iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Bloomberg 'Terror Gap' Argument Shot Down By Pro-Gun GOP Senators

First Posted: 07/05/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:25 PM ET

Times Square Car

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's appeal to what he called "common sense" at a congressional hearing Wednesday morning failed to sway two Republican senators who said that giving the government the ability to block the purchase of guns by suspected terrorists would undermine the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

"Shouldn't FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watchlists -- and deemed too dangerous to fly? I actually believe that they should," Bloomberg told senators. Federal law currently only allows the government to block guns sales for a very limited number of reasons, and being on that list is not one of them. (For more background, see Tuesday's article on the subject.)

"This common-sense legislation is not anti-gun -- it's anti-terrorist," chimed in Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the sponsor of a bill that would close what Bloomberg has called a "terror gap."

But GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina wouldn't go along.

Admitting that "at first blush" the bill "seems to be an obvious step that we should take," Collins said that many people on the FBI's watchlist don't belong there. "None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun, but neither should we want to infringe upon a Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans," she said.

Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."

Like many of his fellow Republicans, Graham assailed the administration for respecting the constitutional rights of suspected terrorists, suggesting instead that they should be treated like enemies on the battlefield.

"Even if you're an American citizen helping the enemy, you should be seen as a potential enemy," he said, "not as someone who committed a crime in New York."

After the hearing, Bloomberg told reporters he had no problem with federal investigators reading Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in this weekend's Times Square bomb plot, his Miranda rights, saying that "our democracy is strong enough" for that.

As for the Second Amendment concerns, Bloomberg said in his testimony: "Our founding fathers did not write the Second Amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize a free state; they wrote it to protect people who could defend 'the security of a free state.' Today, the security of our free state is being tested by terrorists."

A new Government Accountability Office report out today disclosed that from February 2004 through February 2010, individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times. Of those, 1,119, or 91 percent, were allowed to proceed because there were no legally disqualifying factors.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Shahzad had purchased a gun in Connecticut in March, shortly after returning from a trip to Pakistan. Officials found a 9mm pistol and ammunition in Shahzad's car. Shahzad was not put on the terror watchlist until Monday, the day before he was captured.

"It appears March is when he decided to put this plan in motion," Kelly said, noting that for a terror suspect to buy a gun "may well be an indicator of putting something catastrophic in motion."

*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,456
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (147 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
POTUS2008
04:45 PM on 05/15/2010
the GOP care so much about our rights is why they want to deny the terrorists non-profitable rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
11:52 PM on 05/08/2010
"Any aspect of the pistol or rifle could be banned, like semiautomatics for instance providing in the end you had a working firearm of some sort. "
Odinseye wrote:
Not quite any aspect, but quite a few.

"The SCOTUS can't interfere with the Congress's power to tax or regulate commerce."

Oh they most certainly can. And have."

As long as the tax is equally levied throughout the US the SCOTUS can't do anything about it.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
12:03 AM on 05/09/2010
"As long as the tax is equally levied throughout the US the SCOTUS can't do anything about it. "

Not true. Examples would be an overly onerous taxes or taxing the exercise of a right. The USSC can definitely rule on those items.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
01:57 AM on 05/09/2010
Onerous?
What is the true cost to society from the sale of weaponry and ammunition? There's a lot of leeway in deciding what would be a overly "Onerous" tax on the firearms industry.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
12:21 AM on 05/09/2010
Here are some jumping off points to examine that the USSC can indeed rule on tax issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/taxing-populace.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
02:00 AM on 05/09/2010
I read the Wiki article on the 16th. I didn't see anything that inhibit Congress from leveling a Federal tax on firearms and ammunition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
09:02 PM on 05/08/2010
OdinsEye wrote:

To a certain degree. If Congress violates the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, then that law will be declared unconsitutional. Note that in 1994 Congress basically only banned features, not firearms.

The spirit of the Second was based on definitions of "arms" by leading thinkers of English Common Law. As such, arms are what we refer to as "small arms", able for an individual to transport, maintain, serve, adn operate, descretely targetable - not area effect, of common use, and suitible for individual man on man combat.

So, if Congress were to ban handguns, then the law would be tossed by the courts as unconstitutional.

__________________________________________________________________________

But a features can be. Congress could decide that a pistol is illegal if it is a revolver or semiautomatic and even if the pistol takes cartridge bullets. Once again Congress can decide what weapons are permissible to own, you can't freely buy a fully automatic machine pistol.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
09:12 PM on 05/08/2010
Because a semi-auto and a revolver both meet the definition posted, as does self-contained cartidge ammo, none of those items could be completely banned.

Full-auto machine pistols, like all machine guns, are more "area effect" items and while not completely banned, are very tightly controlled items.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
09:56 PM on 05/08/2010
Not completely banned, but tightly controlled, which for the vast majority of American amounts to the same thing.

And there are other ways. Congress could levy a heavy tax on guns and ammunition. Say $100 per bullet, $10,000 for a pistol, and $20,000 on a semiautomatic rifle.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
03:54 PM on 05/08/2010
Can anyone name one terrorist act in the US since 2001 which would have been stopped by using the no fly list or one of the 13 terrorist watch lists to prohibit a person from buying a firearm?

Anyone?
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
03:38 PM on 05/08/2010
The bottom line is it would be unconstitutional and illegal to deny people any rights by using "Star Chamber" created secret lists (there are 13 so called teror watch lists and the so called No Fly List).

These lists are rife with errors and can take months, even more than a year, to correct. They rely on similarity of names. There is no uniform criteria for being on these lists.

Anyone who supports using these lists must also support using them to prohibit people's rights to free speech, free press, assembly, voting, etc.

And while it is unlikely the there will ever be any confusion with a Dan Froomkin, I am sure Michael Bloomberg woudl be upset to find out that his name is on the list because of some European terror suspect of the same name.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivabeach
09:08 PM on 05/07/2010
Oh and if you shoot the plane down we will send you to a military court where only 3 people have been convicted since 9/11. Everything is ok, go buy your gun
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivabeach
09:03 PM on 05/07/2010
You cant fly, but you can shoot the plane down. Republican thinking
04:59 PM on 05/08/2010
Can you provide a single instance of a commercial airliner being " shot down " by a civilian owned firearm , ANYWHERE in the World in the last 50 years ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
08:40 PM on 05/08/2010
Can with a 50 caliber sniper rife and those are perfectly legal to buy.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/usa/-50-Caliber-Sniper-Rifles-Pose-Threat-to-Civil-Aviation_3218.html
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
08:32 PM on 05/07/2010
I personally think the only reason Bloomberg wants more gun control laws is because Wall Street is about one more disaster from a full scale armed revolt. If I were the mayor of New York, it would certainly cross my mind. That's exactly why we don't need more gun control laws.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivabeach
09:18 PM on 05/07/2010
Im not sure if not selling guns to terrorists counts as gun control does it? Sounds more like common sense
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
09:39 PM on 05/07/2010
That was my lame attempt at humor...

It sounded a lot better in my head before I actually typed it.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
11:43 PM on 05/07/2010
Sure does, if you KNOW that they're terrorists.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
D-V-H
I am a Damn Liberal
09:24 PM on 05/06/2010
Last time I checked, giving material support to terrorists is a federal crime.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanalien
Veteran Commenter
10:58 PM on 05/06/2010
That means that many Republicans are suspected felons since they want the terrorists to have free access to guns and other weapons.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
07:27 AM on 05/07/2010
Fanned! lol
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
molonlabe
Before you ban it, at least learn what it is.
08:37 AM on 05/07/2010
Last time i checked, denying citizens COTUS rights without due process was unconstitutional. Or does the Left only think this applies to detainees in Gitmo?
photo
VeryGrood
only class worse than micro-bio was molecular-bio
11:23 AM on 05/07/2010
Apparently it doesn't apply to US citizens "suspected" of terrorist activity. No Miranda rights for a US citizen arrested on US soil? It doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Ergon
Man From Atlan
07:41 PM on 05/06/2010
This Faisal Harvey Oswald Shahzad guy is such an incompetent patsy,
he went to the same bomb making school as the underwear bomber,
has a wife who 'likes to party' according to Facebook and never displayed hatred of the U.S. but somehow suddenly became a radical Islamist,
is on the no fly and watch list yet managaes to board a plane,
hmm.
Well I know being a patsy is a federal crime, but I still ride the subway, and do think the president has to withdraw from Afghanistan sooner than later.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanalien
Veteran Commenter
06:42 PM on 05/06/2010
If Republicans have their way, terrorists will be able to roam the streets of America free with as much guns and ammunition as they want. The safety of the American public is insignificant in their book. This is simply tragic.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
07:30 AM on 05/07/2010
You do understand that it is the Cons who think everyone should have guns.

Oh, yes, and tell us just which terrorist has been let free to walk the streets of America by Obama's administration.

Then look up how many were actually set free by Bush/CheneyCo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanalien
Veteran Commenter
09:02 AM on 05/07/2010
Did you actually read my post?

I started by saying "If Republicans have their way". I'm on your side, don't you see?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:54 PM on 06/06/2010
Grow up.
Funny that it's usually repubs in your book, who want law-abiding americans able to be armed to resist crime including terrorists.

I detest most of what repubs stand for, so I won't defend them on secret rendition or prisons or torture (most of which Obama isn't retracting, but is enhancing in his own way)
Do you think people with a chance similar name on some secret list should be detained at airports, searched 3 or 5 times, held back and interrogated, and not be allowed to buy a gun if they're a regular law-abiding citizen? Terror watch lists aren't overseen, you have no recourse or appeal if you're on it -or if you're a kid with a name similar to a terrorists's fake name who is in prison overseas already (similar to real cases)

Suggest a list of reasonable things to make it safe to allow regular americans to own guns.
it's not been done yet. They don't affect criminals or the black market. Law-abiding citizens aren't who we need to be hampering.
There are plenty enough ways to make sure that gun buyers are safe.

The so called "gun show loophole"is the same thing as a father giving one to his son, or a grandfather bequeathing one to his family or selling one to your buddy.
Most gun shows already close down on back-door sales at shows. To stop unlicensed transfers would be a ridiculous problem -which still wouldn't stop criminals.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
03:17 PM on 05/06/2010
If you're not a terrorist, your ability to acquire more guns would only be temporarily interrupted. If you try to buy a gun and you're denied for being on the watch list, you call your local FBI field office, and you tell them POLITELY

"I found out when I tried to purchase a gun legally, that I'm prevented by being on the watch list and I'd like to provide any assistance to clear up this erroneous listing."

They will be happy to facilitate clearing up the error so that they can watch for real threats. You know how I know? DUH, that's how.

http://terrorgap.org
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
03:25 PM on 05/08/2010
"They will be happy to facilitate clearing up the error so that they can watch for real threats."

LOL... And the check is in the mail. The GAO and ACLU have shown that it takes months, even more than a year to get removed from the list. And the GAO and FBI have shown that depending on the list (there are 13), anywhere from 34% to 90% have never committed a crime and are not terrorists (bear in mind the master list, the TSDB, has 1 million names and over 400,000 people in it).
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
05:01 PM on 05/08/2010
Oh noez!
05:01 PM on 05/08/2010
WOW ! So the Govt is a totally infallable , benevolent entity SOLELY concerned with always doing whats right and within the restrictions of the law ? MY GOD are you naive !!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
05:14 PM on 05/08/2010
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

BOO!

Your comment refers to nothing I believe, nothing I said, and nothing that can be rationally inferred from anything that I have ever said. That makes your comment a straw man argument, and that makes you a waste of bandwidth, and any attempt to have a rational conversation with you, a waste of my valuable time and I don't do that.
03:08 PM on 05/06/2010
So some Republicans dont want US citizens read their Miranda Rights but they allow US citizens on terror watch list to buy guns because it would deny them the 2nd Amendment? Hmmmmmmmmm go figure.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
07:31 AM on 05/07/2010
That is the Pubs and Cons to a T. We don't really need to say anything else about them.
02:39 PM on 05/06/2010
"Susan Collins, Maine and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina"

If you help a terr()orist you are a terr()orist. Got that straight Lindsay & Susan.

(Such a cute couple. Oh, wait, never mind)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
molonlabe
Before you ban it, at least learn what it is.
03:59 PM on 05/06/2010
And if you support the denial of due process, what are you?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:18 PM on 05/06/2010
What denial of due process? - please explain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
02:27 PM on 05/06/2010
bperk wrote:

"We are talking about handguns in this case, not nuclear weapons. Heller also speaks to the type of weapons that are appropriate for protection under the 2nd amendment."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

The case was about a weapon allowed under Federal Firearms Law, yes that refers back to the 2nd Amendment through Federal law, but handguns aren't "Protected" under the 2nd Amendment no more than owning a fully automatic machine pistol is protected under the 2nd Amendment. In this case the SCOTUS refereed back to Federal Firearms Laws enacted by the Legislative branch.

You have no right to a specific type of firearm.You are only permitted what Congress allows you to own. Currently you are allowed to own semiautomatic rifles and pistols by Federal Law, but Congress can change that.
03:20 PM on 05/06/2010
There was no relevant federal law. The Supreme Court used the second amendment to strike down DC's gun law ban. Further, the decision specifically addresses handguns as a class of arms that cannot be prohibited (about the last 10 pages or so). According to the Court, the 2nd amendment protects arms for use as self-defense. DC's law prohibited that, therefore, it was struck down. I don't see any wiggle room in Heller to permit Congress to ban pistols.

Here's the case. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Here's a syllabus. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
03:38 PM on 05/06/2010
You're missing the point.

The SCOTUS looked to Federal Firearms laws for guidance, the idea that sawed off shotguns which are modified into pistol form would remain illegal is stated in the case. The decisions is about allowing a citizens living in a Federal District to have the same 2nd Amendment rights allowed by Congress as the rest of the country has.

Congress still has the right to ban any particular type of "Arms" it chooses. Otherwise The National Firearms Act of 1934 would have declared as unconstitutional.