1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Hades has frozen over. ACLU siding with gun owners

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Apr 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/3/

    EXCLUSIVE: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties

    As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill.

    Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.

    In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.

    The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

    Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

    “However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

    “The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

    Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

    nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”

    “As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

    “And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen.

    “We think those are privacy best practices,” Calabrese said. “We think almost all government databases should operate that way.”

    “Once you no longer need the information, you should destroy it. Information collected for one purpose shouldn’t be used for another purpose,” he said.

    But Calabrese says that Reid’s legislation fails to include those “privacy best practices.”

    “Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.”

    “We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

    “And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,” Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

    “So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.”

    Reid’s legislation is hauntingly vague about who would physically keep information about American gun purchases, but it’s crystal clear that records will be kept.

    “Regulations … shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee,” according to the bill.

    The ACLU’s second “significant concern” with Reid’s legislation is that it too broadly defines the term “transfer,” creating complicated criminal law that law-abiding Americans may unwittingly break.

    t’s certainly a civil liberties concern,” Calabrese told TheDC. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.”

    “They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer. We think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion.”

    “For example, different gun ranges are treated differently,” Calabrese said. “You’re firing a firearm in one geographic location, you’re OK, but in another, you’re not. And those kind things, it’s going to be hard for your average consumer to really internalize and figure out the difference.”

    “Criminal sanctions shouldn’t hinge on those kinds of differences,” he said.

    Separate from the ACLU’s concerns with a universal background check system, Calabrese flagged another provision of the legislation invented by Sen. Boxer that the ACLU is “worried about” — school tiplines for the reporting of “potentially dangerous students”

    “We’re worried about this tip line,” Calabrese admitted. “We think we already have a phone number for reporting dangerous situations — it’s called 9-1-1.”

    “The tip line doesn’t have any guidance for who should be included, how we should vet these requests, who should be included in the system, what you should do with this information once you get it,” he warned. “It just seems like a dangerously unregulated avenue that’s going to risk pushing more kids into the criminal justice system.”

    “What’s a school supposed to do if they get an anonymous phone call that some kid is dangerous?” Calabrese went on. “How are they supposed to treat that? Do they have liability if they ignore it? Should this kid be suspended? Or should he be scrutinized by a school safety officer because of an anonymous tip?”

    “You could see how this could run amok very quickly. These are high schools. Lord knows, if you’re going to give a kid an anonymous opportunity to lash out at someone, you’re going to see a lot of problems.”
     
  2. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Interesting article that covers several discussion topics that have come up here in opposition for universal background checks. Even if we accept that universal background checks are desirable (which many of us do not agree with) it should be obvious that the current proposal is so flawed it needs to be scrapped.
     
  3. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    It doesn't make a blanking bit of difference what they agree to. They WILL, do and are keeping sale information. Anyone who thinks they are not is naive.
     
  4. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
  5. likes-to-shoot

    likes-to-shoot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,091
    Location:
    Iowa
    Even enemies will bond together against a common foe. Maybe its time!!
     
  6. kiv-c

    kiv-c Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    The NRA and the ACLU at the same table?

    One or the other would surely burst in to flames, wouldn't you think?

    Kiv
     
  7. shooter99

    shooter99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,405
    Location:
    Blue River, Wisconsin
    I asked this question weeks ago on where the ACLU was at.
     
  8. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    The ACLU only changed their stance after Heller was decided. Their stance on the 2nd Amendment, was that it was a collective right, not an individual.

    Odd, that the original intent of the founders was to protect individual rights with the first ten amendments. Where were the ACLU lawyers when that was taught in junior high school?

    But, "The enemy of my enemy..."

    Best,
    Dennis
     
  9. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    "Gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties"?? Naw! You're joshin me!

    It is almost unbelievable how stupid we have become as a society and how incredibly ignorant of history we are now.

    We Baby Boomers deserve what is happening to us. Unfortunately, every future generation will also pay for our apathy and stupidity.

    -Gary
     
  10. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Good point, Rick. Once we're dead, it won't matter that we ruined the greatest country that ever existed. We got ours. F~ck everyone born after us. We'll just leave them a few dollars so we don't have to feel guilty.

    -Gary
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.