The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 12, 2013, 06:52 PM   #1
yamahawarrior89
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Posts: 5
Sen. Carl Levin, Gun ban on TERRORIST!!!

I wrote all my senators and received this as a response from Carl Levin (Michigan):

Quote:
Dear Mr. Huff:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov

Now, one of the major problems I have is that the possible law about terrorists. There are thousands of people on that watch list that won't be a threat to society, but won't be able to purchase a gun because of it. Seems like everyone would end up on the list if they decide to push for a gun ban. This just seems completely radical to me.

He also says 40% of guns are sold without a background check. He claims you can just go to a gunshow and pick up a gun, no questions asked.

Seems like "common sense" isn't so common anymore.
yamahawarrior89 is offline  
Old March 12, 2013, 07:17 PM   #2
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
You might want to tell him that according to the Bureau of Justice studies 40% of crime guns are street sales. Less than 2% are gunshow and flea market sales. Further, of all gun sales everywhere, less than 4% (I think, you may want to look it up again to be sure) was flea market and gun show sales.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 12, 2013, 07:28 PM   #3
yamahawarrior89
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Posts: 5
I agree Jim

It just seems like the answer he gave is a whole bunch of misinformation (lies). Also the point about how AR's have no sporting purpose... I mean, open your freaking eyes man.
yamahawarrior89 is offline  
Old March 12, 2013, 07:33 PM   #4
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Then schedule a meeting with him, and bring information along. Three Gun comps, the President's Cup at Camp Perry, a print out of that Bureau of Justice Study.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 12, 2013, 07:35 PM   #5
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
To dedicated anti-self defense Levin, every gun capable of rapid fire is owned by a terrorist. Levin simply does not get it.

Last edited by Vanya; March 12, 2013 at 08:59 PM. Reason: silly name-calling.
thallub is offline  
Old March 12, 2013, 10:41 PM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,749
You might want to get his answers to a few questions, although it seem pretty clear from his response which side of the rights denying line he voluntarily places himself.

Some questions I would like to hear his answers to are;
Quote:
I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases.
How many of those 1.5 million denials were only delays? How many of those 1.5 MILLION resulted in arrests, how many in prosecution? How many in conviction? He won't know, and likely won't bother to find out, but he's more than happy to claim his part in the "good work" that was done.

Note that a couple years after the law went into effect, the Clinton administration bragged about how "thousands" of purchases were prevented. Actual arrests for breaking the law? About 43...

And note that our current VP publicaly stated that when it comes to prosecuting people who break the law trying to buy a gun (from a dealer), his response was "we don't have time for that..."

Quote:
I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act,
Apparently he is ok with allowing terrorists who are not dangerous access to Firearms and explosives....

Yes, current law does allow persons on the Terrorist watch list to buy a gun, which is as it should be. People on that list are NOT CONVICTED of any crime. They may be suspected of wrong doing, or they may simply be on the list due to some clerical error. Either way, they are not convicts, nor otherwise prohibited persons. Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way the US is supposed to work.

Yet that is exactly what his proposed law would do. Where is the Constitutional authority to deny rights based on what someone in govt THINKS you MIGHT DO? If you have evidence, arrest them. Deny people their right to arms, or to get on an airplane, or anything else because their name is on a SECRET govt LIST? This isn't the America I grew up in, and if we keep electing people like MR Levin it will, sadly be the America my grandkids grow up in.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 05:15 AM   #7
NoGun
Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2013
Posts: 23
Emphasis mine:
Quote:
This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

That would seem to spit in the eye of "innocent until proven guilty." Punishment before conviction one could say.

Frightful.
NoGun is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:19 PM   #8
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
He Clearly Has Drunk the Cool-Aid

but to his credit, at least his answer didn't equivocate with phony "common sense" platitudes. He was specific, precisely defined his position, and didn't apologize for it. I'll give him that.

In my experience, the gun haters usually cloak their real position with ambiguous phrases like "common sense" and "reasonable measures". They hope to assuage their supporters, who speak the same language, and baffle their opponents whom they believe to be stupid.

So Levin may be a lot of things, but at least he was honest and direct with you. That in itself is a rare enough quality in politicians of any stripe.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:45 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamahawarrior89
Now, one of the major problems I have is that the possible law about terrorists. There are thousands of people on that watch list that won't be a threat to society, but won't be able to purchase a gun because of it. Seems like everyone would end up on the list if they decide to push for a gun ban. This just seems completely radical to me.
That was my reaction while reading his letter, even before seeing your comment. A terrorist watch list is not a conviction before a judge and jury. There is no due process in the process of putting a name on a terrorist watch list. To use that as the basis for denying anyone the constitutionally guaranteed right to the tools of self-defense is just plain wrong, legally and morally.

If someone is such a threat to the people of the United States that we can't allow them to buy a gun -- why are we allowing them to walk on our streets?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 11:58 PM   #10
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
Please please

Please tell me if I am wrong.

But is it not the law in every state, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a dealer (not ind. sale) that you have to have a background check?

If so, why do they lie so much and get away with it?
Texshooter is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 06:21 AM   #11
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texshooter
. . . But is it not the law in every state, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a dealer (not ind. sale) that you have to have a background check?
It is the law in every state, because it's federal law.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:05 AM   #12
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 616
"Gun Show" is a buzz word meant to invoke false images. First it is implied that gun show dealers operate differently than store front dealers. 2nd, it is implied that private sales at gun shows are somehow different than private sales elsewhere.

I haven't bought a gun from a dealer in years, but who currently pays for the instant background check? Is there a fee?

3rd, if they were to invoke mandatory background checks for private sales, would anyone really comply? I believe it would make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens who would be unwilling to submit to the inconvenience. Really, how could it be enforced unless one of the two parties was an agent or reported the sale to one? Of course, its only a lead in to "this is why we need a national registry", because without one they cannot track private sales and background checks.

Do street thugs go to gun shows? If they wear the standard uniform, and look like street thugs, would anybody really deal with them?
TimSr is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 09:10 AM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
So basically, if I am involved in terrorism and want to see whether the FBI is watching me, I just go and try to buy a firearm and I get an immediate answer? Good deal for terrorists I guess.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 09:18 AM   #14
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,536
Quote:
There is no due process in the process of putting a name on a terrorist watch list.
That's my main issue with the list. It's done in private, with no notification. You won't even know you're on it until you're denied services. At that point, the appeal process is nebulous and byzantine.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 09:43 AM   #15
Addler
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 6
Everyone please send this creep a letter telling him you will not support him or ever vote for him.....He is one of the many that want to take away your rights to own the firearms of your choice.
Addler is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:30 AM   #16
Mezzanine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 103
What kind of a 2nd rate terrorist buys their kalashnikovs from gander mountain? Jokes on them because they over paid anyways. But joking aside keeping firearms out of known/suspected gang members is far more important to me than suspected terrorists.

Perhaps a terrorist trying to buy a firearm legally who gets denied on a check connects the dots and realizes they are a suspected terrorist. Then they disappear and any ties to terror organizations are broken thus inhibiting the ability to identify the lowers in the organization and follow the chain to the key players. Just a hypothetical to stir around the noggin.
Mezzanine is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 07:00 AM   #17
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 616
The only terror attack on US soil that involed firearms in recent history that I can think of was at Ft. Hood by a US soldier who happen to be an Islamic Jihadist using military issue weapons. Seems to me there are a few other obvious characteristics that tie a lot more terrorists together than firearms purchases.
TimSr is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:32 PM   #18
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,005
Be warned. I've deleted a couple of posts for personal attacks on Sen. Levin (calling him a Marxist, etc.) -- such attacks are a violation of forum rules.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:45 PM   #19
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
The fact that the terrorist watch list is secret, and anyone can be on it for any reason, makes this a scary prospect. They could literally add every US citizen to it tomorrow and bar everyone from gun ownership. You have no way of knowing you've been added, or removing yourself from the list either!

It's a terrible idea, and evidence that the slippery slope is indeed in effect in regards to gun control.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12014 seconds with 7 queries