I recently read this article in this morning's newspaper while at work:
Washington Post:
Attorney General and NRA life member John Ashcroft found a way last week to do what the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't: weaken the Brady Law background-check system for handgun purchases. The court had declined to hear the NRA's appeal of a decision upholding the way the FBI handles background-check information. Law Enforcement agencies had been retaining records for auditing purposes for up to 180 days, with the time limit set to drop to 90 days effective this week.
But on Thursday, Ashcroft did the NRA's bidding, announcing plans to hold records for no longer than one business day after a gun sale - a term that does not allow law enforcement agencies reasonable time to uncover fraud and abuse in gun sales. The attorney general claims that the department "can have that kind of accurate auditing in a very quick time frame," and that the privacy of legitimate gun purchasers needs protection.
That isn't how department lawyers saw it in a brief they filed before the Supreme Court opposing immediate destruction of the records. They contended then that there was a "particularly great" need to conduct audits, given the "valuable information the system provides."
Why destroy a useful tool in curbing sales of guns to people who should not have them? Since its inception, the Brady Law has stopped gun purchases by more than 600,000 lawbreakers. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has introduced legislation requiring the Justice Department to keep records for 90 days. There is no good reason not to keep this valuable gun-safety provision on the books.
View Quote
So what does this mean? I think it's a nice thought that they reduce it down to 1 day for the sake of my privacy, but I also think that since it allows "Law Enforcement" agencies to scan (and god forbid duplicate) some of these records, I LIKE THE 1 DAY ONLY RULE.
However, there's a small portion of me nudging myself to believe that 10 days would be best, because they could "audit" the purchase if someone payed $800.00 for a PLAIN STOCK Ruger 10/22 model. This purchase would in my mind flag something, such as perhaps it being suppressed of F/A. There's no way a 10/22 without modifications could cost that much. Just as there are crooked criminals, there may be crooked dealers.
I am mostly confused regarding what to think of this. Please Tell Me Your Opinions...
-Inuhbadnayburhood