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

Skip to comments.

New report calls for stricter laws to keep guns away from terrorists
AP ^ | 12-19-01 | MELISSA B. ROBINSON

Posted on 12/19/2001 7:42:47 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A day before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Lebanese man was convicted of conspiring to ship weapons acquired at Michigan gun shows to the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The man was prohibited from buying guns because of a conviction for grand theft. But he did not have to undergo a background check because no federal or Michigan state law requires such checks for sales between private or unlicensed gun sellers and buyers at shows, according to a report released Wednesday by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: Mini-14
John Ross bump.

L

41 posted on 12/19/2001 11:56:18 AM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
drool-drool
42 posted on 12/19/2001 11:57:41 AM PST by DinkyDau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Wouldn't it be neat to contact this lady and show her that the basic premise of her article is flawed? That it is, in fact, law of Michigan that background checks are performed on private sellers at gun shows?
43 posted on 12/19/2001 11:58:54 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
I think if we just pass a law outlawing murder, that should cover all basis, don't you?.

oppressed in NJ,

44 posted on 12/19/2001 12:06:57 PM PST by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
ROTF Seymour did it!
45 posted on 12/19/2001 12:19:00 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: DinkyDau
So, you state that criminal background checks *don't* infringe on the individual's personal rights? So you also see nothing Unconstitutional about the compilation of a National Rifearms registry too, huh?

Will you too then see no infringement on your rights when/if freedom of religion is also encroached upon to the point where the federal government is also compiling a national church membership registry?? After all, the Word is a weapon, if I remember correctly....something about 'Sword of the Lord'...

I'm not flaming you personally here, DinkyDau. More trying to make you think about your current stance on this particular Constitutional right and how we are systematically being forced to rationalize and accept the erosion of the principle the Founding Fathers set forth based primarily on the Word of God.

Side not: People who don't have any experience with/knowledge thereof, are often fear things that go bang!

47 posted on 12/19/2001 12:23:23 PM PST by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I do not see how passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals affects law abiding citizens. Does this "right that shall not be infringed" extend to terrorists, as well?

This has proven to wholly untrue and in fact has worked in reverse to KEEP THE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

You say you do indeed own a gun? What state do you live in? How can you not know this? Hmmm...guess you don't live in the NorthEast.

48 posted on 12/19/2001 12:30:25 PM PST by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Maybe someone can help me out here. Is the federal ban on "assault weapons" not permanent? I thought I was knowledgable about gun laws, but this is news to me. Does anyone know when the ban is scheduled to expire?

The assault weapon ban, enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill, included a ten-year "sunset" provision, so it will expire in 2004 unless Congress passes a law to postpone the sunset or to make the ban permanent. It will be interesting to see what happens, as this will be an election year issue for Bush and Congress. Bush was pretty vague about his position on this during the last campaign - his campaign position papers were carefully phrased to say that he supported the "current" assault weapons ban without saying whether he supported or opposed continuing it beyond 2004. During his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft indicated that he would support reinstating the ban - it was apparently the bone he was willing to throw to the anti-gunner Senators interrogating him, so that may be a sign that the Republicans don't intend to fight against continuation of the ban.

49 posted on 12/19/2001 12:31:05 PM PST by choosetheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: choosetheright
It's simple. If they re-invoke the ban, Bush is toast. PEriod. End of story.
50 posted on 12/19/2001 12:35:05 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It is on PISTOLS. On longguns, Michigan just uses federal law. NICS for dealers.

NAtionwide, the only so called loophole is private sales. The ASD(anti self-defense) lobby calls them unlicense dealers.

51 posted on 12/19/2001 12:37:49 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Dan, we need a solid strategy, effective, timely method for dealing with the VCP. Call me.
52 posted on 12/19/2001 12:48:11 PM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I do not see how passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals affects law abiding citizens. Does this "right that shall not be infringed" extend to terrorists, as well?

Yes. It extends to all citizens of the U.S. who are not:

A. Convicted felons.
B. Adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
C. In possession of or using controlled substances.

Background checks aren't a problem. The Fed Gov. breaking the law and keeping the data from background checks for other purposes is. By law it is supposed to be deleted within 24 hours. Once you are approved the reason for checking is over with. As it is the Fed. Gov. is keeping NIC's data indefinitely. Now Congress is asking the Atty. Gen. to use it illegally to 'look' for terrorists. BS. Wanna sell all your rights down the river? Just keep your head in that dark place you've got it in. Won't be long.

53 posted on 12/19/2001 12:50:02 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
JOHN ROSS BUMP!
54 posted on 12/19/2001 1:26:14 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: choosetheright
The assault weapon ban, enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill, included a ten-year "sunset" provision, so it will expire in 2004 unless Congress passes a law to postpone the sunset or to make the ban permanent.

Thanks. I thought I had a decent working knowledge of U. S. gun laws, but you obviously know far more about this than I do.

I agree that it will be interesting to see what happens when the rule comes up for renewal.

55 posted on 12/19/2001 1:37:33 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I own guns

why ?

56 posted on 12/19/2001 1:54:33 PM PST by THEUPMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: M1991
If the person is not trustworthy to have a gun, lock them up and throw away the key

Agreed. In a properly-functioning society, guns are easily available to all. No checks, no age limits, etc. Even in our society, guns are, and will remain, available to anyone who's willing to deal with the black market. If someone cannot be trusted to carry, they shouldn't be trusted on the outside at all. So IMO, this whole background check thing is silly.

57 posted on 12/19/2001 2:31:33 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Funny, noone at gun ban groups ever mentions the guns confiscated by police that "disappear" from police evidence rooms and show up later at other crime scenes.
58 posted on 12/19/2001 3:06:52 PM PST by Unbeliever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I do not see how passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals affects law abiding citizens. Does this "right that shall not be infringed" extend to terrorists, as well?

There is NO LAW that will ever "keep guns out of the hands of criminals" because criminals ignore laws. If passing a law could stop crime there would have been no rapes, robberies, murders, ect because the earliest civilizations and every civilization following have had laws against that and more.
The terrorists attacks of September 11th were made possible by f.a.a security protocols. The inside of an airliner is the ultimate "gun free zone" and look what your wonderful laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens allowed.

59 posted on 12/19/2001 3:16:25 PM PST by Unbeliever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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