Court Allows FBI To Maintain Records On Law-Abiding Gun Purchasers

FUD

Moderator
This might have been posted in "Legal" already but since I can't check, let me post it here and it can be closed later if this is a double tap -- http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3970142a5997.htm ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>COURT ALLOWS FBI TO MAINTAIN RECORDS ON LAW-ABIDING GUN PURCHASERS
On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Janet Reno (see FAX Alerts Vol. 5, No. 50 and Vol. 6, Nos. 3 & 27) that the FBI is not prohibited from maintaining an "Audit Log" on law-abiding gun purchasers who have cleared a National Instant Check System (NICS) check. The 2-1 ruling was sharply divided, however, with two Clinton appointees ruling in favor of Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and one Reagan appointee strongly dissenting. NRA's opinion on the case is very simple -- the Brady Act, which established NICS, clearly directs that all information submitted on a firearm purchaser be destroyed immediately once the system determines that the transfer should not be denied. Also, federal law prohibits the registration of gun owners, not only under the Brady Act itself, but also under the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act. Reno, however, contends that the retention of records, which she refers to as an "Audit Log," is needed to ensure proper management of NICS. She also claims that the current system (NICS) is not capable of destroying the records of law-abiding gun buyers, and it is her opinion that federal law is not explicit enough to "prohibit generally the recordation of information generated by the NICS." The majority opinion agreed with Reno and is shot through with Clintonesque ramblings over the possible meanings of words that, for most of us, are quite clear -- words such as "record" and "destroy."

This clears the way for the FBI to continue their gun registration via the instant check system, and to be even more brash about it. The FBI could share this information outright with the BATFinks without challenge. Lists are currently kept of people who fit a "patriot" profile, as stated by Burn-The-Children Reno on several occassions. She lays claim that religious, gun owning, flag bearing, right-wingers are a danger to society. This list of gun owners, their names and addresses, can be used for everything bad and nothing good. Why a list? What is the purpose? Confiscation? Harrassment? Let's make them even more nervous and buy even more guns than we currently are. Include a whole bunch of ammo while you are at it. Use your credit cards to do so. They most likely trace ammo purchases made using credit cards.
This whole spy-on-Americans thing pisses me off to no end. I take this as an outright act of war on our privacy and our exercise of our God given rights to self defense. A list like this can serve no useful purpose, except to target individuals buying or owning firearms. And why would the FBI have the need to do that? It certainly has no law enforcement purpose as firearms can already be traced using the paper trail. A computer list may be faster, but we all know damn well that efficiency is not the purpose.
[/quote]
 
I suspect that this will be going immediately to the Supreme Court, and that it will be overturned there.

At least I hope to God it will be.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Don't know hpow many may have read about this latest, but of those who might have, how many have fired off comment, or called their "elected things"?
 
Is it OK with you guys if I buy my new camera this week - along with the regular purchase of 1000 rounds of ammo at the Ft. Worth gun show - then get a new gun next week? I really want a new camera, but I'll understand if I have to buy a new gun both weeks.
 
Major story in today's Washington Post indicating a majority in Congress are opposed to FBI retention of these records.
 
It's great that Congress is opposed, but this needs to be struck down by the courts. The law is plain as day. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals needs to have their a$$ handed to them by the Supreme Court "with prejudice" for such poor interpretation of clear language. A strong decision by the SC, embarrasing the Circuit court and Reno/Clintoon, would tickle me to no end.


- gabe
 
Back
Top