People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns

[MaineCWPtraining]

More Than 800 Gun Buyers on Government's Terrorist List

National Rifle Association counters some suspects might be innocent
June 22, 2009

WASHINGTON - More than 800 gun purchases were approved after background checks in the last five years even though the buyers' names were on the government's terrorist watch list, investigators said Monday.

Being on the watch list is not among the nine factors, such as a felony conviction, that disqualify someone from buying a gun under federal law. More than 900 background checks between February 2004 and February 2009 turned up names on the watch list, and all but 98 were allowed to go through.

READ MORE

 

[EddieCoyle]

Good.

The NRA will never see another penny of my money if they push to have people on the watch list disqualified from buying a gun.

 

[n1oty]

Eddie, I'm going to respectfully disagree with your position. The real problem with the watch list is that anyone can end up on it arbitrarily, no one knows the reasons that a person can be placed on the watch list, apparently there is no judicial oversight of the watch list and there is apparently no way to appeal your placement on the list. What happens if we all end up on this list some day because some bureaucrat decides he does not like gun owners? Or what about our returning veterans who were recently labelled by Janet Napolitano as likely sources for right wing extremism? Will all these vets lose their 2A rights because their names get thrown on this list?

I have no problem denying gun ownership to convicted felons and what-not, but adding this bureaucratic list to the mix is ultimately a recipe for disaster. IMHO, this is one of the smartest things the NRA has done in a long time.

Good.

The NRA will never see another penny of my money if they push to have people on the watch list disqualified from buying a gun.

 

[Ish]

Shit, maybe I am wrong or sleep still but I believe that both of you ( Eddie and n1oty)said the same thing with different words.

Ish.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Shit, maybe I am wrong or sleep still but I believe that both of you ( Eddie and n1oty)said the same thing with different words.

Ish.

And English isn't even your first language...

 

[Ish]

Hahaha, for a second there n1oty got me confuse.

Ish.

 

[jpattersonnh]

I have a buddy in Colorado that is on the list. He was riding 4 wheelers w/ a group of guys and the came too close to a radar installation that was not posted or fenced. He is a felon for trespassing on unmarked federal property. They were 1 mile from the installation. Talk about stupid.

 

[n1oty]

My bad........

You are correct. Maybe my eyes are just getting old and tired, but I completely misread his post. Everyone, please accept my apology for that goof. It's nice to know we really are on the same page.

Shit, maybe I am wrong or sleep still but I believe that both of you ( Eddie and n1oty)said the same thing with different words.

Ish.

 

[terraformer]

I have a buddy in Colorado that is on the list. He was riding 4 wheelers w/ a group of guys and the came too close to a radar installation that was not posted or fenced. He is a felon for trespassing on unmarked federal property. They were 1 mile from the installation. Talk about stupid.

He had a crappy lawyer.

 

[HTRN]

The watch list is not a list of convicts..

Isn't one of our founding principles "Innocent until proven guilty?"

I echo EC's sentiment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have no problem denying gun ownership to convicted felons

It has been said that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes fact - as with the "felons are always inappropriate people to own guns".

There are plenty of felonies that give absolutely no indication that the convict has done something that indicates their possession of a firearms would pose a risk to the public. Things like insider trading, tax evasion, or accidentally killing a bald eagle while trying to poison nuisance wildlife (Bush II pardoned the later) come to mind. There are a couple of felonies which are not federal disqualifiers (antitrust and restraint of trade convictions) which I assume means that someone was owed a big favor when this law was enacted.

One thing that our side needs to be cautious about is letting the public sentiment on an issue slide so far that there is no longer any argument that can be credibly made - as is the case with the us "felon prohibition" in the US, or arguing "defensive reasons for owning a gun" in Canada and England. The US has had the "felon in possession" law (which, when implemented, actually imposed ex post facto punishment) for so long that even our advocates don't see any problem with it. In fact, even the Republicans voted to remove the ability of a convicted felon to apply for a relief from disabilities.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Good post Rob.

 

[Gadsden]

You know the argument I had to make... and I'm getting a little irritated that I have to make it and so many others so often. We really are under attack.

Well.. it is my personal belief that we have "been under attack" for a while now, only it was not our guns that was in the crosshairs so the 2A community (in general) stood quiet. However, the erosion of rights has been taking place in an increasing pace through the last three presidents. A good friend of mine (a tireless 2A activist) and I had this same discussion when the PATRIOT act was passed. He was excited about it... "finally we are getting the balls to go after those terrorists!".

I asked him "What happens when YOU become the "terrorist"... the boogieman the government and media says should be feared? His response: "That will not happen here."

I could tell as soon as the words left his mouth he really did not believe what he was saying.. but he is stubborn and did not want to have to admit that was a possibility. Now fast forward to today.. when Americans who believe in the principals our Founding Fathers risked everything for, Americans coming home from war, and Americans that WILL fight for their rights are branded "an extremist"; a potential terrorist and possible enemy of the state. The attack has been on for a while; the tools we gave them and encouraged them to use are now pointed at us. My friend now has a completely different tune.

This attack of removing rights without trial or turning all rights into a privilege removable at a whim is but a small example of what is yet to come if good men and women stand by and do nothing. NRA, GOA, and JPFO should be all over this, as should all citizens that do not want to be on a "rights removal list" someday.

 

[terraformer]

It has been said that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes fact - as with the "felons are always inappropriate people to own guns".

....

In fact, even the Republicans voted to remove the ability of a convicted felon to apply for a relief from disabilities.

Hence the best course of action is to attack the list first as void of due process. Once you do, then all who is left are terrorists who have proven themselves dangerous.

As for republicans, they brought us 1986 hughes amendment, the import ban, etc. Stop making this an us v. them thing. A handful of democrats are keeping the wolves at bay right now, regardless of why, and we will never retain our rights if we start out looking to retain members from only 1/3 the population. Big tent. Erect it. Love of liberty and shooting the only pre-requisite. Not some ill-defined sense of political loyalty.

 

[Pete85]

This is just another cry by the anti crowd to strip millions of Americans of their constitutional rights. First step, make it so people on the "terrorist" watch list can't buy a gun. Second step, the newest way to get on the "terrorist" watch list is to try to buy a gun...after all, why would you want a gun if you weren't trying to commit a terrorist act.

There have been cases of police officers, small children and even newborn babies being on the no-fly list. You expect any American citizen with a brain to believe there aren't erronious names on the terrorist watch list?

We should ask the people crying out for this crap if they'd support it if being on that watch list stripped you of all your constitutional rights. No freedom of speach, or religion. After all, it was a religous group that attacked us on 9/11. Shouldn't we ban "terrorists" from practicing that religion? No fair trial, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, or right not to incriminate yourself. How about being forced to house soldiers in your home so that Uncle Sam can always be looking over your shoulder? Remember, all this is based on a list with no enumerated basis of who gets put on it or not. I bet they'd change their tune immediately .

 

[hminsky]

I still think the most awful legacy of the Bush adminstration was the creation of the department of "Homeland Security" (still sounds like something the Nazis might have had in WWII, 'fatherland security'), and the "Patriot" act and the super secret terrorist watch list. Those did more to turn our country into a police state than was done in the last fifty years. Your papers, please?

 

[pdm]

An excellent article on this topic (h/t Instapundit):

Your rights are an "odd divergence from federal law"

In an incident which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called "embarrassing" last year, bumbling bureaucrats (if that isn't too much of a redundancy) placed the elderly and venerated South African leader Nelson Mandela on the infamous "terrorist watch list":

WASHINGTON -- Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

At the time, Homeland Security Director Michael Certoff observed that the incident raised a "troubling and difficult debate" about who gets placed on the list, and why:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."

When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says.

Moving forward a year, the debate became more troubling when the DHS (under Chertoff's replacement Janet Napolitano) suggested that right wing groups (such as anti-abortion protesters, certain veterans, and people overly concerned with the loss of their Second Amendment rights) should be watched.

...Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Whether these people were (like Nelson Mandela) added to the no-fly" list, who knows? The list is kept "confidential" --which means government employees, airline security people, police, and no doubt "private investigators" for a fee, can access it. The ACLU estimates that there are a million Americans on the list, and there have been complaints that even credit scores are factored in:

Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers' risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.

Somehow I don't find any of this reassuring. (The Wiki piece has a long list of false positives, including many children and people with common names.) However, it has to be recognized that this list was generated for use during the war on terror, and that there is no constitutional right to fly on a plane. It's an extraordinary measure passed for an extraordinary time. As I keep saying about the extraordinary measures adopted during the war on terror, it would have been one thing if their use had been limited strictly. The abuses are out of control and in light of recent news, things are getting worse.

There's a lot more. Read it all.

 

[z0mbi]

Slightly off-topic, but on the felons owning guns thing... if you're not ready to be trusted with a firearm, you should not be out of prison. Period.

Once you're out, you should be a citizen again, with all the rights that would imply.

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

Slightly off-topic, but on the felons owning guns thing... if you're not ready to be trusted with a firearm, you should not be out of prison. Period.

Once you're out, you should be a citizen again, with all the rights that would imply.

+1, exactly.

 

[hminsky]

On a related note, check out this story

How a Heartwarming, Kick-Ass Father's Day Photo Shoot Ended Up Face Down in Handcuffs on the Addison Airport Tarmac

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/how_a_heartwarming_kick-ass_fa.php

I got an early Father's Day surprise from Homeland Security. It seems the public is not allowed on the tarmac. I thought the tarmac was the cement runway, but it's actually a hundred yards or so on each side.

Waiting for the plane to take off, I was surprised by the Addison police. An officer unholstered his gun, then handcuffed and held me until Homeland Security cleared my name.

I was not arrested, but according to Officer Pierce, I did break federal law and a report would be sent to Homeland Security. I will be hearing from them. I apologized to every one involved. The pilot told me the airport was shut down for a short while.

But according to one of the crew, they had ID'd me as one of theirs, and the tower knew and tried to call it off. But once the wheels were set in motion, it could not be stopped. The pilots were pretty much cool and laughed at me and were even willing to escort me to take more shots. One old-timer gruffed under his breath, "It's the U.S.A., not U.S.S.R. -- I didn't fight to protect this shit." One even offered me his seat on a ride.

However, the officer had asked me to leave, so I did. The police were professional, and I consider myself lucky.

 

[TomH]

Something does not equate. You don't believe that being a convicted felon sets you apart? Entitled to rights...absolutely. Suspect in crimes of similar nature...absolutely. That's the path you made....your choice. Don't push off your choice onto society. You made your choice....live with it. Why in the hell is any "ordinary" person supposed to feel sorry for you? Convicted felon? TS. Your choice, your life. Don't look for sympathy.

Should a felon be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights too? I think everyone would agree no. This is a slippery slope. The fact is, if a felon wants a gun, he/she will and can get one. Restricting it is a wasted gesture. And a second point, if you don't trust someone who is walking free in society with a gun, why are they free? They could be just as dangerous with a car, a knife, their fists, etc. Restricting guns based on felony status is an anti-gun stance imo. There is no "line" where it is ok to restrict rights. As I said, it is a very slippery slope.

 

[TomH]

if you really believe the govt. should be able to define any metrics that allow them to selectively limit a persons liberties, all while calling them free men, then sell your guns. you aren't worthy of them.

+1, this has to be the best quote I've seen in a while.

 

[TomH]

National Rifle Association counters some suspects might be innocent
June 22, 2009

Some? How about ALL???

 

[z0mbi]

Some? How about ALL???

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[drgrant]

The end game problem when discussing this with antis or laypersons is it is very hard to get them to see the forest through the trees.

Me: "IMO anyone who should is/should be "blocked" from owning a firearm should remain in prison. "

Layperson: "Yeah, but that isn't how the system works now, so they should
keep the background checks.... I don't want convicted murderers being able to buy a gun... "

Me: -Bangs head against wall- "So you're willing to punish everyone else
for the acts of criminals?"

Layperson: "If it prevents a criminal from getting a gun a background check is not a real nuisance.... "

Me: "What if you were delayed or denied (eg, due to a false positive) and you NEEDED a gun?"

Layperson: "But that doesn't happen that often, blah blah blah.. ."

Me: "Yes, so if the government only deprives people of rights a relatively small number of times, then that somehow, makes it okay.....

Ad nauseam.... Some people just don't get it... even people who I think are intelligent. They still cannot fathom that the rights of the individual are
supposed to trump that of the collective, at least in the sense of how the government is supposed to treat it's citizens.

If I had a shitload of money and resources I would try to run an effort to document all the americans who have been "effectively" killed by gun
control. Part of the problem is mining data is hard (eg, to be able to "know" that some lady tried to buy a gun to protect herself from her violent ex husband/boyfriend) but I think it would pretty telling. I've often said if I was an all-seeing entity I could build a literal "aids quilt memorial" of people who are dead with "gun control" being a significant factor in their death. (Or injury, for that matter. )

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

If I had a shitload of money and resources I would try to run an effort to document all the americans who have been "effectively" killed by gun
control. Part of the problem is mining data is hard (eg, to be able to "know" that some lady tried to buy a gun to protect herself from her violent ex husband/boyfriend) but I think it would pretty telling. I've often said if I was an all-seeing entity I could build a literal "aids quilt memorial" of people who are dead with "gun control" being a significant factor in their death. (Or injury, for that matter. )

-Mike

There was one down in LA recently where a woman's hubby was killed and her gun was in the car because they were in a restaurant that served alcohol. They are tough to find but they do pop up on occasion.

 

[pdm]

There was one down in LA recently where a woman's hubby was killed and her gun was in the car because they were in a restaurant that served alcohol. They are tough to find but they do pop up on occasion.

Which is why I support criminalizing carrying while intoxicated (but only if there is an objective standard to determine such), but not criminalizing carrying while in a restaurant/bar.

 

[jhblaze1]

they really need to close this loophole and disallow those on the list from buying guns. Due process is soooo 1700's.

 

[Negotiator]

Aren't we on that list?

Don't even joke about this. Several years ago ( post 9/11) I was traveling from Boston to LA. On checking in at the desk, I was asked for ID etc by the polite lady at the check in. After a few minutes of watching her scan the computer screen, she slowly looked up and ..."I'm sorry doctor... but I am not allowed to let you on this flight."

Me - "What on earth are you talking about"
Check in - " I'm afraid you are on the no fly list"

Now, that was a shocker, given the anti terrorism work I was doing at the time.

Me -"I suggest you call the FBI..."
Check in - " Doesn't usually work..."

But she called and after was seemed like an eternity of her on the phone, she told me all was sorted out, just a case of mistaken identity...which is really hard to swallow if you know my surname

 

[z0mbi]

...she slowly looked up and ..."I'm sorry doctor... but I am not allowed to let you on this flight."

... just a case of mistaken identity...which is really hard to swallow if you know my surname

Let me guess... "Dr. Evil"?