A U.S. soldier, under investigation by the FBI for his communications with a radical Yemeni cleric tied to al-Qaida, uses a gun to kill thirteen and wound thirty-eight at Fort Hood, one of our nation's leading military bases. A Nigerian terrorist with ties to the same radical cleric comes close to detonating a bomb on a U.S. airliner about to land in Detroit, stopped only by the bravery of a passenger. As to the airline bomber, President Obama acknowledged that "the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way." The President undeniably is on the defensive, as his opponents do their best to paint him as "soft on terror."
I have a modest suggestion for the President. In the State of the Union address, demonstrate that national security trumps fear of the gun lobby.
Make no mistake about it, the gun lobby's influence has made the war against terrorists harder to fight.
First, during the Bush Administration, Congress responded to the gun lobby's paranoia about "gun registration" by enacting a requirement - as part of the infamous Tiahrt Amendments named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) - mandating that records of Brady Law background checks on approved purchasers be destroyed within 24 hours of the purchase. During the Clinton years, these records were preserved for 90 days, which allowed auditing of the background check system to determine if some illegal gun buyers had slipped through the cracks. The National Rifle Association failed in its lawsuit challenging the temporary retention of the records as an illegal "gun registry"; indeed, such a registry was precluded by the Brady Act itself, which mandated the destruction of the records, but did not say when that had to occur.
In the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, the Tiahrt requirement meant that investigators had no way of knowing a rather material piece of information - that Hasan had purchased a gun. Because Hasan had no disqualifying record that would have blocked his purchase, the FBI's record of his purchase disappeared after 24 hours. (The only other federal record of his purchase - the form he would have filled out at the gun shop - by law must remain at the gun shop, yet another irrational restriction on gun records that has its origins in gun lobby paranoia about "registration.") According to former FBI agent Brady Garrett, "The piece of information about the gun could have been critical." Earlier this year, the Obama Administration supported some changes to the Tiahrt Amendments, but proposed no change in the record destruction provision.
Second, due to gun lobby opposition, Congress has done nothing to close the so-called "terror gap" in federal gun laws. Our gun laws are so weak that individuals who have close ties to terrorist groups can be denied guns only if they have already committed a felony, or fall into another of the limited categories of prohibited buyers. The result is a shocking anomaly: a person on the terrorist watch list can be barred from getting on airplanes, but not barred from buying as many guns as he wants. According to the Government Accountability Office, in the five years ending in February of last year, 865 individuals on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns at licensed gun dealers. As we contemplate why Nidal Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the airline bomber, were not on the terrorist watch list, let us not overlook the absurdity that, under current law, their inclusion on the list would not have disqualified them from buying 20 assault rifles from a gun shop.
Repealing the Tiahrt record destruction requirement and closing the "terror gap" are not only good policy; for the Obama Administration, they are also good politics. The President should challenge those in Congress who are trying to hang the "soft on terror" label on him to demonstrate their own toughness by standing up to the gun lobby in the interest of national security. He should make them choose between pandering to the paranoia of the gun extremists and preventing terrorists from arming themselves. Keep in mind that a recent survey by Frank Luntz - that most Republican of pollsters - found that 82% of NRA members support "prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." On this issue, the NRA's extremist leadership is hopelessly out of touch with its membership.
We saw multiple U.S. Senators with "A" ratings from the NRA defy the gun lobby to vote to confirm Justice Sotomayor. Which NRA supporters in Congress are willing to vote to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns?
On the politics, don't take my word for it. Listen to Rahm Emanuel who, slightly more than two years ago, addressed a Brady Center gathering with these words:
"The most important thing we can do, and we've got to make this a number one issue . . . if you are on the no-fly list . . . you cannot buy a handgun in America . . . As my old boss used to say, give me that vote, and throw me into that briar patch, and I'll make politics out of that every day, because if it's between that terrorist list and the NRA, I know where America is going to be every time and they're going to make the right choice . . . ."
Rahm, you were right then. And you can do something about it now. Sometimes, on certain issues, the policy and the politics are perfectly aligned. On the issue of guns and terror, that time is now.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
So, please tell us, Paul, Josh, Dennis, Josh, Marian, DreamWeaver, JadeGold (or whoever you are this week), Lee (or whoever YOU are this week), jsgaetano, Keli, etc. etc. etc. what makes you think your grasp of the proper methods for dealing with the willful misuse (as well as the misuse of firearms by the mentally ill) is any more correct or accurate?
We’ll wait!
Old SF MJT
"There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.
"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."
Martha Coakley's campaign didn't even bother listing the BC endorsement of her now failed campaign.
http://www.marthacoakley.com/about/Endorsements
Guess who in Appomattox, VA is a CCW holder?
What that has to do w/ rifles though is anyone's guess.
I'm still waiting for Jade to tell us how filing down a firing pin makes a gun fully-auto.
To attempt to bolster this outlandish claim, he posts a link to an article from the BBC. As I've sagely noted before (and will likely do so again), always check the link from NRA acolytes. In the vast majority of instances, the link or reference won't say what the NRA acolyte is trying to claim. Or it will be out of context. Or important facts may be omitted. Or it may simply be false.
Here, we have yet another prime example. From TP's link:
"However, the revised figures still show that overall crime and overall violent crime remain down on last year - a finding backed by the results of the British Crime Survey (BCS), also released on Thursday.
The BCS, which is a study of the experiences of victims, rather than police records, shows an overall decrease of 6% in the number of crimes compared to last year. "
We're all still waiting for him to tell us how filing down a guns firing pin makes it fully auto.
Or how Chicago's population is higher than it was in 1980 when it's over 100K less.
Or how Chicago has a population of 9.7 million
Or where all those reports of meteorite strikes are.
More of his 'sagely' turkey stuffing.
"A number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, the government has admitted.
The government says it does not know how long the undercounting has been going on - leading to concerns that figures on violent crime may have been wrong for up to a decade.
A former Home Office crime consultant told the BBC the government had been "hiding behind" its changes in the crime counting rules. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7685908.stm
Still can't explain why Camden ranks as high as it does on the violent crime table when asserting that gun control reduces crime.
Poor jade. Poor, poor jade.
It is insignificant only if you are innumerate.
Yes, Camden could see 17 murders in a month or a day or an hour. But you could say that about any city with a population over 17.
The number of murders in Camden annually has recently been between 33 and 55. So, to claim 17 murders out of between 33 and 55 is insignificant is to bring a new and strange meaning to the word.
That's just brilliant Jade. I'm glad you're not an actuary.
See, the difference here is, in Camden it could actually happen.
Is it likely to happen in Camden? No.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34855425/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
Only in NJ.
Obviously, the Cub Scouts are a survivalist group....
(rolls eyes)
Officer Jason Willingham says an apparently angry Barry Styles walked into the Renda Broadcasting office building with a gun Wednesday lunchtime and asked to speak to a personality. A secretary left the room to call the police.
Renda official Kelly Fiddner said Styles asked to speak to KBEZ's Carly Rush.
Willingham says 58-year-old Styles brandished the gun when police officers found him in a hallway. One shot at Styles three times, hitting him once in the hip.
Wagoner County Sheriff Bob Colbert says Styles has charges of possession of a sawed-off shotgun and reckless conduct with a firearm pending against him.
One often hears this from the pro-gun crowd; of course, no cite or reference is ever produced. The reason being--it isn't true.
First, it's important to note the UK's gun laws didn't materialize in one gun law just after WWI. In reality, there have been about 5-6 major gun laws encated in the UK during the 20th century and a host of minor ones.
Second, if we look at UK homicide rates:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/international-00028.php
we see the homicide rates did go down. Of course, the UK's homicide rates are so low that a single tragedy such as Dunblane affect the homicide rates disproportionately.
Regardless, it is pretty silly to try and argue about the UK's "draconian gun laws" when the result has been that you're about 20 times more likely to be a gun fatality victim in the US than the UK.
The UK murder rate was always low and has been climbing steadily after the start of the bans/restrictions that began following WWI.
The quote is erroneous for several reasons. First, as I sagely pointed out, the UK enacted gun laws both before and after WWI. That is enough to label the quote as false.
Second, the rates did go down in the period after the gun law that was described as "draconian." Strike two.
Strike three is the fact the UK's homicide rates are so low that it doesn't take much to change them. Saying there's a pronounced difference between a per capita rate of 1.27 and 1.31 is beyond foolishness. Strike Tres.
Hte UK's violent crime rate skyrocketed in '97, immediately following the gun ban, and did not level off untill 2003.
Feel free to check with the British Home Office, and the Australian Dept. Of Justice. I had a link until the Aussie DOJ revamped their website.
Then you should have little problem referencing it for us. Oh, that's the right...the 'Australian' DOJ site has been revamped, throwing a great disturbance into the internets. Of course, I guess Australia is now part of the UK again.
"Hte UK's violent crime rate skyrocketed in '97, immediately following the gun ban, and did not level off untill 2003."
Actually, this is false. Violent crime decreased.
So because background check records have to be destroyed immediately investigators couldn't determine that Hassan had bought a gun.
Excuse me? He wasn't being investigated - UNTIL AFTER HE KILLED 13 fellow soldiers (sorry, "infidels").
And more gun control would have stopped the undy-bomber how?
Hennigan is pathetic.
For those who have forgotten why the secret Bush blacklists were and are a bad idea...
No-Fly Blacklist Snares Political Activists:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL
Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html
People placed on the list as infants (and how do you get taken off it when you grow up?):
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/infants_on_the.html
More criticism, from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/21/the_terrorist_batting_average
The thing is, if someone is an actual terrorist suspect, put them under active surveillance and arrest them when they do something illegal; if not, leave them alone. But due process is the absolute foundation of our legal system, and throwing it away over fears of Terrah! would do more to undermine the American way of life than terrorists ever could.
If you have respect for the Constitution, the answer is clear, Dennis. Only after you have amended the Constitution so as to eliminate the Due Process clause from the 5th and 14th amendment and you have alse amended the Constitution soa s to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.icarry.org/video/scrutinized/commented/Brady_Campaigns_Dennis_Henigan_Misquotes_2nd_Amendment_leaving_out_of_the_People.wmv
Dennis,
Your online bio indicates that you are a lawyer. As a lawyer, this article indicates our interpretation of "due process" and Constitutional Rights? All I can say is that either the law school you attended is a disgrace and you should demand your money back OR your are a disgrace to the law school you attended and they should demand your JD back & pretend that they never heard of you!
Old SF MJT
Semper fi
Trashing the Constitution is, alas, a bipartisan effort sometimes.