Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

NRA: Don't Block Gun Sales to Terror Suspects

Comments

19 comments

  • 11b6r
    Considering that Teddy Kennedy was on the "no fly" list because he was a terrorist suspect (yeah, I know) and that I watched a couple be detained at the airport for 3 hours because their SIX YEAR OLD SON had the same name as a member of the IRA- I can understand this. And all you folks posting on this suspect website should too. How many folks here have stated their distrust of our beloved gubbmint? Hmmm- round up the usual suspects!
    0
  • gunnut505
    If Brady or the VPC are for it; I'm agin' it!
    0
  • sig232
    quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
    If Brady or the VPC are for it; I'm agin' it!



    I agree with you![:0]
    0
  • buschmaster
    quote:The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. ...so what
    0
  • chollagardens
    So if Akmed thinks he is being watched by homeland security all he has to do is buy a firearm and see if the sale goes through. If he is denied he limits contact with other terrorists and travels away from any possible area terrorists may attack. The terrorist that had his firearms sale go through would be resonably sure that he is not suspected. He would leave the .22 single shot he purchased at his residence and use smuggled small arms for any terrorist attacks.
    0
  • Fatboy lives
    That aint what I was taught conservatisim was about. Of course as time goes on, I find I"m not much of a modern day conservative.quote:Originally posted by badwrench
    What happened to "sacrificing a few freedoms to defend against terrorism", huh?

    I thought that was the "conservative" thang.
    0
  • Clarentavious
    quote:Originally posted by elvjeep
    The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

    Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

    In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

    "As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote
    In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

    Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

    Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

    "When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.
    In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are weighing a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

    A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials




    Why the flying frick would an islamic terrorist walk into a RETAIL GUN FFL and try to buy a gun? Terrorist get their guns for free... former Soviet AK's that pour out of Africa. You really worried about mohamad otta buying a Beretta M9 from a gun shop? Why would he go in there, with forged ID, and risk being seen by suspecting people? Besides, the 9/11 hi-jackers used knives as their weapons, not guns.

    With this law, there is no trial in public court, just "suspicions" about who is a terrorist... which in this case, could be ANYONE.
    0
  • RugerNiner
    Here is why the NRA are taking a stand against this Bill.

    GONZALES WANTS ARBITRARY POWER TO BLOCK GUN PURCHASES


    GONZALES WANTS ARBITRARY POWER TO BLOCK GUN PURCHASES; SAF SAYS HE SHOULD RESIGN
    Second Amendment Foundation (email alert) ^ | 5/1/07 | Alan Gottlieb


    Posted on 05/01/2007 12:47:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie


    BELLEVUE, WA - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' troubling support of legislation that would allow him and future attorneys general the arbitrary power to block firearms purchases without due process is cause for him to step down as the nation's highest ranking law enforcement officer, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

    The bill, S. 1237, was introduced last week at the Justice Department's request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), one of the most extreme anti-gunners in Congress. Called the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007," this legislation would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny the purchase of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm license or permit because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good.

    "This bill," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a `suspected terrorist.' Nobody has explained how one gets their name on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one's name off such a list.

    "The process by which someone may appeal the Attorney General's arbitrary denial seems weak at best," Gottlieb suggested, "and there is a greater concern. When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone's constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?

    "We're not surprised that General Gonzales has found an agreeable sponsor in Frank Lautenberg," Gottlieb observed. "The senator from New Jersey has never seen a restrictive gun control scheme he did not immediately embrace, and S. 1237 is loaded with red flags. It would allow an appointed bureaucrat the authority to suspend or cancel someone's Second Amendment right without even being charged with a crime.

    "Attorney General Gonzales has no business asking for that kind of power over any tenet in the Bill of Rights," Gottlieb said. "He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not trample it. Perhaps it is time for him to go."

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826729/posts
    0
  • buschmaster
    that is a good reason to kill that bill. you can't deny somebody's rights because "we think you will..." or "we think you are..." no matter what. power will be abused. that cannot be allowed to happen.
    0
  • nemesisenforcer
    and our desire to maintain our second amendment rights runs headlong into our government's duty to protect us from foreign attack. . .
    0
  • buschmaster
    it shouldn't. we have the right to bear arms for the purpose of wasting some terrorist fheads causing some trouble, or any legitimate invading forces who want to play shoot-em-up, irregardless of what the gov't has planned for them.
    0
  • TooBig
    All rapest have something between their legs so does that mean we cut every males thing all off since they could be used in rape. I think not.[^][^][V]
    0
  • ElMuertoMonkey
    quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
    and our desire to maintain our second amendment rights runs headlong into our government's duty to protect us from foreign attack. . .
    If you think this has ANYTHING to do with the government's desire to "protect" us, you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

    As in all things concerning this so-called "war on terror," they are using fear as justification to reduce our rights one at a time.
    0
  • Highball
    quote:and our desire to maintain our second amendment rights runs headlong into our government's duty to protect us from foreign attack. . .
    What utter nonsense. Straight out of the Fascists play book, as brought to you daily from those in power.

    The borders remain wide open..allowing swarms of barbarians free access to the underbelly of America.

    Actually, Fascist is a term that cannot fit what is happening. There must be new terms invented for those hellbent on destroying America...they have no desire at all to build her and protect her.
    0
  • gunnut505
    HB-That term is,"Democrat Politician"
    0
  • pickenup
    The "thought police" are coming after YOU.
    0
  • Highball
    Just so we understand each other...
    bush and company are now known as " Democratic Politicians"..as per gunnut505's interpetation and aid to better understanding the decline and fall of America.
    0
  • nemesisenforcer
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
    and our desire to maintain our second amendment rights runs headlong into our government's duty to protect us from foreign attack. . .
    If you think this has ANYTHING to do with the government's desire to "protect" us, you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

    As in all things concerning this so-called "war on terror," they are using fear as justification to reduce our rights one at a time.


    so that they can sell the country to the international consortium run by NAFTA, the Trilateral Commission, the Mossad, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Rothschilds, the Club of Rome, the CIA, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Big Oil, Halliburton, and every other bogeyman soft-headed conspiracy nutjobs lay awake at night worrying about?

    Give me a break and get outside once in a while. The oxygen might do you some good.
    0
  • ccddbb95448
    quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
    So if Akmed thinks he is being watched by homeland security all he has to do is buy a firearm and see if the sale goes through. If he is denied he limits contact with other terrorists and travels away from any possible area terrorists may attack. The terrorist that had his firearms sale go through would be resonably sure that he is not suspected. He would leave the .22 single shot he purchased at his residence and use smuggled small arms for any terrorist attacks.


    Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!! hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?