goldpelican
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 259
Restricting Rights and Liberties without due process is extremely dangerous stuff.
And we currently (likely never) don't know enough to pass judgment. What was he interviewed by the FBI? What has he done? Has the judicial branch been involved?
The news is stating the FBI interviews were in 2013 and 2014, and in relation to him expressing sympathy for a suicide bomber. His former wife is claiming he was physically abusive. As you likely know though, he would have needed to have had a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to have been a prohibited person, which apparently wasn't the case if he was able to pass a couple of NICS checks in the last few weeks for the purchases.
I do feel there is a shortcoming in either the "not eligible to buy" criteria, or in the logic of the process itself, when a NICS check is done on someone like this with previous suspicion. If the FBI previously felt that multiple interviews were required for some social media posts, then surely some followup when the same individual pops up in a NICS check could be justified? In order to prevent infringement of his 2A rights, under the current rule of the land simply being interviewed still wouldn't make him a prohibited person - but triggering a followup interview because of the NICS check would at least gotten the guy back on the radar. Who knows what might have turned up in an interview. "Saw you're buying a gun, well, you know, we're just following up since we last spoke 2 years ago". It's not likely that an interview would have given probable cause to arrest him outright for planning the attack, but I mean, is it such a stretch to ask that we pay a bit more attention to who is buying guns (and what type under section D of the form) if they've previously been the subject of suspicion for this sort of extremism?