Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (AP Photo/Mike Derer)
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) yesterday introduced a new measure, ostensibly designed to assist law enforcement in tracking gun purchases by suspected terrorists. Critics, however, suggest that it is yet another measure aimed at the eventual total disarmament of all law-abiding Americans.
In a press release issued yesterday, Senator Lautenberg's office described the act that he calls the PROTECT Act. This is by no means the first Act of Congress named by that acronym. The current measure's full title is "Preserving Records Of TErrorist and Criminal Transactions."
However, the only transactions that the measure is designed to preserve are gun sales. Specifically, this Act would:
- Require the FBI to retain for 10 years all records related to a NICS transaction involving a valid match to federal terrorist watch list records; and
- Repeal the requirement that other background check records be destroyed after 24 hours, and instead require that the records of all non-terrorist transactions be maintained for 180 days.
It makes no sense to immediately destroy information linking a gun purchase to its buyer and seller. We are too often asking law enforcement to protect our communities with one hand tied behind their back. Preserving background check information would help law enforcement do its job and keep our families safe from criminals and terrorists. We must overturn the ill-conceived 24-hour destruction policy so we can successfully combat gun violence and terrorism in America.
The last sentence above suggests that Senator Lautenberg is interested more in gun control in general than in homeland security in particular.
Critics, including the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner and the editor of the blog Snowflakes in Hell, cite two flaws in the Senator's reasoning. The first is that the National Instant Check System (NCIS) has been faulted twice before (in 2004 and 2007) for data-entry errors, with no indication that anyone has adequately addressed the problem. The second is that the current law requiring the destruction of gun-purchase records after twenty-four hours applies only to gun purchasers having no current criminal record. Requiring preservation of such records for six months would then appear to cast automatic suspicion of criminal intent upon anyone seeking to purchase a firearm for any reason.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe above.
Comments
Why doesn't this guy move to Israel and disarm them THERE?
That's a funny comment! But remember, isntreal is owned and run by the Banksters, just like the US. I've talked to some isntrealis, they are very brain-washed and confused.
I THOUGHT HE WAS IN A NURSING HOME? WHATS HE STILL DOING IN OFFICE.
"Sen. Lautenberg introduces new gun control measure.".... as he has done with boring regularity throughout his political career.
No news happening here folks. Move along please.
Anybody else notice his striking resemblance to Vampire Count Orlok of "Nosferatu"?
This multimillionaire (eighth wealthiest member of Congress) wouldn't even be in office if his illegal late entry into the race hadn't been rubber-stamped by the NJ supreme court following the Torricelli scandals.
When, oh when, are we going to ask the key questions? First, ask Lautenberg if he sees any basic character differences between private citizens without criminal records and the terrorists. Second, ask him what he wants to do to the citizens of this country that makes him so anxious to disarm us.
Please, please, please, get these lunatics out of office. Enough is enough.
what about the oath of office he took to preserve and protect the constitution can him for breaking his oath he should be fired for oath breaking along with all politicians that bring up gun bans
rer--Good question.The next good question is:--Why aren't the people who elect these tyrants aware of the constitutional issue and asking your question (per TexasFats) too?And,also,why are there so many people so eager to sacrifice the rights and freedoms bought at so great a cost to this country on the altar of the fantasy of gun control?There are even a number of writers here at examiner.com. who rail endlessly against Second Amendment rights,repeating endlessly the standard gun control lies.And why are there so many clueless people in America who don't "get" the simple truths that gun control laws can't and don't affect criminals,but only affect and disarm law abiding citizens. You can bet that the scum tyrants, like Lautenberg, Schumer, Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder, and Obama "get" it, but they wouldn't get very far if it weren't for the ignorance and/or apathy of their constituants that they play upon and counts on to be able to push their unlawful unconstitutional agenda.
i am a gun owner and support the 2nd amendment. however, i do support some "gun control" measures that increase public safety or aid law enforcement in preventing identified criminals from acquiring weapons. i am so tired of sensationalist reporting that takes a perfectly good proposal, cherry picks facts and comes to the same tired conclusion, ".....that it is yet another measure aimed at the eventual total disarmament of all law-abiding Americans." good grief. how every single proposal of restricting someone from owning a gun translates to the total disarmanent of the american public is such a ludicrious argument and an insult to peoples intelligence.
Get a rope and a tree
There's a third flaw in the good senator's reasoning as well. It's the watch list. There are over a million names on that list already - so either there are many Americans on there who don't deserve to be, or our government has an open door policy on terrorists. There is no reason whatsoever for forbidding a gun sale to someone simply because they got on that list - Sen. Ted Kennedy was on the list for crying out loud. Babies are on that stupid list. How can the senator possibly belive in managing something as important as gun sales by a list so notoriously mis-managed?
Rev Dave
So fix the process, not the proposal. dont you see that the intent is to keep guns away from an identified subset of people who should not have the ability to possess weapons? that is all. not the total disarmanent of america as the alarmists would have you believe.
oldmanat50
brillant response, i dont have a comeback. typical dittohead.
@rukidding--No, we are not kidding. At least, I don't think your fellow commenters are, and I certainly am not.
The current administration have been suggesting that ordinary citizens who are protesting the current direction of our government are little better than terrorists. That alone should give you pause.
Maybe it's time to rely on a true citizens' militia for homeland security. How far do you think a terrorist would get if everyone at, say, a ballgame were armed? How do you think robbery gangs were stopped in the Old West? In short: rather than try to tell in advance who might be a terrorist, why not set it up so that no terrorist could ever reasonably expect to accomplish his objective? To do that, allow your neighbors to be the last line of defense--and you might want to join that last line yourself.
-Terry
your comment--"The current administration have been suggesting that ordinary citizens who are protesting the current direction of our government are little better than terrorists." is the very point i was making below. fabrication and chicken little reporting. can you provide the exact quotes where the "current administration" states that ordinary citizens are little better that terrorists? I will bet you cant.
@rukidding--Sorry, but you lost. Be thankful that you deal with a Christian, who neither bets nor takes bets, but simply assigns confidence levels.
Blockquote:
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.
Close blockquote.
And Janet Napolitano has never once apologized, and indeed stands by what she said.
-Terry
your comment--"The current administration have been suggesting that ordinary citizens who are protesting the current direction of our government are little better than terrorists." is the very point i was making below. fabrication and chicken little reporting. can you provide the exact quotes where the "current administration" states that ordinary citizens are little better that terrorists? I will bet you cant.
terry, slick, but i dont buy it. you sidestep but i will follow. what is the source of the entire blockquote? your block quote contains a quoted phrase, "rightwing extremism in the United States". the rest is outside of quotes yet you attempt to attribute all of the block quote to Napolitano in your last sentence. the rest of "someones" words that you are block quoting are "including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." then you bring home the bacon with an out of context quote.
you almost achieved your goal of completely avoiding the original debate by attempting to cloud the item up for debate.
the intent of Latenberg's measure is to RETAIN RECORDS OF GUN PURCHASES FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS. this will give the authorities more time to follow up on illegal sales.
the GAO released a report earlier this year finding that from February 2004 through February 2009 there were 963 cases in which a known or
or suspected terrorist was cleared to buy a firearm or explosive.
the argument that the list has errors and this legislation is anti-gun and therefore supported by people who want to take your guns away is deceitful at its worst and paranoid at its best.
if the list has a few errors, fix the list. dont damn the legislation.
If the citizens of New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and California continue to vote these traitors into office, then they don't deserve the constitutional rights and freedoms that they have voluntarily p---ed away. The lawless, criminal politicians, like Frank Lautenberg, are only part of the problem, in my opinion. The real problem,as I mentioned, is the people and THEIR unwillingness to elect officials who will honor and defend the LAW-the U.S. Constituion, just as they swore to do.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!