NSSF Responds to NY Times ‘Government Watch List’ Editorial An editorial in The New York Times prompted this response from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
National Shooting Sports Foundation
NEWTOWN, Conn. --(AmmoLand.com)- After spending nearly a decade criticizing successive administrations for disregarding the rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism, the Times has now decided that some should be denied a Constitutional right without due process (“The Gun Lobby’s Long Shadow,” May 7, 2010).
No one wants to see terrorists obtain firearms, period. Yet before the Times, or anyone else, considers denying American citizens their Constitutional rights, it’s important to first examine the law enforcement requirements currently in place that enable law enforcement to protect Americans from terrorism.
Anyone attempting to purchase a firearm from a retailer must first undergo an FBI background check. The prospective buyer’s name is also cross-referenced against government watch lists. If there is a match, the law enforcement agency that placed the person on the list is immediately contacted and provided an opportunity to determine any legal basis to deny the transfer of the firearm and to take whatever law enforcement measures they deem appropriate. This includes requesting that the firearms retailer decline to sell the firearm, or to delay the sale so law enforcement can monitor the person. These measures properly balance and respect both national security and the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans who might wrongly be on the list.
If legislation moves forward denying any individual on the “watch” list the right to purchase a firearm, the FBI background check would also become a terrorist notification system. If the sale was denied and the customer was not otherwise disqualified, the terrorist would know instantly that the government was monitoring him.
As it stands, most people have no idea if they are on such a government “watch” list, why they might be on it, or how to get off of it if they are wrongfully listed. This should ring alarm bells within any individual or institution which values Constitutional protections.
Using terrorism as an excuse to deny Constitutional rights to law-abiding citizens is un-American. The Times should agree.
Sincerely, National Shooting Sports Foundation Steve Sanetti President & CEO
About NSSF The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,500 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.
Senate Hearing is the Dawn of a New Attack Strategy on Gun Owners Get ready folks this is the new attack on gun owners as terrorist or terrorist supporters. – AmmoLand.com
National Rifle Association
Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Since September 11, 2001, it’s been clear that terrorists who hate America will exploit our weaknesses in order to destroy us.
This week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg exploited Americans’ fear of terrorism to push their latest anti-gun proposal, and in doing so showed that they’re willing to destroy other parts of the Constitution, to choke its Second Amendment.
On Tuesday, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lieberman held a hearing to give Lautenberg and King the opportunity to promote their bills S.1317 and H.R.2159, to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist,” and Lautenberg’s S. 2820, to maintain records of approved instant background check transactions for a minimum of 180 days. The watchlist bills further propose that a person seeking relief in court from these new restrictions would be prevented from examining and challenging “evidence” against him, and that the judge deciding whether the person had been watchlisted for good reason be limited to summaries and redacted versions of such “evidence.”
Joining Lautenberg, King and Bloomberg to speak in favor of these patently anti-American and unconstitutional bills was Bloomberg’s police commissioner, Ray Kelly.
Claims made by the bills’ supporters during the hearing bordered on the frivolous. Lautenberg cited the failed attempt last Saturday to set off a homemade gasoline-propane bomb in an SUV near NYC’s Times Square — even though his watchlist bill would only regulate firearms and commercially made explosives. Lautenberg then brought up an even more irrelevant incident, the 2008 attack by a terrorist group in Mumbai, India, saying “That’s why we need to change the law” in the United States. A “fanatic” in his own right when it comes to gun control, Lautenberg continued, “Nothing in our laws keeps fanatics on the terror watchlist from purchasing guns and explosives.”
Lautenberg was lying, of course, and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) called him on it. Knowing that the Government Accountability Office has reported that about 95 percent of people on the watchlist are neither American citizens nor legal residents of the United States, Sen. Graham pointed out “there are 400,000 people on the watchlist.” He then asked, “what percentage of them are American citizens?”
Lautenberg and his allies sat silently, dumbfounded, for what seemed an eternity, until Kelly, dutifully taking the punch so his boss wouldn’t have to, sputtered that he was unable to come up with a figure. Since it was obvious that the anti-gunners didn’t get the point, Sen. Graham clarified it for them: “The law prohibits the purchase of a gun unless you’re an American citizen or a legal resident alien.”
Lautenberg tried to justify his bill by saying “From 2004 to February of this year, terrorists tried to buy guns and explosives 1,228 times. In 91 percent of those cases, they were given the OK to buy the guns.” The claim was misleading, in that the 1,228 checks were accounted for by about 650 individuals, according to the GAO. But Sen. Graham seized upon a more important flaw in the statistic when he asked how many of these “terrorists” were dangerous enough to have been brought up on terrorism charges. On this point too, the Lautenberg team had no response. That led Sen. Graham to question whether the watchlisted gun buyers were as dangerous as the Lautenberg team want people to believe.
King falsely claimed that his bill was justified by last year’s Ft. Hood murders, “where individuals [sic] suspected of terrorist activity legally obtained weapons that were used to kill innocent Americans.” The truth is, the one person (not multiple individuals) accused of the Ft. Hood crime was not “suspected of terrorist activity.” Months before the accused killer bought his gun, the FBI had completed an investigation of him, concluding that despite some suspicious e-mails between the accused and an anti-American Islamist overseas, he was not a terrorist threat. At the bottom line, even if everything that Lautenberg, King and Bloomberg are proposing had already been federal law, it would not have affected the Ft. Hood crime one whit.
Speaking against the proposed legislation during the hearing was Aaron Titus of the Liberty Coalition. “Senate Bill 1317 goes too far,” he said. “The bill should be titled, ‘The Gun Owners Are Probably All Terrorists Act,’ because it strips citizens of their constitutional right to [keep and] bear arms without any meaningful due process. And Senate Bill 2820 should be called, ‘The National Firearm Registry Act’ because it creates a national firearms registry. . . . a massive database of names and detailed personal information of each law-abiding citizen who purchases a gun.”
Titus’ point laid Lautenberg’s, King’s and Bloomberg’s intention bare. While S. 2820 would allow the FBI to retain NICS records on all NICS transactions, 99.999 percent of the people documented in those records would not be persons on the watchlist.
“The bill disingenuously purports to target terrorists,” Titus said, “but in fact only one ten-thousandth of one percent of these records will belong to people on watch lists. Every year, only 200 new watch-list records will be created. But the system will generate more than 14 million new records on law-abiding citizens. Once collected, there’s no limit on what the information may be used for, and no legal requirement to ever delete it.”
Later, Sen. Graham summed up the reason that should motivate every American — regardless of personal feelings about individual gun ownership — to oppose the Lautenberg and King bills. “I think you’re going too far here,” he said. “There’s a huge difference between losing your gun rights based upon a felony charge that was proven by a court of law and appealed, and is a conviction on the books, and being on some list that is, at best, suspect.” NRA members in South Carolina and around the nation owe Sen. Graham their thanks for getting to the heart of the issue.
About: Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org
In 1979, I was stationed at Ft. Benning Ga. I purchased a 22 cal target pistol and was told that before I could do so, I had to have a letter from the local police dept on their letterhead stating I was a “citizen of good standing”. I went to the local police dept and met with the Chief of Police who reached into a drawer in his desk and produced a letter from a stack, signed it and handed it to me. I recall his comments to this day. “Hell son, your white.”
The letter requirement was obviously a ploy to keep guns out of black hands.
I’m not waiting for a candidate who is “perfection” – just one that is “Republican”! The author seems to think that Romney is an actual choice – gun control and taxes to the max Romney – the Liberal. What’s the difference between Romney and Obama? Obama’s father was Kenyan, Romney’s was Mexican… Neither have the best interests of We the People at heart.
The more I look at this, the more I’m forced to conclude that there is only 1 party that can get elected – the Liberal Socialist party – and that what we have is simply warring factions (Paul excluded, he’s something else entirely). I’m tired of throwing away my votes for people who only wish to harm my family further… regardless of whether they call themselves Republican or not. So I’ll write in this time if necessary (I will NOT vote for Rombama or his Ilk). And it’s become clear to me that my votes DO NOT COUNT, and I’m not represented… and that I won’t be after November either.
