NYT: U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror

Status
Not open for further replies.

K-Romulus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
1,146
Location
Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
FYI THR crew . . . we should take a look at the details whenever the bill appears . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27guns.html

April 27, 2007
U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror
By MICHAEL LUO

WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.

The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”

Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.

But since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, local law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have raised concerns that terrorists might exploit loopholes to buy weapons.

John Ashcroft, the former attorney general and a staunch supporter of gun rights, blocked the Federal Bureau of Investigation from comparing federal gun-buying records against a list of suspects detained as part of the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Ashcroft cited the Brady gun law, which sets out the federal system for background checks, arguing that it prohibited sharing such information for other law enforcement purposes.

In 2004, the F.B.I. instituted a new system that alerted counterterrorism officials when a terrorism suspect tried to buy a gun, giving them three days to find information to disqualify the suspect under the standard federal prohibitions. If the transaction was successful, details like the type of weapon and the place of purchase could not be shared. But if the purchase was blocked, the information could be turned over.

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, who has long been vocal on the issue, the Government Accountability Office looked into the matter in 2005. It found that federal law enforcement officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terrorism suspects over a nine-month period.

Mr. Lautenberg introduced legislation to address the issue, but it stalled in the Republican-controlled Congress. His aides said Thursday that they believed things would turn out differently with backing from the Bush administration and with a Democratic majority in Congress.

But gun control is a touchy issue for Democrats, with many new lawmakers elected on pro-gun stances.

Mr. Lautenberg, who noted that the bill was only being proposed in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, promised to push it swiftly to the floor.

“It took years, but the administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous,” he said in a statement.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, declined to comment on the legislation on Thursday, saying lawyers had not had time to review it.

After the Government Accountability Office report, the Justice Department created a study group on the issue. Nearly two years later, after repeated inquiries from lawmakers, Richard A. Hertling, acting assistant attorney general, wrote to Mr. Lautenberg in February saying that steps had been taken to address certain concerns, including encouraging investigators to visit gun dealers and review firearms applications every time a terrorism suspect was flagged trying to buy a weapon.

A letter signed by Mr. Hertling that accompanied the proposed legislation on Thursday said that in some situations it would be “counterproductive” to deny firearms permits for terrorism suspects, because that might alert them to official interest in their activities.

The legislation also establishes procedures for appealing a decision by the attorney general.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the process took time because it involved delicate issues, including “the protection of sensitive information upon which terrorist watch listings are based, as well as due process safeguards that afford the affected individual an appropriate opportunity to challenge the denial after it is made.”
 
Fine now, dangerous later.

Denying firearms to those on the terrorist watch list makes sense.

However, it is the future prospect of the government naming those with different views as "terrorists" that makes this unpalatable.
 
The only way this could not be opposed is if there is language providing for protection agains bureaucratic mistakes or fraudulent allegations. And some sort of appeals process...

Art
 
We don't even need to read this one. If you are not for stopping the terrorists you are for them. We need this legislation now to stop all of the guns that have been acquired by terrorists and then used against us here in the US on a daily basis. I am willng to bet of those 30,000 firearm murders every year the VPC keeps talking about but can not show, the missing ones are all caused by terrorists.

I am mean seriously if we even think you are a terrorist we need to let you know by denying you the right to purchase a firearm. If we really think you are one I say ship you off to a camp. We can not take these types of chances that you might do something...

This is stage 2 of the dehumanization begun by the PA. If we don't fight this tooth and nail we are in big trouble....
 
If only one could determine why they'd been put on the watch list, so they could try and refute the classification.

Unfortunately, we don't have that right.
 
This is enough to oppose this:
"The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”"

Lautenberg is one of the worse anti-rights proponents in Congress. He ranks right up there with Feinstein, McCarthy and Schumer...

"We don't even need to read this one. If you are not for stopping the terrorists you are for them."

To Lautenberg, if you're a gun owner...you're a terrorist. This man does not deserve your support.

"If we really think you are one I say ship you off to a camp. We can not take these types of chances that you might do something... "

To Lautenberg, if you're a gun owner...you're a terrorist.

Before anyone supports this, read a little about Lautenberg. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the Second Amendment, he is a terrorist.

For everyone's info, Lautenberg is the author/sponsor of the Domestic Violence prohibition of firearms ownership. This prohibition does not require any violence...if you have an argument with your wife and she calls the police...you can be charged. In theory, a Domestic Violence prohibition is a good thing (as long as there is a review provision in a timely manner), but it is much to open for abuse by law enforcement...just as the "anti-terrorist" provison could be.
 
It is craziness like this that will result in this country becoming a police state. I say we are only two three good terrorist acts away from herding 100s of thousands or even millions of innocent people into camps.

The mass of people will tolerate just about anything if it will make them ''feel'' as though they are safer. What is next? Arrest and imprisonment for suspicion of someone getting ready to commit a crime? When that starts happening again will be close to the end of the republic...
 
Fracking dumb as a post. Google the TSA no fly list and watch list to see how well this works for the airlines.

There's an abundance of errors.

There's no oversight.

There's no real way to appeal placement on the list.

Etc.

Failed so bad for the TSA, now they want to screw over gun owners... great.

The way we're giving up liberty, in the name of safety, we might as well be English.


http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/10/nofly_list.html
"60 Minutes, in collaboration with the National Security News Service, has obtained the secret list used to screen airline passengers for terrorists and discovered it includes names of people not likely to cause terror, including the president of Bolivia, people who are dead and names so common, they are shared by thousands of innocent fliers."

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/30000_people_mi.html
"Nearly 30,000 airline passengers discovered in the past year that they were mistakenly placed on federal "terrorist" watch lists, a transportation security official said Tuesday."

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/infants_on_the.html
"Infants on the Terrorist Watch List
Imagine you're in charge of airport security. You have a watch list of terrorist names, and you're supposed to give anyone on that list extra scruitiny. One day someone shows up for a flight whose name is on that list. They're an infant."
 
“It took years, but the administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous,” he said in a statement.
It would seem to me if we're so sure someone is a terrorist they shouldn't be roaming the streets. Or we'll be labeling everyone a terrorist and this would be a quickly abused system. Which ever you think is more likely.
 
Great. Now the govt. will be able to just label you secretly as a terrorist and no guns for you.

Unless someone has been Constitutionally tried and convicted, there is no justification for infringing on their rights.
 
I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this. With no judicial recognition that RKBA is a fundamental right, being deprived of it due to bureaucratic oversight wouldnt raise due process concerns.
 
If they are legitimate terrorist suspects, GET THEM OFF THE STREETS!

Can someone who gets on this list file a lawsuit for having their rights revoked without due process of the law?
 
So, where are we on this?

Do we have a bill number yet?

Ok so if you make it on the "list" they will deny the purchase of any new guns, what about the guns you already own? Will you be getting a knock on the door from your friendly neighborhood BATFE agent asking nicely for them at 3 in the morning?
 
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Due process?

As much as I'd like to stop terrorists from getting guns, I doubt they're going to be buying them from dealers. Even if they are buying them from dealers, until they're tried and found guilty in a court of law, they're innocent and free to buy them. I might not like it, but I'd rather let 100 criminals go free than falsely deny a single law-abiding person of their rights.
 
And what the hell is the definition of a "terrorist", anyway?

Seems to me that the federal government does all it can to actually piss off these terrorist organizations, and then they make these laws to make our lives harder while also giving a real broad definition of a "terrorist."
 
"terrorists might exploit loopholes to buy weapons."

Yeah, I mean, you have all these shifty-eyed guys with beards and turbans lining up in gun shops to buy neutered AK-clones and pistols, filling out their 4473 form, getting their NICS check, following through on their waiting period... can't hardly get past them to the ammo counter! It's such a pain!
:rolleyes:

It's so sad that I'm not surprised by this.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty certain I'm on a watch list. One of my college friends lost his mind and tried to defect to Al Queda. While still in the military.
 
In theory this is a great law as it prevents those with terror connections from buying guns, but I am 100% sure that there are people out there that the government says are terrorists but aren't. Heck as an Indian American many people think I'm a terrorist.
 
Two things . First , i was unaware of all the terrorist attacks here in the states involving guns . Do they have numbers posted somewhere?

Second , like others have said , anyone can be put on the list without having any way to refute it . And this seems pretty vague and could cover just about any organization or individual .

to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism

If people are on a "watch list" aren't they being watched? I mean , they would KNOW they were purchasing a gun right? If they are on a watch list and purchasing guns , wouldn't that be a big red flag to watch them more closely?

I digress . Gov was 'watching" some immigrants , here on visas , who took flying lessons but never cared about learning to land . And they still screwed that up .

Crap like this just makes me :fire:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top