Feinstein's Latest Bill - The Terrorist Watch List Bill

Denying a civil right based on a suspicion of a crime. Sounds a lot like guilty until proven innocent. Especially when no one outside government has access to such a list, and no reasonable way to appeal the list, or any accountability for such a list to begin with.

I'm going to have to read the text, but based on the name, I know it's going to be a train wreck. Just how bad remains to be seen.

Banning 'Terror list' suspects from ownership

Just read that the Dems are pushing some new gun control agendas. One is banning anyone who is on a terror watch list from gun ownership. HUH? It would seem to me that should already be happening. Isn't that what background checks are for? I guess I need to read up on what EXACTLY prevents someone from buying a gun.

If it were only legit terror suspects, then sure. The problem is it's way too easy to wind up on a list and ggod luck getting off it, even with lawyers it'll take time and money to clear your name. These are watch lists, minimal if any evidence required, not necesarily actual terrorists or even wannabes.

It's another bill going to committee. It has to show how it will actually do anything better than what we have now.

It will spark a discussion on what NICS actually does - stop felons at best, and what terrorists do - fly in anyway, obtain guns, and then use them. But how often does that happen?

It's another feel good propaganda stunt - we don't have large terrorist incidents here. Not that we can't, we just don't. What we have, sadly, are a bunch of our own homegrown whackos who finally decide to act, who already bought guns legally, and who are usually acting alone or in a family grouping, not disparate Syrian refugees getting imported as a cell to remain sleeping until they get their special callout.

Which is about what the conservative, informed, and experienced terrorist hunters here in the US will tell the committee as expert reference testimony.

Nope, it's just a political anti gun ploy and most of the real arm wrestling over it will be in the cloak rooms of Congress. It takes a significant effort to push legislation in these times now, the President is a lame duck, the early debates aren't sorting out where the people are leaning, and the disarmament party is basically dead in the water without Bloomberg's money - they have very little grass roots support.

It's mostly political posturing with little chance of doing anything effective.

I saw an AP article in morning’s paper about this bill. In the usual media bias, it asserted that passing this bill would be a good thing. Here is a quote from it: “According to a March analysis by the Government Accountability Office, people on the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time, with more than 2,043 approvals between 2004 and 2014. The office is an investigative branch of Congress.” While this statistic may trigger an alarm to the typical reader, it’s a good thing that they passed. Passing the NICS check should mean what it means. The person was not convicted of a crime that prohibits them from gun ownership and has not been adjudicated mentally defective.

As USAF_Vet asserts it would be a new low for the US Government; denying a civil right based on a suspicion of a crime. Its one thing with many being wrongly on the list; the other is that the very existence of the list was a secret during the early 2000’s. There is no way to know if you are on it and most likely impossible to be removed from it. If this bill or any future bills like it were to pass, I can see it can be used by partisan government employees to cause headaches for NRA members and employees for no other reason than association with the NRA. Years ago I would not have believed that such a bias was possible, then came the IRS scandal and Lois Learner.

chuck

Slippery slope, they could decide the NRA is a "terror" group.

DHS has already talked about the "threat" which Veterans are so what list does having served put you on?

Add to the silliness that TSA hired 70+ people who are on the Terror Watch list and what good does it really do?!?!?

If a "Terror List" is legit, why is who ever is on such a List walking around free?
Now if the list is about people they suspect of a possible threat, until the threat is legit, they have the same freedoms as you or I.
Limiting ones Constitutional rights based upon a "maybe" is a slippery slope and leads to a President like Franklin Roosevelt (D) putting Japanese in interment camps.
Not the highlight of our Republic was it?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1936515

Ford motor company and a two year old are on that list? Really? I'm not a big fan of the Huffington Post but this seems to be credible. No thanks to such a bill that would deny my 2A rights based off of LESS than a reasonable suspicion.

Making secret lists, arbitrarily denying rights to people based on an insinuation of intent?
What could go wrong?

steelerdude99 said:

I saw an AP article in morning’s paper about this bill. In the usual media bias, it asserted that passing this bill would be a good thing. Here is a quote from it: “According to a March analysis by the Government Accountability Office, people on the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time, with more than 2,043 approvals between 2004 and 2014. The office is an investigative branch of Congress.” While this statistic may trigger an alarm to the typical reader, it’s a good thing that they passed. Passing the NICS check should mean what it means. The person was not convicted of a crime that prohibits them from gun ownership and has not been adjudicated mentally defective.

As USAF_Vet asserted had they not passed would be a new low for the US Government; denying a civil right based on a suspicion of a crime. Its one thing with many being wrongly on the list; the other is that the very existence of the list was a secret during the early 2000’s. There is no way to know if you are on it and most likely impossible to be removed from it. If this bill or any future bills like it were to pass, I can see it can be used by partisan government employees to cause headaches for NRA members and employees for no other reason than association with the NRA. Years ago I would not have believed that such a bias was possible, then came the IRS scandal and Lois Learner.

chuck

Click to expand...

Just how did the GAO conduct this study? I thought no records of this type were kept at the Federal level...

Anyone remember what Question 11b on the 4473 form that been there for a couple decades or so?

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

Click to expand...

.

JamieC

Just read that the Dems are pushing some new gun control agendas. One is banning anyone who is on a terror watch list from gun ownership. HUH? It would seem to me that should already be happening. Isn't that what background checks are for?

Click to expand...

No kidding! Sheesh.

Step 1. Deny gun ownership to anyone on a potential terror watch list.

Step 2. Redefine your political or ideological foes as "potential terror groups."

Step 3. ???

Step 4. Profit.

First they came for the {Socialists} Politically Unpopular, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a {Socialist} Politically Unpopular.

Then they came for the {Trade Unionists} Conservatives' and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a {Trade Unionists} Conservative.

Then they came for the {Jews} Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a {Jew} Christian.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Simply change Martin Niemöller quote to the group you don't support and it is easy to how quickly it becomes you.

With a little effort this could be turned to pointing a spotlight on the watch list, rather than getting people's 2nd Amendment rights abridged.

• How does one get on the list? - NOBODY KNOWS
• How does one get off the list? - NOBODY KNOWS

Minimal effort should be able to turn the ACLU against this.

It could also be used as a tool to see if you are on the list.

It could also be used as a tool to see if you are on the list.

Click to expand...

And what makes it even more ludicrous is that you could NEVER be prosecuted for attempting to buy while on the list, since you're not ALLOWED to KNOW you're on the list until you're not permitted to fly.

One is banning anyone who is on a terror watch list from gun ownership. HUH? It would seem to me that should already be happening. Isn't that what background checks are for?

Click to expand...

Being on a "watch list" does *not* mean you are a terrorist. It means that someone flagged you for a closer look, either because you posted something on a web forum or Twitter that raised eyebrows (I see you're on THR; what does the Obama justice department think of that, hmmm?), or to meet a quota, or because you attended an anti-war rally ten years ago, or because you want to fly to the USA to testify in a court case against the TSA, or because you once attended church/mosque/web forum/whatever where it was suspected that some of the members might be bad actors, or because you traveled to certain nations, or even by mistake because the agent checked the wrong box on the form. Some of those things are legitimate reasons to check somebody out to see if they are worthy of further scrutiny (the original purpose of a "watch list"). Some of those things are not. And NONE of those things are worthy of revoking someone's civil liberties who has never even been charged with a crime.

Some helpful reading:

How YOU could end up on the no-fly list

No-fly blacklist snares political activists

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

Nine years on the no-fly list because an agent checked the wrong box

Various watchlist absurdities

Senator Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List

And if being placed on a secret surveillance list without being charged with even the most minuscule crime makes someone so dangerous that they need to be barred from something as mundane as owning a gun, should "watchlisted" individuals be able to drive a tanker carrying 30,000 pounds of gasoline other hazardous chemicals through populated areas? Work at a school, sports stadium, chemical factory, or hospital? Serve as a police officer or security guard? Work for the Federal government? If someone is that dangerous simply because their name is on a list of people to check out, how far do we go with it? Because there is nothing stopping someone from putting *you* on that list for any reason he/she can articulate, and there is still precious little due process available to either find out you're on the list or to get your name taken off it.

Minimal effort should be able to turn the ACLU against this.

Click to expand...

They may already be. They have long been a vocal critic of denying civil liberties due to being on a watchlist.

Unlikely Suspects (ACLU)

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out because I was not a terrorist.



Yeah, you go ahead and support the terrorists in the name of the 2nd amendment. smh

This is what I hate about these discussions and dealing with the NRA in general.

You guys will fight any gun law just to be contrarian and obstinate. So yeah, you go ahead and oppose this.

Try as I might, I just can't understand you guys. You rant and rail about the Paris attacks, that our government isn't doing enough to prevent the same thing from happening here, but you support the idea of terrorist being able to buy guns over the counter. SMH

The Alaskan said:

but you support the idea of terrorist being able to buy guns over the counter. SMH

Click to expand...

strawman.

.... but you support the idea of terrorist being able to buy guns over the counter. SMH

Click to expand...

Boy you really pulled that one out of some dark place.
You don't get to decide what the rest of the population supports.

Until then, we have the standard for disqualifying purchases.

The Alaskan said:

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out because I was not a terrorist.



Yeah, you go ahead and support the terrorists in the name of the 2nd amendment. smh

This is what I hate about these discussions and dealing with the NRA in general.

You guys will fight any gun law just to be contrarian and obstinate. So yeah, you go ahead and oppose this.

Try as I might, I just can't understand you guys. You rant and rail about the Paris attacks, that our government isn't doing enough to prevent the same thing from happening here, but you support the idea of terrorist being able to buy guns over the counter. SMH

Click to expand...

That's not at all how the left intends to use this list. If you belong to a forum such as this you could be on the watch list. If you are member of the NRA you could be on the watch list. If you bought more than a couple guns in a short amount of time you could be on the watch list. If you bought bulk fertilizer for your farm you could be on the watch list. If you have the same name as someone of interest you could be on the watch list. It goes on and on. People like Feinstein see this as an opportunity to squash gun ownership. Don't you dare ever believe that the tactics of the liberal left don't include trickery. Nobody implied that non vetted, non Americans should be allowed to buy firearms.

JFtheGR8 said:

That's not at all how the left intends to use this list. If you belong to a forum such as this you could be on the watch list. If you are member of the NRA you could be on the watch list. If you bought more than a couple guns in a short amount of time you could be on the watch list. If you bought bulk fertilizer for your farm you could be on the watch list. If you have the same name as someone of interest you could be on the watch list. It goes on and on. People like Feinstein see this as an opportunity to squash gun ownership. Don't you dare ever believe that the tactics of the liberal left don't include trickery.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but quite honestly, if someone is buying a boat load of fertilizer, if someone is amassing a boat load of arms and ammunition, I think we, as a society, better be looking at that mighty closely. If there turns out to be legitimate, legal reasons, then the said person has nothing to fear. If, however, it turns out the Achmed is buying up every round of 7.62x39 ammo he can find, well, I think we have a problem.

JFtheGR8 said:

Nobody implied that non vetted, non Americans should be allowed to buy firearms.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but gun owners' constant fear that someone wants their guns shouldn't be a reason to not pass laws to help our government protects us from terrorism.

I agree that we need to find a balance between freedom and security, recognizing that we can't have both 100% freedom AND 100% security, but I just don't see this as the great gun grab of 2016.

Will I be correct to assume I am on the watch list. The criteria for getting on it is not very tightly controlled and I am uncertain if the agencies responsible do not employ a bunch of stooges to decide.

First off although it's possible that a terrorsist can purchase weapons at the local gun store why would they.

Unless these hard core ready to kill accomplished terrorists are virgin well known to the community and have never been suspect at all (fat chance but not impossible but then again fat chance,) why would they risk drawing attention to themselves by purchasing sub par civilian firearms and large amount of ammo at the local gun store when they can get full mil spec AR15s or AK47s/74s with the happy switch and all they ammo they can carry at any of the multiple locations in the world where they live and frequent that have been dumped there by the millions during the cold war and perhaps even now for dirt cheap prices.

I don't see inflated priced cheap quality eyecandy type firearms sold at the gun store to be a prudent economical buy for cash strapped terrorist organizations getting by on black market oil sales to fill American SUV gas tanks.

They are not going to register their firearms lawfully, since they often blow themselves up they are not going to be fearful of breaking any federal, state, or city firearms laws. I would be more concerned about them murdering the occupants of a gun store or police station and taking all the weapons if they were really that desperate to obtain sub par weapons.

I see using a watch list to strip someone of their constitutional rights as a ploy to circumvent due process. People like Alaskan always dismiss the 2nd amendment as a right and in the end when it all boils down try to present it as a privilage. When one constitutional right is stripped a way is being made that goes down a very dark and ugly path and is just the begining to the loss of other rights to follow.

The loss of the persuit of happiness, followed by the loss of liberty, and the loss of life, I present it in this order because this seems closest to how they are doing it, is not supposed to be taken away from any American without due process. This is clearly presumtion of guilt and to make things worse with little or no recoarse to challenge ones accusers. This is even worse than some countries where people are guilty until proven innocent. You don't even have the chance to prove your innocent.