Fixing the gun loophole

For gun purchasers, should "no fly" mean "no buy?" People on the government's terrorist watch list tried to buy guns almost 1,000 times in the last five years, a federal study finds.

[Buff Johnson]

Hey Page you neglected to list all of the gun crimes committed by these terrorists? I hope Bill Ayers, Obama friend and domestic terrorist is on that list.

[KAS]

Where in the Constitution does it delegate the power to the Federal Government to screen firearm purchases? Or where does it delegate the power to screen airline passengers? Oh, it doesn't! Then you scumbags are out of luck. Move to Russia if you want a tyrannical government dictating our liberties! You don't belong in this country.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

[Bankerdanny]

Firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Air travel is not. People should not be denied their constitutional rights based on a list that is maybe 80% accurate.

[John Birch]

Illinois has had this "cooling off" period on gun sales for decades. Guess what? Gun murders only went up. All the delay does is make it harder to buy a gun.

If delays work so good why don't we have a delay on buying cigarettes? alcohol? cars? How about fatty foods?

Nah, it's liberal swill. Drink at your own peril. Lautenburg is a senile, liberal, gun owner hating, whack job. Make laws based on personal hatred is not the way to govern.

[Don L]

Gun loophole? What we really need to protect us from Government is to make it bigger. How about fixing the Czar loophole and the Supreme Court making law loophole? How about the confiscation of private property to give to unions and how about the census in the Whitehouse loophole? How about th apology loophole where the greatest nation in history - the one that has lost more lives to free other peoples including black slaves -is embarassed by a president who loathes the nation and is too arrogant to be embarassed by his own actions? How about the abortion loophole where innocent pre-borns and with Obam, post borns mostly blacks, are deprived of the right to llife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is deprived them? How about we keep the mythical gun loophole to protect ourselves from a government gone mad?

[about rights]

You bring up good points, and it's valid to discuss whether people on "terrorist watch lists" be prohibited from keeping and bearing arms.
But for me, these questions always base upon our civil rights. It is clear that warrantless wire-tapping and home-searching violate constitutional rights. We simply cannot abandon the "innocent until proven guilty" modus of operation. Fundamental rights are infringed only when one is convicted of crimes in a court of law.
This issue isn't about "guns" or the so-called "gun lobby", regardless of your past quarrels with them, and regardless of whether you try to make it so. This issue is about fundamental individual rights, and on restrictions on governmental power. Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms for lawful purposes, predicated upon their natural right to self-defense. Consequently, the government is commanded not to infringe that right. Including if they are suspected of crimes. If they are so dangerous, we must arrest and convict them. Only after that, shall their rights be infringed.
Surely you comprehend the primacy of our civil rights.

[JBS]

The gun lobby opposes any restrictions on the sale or ownership of firearms as a matter of course. Just like the abortion lobby opposes any restriction on the ability of women to end their pregnancies in utero. If you will explain why it is OK to oppose any restrictions on a supposed constitutional right, whose existence has been inferred under an ambiguous clause within the Constitution, then perhaps someone on the side of the gun lobby could be made to explain why they find it within their interests to oppose even sensible restrictions on a right that is explicitly spelled out by real language within the 2nd Amendment.

[Jonah]

"At present, no one can be blocked from buying a gun just because his or her name is on the no-fly list."
You mean, like Senator Edward Kennedy? And even he had trouble getting his name off the list. Yeah, he was not the [former?] IRA guy on the list...

[Earnest in Evanston]

Wow, two columns in a row without praising or defending the One.

Congrats, Clarence. Let's try for three.

Oh, there's a big diffrence from the tens of thousands of gun dealers vs the agency that tracks the no fly list.

A better comparison would be store clerks who sell to minors and dealers who sell to those on the no fly list.

I mean, come on. That's a no brainer.

[Harmony]

No one seems to want to use e-verify to enforce immigration because lists are problematic but they want to use this list?

[Here is an idea]

Clarence,
Go tell the Vice-Lords, Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings and all those other groups that they need to give up their guns and live in peace. That is not unreasonable, just like the not unreasonable things that you suggest in your column.
Of course, we will probably be reading your obituary if you try this, but really, why don't you give it a try?
Lautenberg does not care so much about closing a 'loophole' as you call it as he wants to further restrict gun purchases and our rights as free and honest citizens to possess guns.
Of course, the only people who really care about such things are the free and honest people.
People like the GD's, Latin Kings and Vice-Lords, well, they really don't care about laws. I know this might be news to you, so, if you don't believe me, check with the Trib about how many black on black killings there are, and how many are gang related.
Then, knowing that, please give that thing I suggest a try. Go to them and tell them to give you their guns.
Smart as you are, I know they will listen to you.
Please go tell them to give up their guns.

[Alz]

Harmony wrote:

No one seems to want to use e-verify to enforce immigration because lists are problematic but they want to use this list?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Liberals don't like it that people can protect themselves.

You could point out the contradiction 100 different ways to Page and he probably wouldn't change his position.

[Handle]

People don't have due process before getting on no-fly lists.

What you desire, Clarence, is a way around the Constitution.

I know, you're clever - you'll find a way to justify it. I bet it sounds okay, too.

Self-deception is a horrid thing.

[Richard_]

Bankerdanny wrote:

Firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Air travel is not.

Air travel is not a right? Are you sure about that? Can you cite any court case or law that says that air travel is not a right?

[richb]

We don't need MORE gun laws. They can't enforce the ones we have and most of them are useless in preventing crime (the original reason used for having gun laws). It only makes it hard for those that have no reason to not own a firearm.

[Alz]

richb wrote:

We don't need MORE gun laws. They can't enforce the ones we have and most of them are useless in preventing crime (the original reason used for having gun laws). It only makes it hard for those that have no reason to not own a firearm.

You said "It only makes it hard for those that have no reason to not own a firearm."

Duh, this is what they want. Liberals never really come out and tell people what they want because people wouldn't go along with it.

So they come up with "loopholes" that have to be plugged, they twist/misrepresent statistics, etc.

The reality is liberals hate the idea that Americans should be able to defend themselves.

At the core, liberals want everything "equal" and, to the liberal, a gun makes someone not "equal". With liberals, everything has to be "equal", so they want to take guns away from people.

[Richard_]

richb wrote:

We don't need MORE gun laws. They can't enforce the ones we have and most of them are useless in preventing crime (the original reason used for having gun laws). It only makes it hard for those that have no reason to not own a firearm.

Why would states want to "prevent crime" when it is their legislative branch's job to enact new criminal statutes all the time?

Wouldn't it make more sense, that if a state wanted to prevent crimes, they quit making more new laws and take old criminal laws off the books?

[RegularGuy]

Clarence, it is because of specious arguments like yours that I joined the NRA.

I don't own a gun; I've never owned a gun. And I have no plans to buy a gun.

What I DO have is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right under the Second Amendment to own a gun.

I consider that right as precious as any other in the Bill of Rights, and I will do whatever I can to prevent that right from being taken from me.

[Highlander]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Why would states want to "prevent crime" when it is their legislative branch's job to enact new criminal statutes all the time?
Wouldn't it make more sense, that if a state wanted to prevent crimes, they quit making more new laws and take old criminal laws off the books?

Now you're getting all logical, Richard.
.
We can't have that.
.

[Gerardo]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Air travel is not a right? Are you sure about that? Can you cite any court case or law that says that air travel is not a right?

While I don't agree that air travel is a "right" just as driving a car is not a right, there has been reference to it being a right. Airlines can bar your from flying on their airline. An employee of an airline can bar you from your flight, especially if you are foul with them. In my early years during college as a supervisor for an airline, I know I put a few people on that list, a personal list kept by the airline. It is always best to approach airline employees in a calm and collective manner, you get much better results. In areas where the airline employee has some discretion, do you think they will use it on a customer that is rude?

http://www.elliott.org/the-travel-critic/airl...

"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment ... Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."

-- Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles (1958)