Schumer/Gillibrand Urge 90-day Retention of NICS Records

imported post

http://www.wptz.com/news/19228173/detail.html

Schumer, Gillibrand Urge Repeal Of Gun Records PolicyObama Supports Gun Record AmendmentPOSTED: 10:31 am EDT April 20, 2009
UPDATED: 11:34 am EDT April 20, 2009


NEW YORK -- [/b]New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are calling for the repeal of federal policy requiring records of gun background checks be destroyed after 24 hours.The Democratic lawmakers say the Tiahrt Amendment restricts police from using gun trace information.They said such information is crucial to cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and reducing gun violence.Schumer and Gillibrand are urging President Barack Obama to reinstate a 90-day retention period.Obama has said he supports the repeal of the amendment.

===========================================

This calls for yet another round of contacts to our Senators and Representatives.

At risk is both the Tiahrt Amendment and having a defacto permanent gun registry built into a government database (due to the fact that if the original data is kept for 3 months, rather than 24 hours it will wind up data-based in any number of government and anti-gun organizations).

Here's my FAX:

===================================

Strongly urge your help and support in DEFEATING any effort to change NICS guidelines and/or subvert Tiahrt!

[/b]New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are calling for the repeal of federal policy requiring records of gun background checks be destroyed after 24 hours.

The N.I.C.S guidelines were made the way they are for a reason - and that reason is twofold:

(1) It isn't necessary to keep that info any longer than 24-hours - once a check is done, it's done - no un-needed banks of expensive-to-keep-and-maintain data or extra personnell to keep up with it.

(2) NOT keeping that data for longer than 24-hours helps ensure that an illegal database of gun-purchasers can not be accomplished. Stretching the time-limit on retention of N.I.C.S requests from 24 hours to three months will virtually guarantee that that information will find its' way into numerous government and PRO-gun control organizations, where it will be illegally MIS-used.

The "Tiahrt Amendment" is - contrary to the anti-gun factions' lies - totally useful to law enforcement itself of all stripes and protected from anti-gun mis-use.

The Tiahrt Amendment is something that is VITAL to protect , both from a law-enforcement AND a "freedom/privacy" context. I urge your strongest vigilance in keeping it so - and untouched.

I would point out to you this - national policies on firearms issues are NOT the purview of gun-hating New York Senators! You do NOT take orders from them!

Thank you for listening - and acting in behalf of these two matters. Feel free to call or correspond with me about them at the information given below.

(Signed)

===================

Get your Senators' and Representatives' contact info here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and feel free to either c&p MY FAX into a FAX or email to YOUR Reps, or compose and send one of your own.

If NICS gets hi-jacked by the anti-gunners', it's the first (and biggest) step towards national gun registration.

CALL...EMAIL...FAX - just don't be silent on this one! Pete

imported post

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-holder-guns,0,3541696.story

"Holder voices concerns about current rules on gun-buy records

By Associated Press
5:42 PM EDT, April 23, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration may seek to reduce legal limits on sharing gun-purchase data, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress Thursday.

Holder said at a congressional hearing that the so-called Tiahrt amendment — the subject of a years-long fight between opponents and supporters of gun control — may limit evidence-sharing by state and local authorities.

"We are concerned about the impact the amendment has had on the ability to share information that is needed by state and local authorities," Holder said, though he added he wanted to make sure that increased information-sharing does "not put anybody at risk."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a national gun control advocate, has long urged Congress to abolish the Tiahrt amendment. Gun rights advocates say the legislation only prevents frivolous lawsuits against gunmakers, and the further spread of such information may compromise police investigations.

The attorney general said the Obama administration has not yet come to a firm conclusion on the Tiahrt amendment, but suggested they should sit down and talk with groups like the National Rifle Association to try to find areas of agreement.

"Too often there's shouting at each other without any kind of meaningful dialogue," Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

The Tiahrt amendment, named after Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., limits the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to disclose gun-trace data to the public and requires that certain records submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System be destroyed after 24 hours."

=================================

If you haven't contacted your officials about this, I seriously suggest you do - because it's gathering steam. Pete

http://www.alarmandmuster.com/Home.html

imported post

Gillibrand sure didnt waste any time crawling into bed with Shumer did she? I hope the people in her district, which I understand is strongly conservative, vote her 2 faced ass out of office next year.

imported post

Huck wrote:

Gillibrand sure didnt waste any time crawling into bed with Shumer did she? I hope the people in her district, which I understand is strongly conservative, vote her 2 faced ass out of office next year.

Click to expand...

Time for the NRA to take her card back.

imported post

Congressman Tiahrt's response:

http://tiahrt.house.gov/?sectionid=114&sectiontree=5,22,114&itemid=1159

Tiahrt to Holder: Read the Tiahrt Amendment before Drawing False Conclusions
04/24/09

WASHINGTON—U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) issued the following statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments about the "Tiahrt amendment." During a hearing held by the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Holder stated the administration was concerned that the Tiahrt amendment restricts information "needed by state and local authorities."

"Attorney General Holder should read the Tiahrt amendment before giving any further misleading comments about it," said Tiahrt. "Given what the attorney general stated before Congress this week, I am concerned this administration is relying more on talking points from liberal special interest groups rather than on the facts. Instead of drawing false conclusions about the Tiahrt amendment, the attorney general should lend his full support for my trace data language that protects law enforcement officers and honors the privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens.

"The intent of my trace data amendment has always been to protect those who protect us. The language approved by Congress explicitly states that law enforcement officials are to be given full access to firearm trace data.

"My amendment also protects the privacy rights of firearm owners all across America. Just as we protect the privacy of medical and financial records, we should also protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens who exercise their 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm. Publicly disclosing who owns a firearm would only benefit thieves and criminals intent on doing harm to our families and property.

"As in previous years that the Tiahrt amendment has come under attack by groups opposed to 2nd Amendment rights, I will continue fighting to protect law enforcement officers and support privacy rights of law-abiding firearm owners."

In fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 the House Appropriations Committee included language sponsored by Tiahrt to ensure that firearm trace data and multiple handgun purchase data remains where it belongs, in the hands of law enforcement officials and prosecutors as well as ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) continue to release annual aggregate statistical data on firearms. The only restriction regards public disclosure of un-redacted firearm trace data and multiple handgun purchase data. This information was and continues to be made available to all law enforcement officials. The intent of the Tiahrt amendment trace data language is to protect the lives of law enforcement officers, the integrity of law enforcement investigations, and privacy rights of firearm owners.

The ATF and law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest law enforcement organization of sworn law enforcement officers, oppose public disclosure of sensitive firearm trace data because it could jeopardize ongoing investigations and endanger officers’ lives. They asked Tiahrt to protect the integrity of trace data in 2003 and have supported retention of the trace data language each year since.

http://tiahrt.house.gov/uploads/2009 Trace Data Kit1.pdf

Pete

imported post

spy1 wrote:

NEW YORK -- New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are calling for the repeal of federal policy requiring records of gun background checks be destroyed after 24 hours.

Click to expand...

I personally know of no one who believes the records are ever destroyed anyway.

imported post

Totally great article pointed out to me by MThompson, Second Amendment Sisters website (which is a great site for all the gun-owning ladies amongst us! http://www.2asisters.org/ ).

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Char...27-Whats-the-big-deal-about-background-checks

"Any background check system can be used for registration, and
registration is the necessary prelude to confiscation …

Among comments to my last piece, “Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected,” several were from well-meaning gun owners who honestly questioned why S. 843 – ostensibly submitted to close the “gun show loophole” – is really so bad.

A typical and knowledgeable comment went like this:

“I am a very pro-gun person. I own a couple of rifles and I will never support any [‘assault weapon’ ban]. I don't even support the ‘86 [McClure-Volkmer] automatic ban. But background checks should be required for any and every sale. If that means transferring it at the dealer, then fine.

"But any kind of government-kept record of who owns what I am strongly opposed to. Make the bill less ridiculous and get rid of all of the registration clauses and I will not oppose it.”

While reasonable and well-intentioned, the argument contains a presumption which, unfortunately, rarely pertains in politics: It presumes the intentions of the bill are honest. Below are the main three reasons why legislation purporting to require “background checks” is unacceptable.

NOTHING IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS HONEST

After 15+ years of political action, I say with certainty that subterfuge is the rule rather than the exception: I have seen politicians claim undying support for a bill … just before firing an arrow through its heart. I have sat in the chamber as a legislator killed a bill by offering a “poison pill” amendment while assuring everyone: “This amendment is intended to make a good bill better.” I’ve been assured by a subcommittee chairman that a bill I opposed would never get a hearing, minutes before being told by the chairman of the full committee that it would be heard on Thursday.

In teaching legislative tactics seminars, I tell students: “Lest you think the political process is designed to exclude you, let me assure you that it is.” With few exceptions, politicians are weasels, and the few legislators with character I’ve met will never advance to higher office precisely because they are trustworthy.

Lessons of the Brady Act: In 1993, we were assured by Handgun Control, Inc. and the NRA alike that the National Instant Check System (NICS) would never be used to register guns. NICS transaction records, we were assured, were required to be expunged. Unfortunately, the fine print didn’t say when they had to be expunged, and the Clinton administration immediately instructed the FBI to retain them indefinitely, creating a de facto gun registration system in violation of federal law. Although the Bush administration ordered transaction records expunged in 24 hours, Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have already proposed again retaining them.

Conclusions: You cannot create a “background check” system that manipulative politicians can’t turn into a gun registration system, as they already have. The goal of “gun show” legislation, in truth, is to not only decimate the gun culture which reinforces itself via gun shows, but to register private gun sales – in the case of S. 843 – with both the Attorney General and the FBI.

“Perhaps,” you say, “but what’s wrong with registering guns? It isn’t as though somebody is taking them away from you.”

REGISTRATION: PRELUDE TO CONFISCATION

No, this is not “black helicopters are after my guns” paranoia, nor is it a history of other countries like Britain, which rounded up previously registered guns after the Dunblane massacre. And I certainly won’t feed “that can’t happen here” fantasies by describing Nazi gun laws.

Nope. These are the “100% made in America” lessons of California and New York.

Self-evident is the fact that you can’t confiscate what you can’t find. Lest you think that is not the agenda of at least some Democrats, let me remind you of Sen. Diane Feinstein’s 1994 remarks to “60 minutes”:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

California & “Roberti-Roos”

Ever the leader in leftism, California passed the “Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989,” ostensibly in response to massacres in 1959 in San Ysidro, and in Stockton in 1989. The act banned semi-automatic weapons by name and “grandfathered” weapons registered with the state. In the years (and profuse litigation) that followed, however, California twice required gun owners who had dutifully registered their guns to turn them in, render them inoperable, or demonstrate they had been transferred out of state, all under threat of criminal prosecution, of course.

In 1999, California decided to reinterpret existing law, banning SKS rifles not previously included in the original law, and requiring gun owners to turn them in under threat of prosecution. Reported WorldNetDaily:

“One of the more famous arrestees was James Dingman of Santa Clara for possession of an unregistered SKS rifle with a fixed magazine.”

Even more egregious was California’s decision to expose owners of 2,000 guns registered under the law to criminal prosecution for the crime of actually registering them: Although Roberti-Roos required guns to have been bought by June 1, 1989 and registered with the California Department of Justice by March 30, 1992, Attorney General Dan Lungren extended the registration deadline.

On August 21, 1998, however, the Superior Court in San Francisco decided Lungren lacked the authority to extend the deadline. When Lungren’s successor, Bill Lockyer, later backed away from defending the registration extension, he exposed 1,500 previously law-abiding gun owners to prosecution. Said the Los Angeles Times:

“Putting close to 1,500 gun owners in legal jeopardy, state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has decided to drop a court fight defending his predecessor's controversial practice of registering semiautomatic assault weapons declared illegal by a 1989 state law.
“The decision means that the owners of almost 2,000 UZIs, AK-47s, AR-15s and 72 other types of assault weapons will face a fine and imprisonment if they do not turn in their guns, destroy them or take them out of California.

"’If they don't, they will be felons in illegal possession of an assault weapon,’ said Nathan Brankin, Lockyer's spokesman.”
“Yes,” you say, “but that was just a bureaucratic SNAFU. Such a thing could never happen intentionally. Let us now turn to the City of New York …

New York City rifle and shotgun registration

In 1967, the New York City Council passed, and Mayor John V. Lindsay signed, a law requiring New Yorkers to pay a $3 fee and register all rifles and shotguns, including make, model and serial number. Ignoring, for a moment, promises that the fee would never increase (at last report, it was $55), most ironic was the vow by The New York Times that the law “would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers.”

In 1991, the city council, at the behest of Mayor David Dinkins, passed Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1, banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Shortly thereafter, the NYPD kindly instructed the 2,340 New Yorkers who had complied with the registration law to return sworn statements the guns had been surrendered, rendered inoperable, or transferred elsewhere. NYPD deputy commissioner Jeremy Travis promised “spot checks” to ensure compliance.

Reports the NRA:

“The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.”

‘GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE’ IS NOT ABOUT GUN SHOWS

Beyond voluminous evidence that criminals don’t get guns from gun shows, Lautenberg and anti-gun politicians know full well that laws governing gun transfers are the same at guns shows as anywhere else. The “loophole” they plan to close is the private transfer of firearms by requiring all such transactions to go through NICS, and their motivation is to register each and every gun and gun owner.

In the exceedingly unlikely event you could produce final legislation not filled with the “gotchas” so adored by anti-gun Democrats, you could not draft a law that I could not eventually convert to a registration scheme. And as history has repeatedly demonstrated – not only in autocracies and foreign nations but in the United States – registration is the necessary prelude to confiscation.

I leave you with philosopher George Santayana’s adage, as true as it is trite: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” "

Yet another reason to contact your Reps about this! Pete

*And - click on the link to that article and "Digg" it if you can!

imported post

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time and made the effort to call/fax/email about protecting the Tiahrt Amendment - because, so far , it's working. This is from a group whose members are one of our most serious adversaries:

====================================

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1135

Washington, DC - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement today about the Obama Administration’s failure to propose, in its FY 2010 budget, repeal of the “Tiahrt Amendments” that require the destruction of most Brady background check records, prohibit the government from requiring gun dealers to fully account for their firearms, and prohibit public access to crucial information about guns used in crime:

“We are profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for ‘openness’ by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments. This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms.

“President Obama’s proposal undermines the landmark Brady Law by continuing the dangerous Bush Administration policy requiring the destruction of most Brady background check records in just 24 hours. The government has found that this policy has allowed guns to remain in the hands of hundreds of criminals whose gun purchases were mistakenly approved. (Note: if the NICS check is SOOOO in-effective, shouldn't they be pushing having it abolished entirely? ;D - Pete) How can the President reconcile this policy with his recent statement calling for stronger enforcement of our gun laws?

“President Obama continues to bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from requiring that gun dealers keep track of their firearms by conducting annual inventories - a standard practice for law-abiding businesses. A Brady Center analysis last year found that more than 30,000 guns were ‘missing’ from licensed gun dealers. Gun dealers who have large numbers of guns ‘disappear’ from their inventory often supply criminals. The D.C.-area snipers killed 10 people using an assault rifle they obtained from a gun shop that ‘lost’ at least 238 guns, including the snipers’ assault rifle, over a three year period.”

“In addition, President Obama has made the Tiahrt Amendments’ unprecedented ban on public disclosure of crime gun trace information even worse than before, now even prohibiting law enforcement from communicating it to the public it serves. Prior to 2003, non-confidential trace data was available to researchers, public officials, the media and the public, and enabled all of us to better understand the sources of illegal guns, patterns of gun trafficking, the role of gun dealers in supplying the illegal market and other key facts informing public policy. With gun violence continuing to lead to high levels of death and injury in so many places in our country, policy makers need more, not less, information on the sources of these crime guns. We are saddened to see this ‘gun exception’ to the President’s stated commitment to ‘an unprecedented level of openness in Government.’”

"The Tiahrt Amendments have always been about pleasing a special interest lobby at the expense of public safety. Congress should delete the proposed language and do what the Obama-Biden ticket called for last year when their campaign said they ‘would repeal the Tiahrt amendment.’”

================================

That is the result of people responding to an issue when asked to! YOU did this through your action.

I want you to remember this, take heart from it and keep the pressure on!

Thank you! Pete

imported post

spy1 wrote:

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time and made the effort to call/fax/email about protecting the Tiahrt Amendment - because, so far , it's working.

================================

That is the result of people responding to an issue when asked to! YOU did this through your action.

I want you to remember this, take heart from it and keep the pressure on!

Thank you! Pete

Click to expand...

Thanks Pete for your time and hard work . Chuck Schumer just wants to make a noise to justify his power . He doesn't care a rat's butt about criminal control and the real issues that plaque or nation .

imported post

You're all quite welcome. Pete

imported post

Shumer:... 'Schmuck' personified.

imported post

spy1 wrote:

The N.I.C.S guidelines were made the way they are for a reason - and that reason is twofold:

(1) It isn't necessary to keep that info any longer than 24-hours - once a check is done, it's done - no un-needed banks of expensive-to-keep-and-maintain data or extra personnell to keep up with it.

(2) NOT keeping that data for longer than 24-hours helps ensure that an illegal database of gun-purchasers can not be accomplished. Stretching the time-limit on retention of N.I.C.S requests from 24 hours to three months will virtually guarantee that that information will find its' way into numerous government and PRO-gun control organizations, where it will be illegally MIS-used.

Click to expand...

Excellent points.

We must never trust the government. Never.

imported post

Sent a version of that letter to my Senators. Not that they will care since they are cut from the same cloth as Schumer but they did hear from me.

imported post

Anyone who actually believes that this government destroyed any records of firearm sales must live on another planet.

imported post

Don Barnett wrote:

Anyone who actually believes that this government destroyed any records of firearm sales must live on another planet.

Click to expand...

I'm always skeptical about these things too.

But has there ever been and substantiated allegations or any evidence shown that it did not?

Or is this one of those self-sealing argments that cannot be proven wrong?

imported post

Hank...I am not an IT guy, butI know a bit about personal computers and networks. I have made my own databases for work and for personal stuff; and I know that I can e-mail them all over the place, put them on CD's, DVD's, flash drives, whatever. Who is to know if the records are not copied, before they are declared "destroyed"and then kept somewhere else. Maybe Nancy Pelosi has a copy of them; how are we to know. I don't think that those gun purchase records have the same degree of security over them as, say, Obama's actual birth records.