A House Appropriations Committee vote today pits a growing number of mayors and law enforcement agencies against the gun lobby. At the center of the controversy is the 2003 Tiahrt amendment, which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has interpreted as preventing it from giving local law enforcement agencies broad access to federal gun crime data.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, has acknowledged problems with how the ATF has used the amendment to withhold data. Revisions in this year’s language, he says, correct the problem. But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his coalition want the amendment killed. He called today’s vote a test of the new Democratic-controlled Congress: “Are they going to continue the old line — politics as usual, pandering to a handful of special interest groups? Or are they going to do what’s right?”
On gun issues, neither party has shown much stomach for a fight with the National Rifle Association, even when public safety is at stake. A Senate appropriations vote last month actually strengthened the Tiahrt amendment restrictions.
Today’s showdown will be closely watched. Don’t be surprised if the vote upholds politics as usual.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
20 Comments
Politics as usual on something the toddly pushes?
Say it isnt so…
…and besides, the WE endorsed toddly because… wait for it… his longevity made him powerful.
Yeah. Heheheh. We see how powerful. He cant even defend his own amendment.
How’s that endorsement working out for wichita and its incredibly powerful water boy?
hehehehehehehehehehehehehhehe!
“…neither party has shown much stomach for a fight with the National Rifle Association,…”
Blaming the NRA is the same as blaming the ACLU. Shooting the messenger. The NRA is a lobby group consisting of paid members who have like beliefs. Same as the NEA. Nothing wrong with that.LMNOP
The Demos will never take on the NRA guys. We have all of the guns. What are the whinney Demos going to do, throw chunks of tofu at us?
Thinkfirst,
I know many, many Democrats who are gun owners. One does not have to buy into the NRA’s propaganda to own firearms.
It makes me sick how special interests groups run things in our country. Just like the insurance industry, oil companies, etc. It’s all about who has the most money and lobbyists to influence policy makers..it has nothing to do with democracy, what American citizens really want, or what’s best for our country.
Mary-Special interest groups are no more than people gathering with the same ideas.
NRA 4.3 million members bad special interest group
NEA 3.2 million members good special interest group
ACLU (The ACLU reported over 500,000 members at the end of 2005)good special interest group
So, which could be defined as the SPECIAL interest group. The one with the largest, or smallest, membership?
“On gun issues, neither party has shown much stomach for a fight with the National Rifle Association, even when public safety is at stake.”
1) the NRA simply represents its members, as do all “special interest” groups. What makes the interest the NRA represents “powerful” is that the members of the NRA are organized, motivated, and they vote. Isn’t that what we want – government responsive to the voters?
2) Based upon just what do you assert that “public safety is at issue?” I’ve seen no evidence that the dreaded amendment creates any risks to public safety; however, the Fraternal Order of Police, as to most police organizations, believes that eliminating the amendment may put officers at risk. This is, again, dishonest writing at it’s worst.
BTW – I note that there was no recognition by the Eagle that Chief Williams forcefully and clearly withdrew his support for repealing the dreaded amendment, notwithstanding the Eagle’s trumpeting his initial nominal support for repeal. Of course not. That does not fit the Eagle’s agenda. Typical – misstatements and lies are front page; retractions and corrections are buried in the classifieds, if admitted at all. More agenda “reporting.”
Further – Note what one of the “mayors against guns” concluded was the agenda: He resigned, recognizing that the agenda was sacrificing law enforcement on the alter of sueing the gun industry. http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=Moore_Letter_070707.cfm
Prediction – the amendment may be tinkered with, but it will not die.
Special interests groups may vote, but they also buy votes. They play into the greed of the politicians in order to get special consideration for their agendas. It goes against our democratic ideals.
Mary,I am sure that your idea of a special interest group and mine are different, but I would give you this:
Remove limits on campaign contributions by those who can vote (ie people). Make contributions by those who can’t (groups, organizations, pacs, unions, corportions, etc) illegal.
“Special interests groups may vote, but they also buy votes.”
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, Mary, for the moment that’s true. For every group for something, there’s a group against it. The NRA, for example, is opposed by the Brady Campaign, numerous “grassroots” organizations bankrolled by the Joyce Foundation, the American Hunter and Shooters Association (a false front for the Brady folks) and as we’ve seen, the MSM as willing accomplices. Those anti-gun rights groups also represent their own intersts; they all play the same game. All represent what they see as the “public interest.”
You assume there is a single “public interest.” There isn’t, of course. What is in the “public interest” depends on which “public” you’re talking to.
Further, the 1st amendment’s guarantee of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees our right to form associations for just that purpose, and attempt to influence the government – or the voters – that my (or your) viewpoint should be public policy. Surely you believe in the 1st amendment? Or do you believe in the 1st amendment as usually propounded by the left: “Free speech for me, but not for thee” – and only those point of view they accept and agree with should be tolerated.
This is why McCain-Feingold is so abhorant. It bans political speech – the speech most protected by the 1st amendment. Hopefully, the recent SCOTUS case on the application of that horrible piece of trash has gutted it beyond repair.
Maybe a shorter way of saying it is this: “special interest” is a label, attached to those we disagree with. Those we agree with are “public interest” and presumed to be good; those we don’t are labeled “special interests” and tarred as being bad.
It all depends on who’s ox is being gored.
GMC, I generally agree with your shortened definition of a “special interest” group. I would, however, add that a “special interest”, in addition to being one with which we disagree also provides financial contributions to those folks with whom we disagree. ;-)
The Second Amendment does not put public safety at risk, however the lack of the People to keep and bear arms does.
That’s why the Second Amendment is there with the words: “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
People are in more danger from the anal sacks who use a cell phone while driving a car than one with a registered firearm.
Pass the legislation and kick Bloomberg in the nuts while your at it.
Registration…Taxation…Confiscation…
It passed! Victory for the 2nd Amendment!
WE pushing Tiahrt again, oh well:For those not already informed, below are links to two documents you should read before you make a decision on the Tiahrt amendment. (One being the actual amendment – duh!)
There is nothing in the Tiahrt amendment that prohibits tracing firearms data for a bona fide criminal investigation.For those who want to peruse gun purchase records for any other reason (like a Bloomberg witch hunt), that is not allowed per both the Tiahrt amendment AND the 39 year-old Gun Control Act of 1968.
1)The Tiahrt amendment.http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/communications/press_releases/2007/Tiahrt_gun_amd/TIAHRT_amendment_2.pdf
2)The Gun Control Act of 1968http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
I want Blooming-idiot-berg to run as an independent.That will split the anti-gun vote.
Lets see how much the liberals love Bloomberg if he splits the liberal vote!—-
Eagle
Show as a CASE, an actual, real life situation, where a CRIMINAL investigation was slowed or burdened in ANY way by the Tiahrt Amendment.
Political leaders like Mayors are, well, POLITICAL. So to are political appointments like Police Chiefs. They are all prone to make POLITICAL statements.
Such political statements go unchallenged by the lazy (or deliberately ignorant) reporters at the Eagle or the New York Times.
Bloomberg wants to subsidize big government with lawsuits against gun manufactureres and dealers.
Congress has a duty to stop Bloomberg in his tracks.
That IS the “public interest”.
Bloomberg has a problem, he wants to blame others for it.