Lautenberg at it again

[srothstein]

Well, Sen. Lautenberg is trying again for more gun laws. This time he wants to stop people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. My problem is that these people are all still innocent of any crime (not proven in court, just suspected of something if that).

Lautenberg is using the latest GAO report as support. The report shows 963 people on the terrorist watch list have bought guns since 2004. Of course, my first question was how do they know this. The report says they used FBI NICS data for the gun purchase side of it.

So, I just sent an e-mail to Sen. Hutchison asking her to look into it. This is what I wrote her;

I was just reading the GAO report to Senator Lautenberg on how people on the terrorist watch lists are able to buy guns. The report mentions that 963 people on the watch lists were allowed to purchase guns between Feb 2004 and Feb 2009.

As part of the introduction to the report, the answer was given to one of my most critical questions. How did they know this information? The report states they obtained the information on the background checks from the FBI.

The FBI gets the information on every purchase or attempted purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer from the NICS system of instant background checks. It is my understanding that the current law on the NICS system requires all of these records to be destroyed after no more than 24 hours.

If the FBI was obeying this law, how did they give information that is five years old, or even five days old, to the GAO investigators? I would really appreciate if you could have someone check into whether or not the FBI is actually obeying the law or has been breaking it for the past five years.

I figured someone else might want to also write to other politicians about this.

[bpet]

Steve,

There's a similar thread that I commented on with emphasis on the fact that if the "watch list" is going to remain secret, how can it be used as a discriminator when a person goes to buy a firearm. The whole approach seems privileged and totally subjective with absolutely no checks and balances. I would submit that with the issues the airlines are having with the "list" keeping innocent passengers from boarding flights, the problem will only be compounded when otherwise legit citizens attempt to buy a firearm and are rejected.

It seems that whoever is in control of the "watch list" is by Lauthenberg's reasoning, in control of who in this country can purchase firearms. Since the list is confidential/secret (as per airline explanations to rejected passengers), what's to keep your name from suddenly appearing on the list. Under Lauthenberg's plan, who will be responsible for correcting errors, resolving name conflicts, etc.

This is a blatant attempt at seizing control of who will be allowed to own firearms with zero provisions for application under even "politically defined" definitions of "reasonable" guidelines.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention and contacting Sen. Hutchinson with your very logical question of selective application of existing law.

B

[Charles L. Cotton]

I debated a guy from the Brady Campaign yesterday on KRLD radio on just this issue. There are huge problems with this bill.

That's a good catch Steve; I'm interested in Hutchison's response.

Chas.

[tbranch]

Is there a link to the debate?

Tom

[srothstein]

I finally got a response from Sen. Hutchison. It was a canned response that thanked me for contacting her office about my position on gun control, reiterating her support for the Second Amendment. I would have thought that getting a response after this much time, someone would have taken the time to read what I had written and address it directly. I would have accepted the canned response if it came within a day or two, but there is no excuse I can think of for taking this long for a form letter e-mail.

[gemini]

She's more interested in her run for Governor. A canned response keeps her from having to actually do anything.
After reading your initial enquiry, I was very interested in exactly what her reaction / response would be. How
disappointing.