**Shocking** Terror Suspects Buying Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waitone

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,406
Location
The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
<Emphasis added by poster>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/national/
08terror.html?ei=5065&en=cbda703faa6c6a34&ex=1110862800&partner=
MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

March 8, 2005
Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would require a change in federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

"We're in a tough position," said an F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been formally released. "Obviously, we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything beyond what the law allows us to do."

After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-checking between gun-buying records and terrorist intelligence.

Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if there is a match, bureau field agents or other counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine whether they have any information about the terror suspect.

In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information into the database, the accountability office's report said.

In one instance last year, follow-up information provided by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror watch list was deemed "mentally defective," even though that information had not yet made its way into the gun database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications were denied.

Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department should clarify what information could and could not be shared between gun-buying administrators and terrorism investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep closer track of the performance of state officials who handle gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.

"Given that these background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks," the report said, "more frequent F.B.I. oversight or centralized management would help ensure that suspected terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law."
 
you're fast, waitone--but I just sent this e-mail

to the Public Editor at the Times:

Mr. Okrent or Mr. Bovino:

Having read the Time's story today on terrorists and firearms purchases, I have come seeking assistance, in the hope that it is your office that can assist reporters in being accurate in their firearms stories and a bit less obtuse in the political intent of such a story--otherwise, it should be printed on the Op-Ed pages.

In my e-mail of today's Times' headlines, the lead story is Lichtbau's "Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds." The story itself is one of those infamous non-stories that could be re-titled "Legal Buyers Buying Firearms"--but I suspect that would not make the cut as a compelling headline. It could acknowledge its roots in current cultural history with a Headline like "Leading Gun-Grabber Senator Makes Annual Pass At Establishing National Firearms Registry"--but that's a bit wordy, isn't it? Personally, I like a headline like "Bureaucratic ???? Ups Allow Terror Suspects to Arm Themselves," but I am hardly a gainfully-employed headline writer.

The headline and content issues are perhaps best left for a different rant; what immediately caught my eye was the third sentence of the story:

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.​

Now, perhaps Lichtbau has simply not verified the information presented to him from law enforcement officials and gun control groups. Since these sources (particularly the latter) are notoriously disingenuous, that is an unjustified error on Lichtbau's part.

The issue here is the term 'assault rifle,' and the massive disinformation campaign the gun control groups waged for fifteen years with the confusion of the term 'assault rifle' with the political definition 'assault weapon.' (I'm sure you know the famous Josh Sugarman quote from 1988. I can supply a link to that if you don't; just ask.) Recently, of course, they have continued their fear-mongering in the name of anti-terrorism.

Any standard lexicon of firearms will define an assault rifle as "a lighter, shorter rifle of smaller or intermediate caliber, and capable of select or fully-automatic fire." For your reference, here's a link to one such online lexicon: http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt

As a firearm capable of fully-automatic fire, an assault rifle is considered a (sub)machine gun, and ownership of machine guns is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Ownership requires explicit permission in the form of licensure by the BATF following exhaustive personal checks and effectively giving up one's rights--e.g., they may inspect your residence for compliance at any time, without a search warrant.

It is highly unlikely then, that terrorist suspects are in fact buying assault rifles. If they are buying them, then there is a much bigger story here than Lichtbau recognizes, for it would necessitate incredible bureaucratic SNAFUs to allow their purchases by terrorists when it is so difficult for the US citizen to own.

I assume that Lichtbau, or his sources, are referring to those firearms formerly referred to as "assault weapons"--you know, those semiautomatic rifles that may or may not look like assault rifles, that may or may not have three distinguishing cosmetic features that defined them as such, that are now legal to own because the law governing their political identity and control no longer exists.

I think it is important for Lichtbau, perhaps his sources, and the Times to not continue to misinform the public on the characteristics of firearms, and perhaps you could arrange for a correction to be run.

The misinformation on firearms the Times has proudly pursued for some twenty years (the time I know of) might even be a topic for one of your columns. Among those most memorable to me is the Magazine's article that included speculation about Tanya Metaska's tits--which, although said musings perhaps described the writer's state of mind, said little about her effectiveness as a lobbyist.

Personally, I would be satisfied with an acknowledgement of the error in just this story from Lichtbau.

Yours truly,

jfh
Maple Plain, MN​

I'm curious, of course, to see if I receive a reply. COMMENT: Note that the e-mail did not use the four-question-marks-substitution for that phrase For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge; that's a function of our editor here.
 
Last edited:
The list of "terrorists" does not just mean arab national muslim types, it also includes white gunnut patriotic militia types as well. How much do you wanna bet that these "terror suspects" are militia members or something like that. Maybe it is someone who posted on THR about how they think the gov't should stay out of our lives, and is now branded a "terrorist"on some list somewhere?

If a terrorist wants guns to do wrong with, he will find them. Just make sure you have yours when it all goes down and at least you have a fighting chance....
 
Thank you jfh for tellin it like it is. perhaps the more we educate folks on misinformation and show them the light, the less the anti gunners campaign of garbage will get through and become believable.
 
The list of "terrorists" does not just mean arab national muslim types,

This was my first thought on hearing this on Fox news, are they speaking of
immigrants who buy guns, if so would the error be in our immigration policy or gaps in gun laws. :confused:
 
OH MY GOD! *TERRORISTS* can purchase flammable materials in amounts limited only by the amount of money they have available! There are no practical controls or limits on how much of this material they may accumulate, and outlets for the purchase of this material exist on almost every block in urban areas!

We need federal legislation to control the purchase of gasoline, and we need it NOW, before the terrorists use the unmonitored availability of gasoline to burn down our malls with our children inside!

Sigh. Pure nonsense. Lautenberg is using the "terrorist" label to push his old favorite: gun control.
 
so...

If they were destroyed in 24 hours, they must have caught on to those 44 purchases within 24 hours, right?

anyone believe that?

I suppose Lautenberg doesn't realize that being on the FBI's watch list is NOT a crime, and therefore not reason to revoke their rights to do anything let alone buy a firearm.
How 'hamstrung' politicians and law enforcement must be to have to actually wait for someone to do something illegal before restricting their rights. Must be terribly constraining.
:fire:
C-
 
Right, people like Cat Stevens? Like his music or not, he's hardly a violent type, but he ended up on the "terrorist" list and has had a heck of a time getting off it again.

Has anyone considered that if people's rights are going to be limited by being on a secret list, they have to be shown the reason they're on the list and given a chance to challenge that classification in court? Hardly something the FBI wants to get into, I suspect.
 
This so-called story does seem to give us one bit of news -- the FED.GOV is using the background checks as a national gun-registry. If not, I would think that it was impossible for them to have used it to determine the "facts" of this story.

If being a "suspect" is enough to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights, then we effectively have no rights of any kind, and we can stop the debate -- we do indeed live in a police state.
 
jfh, that was a very well put together and thought out response. Too bad they'll never acknowledge it let alone actually publish it. Three cheers for a noble attempt though.

Greg
 
IIRC the FBI's "watch list" is classified info. NICS is an unclassified system. So, don't look for data to be flowing into NICS any time soon.

Also, here's another point - the FBI probably doesn't want the people on the "watch list" to know that they're being watched, right? So if one of these guys goes to buy a gun, is denied by NICS, and s/he is in the country legally and hasn't been convicted of a crime, wouldn't that be a big red flag that it may be time to flee the country????
 
People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

The key part being that someone simply suspects them. Charge them or quit complaining.
 
I don't buy any of this. Everyone knows that after passage of the Patriot Act, anyone even suspected of being a terrorist is sent to Gitmo. I mean, I read all about the mass detentions of people who simply read the wrong book on a website. So, there can't be any terror suspects trying to buy guns. There just can't be.

;)
 
Laugh, joke all you want. What is not funny about this, is this will be used to tighten the rope around our rights, mark my words, you will see this again.
 
definitely not funny. the definition of "terror suspect" is changeable, and may one day include me, even though i am in support of our government and understand that change comes through democratic process. too much of our government is undefined in legislation and is subject to the whimsy of opinion at the will of those set to enforce said legislation.
 
If the country keeps headed in the direction it is going and if the current administration is successful in neutering the First Amendment, just belonging to THR might be enough to get us all on that list.
 
Yup. Rings a lot of bells. Introduced by two senators, passed by Congress, signed by Bush, and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. The administration played a part in one role of it and should be held responsible for its actions. But blaming Bush for the sins of the world gives a pass to all the other offenders, including McCain who is a darling to many yet who's principally focused these days on destroying any and all who get in his way.
 
But blaming Bush for the sins of the world gives a pass to all the other offenders

Absolutely. I think people spend entirely too much time focusing on what Bush does or doesn't do. I don't believe most leaders know half of what goes on under their leadership.
I blame Bush for signing the darn thing, though.
I blame everyone who had a hand in it's creation equally.
But, hey. We're off topic.
 
How is Bush trying to neuter the First Amendment? By trying to extend the Patriot Act. By introducing the abomination in the first place. By sending propoganda to the media disguised as news reporting (got that one straight from Josef Goebells). By branding any political disent "unpatriotic."

Face it--the guy has been a disaster for the Bill of Rights.
 
A law restricting firearms purchases by terrorists would be as successful as laws restricting using firearms for illegal purposes... :rolleyes:
 
By sending propoganda to the media disguised as news reporting (got that one straight from Josef Goebells).

I guess that two posts is about average for the first appearance of Nazi references these days.

Oh, by the way, "propaganda" as news reporting? I doubt Bush got that from Goebbells. Seems to me every government has been doing that since, well, since the two humans got together and decided who was in charge, thus creating the first government.

As for branding all dissent unpatriotic, can we please lose the hyperbole? I can remember more than one discussion about dissent and Bush welcoming it. What was branded unpatriotic were discussions about how the insurgents were heroes, how we were doing horribly in Iraq, how America was an evil bully, you know, the kind of things that tended to destroy morale and aid the insurgency . . . as well as being out right lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top