What does the death of a New York City cop have to do with a Kansas congressman? Nothing, according to the office of the latter, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has suggested that if not for the “Tiahrt Amendment” passed two years ago in “the dark of night” restricting access to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ tracing data, Officer Dillon Stewart might not have been fatally shot last week with a stolen gun that had been used in a crime six months ago.
"I think it’s outrageous that he was blaming Congressman Tiahrt for the death of a New York City police officer when the purpose of the original amendment was to save lives of law enforcement officers and was actually supported by the ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police. This amendment passed in broad daylight in the House Appropriations Committee,” Tiahrt spokesman Chuck Knapp told The New York Sun.
Schumer wants Congress to require mandatory reporting of stolen guns and guns used in crimes to the ATF database. This is a worthy issue — and for debate beyond the offices of the National Rifle Association.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
43 Comments
The Law shot the cop? Wow. Powerful law.
More politicians creating turmoil out of thin air.
Why don’t we just try enforcing the laws we already have instead of passing new laws to ignore? If we didn’t have guns, it would be knives or bombs (a serious bomb can be made using materials available in any home).
Guns don’t kill people, politicians do.
I wrote to Cong Tiahrt’s office when the renewal of the ban on automatic weapons was being ignored by the Republican Congress in 2003 and got back a stock reply saying that a gun law restricting sale of firearms would have absolutely no affect on crime. The EAGLE has reported that Cong Tiahrt received over $50,000 from (and is probably still on the payroll of) the NRA. Please allow me to share the letter to you, if you have never written to the Cong Tiahrt about gun control. I’d like to hear what policeman have to say about his stand. (Personally, I have no problem with hunting, use of guns for sport such as skeet shooting, and use of firearms for protection at home. I was writing to him regarding the tolling of the automatic firearms ban.)
In that letter dated Sept 3 2003, Cong Tiahrt stated:”While legislation to ban firearms, ammunition, and firearms equipment makes headlines, the truth is it simply diverts attention from the real issue—a criminal justice system that cannot keep violent predators off our streets….Gun control is not the answer. New York City and Washington, D.C. are prime examples of the failure of radical gun control policies. While these two cities have the two most restrictive gun control laws in the country, they are both known for their violent criminal activity. These cities have gun control, but little crime control….I believe the answer is tougher laws against criminal activity. The government must concentrate on locking up criminals…not imposing criminal penalties on law-abiding citizens who are merely trying to enjoy their freedom and to protect their families and their property.Gun control will merely punish law-abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to criminal attack. This is because very few criminals actually purchase weapons legally. Federal law enforcement agencies estimate that up to 75 percent of all guns used in the commission of a crime are either stolen or purchased illegally. By obtaining guns on the street or through theft, criminals will continue to effectively evade any gun control measure.The problem is not gun control it is with the enforcement of current gun laws. For example, as THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported, in 1998 the Clinton Administration’s Department of Justice (ODJ) prosecuted only six people under the ‘urgently needed’ juvenile gun transfer provision in the last crime bill. As for Clinton’s ‘desperately needed’ ban on certain semi-automatic weapons, the DOJ prosecuted only four people. And as for the thousands of people that the Brady Bill supposedly kept from obtaining firearms illegally, only nine have been convicted for attempting to purchase a firearm with a prior felony conviction.”
There are over 50,000 existing state and federal laws restricting gun ownership already on the books. The people that are going to use them to kill, rob and injur others ignore those laws as well as any others that might be passed.
Blaming a congressman because some dirtbag shot a police officer is reprehensible.
typo…”Injure”…
You may not have a job that pays a living wage or healthcare or a meal for your preschool age kid, but THANK GOD! you still have a constitutional right to own a military assault rifle.
Galahad,
You’re going to get your licks in no matter what the subjct is, aintcha? Take a vacation. Go to Disney world. Beat up a neocon. Rent a right-wing hooker.
Actually you probably can blame Congress esp. Mr Tiahrt for the policeman’s death the Law he had enacted restricts the ablitily of law enforement to track sales and stolen gun data. Mr Tiahrt also was opposed background checks that while not perfect make it harder for murder’s, rapists, child molesters and felons in general from buying guns.
OK. So the discussion here isn’t substantive. Never mind. I’ll try CNN.
Yes Greg, if you ain’t goin’ to ‘pet the dogs’ on your way in, you may as well go some where else.
Rent a right-wing hooker? So I get to screw them for a change?
Nah . . . she’d remind me too much of (ugh) Ann Coulter (shudder).
Ray,
50,000 on the books? Sounds like “urban legend” to me. Have you heard about the slayings of teens making out in cars by a mysterious stranger with a hook for a hand?
Dadgum, Tiahrt’s right again!
Brian, interesting point. How many gun laws are there really? I’ve heard that 50,000 gem several times. I did some checking. There are 271 federal gun laws. Beyond that figure, it gets very murky. I suppose you could go through databases for all 50 states and figure it out, but I don’t have time. Anybody got difinitive numbers? Lets avoid NRA and Brady.
XXX, Thanks,
I think I know how this number was arrived at. They aren’t counting up the “statutes” on gun control, they’re counting the individual passages within a statute that deal with gun controlfor example a particular statute might limit ownership of 1) clips with a capacity greater than 10, 2) assault weapons with a full auto setting, 3) the use of silencers, 4) the use of flash suppressors, …..
So, one “statute” becomes “100″ laws…I guess by that reasoning McDonald’s could claim that you get 100 separate food items in a Happy Meal because you get 98 fries with your burger and drink.
Who cares if there are 100 or 100000 gun laws. They don’t work. It just keeps the price of them a bit higher and keeps me from buying any from a retail dealer. I am greatly offended that if I get a gun from dealer it and I am registered with big brother. All these dumocrates promised there would be none of that, but they lied. Oh, they tear up the record after a week? BS.
Uh…codie… You want to think about your last post a little bit? It’s your republi-puke masters that are keeping records on you. They want to make sure you’re not a terrorist or something. Pal, you support having your name in a database because of what kind of books you check out from the libary (though somehow, I have a hard time imagining YOU in a libary), but the idea of being in a gun registry because you own a gun bothers you. What is wrong with this picture? And as republicans would say, If you’re not breaking the law, why are you worried?
Gun laws keep you from buying guns from a retailer? (I quote, “It just keeps the price of them a bit higher and keeps me from buying any from a retail dealer.”) codie, why do gun laws keep you from buying guns? That usually only happens if you beat your wife and kids, or if you have a criminal background.
Lets recap:You have a soundproof room in your basement.You think torture is a good thing.You can’t legally buy a gun.
Hmmmm……
Brady bill was pure dumocrat. I can’t buy from a retailer without getting it and me registered. Please read the post before responding.
Look at other socialist countries. First register then confiscate.
JMWALKER: (Quoting)”I wrote to Cong Tiahrt’s office when the renewal of the ban on automatic weapons was being ignored by the Republican Congress in 2003″
Automatic weapons were made illegal a long time ago, and there was no failure to renew any ban on automatic weapons, as the ban on automatic weapons was not about to expire.
Automatic weapons can ONLY be owned by complying with a special federal licensing and permit process. Even so, in many states they are illegal.
You might want to find out the differences between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There’s a big difference.
codie, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem? You REALLY think the government (controlled by the republi-pukes) is going to go against a heavily armed population and take away your guns? That’s NUTZ! Or maybe not considering how hard the republipubes are trying to make America a police state. I’m a liberal, I’m well-armed, and they’ll get my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers off the triggers. An armed populace is part of what keeps an over-reaching government in check.
So where do you keep your secret guns? in your sound proof room in the basement?
Mr Completely,On these threads, the post is above the name of the poster, not below it. I believe you mis-quoted JM Walker. Considering JM is a combat vet, You look a little foolish lecturing him about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
Well XXX, we agree on something. They ain’t going to get my guns either or any of my kids’ guns, etc. I believe it is you and your dumocrat buddies that are after them. It is a slow process. The anti gun lobby has a goal and it includes your guns too.It is impossible to disarm just the bad guys. Most gang members are not convicted felons – yet.
Hey codie,Why do you feel such a need for firearms? Are you compensating for some other lack?It seems to me that the jokers who want guns the most are the ones that should be least trusted with them. Guns and stupidity are a dangerous mix, and since we haven’t found a way to ban stupidity……..
JedYou must have an arsenal.
Nope, never felt the need! Not even when I lived at gang central for 14 years.
14 years at gang central without a gun? That’s gotta take some kind of cajones.
codie,”I believe it is you and your dumocrat buddies that are after them.”
Boy, you just don’t listen, do you? I’m a gun owner, so it hardly makes sense that I’d be after your guns. You mentioned the Brady Bill. Didn’t Brady work for one of them republican presidents?
So quote me an instance where Democrats tried to take away legitimate guns.
XXX,No, but it is a real exercise in integrity. If you’re absolutely up front with everybody around you, and treat them the same way you expect to be treated, a gun just isn’t necessary.
“And The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed”
Does anyone have a problem understanding the meaning of the word “Infringed?”
Ed,Wasn’t there something about a well ordered militia in there too? There’s nothing well ordered about all the yahoos taking potshots at whatever moves or at nothing in particular.In one neighborhood I lived in, New Years eve was when everybody got their various firearms out and shot them in the air- an easy 2,000 rounds expended in a 3 block radius! It’s a wonder nobody was killed by falling ammo.Believe me, an idiot with a gun is worse than an idiot without one.
There are two commands in the same sentence.
One about keeping a “militia.”
the other about a person’s right to keep and bear arms.
Our enemies attack the constitution, I defend it.
With freedom, there are risks.
There is no middle ground.
With friends willing to blow each other away over it’s interpretation, does the constitution really need enemies? Sorry, it’s a constitution, not a suicide pact!
BTW: The “Patriot Act” attacks the constitution.
George W. Bush is firmly in the enemy’s camp.
He should be impeached, then stand trial for treason.
The same trial should include all those around him and members of congress whose loyalty lay elsewhere.The “phony war on terrorism” is their excuse to usurp the constitution. That will not “fly” anymore. Neither will they.
The theme of the constitution is clear as a bell, as are the federalist papers which lead up to the wording. It does not require interruption. The founding fathers spelled out our rights in no uncertain terms. They knew what they were doing, as do our enemies know what they are doing.
What’s to interrupt? George W. Bush has the right to defend himself from the charge of treason. That also a part of the constitution which he seems hell-bent on destroying.
True, but that’s an issue for the courts to decide, not some jackass with a shotgun!
Hey, I never said that it was. I did say he has a “right” to defend himself, as provided by the constitution.
I never suggested any unlawful act. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I did not say or imply any such unlawful act. Period.
XXX,Again, thanks for covering my six. Mr Completely seems to pop up like a desert weasal with mish mash that puts him in Ed’s sand box. The fun part is figuring just who (or whom) he is related to:-)
Brady was a Republican. A single bullet in the brain and a liberal wife, Brady was a Republican. A single bullet in the brain and a liberal wife was all it took. It was passed by a dimocrat congress and signed by Clinton in 1994. The dimocrats have been pushing gun control since I was a kid. In Kansas many democrats are on my side so even the governor is at held at bay, although she killed the Concealed Carry law. I am surprised all you Bush Bashers don’t know what your party stands for. If not Democrat, what? Baathist maybe?
Ok codie, I’ve figured out that you’re a little dim, so I’ll type real slow and try to make it clearer.
What law have Democrats passed that took anybody’s guns away?
Thanks to the Red states and the republicans it has been minimized. In the larger cities it is against the law to have a hand gun and they are confiscated from the public daily. In Wichita you can lose your shotgun if you drive into the city with it still loaded. Where do you live anyway?