Silence On A ‘Terror Gap’

Status
Not open for further replies.

peyton

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
661
Not trying to make a political comment, but I was angry after reading this blurb in Newsweek. It had me wondering when this bill came up and how come I haven't seen mention of it. I have seen several discussions on how wrong people are on no fly lists and I wonder if it is the same issue here? Lastly, it is the government who makes our laws, not one person.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154913

Sen. John McCain portrays himself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. But does that extend to gun rights for suspected terrorists? His campaign won't say where he stands on a bill to eliminate a gun-control loophole that even the Bush administration wants closed: a gap in federal law that inhibits the government from stopping people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. The bill was inspired by an official audit covering a five-month period in 2004 which found that, because of the loophole, the Feds had to greenlight 35 out of 44 cases where a gun buyer was on a terrorist watch list. One group opposed to closing the loophole is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun manufacturers' trade association. Until this spring, one of its congressional lobbyists was Randy Scheunemann, now a top McCain campaign adviser on foreign policy.

Last year the Justice Department, with White House approval, sent a bill to Congress that would close the loophole by giving the attorney general power to block gun sales to those who are identified via instant background checks as people on such watch lists. As a safeguard, the Bush bill would allow an alleged terrorist to go to court to challenge a gun ban. But the proposal has made little progress in the face of opposition from gun enthusiasts. Ted Novin, spokesman for the NSSF, says it opposes plugging what supporters of the bill call a "terror gap" because it denies "due process" to gun buyers. "Anyone can be put on this list," he says.

Registration documents filed by Scheunemann's company, Orion Strategies, list the terror-gap bill as one of its specific lobbying objectives, and the registrations listed Scheunemann as a lobbyist until he took a leave. McCain's campaign refused to answer questions about whether the senator supports or opposes the White House plan to close the loophole, and it also declined to say if Scheunemann had ever lobbied McCain on gun-control bills. "Randy Scheunemann is a foreign-policy adviser to Senator McCain, and he is on leave from Orion Strategies. We have no further comment," says Jill Hazelbaker, a campaign spokeswoman.

© 2008
 
Last edited:
Well let me help the good Senator out then:

dogmush said:
This is not a loophole. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right per our Supreme Court. Since being added to the "watch list" is an administrative action by a government agency, it does not constitute Dur Process, and as such can not be used as the basis for deprivation of rights. *

* Copyright 2008 by dogmush. Any candidate can use it, but if the quote is used they have to stand by it.


There. See that was easy. I should be a speechwriter. Next week we'll tackle why private compainies are almost never a good place to get ideas about new laws.
 
To illustrate liberal hypocrisy lets reword that slightly.

Sen. Barack Obama portrays himself as a strong supporter of First Amendment rights. But does that extend to speech rights for suspected terrorists? His campaign won't say where he stands on a bill to eliminate a free speech loophole that even the Bush administration wants closed: a gap in federal law that inhibits the government from stopping people on terrorist watch lists from speaking publicly.

Rights exist for all, laws that restrict rights will ONLY restrict the rights of the law abiding.

Laws against murder and destruction of property don't stop terrorists from arming themselves and committing their atrocities, why would a law that prevents law abiding people on a "terrorism watch list" from possessing arms stop a single terrorist attack?

Being on a watch list is not a conviction ... if I recall correctly, Senator Ted Kennedy ended up on the terrorist watch list. There are apparently 900000 names on that list. I bet most of those people are not even remotely connected to terrorism. In fact I bet many of US here on THIS VERY FORUM are on that list.


Read the Rand quote in my Sig and think about a law that prevents people on a so-called Terrorism Watch List from possessing arms fits into it.
 
900,000 people eh? Wonder how many acts of terror we had in the US last year or the year before or the year before that.... Can we claim success? And if so is it because of the list?

Edit to Add:
This terrorist loophole really is too much. I just don't understand why they don't just round all these terrorists up and put them on trial for thinking about commiting terror crimes.
 
Last edited:
To call the "Terrorist Watch List" a joke and a sham is a great insult to jokes and shams everywhere.
There are close to 1 Million names on this "list". There is no oversight or control of this "list". No one will tell you, yes or no, if you are on this "list". Once you are on this "list", it is virtually impossible to get off it, as no one seems to be in control of it.

And it's accounted for the arrest/capture of how many terrorists so far? Oh ya, none. Typical government program.
 
This has to be the most stupid thing in the world...

a person convicted of terrorism, sure...but not some list...

You would think that, but this is a country that 55 years ago rounded up hundreds of thousands of people and put them in a camp for being Japanese. That is the wonder of a democracy in action.
 
Let me see if I understand. You are irate about someone buying a gun that, if he is in fact a terrorist, would use bombs, fully automatic weapons or planes to kill us anyway?

It would be better to not have him able to buy something here, but I doubt a real terrorist would.
 
I have a friend/co-worker who made the no fly list and had to jump through hoops for a year to get off it. Probably spent the equivalent of a work week in man hours.

Please note that he is a 62 year old grandfather, white, Catholic, with a very boring and common name, who leads a pretty mundane life. I supposed there is a terrorist of Irish Catholic background who might have the same name, but I doubt it.

Do we trust the same idiots to maintain a "no gun buy" list? I'll take my chances with the crazy Muslims before trusting Homeland Security to effectively and accurately manage that list.
 
I'm not on the watch list, but several of my friends are for their lawful political activities. Adding people to a list for their protected speech and then using that list to prevent them from exercising a right is tyranny, pure and simple.

Governments never get people to abandon their rights without waving a boogie-man of some kind at them. Right now, for our government, those boogie-man is terrorism. In reality you are much much more likely to die in a car wreck with some drunk than to be killed by a terrorist - and yet there is not a "no drink list" to keep drunkards from bars or liquor stores.
 
SageMonkey said:
I'm not on the watch list...
You got a copy of the list? Maybe you are just because your friends are.

Is there a way to get a copy of the list? I would assume its classified, but it would be interesting to know if I'm on it or not.
 
Three hundred and ninety four ever-luvin' pages?

Sheesh!

I figured if I searched my own name I'd get on the list, too.:uhoh:

Whoops! This might be construed as a criticism. Sorry, dot-Gov. <shuffle feet> <grovel>
 
is there a list of the people thinkin they might be on the list ? you know, it could be more usefull than the list itself.. ;)

that's crazy
 
Tyris,

That is only part of the list ... the Treasure dept contribution. There is also the FBI, CIA, DIA, DHS yadda yadda yadda lists added to that that make up "the list" ... and then there are all the similar phonetic spellings and "soundex" index search hits on "the list" as well. :banghead:
 
Nobody with my last name is on the Terrorist Watch List?
You've got to be kiddin' me... maybe they're all on the top-secret Redneck Watch List... :p
 
"Adding people to a list for their protected speech and then using that list to prevent them from exercising a right is tyranny, pure and simple."

Doesn't denying anyone their rights without due process constitute a Bill of Attainder?

Ooops. I forgot- the Sacred Shysters have declared the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution de facto null and void while still de jure in effect? By means of deceit and legaloid weasel words they create the precepts by which the Constitution is destroyed while they say it is being followed, and demand respect for the "Rule of Law." What they forget or ignore is that obedience can be demanded, but respect must be earned. So far all the legal system has earned from me is fear and loathing, and whatever semblance of obedience is required to avoid having my home strafed by helicopter gunships and a tank crashing into my home spewing flame while the Nazi oafs demanding respect assure me it is not an invasion.
 
SageMonkey said:

"Adding people to a list for their protected speech and then using that list to prevent them from exercising a right is tyranny, pure and simple."


Respectfully, since when is flying on a commercial airliner a "right?" I honestly don't recall that anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Don't get me wrong, i am wholeheartedly in agreement on the invalidity of the watch list, but that doesn't make airline travel a right...
 
Dark Harvest: I'm pretty sure SageMonkey was referring to the potential use of that same said list to prohibit people from purchasing firearms.

Though, I would consider flying on a commercial airliner a right, insofar as it's something I would not consider justifiable for the federal government to interfere in, so long as both parties otherwise freely contract the service. Certainly not a positive right, but neither something the government has proper delegated authority to restrict.
 
Respectfully, since when is flying on a commercial airliner a "right?" I honestly don't recall that anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights only enumerates certain extremely important rights. It and the rest of the constitution should not be construed so as to limit the people's other inherent rights. This is a huge problem with the federal government. The only reason 9 out of 10 laws even exist is because of their wretched and shameful abuse of the interstate commerce clause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top