Bill Orders FBI Gun Buyer Checks Destroyed

[kayell]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=1&u=/ap/congress_guns

WASHINGTON - Background checks on gun buyers would be retained for just 24 hours, instead of the current 90 days, under a deal Republicans struck during final negotiations over an immense spending bill funding dozens of federal agencies.



The $373 billion spending bill, which combines seven overdue annual spending bills, carries the changed rules for background checks that were first proposed in 2001 by Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites).


Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association, say keeping the records raises privacy concerns. Gun control advocates say destroying the records after 24 hours will hamper federal officials trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


The spending bill still has not been approved.

more

[HawkerHurricane]

1. REMEMBER

If a known terrorist attempts to buy a gun and fails, the FBI can hold that record forever.

If a known terrorist attempts to buy a gun and succeeds, the FBI must destroy the record in 24 hours.

So, which terrorist is more dangerous, the one with or without a gun?

[54anickel]

7. Ha, good one. Logic seems to defy these people.

[DoNotRefill]

8. Ummm....Hawker....

If a known terrorist trys to buy a gun and fails, the terrorist is a "prohibited person" who has lost his civil rights because he's been convicted of a crime. That's why the terrorist failed to pass the background check.

If a "known terrorist" trys to buy a gun and suceeds, then how is the person a known terrorist? The person CERTAINLY hasn't been convicted of a serious crime, since a serious crime disqualifies somebody from purchasing a firearm. Given that, shouldn't it be "suspected terrorist"?

Remember a while back when people were being denied access to the airlines because they were on the "no fly list" due to their political activism in opposing the current regime? They were convicted of no crime, yet were treated as criminals.

When the government can deny people their civil liberties based only upon their inclusion on a list which requires no wrongdoing to get on it, aren't we screwed? Ever hear of "due process of law" and "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?

[HawkerHurricane]

9. Why, yes to all

So, the FBI is following a suspected terrorist.
Said suspected terrorist buys gun.
The FBI must destroy the record in 24 hours.

Shouldn't there be a system in place so the FBI pursuing a (possible) criminal can keep this potential valuable information vice it being automagically scrubbed?

[DoNotRefill]

15. Hawker....

if they're tailing a possible criminal, don't you think they'd notice when the person went into a gun store and walked out with a package? Don't you think that they might send an agent inside after the suspect left, and ask the people there what the suspect bought? Aren't the people in the store legally obligated to provide copies of the 4473 to law enforcement in the process of ANY criminal investigation? THAT is ALL fair game. What wouldn't be is the NICS check, and that's IT.

[HawkerHurricane]

21. Having thought deeply on this...

I have to agree with you. It makes no sense, however, to hold records on book purchases forever and gun purchases for only 24 hours. I will err on the side of freedom and say that neither should be held. It does not make sense to hold onto purchase records for anything UNLESS there is a criminal investigation in progress. That includes guns along with books.

[slackmaster]

13. If someone is a known terrorist

They can be arrested and prosecuted and jailed.

[MrBenchley]

2. The GOP and the gun lobby...inseparable

Nothing must interfere with gun industry profits...

[leesa]

5. Exactly right. This is all about making money selling arms

It's a Bush specialty after all. Their wet dream would be every town in America requiring gun ownership and the other greedy sleezbags would make money selling you protective devices against the nuts with guns.

They are conning the gun lovers with the "militia" crap. They would take these guys guns in a minute...what do you think the NRA membership lists are all about?

[CarinKaryn]

3. This is pitiful.

Not only do we have to arm terrorists with weapons to be used against our own children, we can't even record the names of the terrorists we sell weapons to.

[Superfly]

11. Won't somebody PLEEEEEZE think of the Children?

:puke:

[slackmaster]

18. Done

n/t

[Superfly]

19. And, the children thank you.

Hugs.

[slackmaster]

16. If people are known to be terrorists why are they not in jail?

Is being suspected of a crime grounds for denying people their civil rights?

Who runs the "terrorist watch list"?

Where is the list kept?

How does one qualify to get on the list?

How does a citizen find out if he or she is on the list?

How does an honest citizen get his or her name cleared if it's on the list without justification?

What checks and balances are in place to ensure that the terrorist watch list is not used against people for purely political reasons?

On edit: This post is always a thread-killer because nobody cares to address my questions.

Sorry.

[Gloria]

4. How often and for how many years are they planning to look into my

library records?????

We are in a very bad place....

[truthisfreedom]

6. this is our own fault. if we cared about our rights, we'd have a giant

organization like the NRA called the NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION where we all paid dues and lobbied congress like crazy to protect us against total madness. and we'd threaten to organize and fight any congresspeople's re-elections if they didn't protect our civil rights.

it's complacency... we've been lulled into a false sense of complacency. i'll tell you what... i'd pay $500 a year in dues if someone would lobby on behalf of myself against the injustices i've seen appear under this administration. perhaps that organization is moveon.org right now. i don't know for sure, but it's look more and more like it. can moveon.org lobby, legally?

[drb]

22. If we really, really thought about the likely outcome...

...of a Bush* victory and four more years of Ashcroft, we'd have a giant pile of weapons ready!

[Superfly]

10. Good!

As a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, I do not like the idea of the government keeping ANY records of my activities.

[underpants]

12. But what if you commit a crime and obvious aren't a responsible citizen

Just like with the licensed ability to drive a car if you act irresponsibly the government (state actually IMHO) should confiscate any and all guns (depending on the severity of the CONVICTION) that you possess.

[DoNotRefill]

17. If you've been convicted of a serious crime...

(any felony, or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence) possession of a firearm or ammunition is a federal felony. It's a strict liability offense, and VERY easy to prove. It also carries substantial prison time.

[demdave]

20. The Brady bill only authorized background checks.

Once the checks are complete there is no reason to keep the records. If you want gun registration with permanent records, pass the bill, until then follow the laws as they are written.


18 USC 926

Sec. 926. - Rules and regulations

(a)
3)

regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.


No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/926.html

[slackmaster]

14. Reminder for anyone who thinks the FBI should have MORE power...

...in regards to keeping secret lists on citizens:

Who runs the FBI? (Hint: Which of the two major political parties?)

[w4rma]

23. fine with me (n/t)

[Zhade]

24. This time next year, a lot of people may see this as a GOOD thing.

Especially if the "election" goes the way we all expect it to go (assuming, of course, elections of any kind are actually held).