USA: "Ashcroft's Odd Interpretation"

[cuchulainn]

from The Ledger (Lakeland, Fla.)

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031121/NEWS/311210322/1036

Published Friday, November 21, 2003

Ashcroft's Odd Interpretation

The Washington Post reported this week that the FBI launched a new background-check system for its counterterrorism agents. When suspected terrorists try to purchase a gun -- but are denied for some reason -- the FBI is permitted to investigate the purchasers.

But if a terrorist is successful in making the purchase, counterterrorist agents are not notified. A Justice Department official issued a written statement explaining the policy: "Being a suspected member of a terrorist organization doesn't disqualify a person from owning a gun any more than being under investigation for a nonterrorism felony would."

That policy is in place because of Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's the same John Ashcroft who told a congressional hearing less than two weeks after the terrorist attacks in 2001: "It's our position at the Justice Department and the position of this administration that we need to unleash every possible tool in the fight against terrorism and to do so promptly."

Gun checks aren't among the tools Ashcroft, a longtime member of the National Rifle Association, wants to use.

"This policy is mind-boggling," Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., told The Post. "We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, the Justice Department's policy is to refuse to reveal his location to law-enforcement officials."

Tuesday, Lautenberg introduced a bill requiring the Justice Department to tell law-enforcement officials when someone listed as a suspected terrorist buys a gun.

Lautenberg said Ashcroft is making too strict an interpretation of the Brady gun-control law that restricts information about gun purchasers. By doing so, said Lautenberg, the attorney general appears to be "taking specific steps to protect the rights of terrorists to obtain guns."

In December 2001, Ashcroft told a congressional panel that it was "my belief that the United States Congress specifically outlaws and bans the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database, and that's the use of approved purchase records, for weapons checks on possible terrorists or on anyone else."

The policy is in direct conflict with the department's official interpretation of the law, according to a department memo obtained by the Public Broadcasting Service. After reviewing the Brady Law, department officials said, "We see nothing in the NICS regulations that prohibits the FBI from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records."

When Ashcroft's interpretation first emerged in late 2001, Sarah Brady, chief promoter of the Brady Law, said Ashcroft had been forceful when going after terrorists. But she said she found it "absurd that he would use every possible tool to investigate these suspects, except using existing records to determine whether they bought guns."

She added that if Ashcroft believed the FBI was prohibited from using these background records, "why didn't he seek to change that in anti-terrorism legislation?"

If Ashcroft doesn't see a need for change, Congress should do it for him.

Copyright 2003 The Ledger

 

[Mark Tyson]

It's amazing how Ashcroft is pilloried for infringements on other constitutional rights, but scolded for not infringing second amendment rights to the satisfaction of the ruling class.

Oh, I forgot. It's called hypocrisy.

 

[Sam Adams]

Lousyberg thinks that the biggest danger to this country is a terrorist being able to legally acquire a gun? What a blithering idiot! Such a person is quite unlikely to even attempt to buy a gun legally, let alone be stopped from committing a terrorist act because he may be denied a gun in a NICS check. What a load of horse manure! I am sure that someone willing to spread Anthrax among the population, or set off a suitcase nuke, or drive a jetliner into a building full of people will be dissuaded from doing so because they can't buy a gun (which, by the way, wouldn't be particularly useful for an act of mass terrorism anyway). Heck, if I were going to commit an act of terrorism (and I'm not, Homeland Security lurkers!), I'd buy some gasoline and torch some firetrap nightclub full of people - it isn't original (remember the Happy Land Social Club in NYC in '91?), but it is effective. Also, its a bunch cheaper and there's no NICS check to buy gas.

This is just Lousyberg trying to foist his anti-gun agenda down our throats AGAIN, using whatever lies and specious logic that he thinks someone will buy into. Eff him.

 

[Dave R]

Ashcroft's "odd" interpretation is the actual law of the land, I believe.

Lautenberg wants to throw away "due process" entirely, if you are under suspicion as a terrorist.

 

[HankB]

. . . if a terrorist is successful in making the purchase . . .

Are the government's records so fouled up that a terrorist would pass the NICS background check?

If so, then I don't know whether to or

 

[Bill Hook]

Why the focus on guns? Terrorists won't waste their time with something that will yield so few casualties.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Are the government's records so fouled up that a terrorist would pass the NICS background check?

Did you really need to ask?