« Previous | Main | Next »

Mayors' Request: Police Need More Access to Gun Ownership Records

January 23, 2007 1:07 PM

Fifty mayors gathered in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to demand the elimination of a law that restricts the ability of local police to trace ownership of guns used in crimes.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was "ideological nonsense" to suggest the ability of police to trace criminals' weapons would infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The law, a temporary amendment, has been attached to House appropriations bills since 2003. Police officials say the law prevents them from investigating the connection of the gun to crimes other than the one in which the weapon was seized and from sharing the informaton with other cities.

The head of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, Ray Schoenke, said that gun rights "extremists," including the National Rifle Association, have taken positions that have "tarnished" the reputations of hunters and shooters.

The NRA tells its rural members that "guns purchased in their backyard and used in violent crime are not their problem," said Schoenke. He is the first gun rights advocate to join the mayors in their cause.

"Our coalition has refused to fall into the same old trap that this is an either-or issue, either respect the rights of gun owners or keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals,"  Bloomberg said of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.

In conjunction with the mayors' meeting, New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, along with three other congressmen, announced a coalition in support of the mayors' legislative priority to eliminate the restrictions of the law.

Each year 30,000 people are killed by guns in the United States.

"Violent crime is again on the rise," said New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, "even in New York where overall the crime rate was down last year, we saw an increase in homicides and shootings."

January 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (25)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

AHSA is not a "pro gun" group. They are an anti-gun group formed from leadership personnel of several more openly anti-gun groups such as Brady and Stop Handgun Violence, etc.

They are an attempt by anti-gun democrat politicians to stop gun owners from turning out to vote against them. They seem to beleive that if they appear to be "pro-hunting" it will cut the turnout of gun owners in half.

So far they have been unsuccessful because bloggers have repeatedly exposed the fraud they are attempting to work on the electorate.

Posted by: Jim W | Jan 28, 2007 2:07:53 PM

worked for Hitler! Lets see--Austrailia confIscated all guns, including BB guns in 1996, in a years time, in the provence if Victoria, murder by guns was up 300%!Why? The law abiding people were defensless! Look at history man, how stupid can you be?? They want our guns so we cant rebell against a government like Hitler or Lenin or Mao. If you think takeing guns will lower crime---go jump off a building and tell yourself you can fly.

Posted by: mike | Jan 28, 2007 5:44:21 PM

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Posted by: Thomas | Jan 28, 2007 6:02:39 PM

Gun control should be left to the shooter. If he shoots at anything other than a legal target, he should be severly punished, even to the point of putting him to death. The criminals in South Africa use assault weapons in crime while these are illegal to law abiding people. Now even our inferiour weapons are being taken away. America, watch out for a communist-friendly regime!

Posted by: Jiems | Jan 30, 2007 3:13:51 PM

Harvard law professor Alan Derschowitz: “Foolish liberals who are trying to write the second amendment out of the Constitution because it’s not an individual right or because it’s a threat to public safety don’t see the danger in the big picture. They are making it easier for other groups to use similar means to get rid of parts of the Constitution that they don’t like.”

Posted by: dave | Jan 30, 2007 3:49:14 PM

Post a comment