Feinstein's Latest Bill - The Terrorist Watch List Bill

[AlexanderA]

Considering that most of the names on the terrorist watch lists are foreign (with multiple spellings, especially the Arabic ones), and that the lists are rather hastily and sloppily put together, there are bound to be many errors. Do we want to deny rights based on an error-ridden list? At least there should be a layer of judicial review, and appealability.

Anyway, the lists were originally intended as a filter for additional scrutiny, not as a lifetime "mark of Cain." The potential for abuse here is enormous.

 

[arizona_cards_11]

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.



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.

Please, all-wise and almighty State, protect me from the immigrants to whom you granted a visa and the citizens you deem your enemy. Jefferson, S. Adams, Henry......all domestic terrorists and instigators who should have been denied a firearm.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

... people on the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time ...

This could also imply that
(A) the Terrorist Watchlist has more false positives than the NICS Prohibited Persons list, or
(B) the Terrorist Watchlist includes foreign nationals who have not been convicted or adjudicated by a U.S. court.

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

Yep, we're Missouri mules: stubborn, obstinate, insisting "Show me" it's worth it before we accept it and skeptical of the words of politicians. And me, I have not only been a card-carrying member of NRA, I have been a card carrying member of ACLU and Amnesty International. I'm triple-plus-ungood.

About 15 years ago the NRA opposed the Maryland Ballistic Fingerprint Database for good reasons. It was passed anyway. The gun control advocates admitted a decade ago it wasn't working and couldn't do what was promised, but supported it anyway because it raised the cost of a gun by $55 to $60, and they saw that as good because it was a burden to Maryland gun purchasers. It was done away with recently because it was an unworkable idea, did not solve any crimes, but took resources away from projects the Maryland State Police felt would fight crime.

Dianne Feinstein has supported restrictive gun laws aimed at disarming ordinary citizens: I don't trust any gun proposal from her. Period. Buried in the fine print will be a poison pill. Back in the day, when the 1994 federal Assault Weapon Ban was passed, I got a civilian stock, plain barrel band, and ten shot magazine for my carbine (not trusting the grandfather promise); then Feinstein went public saying people like me were "evading" the AWB and the next round of restrictions would close the "loopholes" allowing compliant rifles. That broke me of compliance.

On the gun background check in general: we have a local guy who was arrested at a roadblock because his name came back as a wanted federal fugitive; he was subsequently released as a case of mistaken identity, but when he bought or traded guns, he would first be kicked out on the BG check for a federal fugitive arrest, he then would have to file copies of the court papers on an appeal of the denial for the transaction to go through.

Going back to my experiences when my home county was dry 1953-1968, bootleggers often sold more than illegal beer or liquor. I just have no faith in gun control because I saw the bad guys get guns illegally no questions asked, but good people going through the gunshops having to take Application for Permission to Purchase a Handgun to the Sheriff's Dept. or the local P.D. for a CLEO sign off after a BG check. The rhetoric of gun control reminds me of the rhetoric of the dry forces. That reinforces my skepticism.

We have reported cases of babies and Senator Edward Kennedy on the no-fly list. If the no-fly and terror watchlist system have false positives, they probably also have many, many more false negatives. Blind faith in lists is false security. It does not make me believe I would be safer.

 

[orionengnr]

The way it was presented on TV last night, it was "known or suspected" terrorists.

He who defines the language dictates the rules.

Remember how Janet Napolitano and the DOJ, a while back, had a whole list of "suspected" potential terrorists, including Tea Party members, veterans, etc?

Sooner or later, anyone who is a gun owner, THR poster, etc., is a "suspected terrorist".

 

[natman]

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

Nobody is advocating allowing terrorists to buy guns. What we're against is revoking a constitutional right directly recognized by the Bill of Rights based on the whim of an unknown person for unknown reasons with no mechanism for appeal.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Well I was on a watch list for awhile. I might still be on it for all I know. I was delayed numerous times for flights, over an hour one time. I don't fly anymore for that reason and a few others. I have a CPL and had one at the time. Does that tell you anything? You can't get off of a watch list once you are on one. I tried several times and was told just to roll with it by DHS. I would have to say it's a very bad bill. Feinstein is B** S*** crazy.

 

[SuperNaut]

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

I am all for putting your Misleading Vividness Strawman on the watch list.

 

[barnbwt]

Somehow I thought Fineswine was retired or dead, or both, though I think I'd have remembered celebrating . Must just be me seeing the future, again.

I'm honestly surprised both Republican and Democrat security-statists aren't going after her tooth and claw to stop this nonsense; the Watch List has exactly zero standing to be used as a determinant in policy, and the fastest way to get it/others struck down entirely is to start basing rights & restrictions on it. The list can only persist so long as it remains in the shadowy bowels of stuff our government basically isn't legally allowed to admit doing (like circumventing due process). Shine the light of judicial review on it by basing a contestable government action on the thing, and it evaporates like a vampire (or NSA monitoring, or executive amnesty)

"Misleading Vividness Strawman"
I wish folks who know about fallacies would do the correct thing and address them using a proper strategy, instead of tossing up some name that means nothing to folks who skipped Debate Club. To most folks it comes off as shouting "you didn't answer in the form of a question!" in the middle of a discussion . Like the old saw about how good writers show things instead of telling them to the reader. Outside of Debate Club, no one cares that someone uses an 'improper method' to make their argument; but it sure gives you an opening to exploit on the rebuttal.

"You can't get off of a watch list once you are on one."
I'm pretty sure requesting your removal just gets you put on like five other lists

TCB

 

[johnandersonoutdoors]

I am tired and maybe I am missing something, but I know thought about this a few years ago when this most disgusting idea was floated by Feinstein and King.

You have to be a citizen or lawful permanent resident to purchase. Therefore the list is useless. Foreign terrorists cannot walk into a gun shop and provide proof of citizenship or permanent resident status can they?

They propose a list to prohibit individuals, who have not been convicted of a crime, from buying a gun. This is a dramatic shift from the founding documents. Not surprising but just thought I would point that out.

Foreign terrorists cannot buy a gun as they cannot provide documentation. With fake identification I guess they could pull it off, but this proposed list would not stop that from happening.

 

[USAF_Vet]

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

That's not even remotely what is going on.

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

That's a stretch. NO ONE, literally not one single person, is supporting terrorists. You're delusional.

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

I let my NRA membership lapse years ago. I have no idea whether or not they support or oppose this.

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

Yes, I oppose this. Considering there is zero accountability as to who, why or how people get put on these watch lists, it is a gross overstep on the governments part to disallow a civil right. The lists themselves are deplorable, rife with mistakes and false positives. Senator Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Multiple accounts of children are on the no fly list. Their parents are not, but children are. Do you really consider them a threat? Apparently the government does, or simply doesn't care enough to fix their mistakes. 73 employees of the TSA happened to be on the no-fly list. Yes, I'm going to oppose legislation that violates the keystone of our justice system.

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

You see what you want to see. At least on THR, I see very few, if anyone, clamoring for the government to save us from the tewwowists. I have little to no faith left in government to do the right thing.

What is a terrorists anyway? Are we enforcing thought crime now? If I express an interest to go see Trumbo, a movie about an avowed communist, or check out his signature work from the library Johnny got his gun (which is an amazing book, by the way, and inspired my favorite Metallica song, One) should I be put on a watch list as a potential communist sympathizer? If Joseph McCarthy had his way, I'd be on a watchlist for sure, or worse. I lived in Turkey, a Muslim country, and understand a great deal about their religion and culture. I educate the misinformed mouth breathers who express their ignorance daily. Does that make me a Muslim sympathizer, and therefore a potential terrorist?

I'm a right leaning Libertarian, gun owner, CPL carrying, pro 2A, veteran who is outspoken against our President, many of his cabinet appointees, and several senior Representatives and Senators. To them, I'm a radical. As a former aircraft mechanic, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out I'm on a no fly list, or some other watch list.

Am I guilty of a crime?

Quit being so narrow minded. Do you really have so much faith in this administration, or the previous one, or the potential next one, to trust them not to use these watch lists as a political tool? If so, I don't know how you can manage to shake your head at all, considering how deep in the sand it is.

 

[old lady new shooter]

no due process for being put on the list

bearingarms has a piece on this today at
http://bearingarms.com/nra-civil-rights-group-america-still-matters/

There is no due process that places people on the terror watch list.

Government employees may arbitrarily place anyone on the terrorist watch list, for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.

Racial profiling and religious profiling are at the heart of the watch lists, as is the Orwellian practice of putting in people who exhibit “wrongthink,” which ensnared me in January of 2013.

More than 300,000 people on the watch lists have no known association with terrorist groups. Some are merely relatives, co-workers, or neighbors of people under investigation.

Your neighbor Phil is an honorably discharged soldier, an active duty police officer, and an Oathkeeper? Your cousin Rachel is a “community organizer” and “equality advocate?” You’ve made your political views known by liking or sharing memes on social media?

Congratulations! You’re qualified for the terror watch list for these non-crimes, and may be part of the largest single group on the terror watch list, which are those with no known ties to terrorism.

At the link is a diagram of the number of people on the list by affiliation.

The author got on the list as he describes in another piece at http://bearingarms.com/posts-ingraham-suggests-gun-owners-treated-like-terrorists/

This villainous “terrorist”—your’s truly—was reported to an FBI fusion center in the northeast as a possible domestic terrorist threat in January of 2013 for writing an article pointing out the fragility of our electrical grid to domestic terror attacks. In specific, I dared to note that any idiot with a .22LR can plink transformers as they did on an episode of Doomsday Preppers.

 

[Twiki357]

Anyone know how many of the 9th graders in the news this week ended up on the “Terrorist Watch List” after researching [ISIS recruiting] on the internet for their class assignment?... Didn’t think so!

 

[USAF_Vet]

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.

Why? Neither action is illegal. Neither are even really questionable. Considering how many urban gardens there are, considering how many people pseudo legally grow marijuana, I'm not even really raising an eyebrow if an urban or suburban dweller buys up a bunch of fertilizer. Especially considering the majority of available fertilizer does not have the explosive components (uh oh, I said explosive on the internet, the NSA probably just put me on a watch list) used to make home made bombs. Not since McVeigh. After the OK City bombing, that type of fertilizer has been restricted.

Who defines a boat load anyway? Are we talking a kayak full, or a cruise ship? The President just recently issued an executive order defining what "in the business of selling firearms" is. Is that definition not enough of a restriction?

I buy a bunch of .223 and AR lowers. As many as I can reasonably afford. Certainly more than I shoot. Hell, just Saturday morning I bought a stripped lower, parts kit, magazines and ammo. I also paid in cash using large denomination bills and almost exact change, from two wallets and my pocket. Could that be considered odd by an observer? It seems odd is enough to convict these days in the court of public opinion. It's probably enough to get put on a watch list.

If there turns out to be legitimate, legal reasons, then the said person has nothing to fear.

Guilty until proven innocent, still? I have no reason to justify my legal and lawful actions to anyone.

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.

Careful, your bigotry is showing. I think that might be your biggest problem.
I have no problem with this fictional Achmed, or anyone else, buying mass quantities of ammo. Unless it's a caliber I shoot and happen to be in short supply. But I don't care he purchased it, I care that I missed out on purchasing some for myself.

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.

That constant fear may or may not be justifiable. But considering Hillary's desire for more gun control, making it a top priority if elected, Obama's desire for a last ditch lame duck run for gun control, and Feinstein's annual "Mr. and Mr's America, turn them all in" bill... yeah, I'd say that concern is justified, if not fear.

What about this law would prevent a terrorist from getting a gun? Do they sell full auto Kalashnikovs and grenades and explosives in Paris? I don't know, the city was pretty anti gun a little over a decade ago when I was there. Didn't see a lot of gun shops, especially ones with a secret room in the back full of illicit weaponry and explosives. I think those only exist in Hollywood and the fantasy minds of liberals.

So if the Gun Free Zone that is Paris can't pass enough laws to keep guns from being smuggled in, what makes you think our government can? They get smuggled over the border all the time, from both directions. What new law will prevent, or limit that from happening? What new law is going to foresee potential criminals and stop them from getting a gun days, weeks, years before they decide to commit a criminal act? What new law is going to stop a determined individual from stealing guns to use in a crime? Not far from me, a gun shop was robbed and over 40 guns disappeared. Oddly, they were mostly Mosin Nagant rifles, not exactly the crime gun of choice, but I digress. The point is, guns were stolen. Those guns have the potential to be used in a crime. If Black market Obrez start showing up in Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana crime scenes, or Chicago, or Cleveland, it wouldn't surprise me. What law would stop it?

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.

Is anyone asking for 100% freedom and 100% security? The fact is, they shouldn't even be on the same scale. If we need to restrict liberty to purchase safety... well, Ben Franklin said it better than I ever could.

When it comes to freedom and liberty, there need not be a counter balance. I understand we can't have both, so if my vote means anything, I'd have 100% freedom, even at the cost of 0% security.

 

[danez71]

I'll try to point out, again, that this isn't much worse, if any, that the question 11b on the 4473 form.


Why isn't everyone ranting over 4473 question 11b?

 

[benEzra]

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

Did you even read the rest of the thread before you posted that? The watchlists are not lists of terrorists. They are primarily lists of NON-terrorists.

There are U.S. active duty soldiers on the list because they returned from Iraq in uniform with detectable gunpowder residue on their boot soles. There are U.S. citizens on there for attending rallies calling for bringing the troops home.

Do you think YOUR right to buy or own a gun should be revoked for the rest of your life if you ever fly after going to the shooting range?

If there turns out to be legitimate, legal reasons, then the said person has nothing to fear.

You will if this bill passes, though, because it would make being investigated and cleared grounds for denial for the rest of your life, since your name isn't generally scrubbed from the list if you are cleared (as almost everyone is).

'll try to point out, again, that this isn't much worse, if any, that the question 11b on the 4473 form.

It is vastly worse. A TSA agent at the airport can't unilaterally and secretly indict you for a felony for the rest of your life because he/she thought you were reading a sketchy magazine, or that you look suspicious, or to meet a quota. He/she can put you on a watchlist if they personally deem you worthy of checking out further.

 

[SuperNaut]

"Misleading Vividness Strawman"
I wish folks who know about fallacies would do the correct thing and address them using a proper strategy, instead of tossing up some name that means nothing to folks who skipped Debate Club. To most folks it comes off as shouting "you didn't answer in the form of a question!" in the middle of a discussion . Like the old saw about how good writers show things instead of telling them to the reader. Outside of Debate Club, no one cares that someone uses an 'improper method' to make their argument; but it sure gives you an opening to exploit on the rebuttal.

What's the fun in being condescending if you then have to stop and explain things?

 

[PabloJ]

ttt

 

[CoalTrain49]

It is vastly worse. A TSA agent at the airport can't unilaterally and secretly declare you to be in violation of 11b for the rest of your life, and put you on the NICS block list, but he/she can put you on a watchlist if they personally deem you worthy of checking out further.

I'm pretty sure that's what happened to me. Sniffer detected powder residue in my backpack. I used to carry a pistol in there when I hiked. That set off an alarm and they shut the lane down. They went into a panic because I had put my pack on the conveyor and went thru the scanner out of turn. Really set them off and they came down on me and someone else who had no clue what the problem was. Most of those TSA employees should be working at McDonald's instead of security. They probably punched my TWL ticket just for spite. Morons.

 

[barnbwt]

"Most of those TSA employees should be working at McDonald's instead of security"
I think this is more of the problem than we realize. Not exactly the stellar career path to attract our best and brightest (assuming they are even looking there), and the job simply has to be so mind-numbingly boring, repetitive, and political, as to be fundamentally incompatible with competency.

BTW, the sniffer machines were merely a massive boondoggle to companies like Raytheon and GE; I understand there's so many false positives and negatives outside a lab environment that the whole thing is pointless (well, except blowing air up the skirts of pretty ladies)

"I'll try to point out, again, that this isn't much worse, if any, that the question 11b on the 4473 form"
Not even close. 11b is merely pointless, since there is legal precedent demonstrating that a criminal cannot be required to self-identify said criminality or face prosecution; a crook can lie and won't be prosecuted for it, unless they successfully obtain unlawful possession of a weapon.

This abominable list is different. Not only is there no criteria, oversight, or proper appeals process for anyone on the list, you may not even know you're on it. If you get added, BAM! Every gun you presently own is now a felony at federal and state level, your property is forfeit, your gun rights are gone forever upon conviction of unlawful possession (felony) unless you expend the resources to get your name removed from the list (again, no formal appeals process so this is very drawn out and expensive/ugly) and then manage to get a federal felony expunged from your record (something tells me that's so rare an event as to be nonexistent)

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

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

How do you get on the "watch list"?
How do you get off the "watch list"?

You don't know, DO you?

I'd laugh my behind off if YOU were on it.

 

[danez71]

It is vastly worse. A TSA agent at the airport can't unilaterally and secretly indict you for a felony for the rest of your life because he/she thought you were reading a sketchy magazine, or that you look suspicious, or to meet a quota.

This abominable list is different. Not only is there no criteria, oversight, or proper appeals process for anyone on the list,

According to this document, you both are wrong on all accounts I quoted.


That's all addressed in the 1st 50 pages and mainly in pages 20-49.


https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watchlisting-guidance/



(Note: I'm NOT claiming that its perfect by any stretch. What I am claiming is that the above statements appear to be a stretch, if not completely wrong. )

 

[Deanimator]

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.

Is THAT how you get on a "watch list"? Where is that documented, and where can I get a copy?

 

[Deanimator]

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

Let me correct that for you:

• First they came for the "kulaks", but I did not speak out because I didn't know what a kulak was.
• Then they came for the "wreckers", but I did not speak out because I didn't know what a wrecker was.
• Then they came for the "socially hostile elements", but I didn't not speak out because I didn't know what a socially hostile element was.

There is no government power so dangerous as intentionally undefined government power.

 

[BSA1]

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

Maybe this will help you understand;

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." WINSTON CHURCHILL, speech, Nov. 11, 1947

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear." ALAN COREN

But this is the simplest explanation;

"Democracy is messy.” DONALD RUMSTEAD

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

The terrorists who attacked people in Paris smuggled in full auto AKs in spite of France's tough antigun laws. What makes you think we can "prevent" them from smuggling in full auto weapons? How much of the many units of illegal drugs coming up from Mexico and Central America do we interdict? Our borders are fairly porous.
IF the terrorists have access to fullauto AKs why would they go to Wal Mart and buy semiautos?
And, moreover, what if the terrorists cook up some home made explosives? In Paris they used TATP, a white crystalline powder that is home made and effective.

I'm not supporting the idea that terorists should get guns .... but they WILL get them, by smuggling, but those will be full auto. Trying to restrict guns in this equation is going after the wrong target.
You need to go after the terrorists -- and I won't claim that's an easy thing to do.
But restricting the rights of American citizens to full use of their 2A rights will not only fail to work it will be counterproductive, and, it will backfire.