FBI director forming group to study gun law

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember arguing in the late '80s that the Brady Background Check was designed to do exactly this. Deny firearms purchases to non-criminals by slowly expanding the denial categories--domestic misdemeanors, any violent misdemeanor, any misdemeanor, purposeful "confusion" with convicted felons, traffic infractions, late payments on debts, late payment of taxes, suspects in crimes committed, suspects of crimes that have not been committed. The Brady law is the chokepoint, get the government between the seller and buyer and slowly squeeze.

Good to see I am correct yet again. :uhoh: :fire:
 
Legal immigrants are one of America's greatest strengths. Treating them as pariahs would be altogether the wrong thing to do.

Right on! The hardest working guy I know is on a green card from Malaysia and not only is he a cool guy, he is conservative as well. Loves to shoot and hates handouts. Hell of a guy, wish we had more Americans like him.
 
Well it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out all through history criminals have figured out ways to secure what they want - no matter the law.

And for most law-abiding citizens it would only take a few phone calls, if one had the desire, to acquire items illegally. All you need is to know someone who is on the fringe of society in some way.

The same people that many individuals buy drugs from will gladly sell you some kind of weapon for the right price.
 
Rebar,

This is not a study of the Second Amendment; it is a study of the NICS.

However, look at the first line of the article:
FBI Director Robert Mueller is forming a study group to review the law that let suspected terrorists buy guns in the United States after they cleared background checks.
That's funny. Didn't know Congress passed a law to ensure that suspected terrorists would be able to buy guns. I must have missed the "Suspected Terrorists' Gun Rights Protection Act."
 
And just how the heck did the GAO conduct this audit. I thought that under the Bush/Ashcroft administration that the NICS records were being destroyed as required by law?
Tinfoil hat time. Personally, I doubt the Feds destroy any records. They probably just bury them a little deeper in some computer or warehouse, and then claim they were destroyed. All the laws mandating their destruction to the contrary. :scrutiny:
 
This pamphlet put out by the FBI shows their criteria for determining terrorist suspects.

I am about as mad as can be with the FBI over this. By their definitions I am a terrorist suspect. :fire:
 

Attachments

  • jttf.pdf
    108.3 KB · Views: 245
Gun owners should form a group to study gun laws... I can just picture the result. "Gun laws cause FAR more crimes than they prevent"
 
To read this article you might think that the 9/11 terrorists boarded and hijacked those planes armed to the teeth, legally!

Fact is the federal gov't failed in its primary mission of protecting the borders.

The INS let these people come in and failed to throw some out when their visas expired. They approved M. Attah's visa extension two weeks after 9/11!

The CIA failed to collect and analyse intel that should have warned them something was up.

The FBI failed to listen even to it's own people saying something was up.

The FAA failed to listen to private flight schools concerns about middle eastern piliots wanting flight instruction only on flying around NYC. Most alarming is they weren't interested in take off or landing exercises.

The NSA, which is supposed to connect the dots, didn't

Remember the private security screeners? They were the only ones that did their job. The terrorists didn't bring anything on the planes that the FAA restricted. The only people who did their jobs were fired and their job was turned over to the federal gov't.

Now the FBI is going to fix the problem by more gun restrictions! They should be cleaning up their own operations before they start fixing my house.
 
"I am about as mad as can be with the FBI over this. By their definitions I am a terrorist suspect."

Dear god. Half the things on that list are specifically constitutionally protected.

I wonder if chanting "1983" "1983" is suspect behavior.
 
Meuller should have been fired the day after Bush took office. He wasn't so I must therefore assume Meuller is reflecting Bush's thinking at this point.

When will people learn that laws will not stop illegal activity. Laws only make activity illegal.
 
I think I recall seeing that pamphlet back during the Clinton administration. Which is why it goes into so much more detail about right-wing "terrorists"; It was part of Clinton's crackdown on the militia movement.

That's been one of the problems with Bush all along; Very little interest in purging Clinton's people, who've kept on pushing the lefts' agenda from within the executive branch, long after the President who appointed them departed. I gave Bush an initial pass on it, because of the way they deliberately sabotoged the transition, (Using the court battles as an excuse to not fund his transition team, things like that.) but that expired long ago; You have to assume these guys kept their jobs THIS LONG because he wants them there, and likes what they're doing.
 
more than 40 terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because background checks showed they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants.


If they are terror suspects, wouldn't they have had to been engaged in criminal activities already? Otherwise, why would they be suspects.

I think they forgot to leave out the following pieces:

...... terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because they went through the legal process to do so; they didn't purchase any restricted firearms, such as Class III full auto or guns which the govt. deemed too short; they didn't try to purchase guns in one state when they lived in another without going through an FFL; they willfully gave information about themselves and didn't lie on the 4473 forms; they purchased firearms in full view of the BATFE according to the laws that have been put into place by the Federal govt.

Gee, these must be some terrible people we're dealing with. Also, the criteria to "JUDGE" someone a terrorist "suspect" could ensnare a whole lotta conservatives and gun owners, as a previous poster alluded to.

Lastly do you see the trap here. Govt. comes out and points to people who don't trust the govt. as possible terrorist suspects. This causes those same people to trust the govt. even less, making them more suspicious to the govt., making them trust the govt. less.....................
 
So the terrorist watch list is not yet ready and doesn't have enough safeguards built into it to work with airline screening......But it is reliable enough to deny people a constitutional right??? :what: The same GAO that somehow determined that this list was good enough to keep people from buying guns says it isn't good enough to screen airline passengers....Somebody tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says we have a right to commercial air transportation. It's not in my copy of the constitution.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PASSENGER_PRIVACY?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=US

Mar 28, 11:04 PM EST
GAO finds passenger screening incomplete
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's latest computerized airline passenger screening program doesn't adequately protect travelers' privacy, according to a congressional report that could further delay a project considered a priority after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress last year passed a law that said the Transportation Security Administration could spend no money to implement the program, called Secure Flight, until the Government Accountability Office reported that it met 10 conditions. Those include privacy protections, accuracy of data, oversight, cost and safeguards to ensure the system won't be abused or accessed by unauthorized people.

The GAO found nine of the 10 conditions hadn't yet been met and questioned whether Secure Flight would ultimately work.

"The effectiveness of Secure Flight in identifying passengers who should undergo additional security scrutiny has not yet been determined," the report said.
Advertisement

TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield called the report "interim" and said it contained no surprises.

"The primary cause for the delays we've experienced were the result of additional steps implemented for privacy protection, public notification and solicitation of public comment," Hatfield said, adding the agency plans to go ahead with Secure Flight.

Key lawmakers said TSA has a lot more work to do, but indicated they expect the program to go forward.

"A significant amount of work needs to be done before all aviation passengers are checked against terrorist watch lists," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the program's funding.
Latest News
GAO finds passenger screening incomplete

Planned Parenthood sues Ind. over privacy

Communities adjust to medical privacy laws

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Congress made it clear that Secure Flight can't go beyond the testing phase until all the bugs are worked out.

"We need screening for safety, but we must take the time and effort needed to do it right," Leahy said.

Secure Flight would allow the TSA to take over from the airlines the responsibility of checking passengers' names against those on terrorist watch lists. The TSA wants to begin Secure Flight with two airlines in August.

The program is supposed to work by transferring airline passengers' name records - which can include address, phone number and credit card information - to a government database. The government computer would flag names on the watch list and identify passengers who would go through additional screening.

The TSA recently finished testing Secure Flight using records of passengers who flew on domestic airlines in June, information the agency had ordered the airlines to turn over.

Privacy advocates complain that the government doesn't provide an avenue for people who incorrectly are included on watch lists or confused with terrorists who have the same names. Secure Flight doesn't address those concerns, the GAO concluded.

"The agency that's responsible for keeping dangerous people off planes is obviously going to err on the side of safety, and that's going to do very little for an innocent individual who can't fly," said Marcia Hofmann, staff attorney for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an independent privacy group.

The GAO said Secure Flight might not keep terrorists off planes because of the quality of the information on watch lists as well as the quality of passenger information. The report said the Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the terrorist screening database, doesn't know if its information is accurate.

Barry Steinhardt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said the government needs to fix its watch lists.

"As they continue to build these jury-rigged, Rube Goldberg operations, they ignore the basics of security," Steinhardt said.

The report acknowledges that the Terrorist Screening Center has improved its information. As of Dec. 16, 4,800 names had been removed from the database. But it pointed out that Secure Flight might still not identify terrorists even if passengers were required to disclose their full names and dates of birth.

The TSA wants to test passenger information against commercial data to see if that would improve its ability to match names against watch lists. The GAO pointed out that commercial databases also contain mistakes.

The report also said the TSA has not figured out how to obtain data from commercial reservation systems, which handle much of the airline reservation functions.

Secure Flight is the successor to another computerized passenger prescreening project, called CAPPS II, that the government began developing after the terrorist attacks. CAPPS II was scuttled in August, partly because of concerns that personal information about passengers wouldn't be protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top