“Gun Control” Policy Priorities and Recommendations of the Anti-Defamation League to the Dem Party

[jody]

ADL submitted to the DNC and RNC platform committees

Gun Control
Summary of Policy and Recommendations
• Recognizing that the culture of guns and violence is pervasive among extremists, ADL recently reaffirmed its long-standing position advocating the adoption of federal and state initiatives designed to make it more difficult for children as well as extremists to acquire and use guns and other dangerous weapons.

• The federal government and the states should recognize the importance of maintaining bans on the use or caching of weapons by domestic extremists.

• The federal government and the states should ensure that common sense restrictions on firearms in schools and government buildings continue.

Background
The Anti-Defamation League has been an advocate for strong, effective and sensible gun control legislation. Since 1967, the League has favored “expanded federal and state regulation of the sale and transfer of firearms and other dangerous weapons.” Unfortunately, we have sadly witnessed the tragic dangers guns present. Across the country in schools, businesses and houses of worship, individuals have used guns to terrorize communities and local institutions. ADL firmly believes that one way to limit the power of extremists and reduce violence in our communities is to enact tough, effective gun control legislation.

Recognizing that the culture of guns and violence is pervasive among extremists, ADL recently reaffirmed its long-standing position advocating the adoption of federal and state initiatives designed to make it more difficult for children as well as extremists to acquire and use guns and other dangerous weapons. Although the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), protects an individual's right to bear a firearm, the Court was clear that government may prohibit the possession of guns in schools, place “conditions and qualifications” on their commercial sale, and restrict ownership of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as automatic weapons. The federal government and the states should recognize the importance of maintaining bans on the use or caching of weapons by domestic extremists. In addition, the federal government and the states should ensure that common-sense restrictions on firearms in schools and government buildings continue.

In short, making it more difficult to obtain firearms – through mechanisms such as increased waiting periods, limitations on purchases, and promoting stricter gun safety, licensing, and registration laws – will help safeguard our communities and check extremism without violating the Second Amendment or any other constitutional rights.

Sounds good but IMO "increased waiting periods, limitations on purchases, and promoting stricter gun safety, licensing, and registration laws" is prone to abuse.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. What is an extremist?

Sounds sticky. I can certainly offer a definition, but they are largely criminals of some sort or another anyway.

[Boomer 50]

2. What I don't understand.....

And this may sound racist but please understand it isn't...

How can the ADL, or any Jewish organization or person support gun control after WW2? Did anyone learn anything about trusting a government, any government with sole control of arms? Hitler may be dead but there will always be people who willingly violate peoples rights and lives for whatever purpose... look at the Shrub for instance. I'm sorry but I really have to question the intentions of ANY person who is willing to put their safety in the hands of another willingly.

[virginia mountainman]

3. What gets me most is some of the "open ended" language..

Like "Extremist"...

Tell me, PLEASE, "WHO" gets to decide "WHO", is the the extremist??

The opinion of just who is an "extremist" changes, depending on WHO is in power at the time..... It is a "moving" target, so to speak.

I am certain that Rethug Religious nut-jobs would be considered "extremist" by most of us... And all is well and good, while WE are in power..

But, the problems arise, when Rethugs are in power, and suddenly picketing Union members are "extremists", or even social activists.

Their is no room, for "open-ended language" in a constitutional right...

We gun owners deal with it bad enough as it is, with the "sporting purpose" bullshit on imported firearms and gun parts... The BATF changes small details of "sporting purposes" nearly monthly for gun importers.

Literally, one day, THIS, is ok to import, a week later, it would be a Federal crime to import it....than a month later, it is OK again...

The ADL, is blind to the lessons of history.

[Caliman73]

9. Your social activist may be someone else's "extremist"

PETA members have resorted to disruption and even violence in their campaigns. Anti-war protests have resulted in violence too. Unions have had a history of clashes with management and police. These movement have often been labeled extremist until they became accepted. During the civil rights movement Dr. King was an extremist according to some in power. So I totally agree with virginia mountainman. Language that is open to such interpretation is alway open to abuse.

[MicaelS]

4. Since the ADL have never

Supported the RKBA before Heller, all their rhetoric is just same old fertilizer in a shiny new wrapper.

[pipoman]

5. What part sounds good?

If you had not said where this tripe was published I would have guessed Brady.org.

[jody]

6. I used "sounds good" to show IMO those who would ban guns will continue their efforts unabated but

cloaked in rhetoric that sounds or tries to sound un-threatening to RKBA, e.g. "without violating the Second Amendment or any other constitutional rights."

In fact, that group is determined to "violate the Second Amendment".

Whether they are determined to threaten "other constitutional rights" remains to be seen.

[pipoman]

7. OIC

I couldn't agree more.

[Longtooth]

8. Unfortunately the ADL completely mis-characterizes one important point

“dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as automatic weapons.

The decision DID NOT use automatic weapons as an example of what could be banned. In fact the example of an M-16 (a selective fire semi-auto and FULL AUTOMATIC) firearm was used as what SHOULD be allowed.

That phrase was first used by the ATF in a blatant attempt to change the meaning of the Heller decision and is SHAMEFUL for a government entity to engage in such sophistry!