No-Draw McGaw is a anti-gun activist

maze51 · May 27, 2002, 07:49 AM

Below is an editorial by Joseph Farah, editor of Worldnetdaily.com. Write or call your representives and express your outrage to bureaucrats like this, it is unbelievable!

No-draw Magaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

With a stroke of the pen, one un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrat – whose name may not be familiar to you – recently ruled that airline pilots may not keep firearms in their cockpits.

His name is John Magaw, or, as I call him, "No-Draw Magaw."

Magaw's newest job is Transportation Security Administration director.

Last week, Magaw told the U.S. Senate that pilots don't need guns. He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible metal batons.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.

"If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?"

Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then."

Hello? Earth to No-Draw: Don't the American people deserve a slightly better explanation than that? Don't the victims of Sept. 11 deserve a slightly more thoughtful response? Don't the families of those victims in both the planes and the buildings deserve some straight talk?

Let me tell you a little more about No-Draw Magaw and his career path to what has become a critically important post in this security-conscious age of international terrorism.

On April 19, 1995, Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You may remember that date in history. It was the day the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed.

"I was very concerned about that day and issued memos to all our field offices," Magaw explained. "They were put on the alert."

As a result of that alert, no ATF field agents in the Murrah Building were killed or injured – even though they were the apparent target of the bombing. No one else in the building got any warning, so 168 men, women and children were killed. But no ATF agent got a scratch. Magaw did a great job of protecting his own that day, but he didn't do much to protect innocent civilians.

The next time I heard about John Magaw was a year later. In 1996, Congress passed a contemptible piece of legislation known as the "Gun Free Zones Act." It created a 1,000-foot "gun-free" zone around every school in America – thus ensuring the Columbines to come.

But No-Draw Magaw, still the ATF director, interpreted this law in an amazingly broad fashion – one that betrayed his persona as a gun-grabbing activist rather than a responsible public official serving the best interest of the taxpayers and under the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Magaw expressed the opinion in writing to at least one member of Congress that "schools," in the case of the "Gun Free Zones Act," included "home schools" that are operated under state law. In other words, Magaw decided it was against the law for home-schooling families to own guns and equally illegal for gun-owners to home-school.

That wasn't the end of the No-Draw Magaw saga. In 1999, President Clinton appointed Magaw to another powerful and sensitive position – coordinating domestic terrorism efforts for the federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, No-Draw was instrumental in planning national policy to prevent terrorism two years prior to the biggest terrorist assault in world history.

We know now, of course, that Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were all devoted to rooting out an imaginary threat from Christian, right-wing, anti-government militia types. Islamist threats were systematically overlooked.

Why did Magaw keep getting these big jobs during the Clinton administration? No-Draw was a favorite of the former president. Before getting the job at BATF, he served as director of Clinton's Secret Service. Imagine the secrets such a man will take to the grave.

Of course, that may explain why he got such posts during the Clinton years. What else explains his continued prominence as a virtual dictator of command-and-control-style national security policy during the Bush administration?

Americans may elect new members of Congress. They may elect new presidents. But they can never, it seems, change the names and faces of the permanent federal bureaucracy, which, ultimately has more negative impact on our rights and liberties than all three of the supposedly accountable branches of government combined.

That's the sad state of American self-government today. As many as 95 percent of Americans may back the common-sense idea of guns in the cockpit, but the permanent government can simply flout the will of the people.

Waitone · May 27, 2002, 09:33 AM

From the deep recesses of my mind I remember the guy from another incident.....was he involved in Ruby Ridge. I could be wrong since my mind grows more feeble by the year.

In any case ain't it interesting what you learn from simple biographies? WND likes journalism the old fashion way; uncovering corruption.

Now will someone run a make on Manetta?

C.R.Sam · May 27, 2002, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.

"....most of whom are trained in the military."
Regretably, I dont think that is a true statement.

Otherwise, a great article.

Sam

brianidaho · May 28, 2002, 02:19 AM

Maze, thanks for posting this, it is a very enlightening article. I must be missing something, what skills does a tax collector have that would make him suitable as director of the Transportation Security Administration? I'm becoming less and less impressed with Bush all the time, he is in too many ways following in the footsteps of his dad.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.

"If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?"

Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then."

The lack of depth and thought in that answer alone is an insult, not just to those killed on 9/11, but to anyone that may continue to use commercial air travel. This POS has to go! Is it worthwhile to start an e-mail campaing to our legislaters on this issue?

Bri

**Art Eatman** · May 28, 2002, 10:07 AM

During the Ruby Ridge hearings, Magaw waffled, warbled the party line and obfuscated as hard as he could to defend the actions of BATF and speak to the horrors of modified shotguns. It was obvious that his take on the Second Amendment is about like Chuckie Schumer's.

Gotta give the $#%^$ credit; no matter how egregious his errors, he lands on his feet within Beltway politicks.

CRSam, I forget exactly, but of commercial aviation pilots, some 48% are ex-military. Give or take a little. A lot of the post-Vietnam guys are now retired.

"Ex-military" might have a bit to do with loyalty to country, but it seems to me that anybody with the judgement and skills to have command of an airliner is more than qualified to judge the need for a pistol, and use it in a proper manner.

Learning to shoot is the easy part; we're not talking IPSC competition! It's knowing when not to shoot that's difficult.

Art

22lovr · May 28, 2002, 10:35 AM

Although I have not talked to him recentlyabout this ruling........

How can a single individual make a blanket edict such as this without any sort of consensus? Gee, am I living a sheltered life or are the lives of our flight crews and passengers worth this little? Who the hell is this guy and who does he think HE is?

I think there's going to be hell to pay in the immediate future and it's all going to be laid at HIS feet and/or his handlers.

snubby · May 28, 2002, 10:53 AM

President Bush could fire or reassign this guy any time he wanted, so any ultimate fallout should be attributed to Bush, if he lets this decision stand.

Carry24x7 · May 28, 2002, 05:16 PM

Whether by action or inaction, this is George all the way!

George is anti-gun!

Futo Inu · May 29, 2002, 06:58 PM

"He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible batons."

Huh? WTH? Which is it - should they be concentrating on flying, or also practicing with the stun guns and batons you may allow them to keep? Clearly anti-gun. Takes as much OR MORE skill/training to use a stun gun or baton as effectively as a gun.

Why doesn't Shrub send this murderous idiot packing to the unemployment office???? Damnit, I'm writing Shrub directly on this one guys - this is ridiculous for him to allow this Clintonite to run this office. Write the White House! (or email them)

labgrade · May 29, 2002, 07:35 PM

"Write the White House! (or email them)"

Yes, yes. E-mail, print it out, fax it & then mail it. While you're at it CC your electeds things on the same mailing - let 'em know.

There isn't any issue right now that could benefit more from a wholesale yelping than this one. & friends & neighbors, if we won't on this, we probably won't on any ....

May 27, 2002, 07:49 AM	#1
maze51 Member Join Date: March 3, 2002 Location: sacramento Posts: 73	No-Draw McGaw is a anti-gun activist Below is an editorial by Joseph Farah, editor of Worldnetdaily.com. Write or call your representives and express your outrage to bureaucrats like this, it is unbelievable! No-draw Magaw -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 27, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com With a stroke of the pen, one un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrat – whose name may not be familiar to you – recently ruled that airline pilots may not keep firearms in their cockpits. His name is John Magaw, or, as I call him, "No-Draw Magaw." Magaw's newest job is Transportation Security Administration director. Last week, Magaw told the U.S. Senate that pilots don't need guns. He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible metal batons. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military. "If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?" Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then." Hello? Earth to No-Draw: Don't the American people deserve a slightly better explanation than that? Don't the victims of Sept. 11 deserve a slightly more thoughtful response? Don't the families of those victims in both the planes and the buildings deserve some straight talk? Let me tell you a little more about No-Draw Magaw and his career path to what has become a critically important post in this security-conscious age of international terrorism. On April 19, 1995, Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You may remember that date in history. It was the day the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. "I was very concerned about that day and issued memos to all our field offices," Magaw explained. "They were put on the alert." As a result of that alert, no ATF field agents in the Murrah Building were killed or injured – even though they were the apparent target of the bombing. No one else in the building got any warning, so 168 men, women and children were killed. But no ATF agent got a scratch. Magaw did a great job of protecting his own that day, but he didn't do much to protect innocent civilians. The next time I heard about John Magaw was a year later. In 1996, Congress passed a contemptible piece of legislation known as the "Gun Free Zones Act." It created a 1,000-foot "gun-free" zone around every school in America – thus ensuring the Columbines to come. But No-Draw Magaw, still the ATF director, interpreted this law in an amazingly broad fashion – one that betrayed his persona as a gun-grabbing activist rather than a responsible public official serving the best interest of the taxpayers and under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Magaw expressed the opinion in writing to at least one member of Congress that "schools," in the case of the "Gun Free Zones Act," included "home schools" that are operated under state law. In other words, Magaw decided it was against the law for home-schooling families to own guns and equally illegal for gun-owners to home-school. That wasn't the end of the No-Draw Magaw saga. In 1999, President Clinton appointed Magaw to another powerful and sensitive position – coordinating domestic terrorism efforts for the federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, No-Draw was instrumental in planning national policy to prevent terrorism two years prior to the biggest terrorist assault in world history. We know now, of course, that Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were all devoted to rooting out an imaginary threat from Christian, right-wing, anti-government militia types. Islamist threats were systematically overlooked. Why did Magaw keep getting these big jobs during the Clinton administration? No-Draw was a favorite of the former president. Before getting the job at BATF, he served as director of Clinton's Secret Service. Imagine the secrets such a man will take to the grave. Of course, that may explain why he got such posts during the Clinton years. What else explains his continued prominence as a virtual dictator of command-and-control-style national security policy during the Bush administration? Americans may elect new members of Congress. They may elect new presidents. But they can never, it seems, change the names and faces of the permanent federal bureaucracy, which, ultimately has more negative impact on our rights and liberties than all three of the supposedly accountable branches of government combined. That's the sad state of American self-government today. As many as 95 percent of Americans may back the common-sense idea of guns in the cockpit, but the permanent government can simply flout the will of the people.

May 27, 2002, 09:33 AM	#2
Waitone Senior Member Join Date: March 19, 2000 Posts: 2,904	From the deep recesses of my mind I remember the guy from another incident.....was he involved in Ruby Ridge. I could be wrong since my mind grows more feeble by the year. In any case ain't it interesting what you learn from simple biographies? WND likes journalism the old fashion way; uncovering corruption. Now will someone run a make on Manetta? __________________ "Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.

May 28, 2002, 02:19 AM	#4
brianidaho Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2000 Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID Posts: 445	Maze, thanks for posting this, it is a very enlightening article. I must be missing something, what skills does a tax collector have that would make him suitable as director of the Transportation Security Administration? I'm becoming less and less impressed with Bush all the time, he is in too many ways following in the footsteps of his dad. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military. "If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?" Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then." The lack of depth and thought in that answer alone is an insult, not just to those killed on 9/11, but to anyone that may continue to use commercial air travel. This POS has to go! Is it worthwhile to start an e-mail campaing to our legislaters on this issue? Bri __________________ I need ammo....lots of ammo. Ever since I got my FAL!

May 28, 2002, 10:07 AM	#5
Art Eatman Staff Lead Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX, USA Posts: 20,944	During the Ruby Ridge hearings, Magaw waffled, warbled the party line and obfuscated as hard as he could to defend the actions of BATF and speak to the horrors of modified shotguns. It was obvious that his take on the Second Amendment is about like Chuckie Schumer's. Gotta give the $#%^$ credit; no matter how egregious his errors, he lands on his feet within Beltway politicks. CRSam, I forget exactly, but of commercial aviation pilots, some 48% are ex-military. Give or take a little. A lot of the post-Vietnam guys are now retired. "Ex-military" might have a bit to do with loyalty to country, but it seems to me that anybody with the judgement and skills to have command of an airliner is more than qualified to judge the need for a pistol, and use it in a proper manner. Learning to shoot is the easy part; we're not talking IPSC competition! It's knowing when not to shoot that's difficult. Art __________________ You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!

May 28, 2002, 10:35 AM	#6
22lovr Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2002 Location: The "burbs," just southwest Atlanta Posts: 757	My brother is a pilot for Continental. Although I have not talked to him recentlyabout this ruling........ How can a single individual make a blanket edict such as this without any sort of consensus? Gee, am I living a sheltered life or are the lives of our flight crews and passengers worth this little? Who the hell is this guy and who does he think HE is? I think there's going to be hell to pay in the immediate future and it's all going to be laid at HIS feet and/or his handlers. __________________ Jeff the 22luvr ><> "You can't know the future but you can know the one who does...." I'm the "Will Rogers" of guns; I've never met one I didn't like.

May 28, 2002, 10:53 AM	#7
snubby Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ Posts: 181	President Bush could fire or reassign this guy any time he wanted, so any ultimate fallout should be attributed to Bush, if he lets this decision stand. __________________ "A man's got to know his limitations." Clint Eastwood in Magnum Force

May 28, 2002, 05:16 PM	#8
Carry24x7 Junior member Join Date: March 18, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 196	The Buck Stops Where? Whether by action or inaction, this is George all the way! George is anti-gun!

May 29, 2002, 06:58 PM	#9
Futo Inu Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 1999 Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA Posts: 3,624	"He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible batons." Huh? WTH? Which is it - should they be concentrating on flying, or also practicing with the stun guns and batons you may allow them to keep? Clearly anti-gun. Takes as much OR MORE skill/training to use a stun gun or baton as effectively as a gun. Why doesn't Shrub send this murderous idiot packing to the unemployment office???? Damnit, I'm writing Shrub directly on this one guys - this is ridiculous for him to allow this Clintonite to run this office. Write the White House! (or email them)

May 29, 2002, 07:35 PM	#10
labgrade Member In Memoriam Join Date: November 29, 1999 Location: west of a small town, CO Posts: 4,346	"Write the White House! (or email them)" Yes, yes. E-mail, print it out, fax it & then mail it. While you're at it CC your electeds things on the same mailing - let 'em know. There isn't any issue right now that could benefit more from a wholesale yelping than this one. & friends & neighbors, if we won't on this, we probably won't on any ....