U.S. threatens to sue state for using gun database

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

> Cees Binkhorst schreef o.m.:
>> De FBI en de Federal Justice Department (van Ashcroft, die meneer
die van mening is dat Frankrijk en Duitsland bij oud-Europa horen)
letten de laatste tijd ook op de belangen van de leden van de NRA
(National Rifle Association), oftewel de wapenfabrikanten.

Cees: Zoals Herman hierop reeds heeft gereageerd is Rumsfeld de man
die het over oud Europa had.

Mark Koek <mark at koek.net> schreef:
> Da's geen goeie voorstelling van zaken. Massa's Amerikanen zijn uit
> volle overtuiging lid van de NRA.

Ben met je eens dat het kort door de bocht is. Maar de associatie
tussen de wapenfabrikanten en de NRA is ook weer niet zo gering als
de NRA wil doen geloven.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiecht.htm
De 'bekende' bijdragen in 1994/5 door wapenfabrikanten of gelieerde
personen.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that it supports vigorous
enforcement of our nation's gun laws and efforts to keep guns out of
the hands of criminals. Yet the NRA has actually worked to put guns
back into criminals' hands. Following is the saga of the federal
"relief from disability" program. The NRA has worked to expand and
protect this guns-for-felons program that has rearmed thousands of
convicted—and often violent—felons.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp
In October 2000, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a
challenge brought by notorious assault weapon manufacturer Navegar,
Inc., after the case had been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. The Circuit Court had rejected
Navegar's arguments that the statute exceeded the power of Congress
to regulate interstate commerce and constituted an unconstitutional
bill of attainder. The NRA brought its own lawsuit against the
statute in Michigan federal court, but was dismissed by the court for
lack of standing to sue. Assault weapon maker Olympic Arms continued
the suit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in March of 2000.
The appeal, argued by an NRA attorney, was heard by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in April of 2002.

http://www.geocities.com/burningbush2000/28.html
At the same time, the NRA is becoming more openly aligned with the
GOP this election season than ever before. In 1999 and 2000, the NRA
has given the Republican Party $537,500 in "soft money" donations,
which can be given to political parties in unlimited amounts. In the
1996 cycle, the NRA gave $87,725 in soft money to the GOP, and in
1997-98 it gave the Republicans $350,000. It donated no soft money to
the Democrats in all those years.
NRA officials say they will spend more this election season than ever
before--$12 million to $15 million, and possibly more, on ads,
political donations, direct mail and phone banks. The investment is
leading to rapid growth in NRA membership, they said--up 1 million,
to 3.5 million.

http://www.redshift.com/~jamesm2/ashcroft1262001.htm
We have just learned that the Justice Department has refused to allow
the FBI to examine federal background check records to determine if
any of the 1,200 people detained after the September 11 attacks had
purchased guns in the United States.
[knip]
In short, nothing trumps our Attorney General's devotion to so-called
" gun rights." Not your safety, national security or even the war on
terrorism will stop Ashcroft from his mission to properly thank the
NRA for the outrageous amount of money it spent on his 2000
senatorial campaign.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0207gao.htm
Attorney General Ashcroft Misled Congress and the American People on
Legality of Checking Terrorist Gun Purchase Records

> Ze beschouwen wapenbezit als fundamentele vrijheid: voor
> zelfverdediging, en omdat je in de wildernis die daar nog bestaat vrij
> gevaarlijke beesten tegenkomt, maar ook om zich te kunnen verzetten
> tegen de overheid.

De tekst van het 2e amendement van de constitutie van de VS (want
daar heb je het ongetwijfeld over) luidt:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/in_the_news.htm
Under Clinton, the Office of the Solicitor General, the federal
government's top lawyer, wrote in a letter to an NRA member, "there
is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to
own or use a gun." Ashcroft's letter continued, saying, "While some
have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a ‘collective'
right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's
plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and
Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of ‘the
people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that
should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights."

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States (1833)
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary
power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in
the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over
them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the
importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it
cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a
growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a
strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all
regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed
without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is
certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and
disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection
intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Even later wordt vermeld:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is
set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without
the consent of Congress.  The sentiment of the time strongly
disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense
of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians
primarily, soldiers on occasion.

En nog later:
It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, in
which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court,
said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a
right granted by the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The second
amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has
been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
congress.  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . ." . . .

http://www.vpc.org/press/0206court.htm
Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and
security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun
criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court to
overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment. By
declining to hear the Emerson and Haney cases, the Supreme Court–as
it has done repeatedly for decades–once again refused to
reopen the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an
expansive individual right to keep and bear arms that is unrelated in
any way to service in the ‘well regulated militia' cited in the
Second Amendment.

Hier concludeer ik dus uit dat:
- Vrij wapenbezit is voorbehouden aan de Militia
- De Militia ten tijde van de 2nd amendment bestond uit burgers, die
van tijd tot tijd werden opgeroepen redelijk nauwkeurig bepaalde
belangen van een streek of staat te verdedigen of handhaven.
- Organisatie van legers voorbehouden was aan het congres (dit recht
lag dus niet bij de staten)

Om e.e.a. nog meer in context te zetten:
- de huidige VS zijn 270 keer zo groot als Nederland
- ten tijde van de 2nd amendment woonden er 4 miljoen mensen
(http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ 1790 census in 16 staten)
- deze Amerikanen woonden voornamelijk in een kuststrook van 150
kilometer aan de Atlantische Oceaan (ong. 7 keer zo groot als
Nederland).
Het 'gevaarlijke' en dun bevolkte achterland was _toendertijd_ wel
reden om een wapen te dragen.

> Niet dat ik het daarmee eens ben, maar het is wel een serieuze discussie. Als je
> de NRA alleen maar als belangenbehartigers van een bepaalde industrie ziet dan
> onderschat je ze enorm.
>
>
> Mark

Had bovenstaande rechter Joseph Story het over het onderstaande toen
hij schreef:
"... there is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead
to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all
the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of
rights."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030302_167.html
For decades, in cities from coast to coast, FBI agents recruited
killers and crime bosses as informants and then looked the other way
as they continued to commit violent crimes.

When the practice first came to light in Boston unleashing an ongoing
investigation that has already sent one agent to prison for
obstruction of justice FBI officials in Washington portrayed it as an
aberration.

But Associated Press interviews with nine former FBI agents men with
a combined 190 years of experience in more than 25 bureau offices
from Texas to Chicago and from Los Angeles to Washington indicate the
practice was widespread during their years of service between the
late 1950s and the 1990s.


Groet,

Cees

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********