Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Closing Gun-Control Loopholes [Christian Science Monitor opposes the right to own firearms.]
Christian Science Monitor ^ | 12/3/03 | Editors

Posted on 12/03/2003 6:08:19 AM PST by TastyManatees

Closing Gun-Control Loopholes

The Supreme Court Monday refused to hear a legal challenge to California's ban on assault weapons. The decision sends another powerful signal to those who would use the Second Amendment as an argument for the rights of individuals to own guns, including the National Rifle Association.

Surely the right to keep and bear arms, outside a militia, shouldn't include Uzis, AK-47s, and similar assault weapons. The high court's decision should also firmly set Congress on course to renew the federal ban on assault weapons when it expires next year.

But when it comes to keeping guns out of criminal hands, there's still much more work to do.

For instance, among the myriad provisions in a giant $373 billion omnibus spending bill currently before Congress is a rule change regarding gun-owner background checks. It would have the federal government destroy the record of a background check on a gun buyer within 24 hours - instead of the 90-day rule now in effect.

Keeping such records for only one day would deprive law-enforcement officials of a valuable tool to track individuals, including potential terrorists, who may have slipped through the Justice Department's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

It's very difficult for gun-rights advocates to make a strong argument against 90-day rule. A General Accounting Office report last year found 228 guns mistakenly sold to NICS- approved buyers over a six-month period - guns that law-enforcement officials later had to retrieve using NICS information. And the problems were discovered only after 24 hours had passed. Extend that statistic to a year, or five years, and one can more easily see the ironclad importance of the 90-day rule.

Gun-control opponents have long raised privacy concerns about the 90-day rule. They also argue that other tracking methods are available, such as checking the paper records of the information gunstore owners transmit to NICS. But that's often a cumbersome and time-consuming process: Criminals routinely use fake IDs and aliases, and frequently switch locations to elude detection.

If an approved gun-purchaser turns out to be a terrorist, time becomes even more critical.

An even more egregious problem concerns the Justice Department's narrow interpretation of the 1993 Brady gun-control law. If an individual who's on the FBI terrorist watch list somehow clears the NICS background check and is able to buy a gun, Justice's interpretation prevents counterterrorism officials from seeing those records.

Clearly, if a suspected terrorist buys a gun, other law-enforcement officials should know about it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assault; background; bang; banglist; check; control; database; gun; information; records; retain; weapons
Please feel free to inform the editors of the Christian Science Monitor of how you feel about their position on this issue:

Head Editor Paul van Slambrouck

Managing Editor Marshall Ingwerson

Cheif Editorial Writer Clayton Jones

Tasty Manatees
1 posted on 12/03/2003 6:08:20 AM PST by TastyManatees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
More of the same old regurgitated ingorance.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

2 posted on 12/03/2003 6:12:52 AM PST by Joe Brower ("If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever." - G. Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
When all the criminals and our enemy's turn their guns in, I will turn in mine.
3 posted on 12/03/2003 6:15:50 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Looks like the CSM has turned liberal, or at the very least, RINO.
4 posted on 12/03/2003 6:17:03 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
My short email to the editor:

By reading this propaganda drivel, am I to now understand that the Christian Science Monitor opposes the right to own firearms?

Christians will continue to exist only if they are properly armed to defend themselves against Muslim radicals. The leftist agenda, which apparently you choose to condone, will not rest until all American are disarmed.

If this (disarmanent)is allowed to continue, you'd better trade in your copy of the Bible for a copy of the Koran.

5 posted on 12/03/2003 6:20:25 AM PST by Pern ("It's good to know who hates you, and it's good to be hated by the right people." - Johnny Cash, RIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Slaves and other chattel have no need for personal defense.....or defense of loved ones...
6 posted on 12/03/2003 6:20:27 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees; *bang_list; archy; Woahhs; Travis McGee; Squantos; Centurion2000; Shooter 2.5; ...
For the Love Of God, if these willing crime-and-terr victims so wish to abrogate and eliminate the Second Amendment, why do they simply not SAY SO, and call for its repeal?

Any other thing they say at this point, compared to the Second's clear wording (and the explanation of that wording by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers) is not only nonsensical, but smacks of idiocy.

We get the same crap, over and over: "It doesn't mean Uzis or AK-47s" (Why not? It doesn't exclude them, and , being military weapons, they are CLEARLY protected by it), it "doesn't confer an individual right" (when ALL the other Amendments in the BOR do just that).

If they do not like an Amendment (and I am speaking to ALL antis out there), they are free to attempt to repeal it. Other than that, they are operating far, far outside of the Constitution. The selfsame Constitution, BTW, that they claim should be interpreted as liberally as possible.

7 posted on 12/03/2003 6:21:13 AM PST by Long Cut (Whiskey...oil for life's frictions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Attempt" would be the operating word there. An attempt with rather painful and terminal consequences.
8 posted on 12/03/2003 6:29:43 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"For the Love Of God, if these willing crime-and-terr victims so wish to abrogate and eliminate the Second Amendment, why do they simply not SAY SO, and call for its repeal?"

The "honest" ones do, but ALL the gun-grabbers know that such a repeal is not the will of the people, and will never happen, so they are using the "death by legal precedent" approach, eliminating the Second Amendment one legal fiction at a time.

9 posted on 12/03/2003 6:34:43 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
All I'm saying is, if there is a part of the Constitution you so despise, why make yourself look like an imbecile by continually lying about it when the document itself provides a means for redress? And if you believe you cannot win, why look like a whining slug? Just suck it up, try your best to persuade, and go on.

Pecking away at people's rights sure hasn't been doing the Antis any favors lately.

10 posted on 12/03/2003 6:35:14 AM PST by Long Cut (Whiskey...oil for life's frictions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
When all the criminals and our enemy's turn their guns in, I will turn in mine.

Shouldnt you also wait a little longer until all the police, secret service, and the body guards of politicians and rich people also turn theirs in too?

11 posted on 12/03/2003 6:35:41 AM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
Sorry! I forgot about them. Maybe Rosie O's bodyguard will turn in his also.
12 posted on 12/03/2003 6:38:00 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
"Christian Science Monitor opposes the right to own firearms"

Gee, ya think?

I'd put that pearl of wisdom right up with what bears do in the woods, and the Pope's religious preferences.

13 posted on 12/03/2003 6:39:18 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
If they do not like an Amendment (and I am speaking to ALL antis out there), they are free to attempt to repeal it.

And if they did so, you would still have the Natural Right of armed self defense. Nothing would change except that the government would be even more inclined to abrogate your Natural Rights under color of law.

The BOR grants no rights. It merely acknowledged that human beings are by birth the holders of certain Natural Rights.

14 posted on 12/03/2003 6:41:16 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"doesn't confer an individual right" (when ALL the other Amendments in the BOR do just that).

The Bill of Rights provides only one "right" and that is the right to a trial by peers - all other amendments are limits placed on government
15 posted on 12/03/2003 6:43:10 AM PST by ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
No. I know what you are saying. They cannot get the majority needed to actually repeal the Amendment yet, so they do this instead. Lies and deciet seem to be working just fine for them.

Their last stumbling blocks are people like us who will NEVER give up without a fight.

16 posted on 12/03/2003 6:45:57 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Long Cut, one of the first Supreme Court decisions involving the second amendment was Cruikshank, and it clearly stated that the rights enumerated in the constitution existed before the constitition, and do not depend on the constitution.

The antis can do what they will to turn the constitution into a meaningless scrap of paper- we all will have the same rights we had before.

And the antis will have a bunch of problems to deal with.
17 posted on 12/03/2003 6:46:55 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
What the hell, I have some extra time this morning...

Closing Gun-Control Loopholes
There is no loophole.

Surely the right to keep and bear arms, outside a militia,

It's not outside a militia. Check your history.

shouldn't include Uzis, AK-47s, and similar assault weapons.

Yes they do. Military weapons, and I'm talking about the automatic and burst versions, the real ones, not the copycats.

The high court's decision should also firmly set Congress on course to renew the federal ban on assault weapons when it expires next year.

My vote depends on this, Bush.

But when it comes to keeping guns out of criminal hands, there's still much more work to do.
Yeah, there is.....keep the violent felons locked up.

It would have the federal government destroy the record of a background check on a gun buyer within 24 hours - instead of the 90-day rule now in effect.
Isn't that ALREADY LAW?

Keeping such records for only one day would deprive law-enforcement officials of a valuable tool to track individuals, including potential terrorists, who may have slipped through the Justice Department's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

How so?

It's very difficult for gun-rights advocates to make a strong argument against 90-day rule.

I have a very good one. Two words. Prior Restraint. 4 more. Innocent till proven guilty. 5 more. None of government's damn business.

A General Accounting Office report last year found 228 guns mistakenly sold to NICS- approved buyers over a six-month period - guns that law-enforcement officials later had to retrieve using NICS information.

228 out of over how many? Few million? I went through NICS this year. How many others did?

And the problems were discovered only after 24 hours had passed.

What were the problems?

But that's often a cumbersome and time-consuming process:

Life sucks, get a helmet.

Criminals routinely use fake IDs and aliases, and frequently switch locations to elude detection.

If I was a crook, I'd steal the guns or buy them on the street. No trail whatsoever.

If an approved gun-purchaser turns out to be a terrorist, time becomes even more critical.

I don't want a terrorist out on the street, PERIOD.

Clearly, if a suspected terrorist buys a gun, other law-enforcement officials should know about it.

They do. I'm sure of it.

18 posted on 12/03/2003 6:48:07 AM PST by Dan from Michigan (To SCOTUS "We're not gonna take it! Never did and never well...let's forget you, better still!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
"Keeping such records for only one day would deprive law-enforcement officials of a valuable tool to track individuals, including potential terrorists, who may have slipped through the Justice Department's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

"Criminals routinely use fake IDs and aliases, and frequently switch locations to elude detection."

duh! Keeping the incorrect records longer makes them more useful?
19 posted on 12/03/2003 6:49:45 AM PST by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
all other amendments are limits placed on government

Ladies and gentlemen....we have a winner!!!!

A fact to often forgoten by those in the media and politics.

20 posted on 12/03/2003 6:52:07 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DBrow; Dead Corpse
I am sorry to say that I am not as confident as you both about liberty-loving Americans "standing in the door" for gun rights. They've already swallowed all previous infringments, including some cities' total bans, without much more than some grumbling. Most young Americans, moreover, have absolutely NO concept of what rights they actually posess. Witness the cops who invaded the high school down in the Carolinas recently...most parents and students worried about only the "safety" and "procedure" of that blatant violation of their rights. None that I saw even used the word "Constitution".

Californians basically surrendered their Second Amendment rights without little more than a lawsuit (now denied cert by the SCOTUS). New Yorkers and Massachussetts people welcomed the loss of their rights.

Are there a few who would "stand in the door"? Of course. And after they are dispatched with appropriate ceremony on national TV, with sneering commentary by Peter Jennings, few will decide to follow them.

I know I sound defeatist and pessimistic, but the actual history gives one little real evidence to believe it could happen.

However, my point about them losing was valid. Gore LOST the election in 2000 partly because of his gun-grabbing, and tha same can be said for the elections in '94 and '02. The only elected Leftists even willing to bring upp the issue are both unrepentant marxist liars and perversly safe as a babe in its mother's arms in their districts (Schumer, Feinswine, Kennedy). Though they are shrill and well-publicized, it seems they are not enough.

My rant before was a vent of frustration...I am TIRED of the political "spinning" of these issues. Just declare: Repeal the Second or respect it like all the others. No spin. No qualifiers ("sporting, "hunting", etc.). I guess I'm asking far too much from those whose overall political philosophy was designed by master dissemblers.

21 posted on 12/03/2003 7:02:48 AM PST by Long Cut (Whiskey...oil for life's frictions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Dear Editor:

Thank you for your wonderful editorial on closing gun loopholes, so may I suggest we also close freedom of press loopholes.

All writers on your newspaper should undergo security checks to be certain they harbor no terrorist sympathies. All their writings should be submitted for review so they don't offer encouragement to terrorists.

If a writer violates the spirit or letter in the above requirements, the newspaper should have all its assets seized and the writer along with his editor-handlers should be sentenced to a minumum of 10 years in prison.

We cannot be too careful these days as writers should not be allowed to encourage or support terrorists.

I know you'll have no trouble with these requirements, as what's good to violate one part of the Constitution should also be applied to other parts.

Cheers
22 posted on 12/03/2003 7:03:11 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
"Surely the right to keep and bear arms, outside a militia, shouldn't include Uzis, AK-47s, and similar assault weapons."


23 posted on 12/03/2003 10:19:48 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson