sm
member
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/o...ubsection=COMMENTARY&year=2003&month=3&day=10
--------
Monday, March 10, 2003
Lockyer breaches firearm database
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer should realize that he not only must enforce the law, but be sure his department obeys it as well.
At issue is the 1993 Brady Bill federal gun-control law that set up a nationwide database for gun purchasers. For every new gun purchased, the gun dealer checks the purchaser's name with the National Instant Check System. If the purchaser is denied, such as for being a felon, the gun is not sold. The federal government then destroys the data.
However, "More than 14,000 times over the last four years, now averaging more than 4,000 times a year, the California Department of Justice has run background checks though the National Instant Check System (NICS) before police returned to their owners guns that had been confiscated or used in a crime," reported the Associated Press last week.
The U.S. Justice Department, to its credit, says that such checks are improper because they're not for gun purchases. It is wrong to use a national database intended by Congress for one purpose, for a different purpose, especially by law enforcement. Otherwise, governments could, with impunity, easily spy on citizens using the many databases out there: medical, DMV, the national "deadbeat dad" database, bank records, military records, etc.
AP continued, "During a conference call last fall, an attorney with the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division warned the head of the California program that using the national database is illegal and state officials could be criminally prosecuted, [Lockyer spokesperson Hallye] Jordan said."
Although two other federal crime databases can be checked instead of NICS, Ms. Jordan told us, "Since all the databases are [included] in the NICS, we can do it with one inquiry," instead of two.
Here's what the Brady Bill actually says regarding the database: "No department agency, officer, or employee of the United States may - (1) require that any record or portion thereof maintained by the system ... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof."
Steve Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer who litigates gun issues, reminded us that the Brady Bill's NICS system was passed "as a compromise between those who wanted a complete database and those who didn't want any check" on gun purchasers.
The way to resolve this problem is for Mr. Lockyer to stop violating the clear wording of the Brady Bill.
--------
Monday, March 10, 2003
Lockyer breaches firearm database
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer should realize that he not only must enforce the law, but be sure his department obeys it as well.
At issue is the 1993 Brady Bill federal gun-control law that set up a nationwide database for gun purchasers. For every new gun purchased, the gun dealer checks the purchaser's name with the National Instant Check System. If the purchaser is denied, such as for being a felon, the gun is not sold. The federal government then destroys the data.
However, "More than 14,000 times over the last four years, now averaging more than 4,000 times a year, the California Department of Justice has run background checks though the National Instant Check System (NICS) before police returned to their owners guns that had been confiscated or used in a crime," reported the Associated Press last week.
The U.S. Justice Department, to its credit, says that such checks are improper because they're not for gun purchases. It is wrong to use a national database intended by Congress for one purpose, for a different purpose, especially by law enforcement. Otherwise, governments could, with impunity, easily spy on citizens using the many databases out there: medical, DMV, the national "deadbeat dad" database, bank records, military records, etc.
AP continued, "During a conference call last fall, an attorney with the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division warned the head of the California program that using the national database is illegal and state officials could be criminally prosecuted, [Lockyer spokesperson Hallye] Jordan said."
Although two other federal crime databases can be checked instead of NICS, Ms. Jordan told us, "Since all the databases are [included] in the NICS, we can do it with one inquiry," instead of two.
Here's what the Brady Bill actually says regarding the database: "No department agency, officer, or employee of the United States may - (1) require that any record or portion thereof maintained by the system ... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof."
Steve Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer who litigates gun issues, reminded us that the Brady Bill's NICS system was passed "as a compromise between those who wanted a complete database and those who didn't want any check" on gun purchasers.
The way to resolve this problem is for Mr. Lockyer to stop violating the clear wording of the Brady Bill.
