakin' stories?

"Law enforcement officials point out that not everyone on the watch list is a terrorist and that any purchases the officials would be informed of would be legal."

So they admit that they'd be keeping track of non-terrorists that complete a lawful transaction. But the problem is that if this bill passes, then the "watch list" would be expanded to keep tabs on people for other reasons. It's a nice little bait & switch; convince the people you need more power to watch terrorists & then use it to watch the people.

"What's more, they said, they are bound to work within the framework of the background-check system."

Be on the look out for cries to close the "instacheck” loophole"! & of course it'll be "for the children".

"Some critics suggest the Justice Department is being overly strict in its interpretation of the Brady gun control law, which mandates background checks for those buying handguns."

Of course they're being overly strict; after all they're still allowing sales to go through aren't they? Everyone knows a proper interpretation of the Brady law would negate all transaction by anyone who does not receive a government paycheck.

"Justice officials said the law does not allow personal information about gun buyers to be shared with law enforcement agencies.
'It flies in the face of everything John Ashcroft has said about fighting the war on terrorism,' one law enforcement official said."

Well there is a point to that; for some reason Ashcroft has been gentler on the 2nd amendment than the others when it comes to the war on terror. But he's still enforcing unconstitutional laws that violate our Right to Arms. This anonymous law enforcement official is possibly just bitter than Ashcroft didn't stop the sale of all firearms & outlaw their possession in the name of the war on terror.

"Lautenberg, a longtime gun control advocate, said he was perplexed by the Justice Department's position.
'I know the Bush administration has an extremist view of gun rights, but I never would have imagined that the attorney general would be taking specific steps to protect the rights of terrorists to obtain guns,' Lautenberg said in a statement.
He wants the Justice Department to tell law enforcement agencies when and where each gun is bought."

Remember that folks. Sen. Lautenberg feels if you are on a watch list that alone makes you a terrorist. Then again considering how he came to be in office this time around due process is probably not in his vocabulary.

But if he thinks Ashcroft, who is enforcing just as many unconstitutional gun control laws as Reno was, is an extremist, then I'd love to see what that (as we say back home) sumbitch thinks of this site, or most of those on my blogroll.

Sen. Lautenberg wants to push this through. I don't know if he is legitimately concerned or just ignorant about what he's doing. I frankly don't care. This bill would open up the door that has been so precariously shut; on the other side is a federal gun owner registry. They have it de facto now, & I wouldn't be surprised if they maintained an overt one. But the closer they get to not being restrained by law in keeping track of who has guns the more in danger we are. This would be a very big first step in that direction.

No comments: