The Justice Department denied the FBI access to its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had bought guns, a spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday night.

They'll tap your phones, bug conversations with your lawyer, hold you without charging you, and sneak into your computer but, in "a time of war" a non-citizen, suspected terrorist's gun buying history is constitutionally protected.

BANG!

>> a non-citizen, suspected terrorist's gun buying history is constitutionally protected.

yep, sorta looks that way.

Sounds like you are a canidate for INS to identify all these aliens properly in the first place so they can't vote among other things. But somehow I doubt you are.

This is posted in the attempt to prove that the FBI will not gain access to the Justice Department's files, thus we are safe. Lost on most people is the fact that the Justice Department has those files. And if they want, they can access them at will. Very comforting!

Now if you think John Ashcroft is the solution to that problem I have two words for you. Janet Reno. We are only as safe as the next socialist to hold the position.

I do not view this as very pro the Second Amendment like others do.

Actually, I posted this to demonstrate that the DOJ's application of the constitution is arbitrary and inconsistent. How are the right to fair trial and the right to privacy less important than finding out wether or not someone applied to buy a gun ?

This directly contradicts what I just heard on a New York news station. WABC 880am said that gun purchase records WOULD be released, and said that law enforcement would be able to compare records of known aliens/terrorists with names of gun purchasers. If anyone else was listening maybe they have a different interpretation, but, being shocked and alert at the news, I was listening extra carefully.

Sounds like you are a canidate for INS to identify all these aliens properly in the first place so they can't vote among other things. But somehow I doubt you are.

The DOJ has defended there actions by claiming that the people they detained were suspected terrorist, non-citizens, and that we are in a war and therefore special rules apply. How come these special rules don't apply to wether or not someone applied to buy a gun or not ?

I believe it is because Ashcroft knows that his actions are questionable and he is scared to get the NRA involved.

Thanks for the correction. Yesterday I had another poster link me to this article to support his claim that gun rights are on the comeback. WRONG!!!

I appreciate the points you raised in your response to me. I would agree with you.

Waaaaaa Waaa Waaaaaa Same s--t different day!!!!!!

The Justice Dept. made the only smart decision. As long as Ashcroft's strategy for dealing with Arab aliens is one of hoping to cultivate "cooperation," doing the police-state act is counterproductive - unless Justice seriously mass-deports all who aren't "cooperating," which it shows no signs of having the guts to do.

Scandals of antigun politicians and activists

I have to disagree with you D1. I see this as Ashcroft "putting his money where his mouth is". It's one thing for him to talk about the 2nd Amendment as an individual liberty pre-911, but it's another to pass on grabbing this data afterwards; especially when one considers the political cover the attacks could have given him. Janet el Reño also talked about just using the records for audits, but we all know she'd have lept at the chance to permenantly retain even a small number of them. And given how aggressive Ashcroft has been in his other anti-terror policies, this shows how he really feels about the 2nd Amendment. If he were truly an authoritarian zelot, as some Senators would have us believe, he'd have forgotten any prior statements about the right to keep and bear arms and approved the transfer of the data. (Of course, I'd rather see the DOJ rigorously follow the letter of the law and not retain any NICS data, but that's another story.)

I heard Ashcroft say NO myself.

Actually whoever leaked this story to the NYT and the AP was trying to embarass ashcroft because these records are by law supposed to be destroyed as soon as possible. WJC & Reno kept them in violation of the law. Since they should not even exist I have no problem with them being unavailable to the FBI. My big problem is that they exist even for a momemnt as in "What part of infringed don't they understand?"

Clearly if they want a gun they can get a gun even in nations with absolute bans on all civilian gun ownership. The fact that there are so many armed Americans is what is doing more to hold them at bay than any law ever.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

Ashcroft said the original intent of the Second Amendment "unequivocally protects the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

This is subject to change with the installment of the next commie (DemoRAT) Pres, as you say. I will know that Bush and Ashcroft are serious about protecting 2A rights when I see them lobby Congress to allow the egregious 1994 Federal AW ban to lapse, assuming Bush is re-elected in 2004. Before he was elected, Bush is on record as saying he is FOR unconstitutional AW bans.

The version of this carried by my local 'news/talk' (means they'll play anything for pay, including what is to follow) radio station's noon headlines had Sarah Brady's Bunch involved.

More 'journalism' by press release with plausable deniability. The newsreader says "I'm not responsible 'cause I just read what's handed to me."

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

The prevailing thought that these "3-7 day waits", and "Instant Checks" will stop guns from falling into the wrong hands is laughable. Our country borders two other countries with large expanses of those borders left basically unguarded. Anyone that is bent on evil can buy whatever they want (even fully automatic weapons) in Mexico, and walk it across at one of the unguarded points.

Attorney General Ashcroft is right to block the FBI, and other Law Enforcement agencies from setting up, and using a database of gun-owning citizens. This tool of Fascism has been on the FBI's wish list for many years now. The idea that such a database has much practical use for Law Enforcement is a bunch of bulls***!

Ah yes, here it is. On FreeRepublic already.

See, that's the sticky part about Constitutional rights; you don't get to pick and choose to whom they apply.
Well, not since the War of Northern Aggression, anyway.

What I find significant about this news item is the stark contrast it presents between this Administration and the previous one.
Can you picture Slick passing up a chance like this to screw gunowners, or to provide a precedent for further screwing?

I don't disagree with a thing you said. The facts still are that in a little over three years there may be another person in Ashcroft's position. Justice will still have files that can and one day WILL be abused.

Kennedy used the NYTimes article posted below your post, to beat Ashcroft about the head and shoulders in todays Leaky Leahy hearings. This was a direct set up for gun show legislation. Ashcroft very bluntly stated that under the current law they could not use information of gun records. Other posts in the past have shown how gun control groups are using the 911 attacks and terrorists to further gun control.