Federal Court Ruling: FBI Can Keep Instant Check Records

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Story

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>By Bill Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2000; Page A21

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FBI can hold on to gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a federal computer system that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working properly

The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which argued that the practice amounted to an "illegal national registration of gun owners." The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy records of approved purchases immediately.

The instant background checks of potential gun purchasers began in November 1998, fulfilling requirements under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and putting an end to checks conducted under a five-day federal waiting period.

Gun dealers are required to submit information about prospective buyers to the computer system in an effort to prevent sales to convicted felons, fugitives and other disqualified buyers. The information includes the customer's name, sex, race, date of birth and state of residence. The computer is supposed to immediately generate a response for gun dealers that approves, rejects or postpones the sale for further investigation. Since the system was put into place, roughly 14 million checks have been performed, Justice Department officials said. About 280,000 purchases have been rejected.

The NRA filed suit to challenge a Justice Department regulation that allows the FBI to keep all purchase records for six months for auditing purposes only.

The Justice Department contended that it needs the time to spot-check results for quality control, ensure that gun buyers and dealers are not using false identities or other means to thwart the system and determine that the huge database is not being used by anyone to gain confidential information for unauthorized purposes.

While the NRA did not object to preserving--indefinitely--the records of buyers who are rejected, it argued that the FBI was required to immediately destroy personal data about those who were approved. The NRA's lawyers pointed to language in the Brady law that called for officials to "destroy" records of approved transactions. The law also warned against using the checks "to establish any system for the registration of firearms."

U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed the NRA's lawsuit last year, concluding that the Justice Department acted reasonably in establishing auditing standards. The NRA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Robertson's ruling.

Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, rejected the NRA's argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, dissented.

Tatel wrote that the "audit log" is not a firearms registry. The Brady law contained no timetable for purging records, he said, adding that common sense indicates that Congress wanted to ensure that the system functions properly.

Sentelle wrote that the law's instruction to destroy records meant exactly that, prohibiting even temporary preservation.

The NRA was among the strongest supporters of instant background checks. James Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the organization may seek further appellate review.

"When you have words in the law like 'destroy,' 'don't record' and 'no system of registration,' it seems fairly obvious to us," Baker said.

Attorney General Janet Reno called the ruling "a win for the safety of all Americans," saying it "will allow us to continue to conduct audits that protect individual privacy, ensure system accuracy and deter fraud by corrupt gun dealers."

© 2000 The Washington Post Company[/quote]


<sarcasm: heavy>I thought that the FBI always got rid of those records immediately. Well at least now they can only keep them for six months. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 

RickD

Moderator
This is nonsense.

They could conduct any and all QA using data with personal information removed. I do it on a near-daily basis.

Rick
 

Brett Bellmore

New member
This says it all: "Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, rejected the NRA's argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, dissented."

Clinton has appointed, what, a third or more of the federal judiciary by now? And we'll be dealing with these creeps, to whom upholding Clinton's policies is more important than any law or provision of the Constitution, for decades yet.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 

Jeff Thomas

New member
Friends, please note the source of the judges' appointments. The President who appoints these people is no small matter ... what would have been the result if all 3 were appointed by Republican Presidents? I'd wager it would have been better.

Regards from AZ
 

Brett Bellmore

New member
Jeff: Well, *I* wouldn't bet too much on that; Democrats seem to be a lot more careful about who they put on the bench than Republicans, in case you haven't noticed.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 

Jack 99

New member
One more example of the difference between rule of law and rule of men.

The law was passed by duly elected representatives. Great care was taken to ensure the exact, precise wording would be unambiguous, then the bureauocrats got ahold of it, "interpreted" the meaning of the law to something completely contrary to the intent and letter of the law, and now the politically motivated courts uphold the decision of the unaccountable Federal employees.

Are we still a Republic?
 

buzz_knox

New member
Jack

I have to disagree. Duly elected representatives take great care to insure that the laws are often extremely vague and sweeping (unless putting a loophole). Many federal laws specifically state that the responsible agencies have the authority to flesh out the law through their regulations. That way, the feds can extend their power across ever-increasing areas. For example, Congress gives ATF the power to examine firearms for suitability for import, and ATF gives itself the power to designate the precise mechanism for deciding (arbitrarilly) what does or does not come in. More accurately, what does or does not come in for CIVILIANS. Favored LEOs and other members of the ruling class get whatever they want.
 

tc556guy

New member
Geez, how many times do they need to keep records to check that the computer is working? Any fool should be able to see where this is headed.
 

SAGewehr

New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
Care to justify that, Brett?[/quote]

Let me try. How many Democratic appointees, at least to the Supreme Court, have turned out to wolves in sheeps' clothing? I can't think of a single Democratic appointee who turned out to be anything near conservative. On the other hand, Eisenhower gave us Earl Warren, Nixon gave us Warren ("the Second Amendment is a fraud") Burger, Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, Reagan gave us O'Connor, and Bush the Senior gave us Souter.

Any questions?

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 

Brett Bellmore

New member
SAG: Thanks for the assist; Esentially what I would have said, better put.

Heck, look at what's going down now: Gore is promising his supporters an absolute litmus test on abortion (And other liberal issues!) for appointees, while all Bush will say is that he "likes" Scalia, and means to appoint a "strict constructionist". In my opinion, given that three quarters of his campaign promises grossly violate the Constitution, the only way he'd appoint a strict constructionist is by accident.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 

Battler

New member
If I were running I'd promise a bunch of commie crap and then install SC judges to strike down my laws.

Wishful thinking, I know - still, it must take ba**s to say you like Scalia.

Battler.
 

bookkie

New member
Most of our courts are a joke….. to me they no longer hold any legitimacy. I have seen first hand where they are more political than justice. I guarantee you if you make a political enemy and they want your ass… well you might as well kiss it good by. I’ve seen where they will do judge shopping…. Look around for a judge with the political views to give them the decision they want.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 

Dangus

New member
He will never get elected, voting for him is about as logical as voting for Gore. Stop this madness and just vote for Bush. We can't afford to take a chance this time around, if we let Gore in, we've got big problems. Things are spiralling down to the point where it will eventually be us vs the government in a very real sense and none of us need or want that. Don't waste your vote.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 

Menos

New member
Well just take a minute and look at this simple math...80 million gunowners X 2 ( spouse or sig other) = 160 million votes VS. less than 150 million votes cast in total during the last Presidential election. We should be able to elect whomever we wish shouldn't we? hmmmm .....

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 

Monkeyleg

New member
Menos, I hate to burst your bubble, but let's look at the real situtation. 80 million gun owners, 3.6 million NRA members. Of which probably less than a million are truly active, or even know what's going on. Pocketbook issues trump all, and the sheeple are enjoying their stock market money, so who cares? If you want proof, check out the link in my signature profile below.

Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk.petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Top