Gun stuff.

Last week, my federal Representative's staff called to ask me my thoughts on the new NICS bill (I'm generally in favor, though oversight will have to be firm) and the Tiahrt Amendment.

For 5 or 6 years now, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearm traces-records that the BATFE compiles when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

And every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. Well, *Republican* Congresses did. The legislation- enacted as a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE-is known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). This critically important legislation protects the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners, the safety of law enforcement officers, and the integrity of criminal investigations by preventing inappropriate release of confidential firearm trace data except in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.

Huh? Inappropriate release? How would that happen? Ask Mayor Bloomberg, who hires private investigators to go out to other states to play footsie with the law. See Cam Edwards on the subject.

Anti-gun Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee, has announced she will not include the Tiahrt Amendment in the CJS appropriations bill. In this manner, Senator Mikulski will ignore the request of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and the Fraternal Order of Police-supporters of the Amendment-and instead chose to do the bidding of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (A newly-minted Independent). Supporters of this move generally point to the fact that the Chiefs of Police trade groups support this action. I will simply point out that most of them are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of their Mayors. Their rank-and-file workers (represented in the form of the FOP) do not.

Count me in with the FOP and ATFE on this issue. The Mayors, in the form of Mayors Against Illegal Guns don't need access to this information inasmuch as it will compromise on-going investigations. I urged my Representative and Senators to *support* the Tiarht Amendment.

Let's move on to some more fun with guns, media edition.

The MSM, in general, *hates* many provisions of the Patriot Act. Heck, I'm not keen on many of them, either, especially the virtual habeas suspension - though I understand where it comes from, and why, with this being a very different form of war than we're used to.

There's plenty of griping about the "Terrorist No-Fly List" eh? And for good reason, too. Many of those names get on there by accident, coincidence, and yes, malice - and it's damn hard to get your name off, especially since the government pretty much doesn't have to tell you why you're on it, which makes it somewhat of a challenge to get your name off of it, once you make it on the list.

How many of you have heard about about S.1237, titled the `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007'.

Hey, can't argue with that, eh? All Senator Lautenberg wants to do is "...increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists."

No worries, right? Well... hmmm. "Suspected." Lots of room for mischief there, as we've found with the no-fly list.

The key graf in the bill is pretty much the same wording that makes getting your name off of the no-fly list hard:

(g) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.'.

(2) SUMMARIES- Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'.

(h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: `If the person is subject to a disability under section 922(g)(10) of this title, any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'

The bill essentially allows the Attorney General to administratively strip you of your rights, and sets a potentially high bar for you to contest the finding - especially since the government can just obfuscate and delay, simply because they are busy...

Oh - and if you're ineligible to *receive* a firearm... you're ineligible to *have* a firearm. Which means here, at Castle Argghhh, they'd bring up the U-Haul to take 'em away. And they don't always treat 'em well while they have them. And some places, like Denver, are known for just having 'em destroyed and going "oops."

If the "No-Fly list" as constituted and run as it is now is bad... then so is this bill, as written. But how many of you have heard of it, before today? I'm guessing not many... because the general bias of the MSM will, I predict, cause them to twist and squirm to point out how this is different from the "no-fly list". Because anything that takes guns off the street and reduces the eligible gun-owning population is good, and, unlike the no-fly list, won't affect too many of the MSM-types and their fellow-travelers. And that's only if they mention it all, until they are forced to.

Note to Representative Boyda - this bill, while laden with nice-sounding intent and good motives, opens a huge gaping door for malice and abuse, for political and personal reasons. The House bill is H.2074, sponsored by Representative Peter King (R-NY). I hope I don't see your name added to the list of sponsors... and if it does, well, I'd *love* to hear what you're going to do to *improve* the bill!