I have a modest suggestion for the President. In the State of the Union address, demonstrate that national security trumps fear of the gun lobby.
Make no mistake about it, the gun lobby's influence has made the war against terrorists harder to fight.
He goes on to talk about the Tiahrt Amendment needing to be repealed and the "terror list loophole," which needs to be plugged.
Resistance to both seems to be the result of not trusting the federal government. Folks feel that the federal gathering of records of gun purchases, which the Tiahrt Amendment prohibits, would result in the dreadful gun registry. I think they're right, but I ask what's so wrong with that? I believe it's paranoia pure and simple that says this would be the first step to gun confiscation.
The problem with prohibiting folks on the terror watch list from buying guns is that, according to the gun enthusiasts, the government will abuse the power and put people on the list too easily. I say this is a reasonable concern, but it need not be the case. The maintenance of the list could be handled better, controls could be implemented, abuse could be avoided.
I agree that now is the time to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobbyists. By the way, when speaking of the gun lobby, everyone talks about their being paid by the powerful and rich NRA, or that they represent the people, as one HuffPo commenter erroneously stated, but no one seems to mention the gun manufacturers. Wouldn't they have the biggest stake in this? Aren't they the ones who are laughing all the way to the bank, as gun proliferation increases?
I say it's high time Obama stood up to the special interests, as he promised.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Resistance to both seems to be the result of not trusting the federal government. Folks feel that the federal gathering of records of gun purchases, which the Tiahrt Amendment prohibits, would result in the dreadful gun registry."
ReplyDeleteI think you need to research what the Tiahrt Amendment does. It does not prevent the government from gathering records of gun purchases.
It prevents organizations like the Brady Campaign from going on fishing trips through gun trace data with the purpose of concocting anti-gun strategies.
"The maintenance of the list could be handled better, controls could be implemented, abuse could be avoided."
And it would still deny people their rights without due process.
"I agree that now is the time to stand up to the NRA and the gun lobbyists."
I agree. The sooner Obama stands up against the NRA and gun lobbyist, the sooner we will see his true anti-gun colors.
Also remember that Tiahart does not prevent a "list" being kept or maintained when a NICS check turns up a criminal attempting to buy a gun. The only records that are destroyed are those for legal gun buyers.
ReplyDeleteThe destruction of data was mandated by the Brady bill. If you don't like the destruction part, you had better ask the Bradys why they included it in their law. Tiahart just sets a time limit which was vague in the original law.
"I say this is a reasonable concern, but it need not be the case. The maintenance of the list could be handled better, controls could be implemented, abuse could be avoided."
ReplyDeleteIt is a solid concern. Have you read the language of the bill that would prohibit gun sales to people on the list? There is absolutely no due process. It is actually mandated in the law that it would be a crime to reveal how or why you were added to the list. Upon discovery that you are on the list, which no one can confirm by law either, you have an immediate narrow window to appeal. However, since you cannot be told why you are on the list, what basis do you make your appeal? All you can do is say, "no, you are wrong" and wait to see if they reverse it. After that window of opportunity for appeal closes from initial discovery, you are not permitted to appeal again.
So what about this sounds like it is a good idea?
Mike-What is YOUR objection to the Tihart amendment? You think that outsiders should be able to get law enforcement information and use it to sue and harass gun dealers?
ReplyDeleteShould the government be able to declare that they think someone is a drunk, and bar him from driving or buying a car as a precaution? Or worse, bar everyone who shares his name?
The government should not be able to restrict any rights for more than a very short period without due process--even if it means that terrorists or criminals sometimes go free.
Obama would have to be a moron to bring up gun control in his State of The Union.........unless he really doesn't want to be re-elected.
ReplyDeleteI agree keeping records like this would have its dangers, just like the terror watch list, but with proper controls and oversight those dangers could be eliminated. It would be useful to have on record those who erroneously passed, as well as those who some time later go bad.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: ""By the way, when speaking of the gun lobby, everyone talks about their being paid by the powerful and rich NRA, or that they represent the people, as one HuffPo commenter erroneously stated, but no one seems to mention the gun manufacturers. Wouldn't they have the biggest stake in this?"
ReplyDeleteThe gun manufacturers have an organization that lobbies, the NSSF. They are not nearly as effective as the NRA, because unlike the NRA they do not arouse millions of angry gunowners to vote against those who attack their rights.
http://www.nssf.org
This replaced the old gun industry group ASSC which shut down when they became too friendly with gun control advocates, which pissed off the NRA. This truth debunks the "gun industry controls the NRA" lie.