| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: August 7, 2001
Attorney General Supposed to Enforce the Law,
Not Undermine It
The Honorable Edward Kennedy
|
The American people expect the Attorney General to vigorously uphold the law -- even when he personally disagrees with it. That's the commitment Attorney General [John] Ashcroft made under oath at his Senate confirmation hearing last January.
But, that's not what he's doing with the Brady law or even the Constitution.
Since 1994, the Brady Law and its background checks have stopped 689,000 criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns.
The changes the Attorney General is proposing will seriously restrict background checks, and undermine the effectiveness of the law.
We can't investigate many types of fraud and illegal gun sales if records are not maintained for a reasonable period of time. Existing law says 90 days. Attorney General Ashcroft says one day. That's ridiculous.
This is a priority for law enforcement. Background check records need to be maintained for a reasonable period of time, so that law enforcement officials can identify "straw purchasers," felons who assume false identities, and "bad apple" firearm dealers. If law enforcement can prevent even one felon from purchasing a gun illegally -- if we can prevent even one unnecessary gun fatality -- retaining these records for 90 days is worth doing.
We need to make sure that our law enforcement officers have every tool they need to keep our communities safe from gun violence. The Attorney General made his decision in a vacuum. There were no hearings, no consultation with Congress. We don't know what he was told by FBI officials regarding the need to retain background-check records. We are asking the Attorney General to provide us this information now.
It's also ominous that the Attorney General is siding with the National Rifle Association and opposing the position of his own Department of Justice and the long-standing precedents of the Supreme Court. In a key case now pending before a federal appellate court in Texas, Department of Justice attorneys have relied on Supreme Court case law for the proposition that:
possession of [a] firearm must be "reasonably related" to the preservation or efficiency of the militia before the Second Amendment will shield such possession.
Yet the Attorney General's May 30th letter to the NRA states:
While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.
The Attorney General's letter to the NRA pulled the rug out from under his own Department.
Obviously, what the Attorney General's done on these two gun control issues has major implications for many other areas where his personal views are contrary to current law.
The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law, not undermine the law.
Note: This column has been adapted from a statement Senator Kennedy issued, July 26, 2001.
 How to contact Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
