Using "Terrorist Watchlist" as part of gun purchase check.

[Eric N.]

Got this email from the NRA and thought that I would share.. Basically Lieberman wants to include the terrorist watchlist when doing a background check for buying a gun and we all know how accurate that list is. Plus, my favorite part is how they don't want to disclose any of the watch list info for you to be able to fight it in court if you can't buy a gun because you are on the list for whatever reason.

Since September 11, 2001, it's been clear that terrorists who hate America will exploit our weaknesses in order to destroy us. This week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg exploited Americans' fear of terrorism to push their latest anti-gun proposal, and in doing so showed that they're willing to destroy other parts of the Constitution, to choke its Second Amendment.

On Tuesday, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lieberman held a hearing to give Lautenberg and King the opportunity to promote their bills S.1317 and H.R.2159, to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI's "terrorist watchlist," and Lautenberg's S. 2820, to maintain records of approved instant background check transactions for a minimum of 180 days. The watchlist bills further propose that a person seeking relief in court from these new restrictions would be prevented from examining and challenging "evidence" against him, and that the judge deciding whether the person had been watchlisted for good reason be limited to summaries and redacted versions of such "evidence."

links:

Hearing - http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/inde...aring_ID=a6061b56-3636-4fac-8446-b3c0dd65d02d

Bill S.1317 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01317:@@@L&summ2=m&

Bill H.R. 2159 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02159:@@@L&summ2=m&

Bill S. 2820 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN02820:@@@L&summ2=m&

Load of crap if you ask me. At least Senator Susan Collins said the following in her statment which tells me that at least someone is thinking about our constitutional rights before infringing all of them. A quote from her statment.

One of the more important accomplishments since September 11, 2001, has been the creation of a consolidated terrorist watchlist based on information from all parts of the Intelligence Community and the FBI.
Our watchlist system, properly implemented, can be an effective mechanism for preventing individuals with suspected terrorist ties from boarding an aircraft. It also alerts law enforcement and border protection officers to more carefully screen potential terrorists, and allows the State Department to revoke visas of foreign persons with terrorist ties who are attempting to travel to the United States.
But the evidence used to compile the watchlist is often fragmentary and can be of varying degrees of credibility. As our late colleague Senator Ted Kennedy found out when his name was included, the watchlist can be inaccurate. For example, the latest DoJ Inspector General’s report concluded that approximately 35 percent of those sampled remained on the watchlist based on outdated information or material unrelated to terrorism. It is not, in other words, the equivalent of a criminal history report.
Incidents of mistaken application of the terrorist watchlist are very unfortunate, but those errors now result only in the restriction of a privilege, such as the right to board a plane or to travel to the U.S. from overseas. The expansion of the watchlist system to potentially deprive law-abiding Americans of a constitutional right, however, is wholly different and raises many critical questions.
As Congress considers the application of the terrorist watchlist to activities protected by the Constitution, we must carefully consider these questions:
• Are appropriate protections included within the watchlisting process to justify the denial of a constitutional right?
• If not, what procedural protections should be afforded those who are erroneously denied the ability to purchase a firearm?
• What guidelines are necessary to constrain the Attorney General’s discretion to prevent law-abiding Americans from purchasing a firearm?
None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun. But neither should we want to infringe upon a constitutional right of law-abiding Americans.

What are your thoughts or opinions on this? I personally hope that these bills don’t pass..

 

[stu454]

A terrorists isn't going to walk into a store and fill out a 4473, in spite of what knewsom might say.

 

[ptschram]

A terrorists isn't going to walk into a store and fill out a 4473, in spite of what knewsom might say.

No, but your info will be checked should you wish to buy a gun. Once again, the law abiding suffer for the actions of the criminals.

 

[jhmover]

Considering how fucked up the no fly list is, this wont fly.

 

[knewsom]

A terrorists isn't going to walk into a store and fill out a 4473, in spite of what knewsom might say.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. The guy who tried to blow up that SUV in NY had a LEGALLY purchased handgun on him when he was arrested.

...I mean, he was also an idiot...

I'm in favor of gun-ownership, and 2nd amendment rights - but with all the hard talk you guys throw around about terrorists, I'm rather surprised you want to sell them guns.

 

[Eliot]

I don't mind so long as there's an effective appeals process for people placed on the watchlist. That's a real issue though as I imagine in many cases the Federales will say "state secrets" and refuse to answer questions.

In theory though? I don't find it too onerous. The right to bear arms should be tempered with some responsibilities and as far as it goes someone running my name through a database isn't too much of a burden.

 

[akronk1]

You're wrong, I'm afraid. The guy who tried to blow up that SUV in NY had a LEGALLY purchased handgun on him when he was arrested.

No, it was a Keltech rifle, later it was found in his car.
Your right he did purchase a Kel-tech in CT & is an Idiot, & probably was pissed he couldn't legally buy an AK

 

[stu454]

The no-fly list is so fucked that anyone that backs this as things stand now is a moron.

Fix the list and I'll talk to you about it.

 

[Eric N.]

You're wrong, I'm afraid. The guy who tried to blow up that SUV in NY had a LEGALLY purchased handgun on him when he was arrested.

...I mean, he was also an idiot...

I'm in favor of gun-ownership, and 2nd amendment rights - but with all the hard talk you guys throw around about terrorists, I'm rather surprised you want to sell them guns.

Here's the thing about that. I wouldn't want people to knowingly sell guns to a terrorist either but, until they actually do some thing to get labled a "terrorist" like blow up a building, shoot a bunch of people at a Walmart, or whatever, then they aren't "terrorist" yet are they? After doing their "terrorist" act they are criminals and we already have a check in place for that. You know, for people that have actually done some thing wrong.. Not people that some one, some where, thinks might do something wrong based on who knows what info.. That fact that no one really knows where or how the names for this "terrorist watch list" are found and added is a huge problem. They can pretty much put who ever they want on that list for any reason they want and it's up to you to prove they are wrong. How much money and time do you think that will take? I bet a lot of both.

The fact is that criminals will get guns one way or another and this is only going to screw with John-Q-public who hasn't done anything wrong.. Hell, if you call Dell for customer support for one of their laptops does that mean you are going to get added to the watch list for making a call to the middle east? It's stupid to do this and it's only meant to get a little bit closer to wide spread gun controll..

 

[Eric N.]

I don't mind so long as there's an effective appeals process for people placed on the watchlist. That's a real issue though as I imagine in many cases the Federales will say "state secrets" and refuse to answer questions.

In theory though? I don't find it too onerous. The right to bear arms should be tempered with some responsibilities and as far as it goes someone running my name through a database isn't too much of a burden.

They do that now anyways when you buy a gun. The difference is it's a criminal background check with the police which is based on things that you have actually been convicted of. Not a list that was just made up using whatever data that might have people on it that might actually think about doing some thing evil.

To me that is like being told you aren't allowed to get a drivers license or buy a car becuase you might get into an accident or you might have a beer and drive it.

 

[Andrew Homan]

A terrorists isn't going to walk into a store and fill out a 4473, in spite of what knewsom might say.

X2

Now if every law abiding person had a gun with them a terrorist might think twice about pulling theirs out .

 

[Eric N.]

X2

Now if every law abiding person had a gun with them a terrorist might think twice about pulling theirs out .

Or a rapist, a mugger, a bank robber, a car jacker, and the list goes on.

 

[stu454]

But wouldn't gut-shooting a rapist violate his rights?

 

[Eric N.]

But wouldn't gut-shooting a rapist violate his rights?

Well, I hope that I never have to find out but, if I came across a person trying to rape someone I'll let you know what happens to me at my court date for stopping it.

 

[roverMc]

But wouldn't gut-shooting a rapist violate his rights?

That's why you should shoot them in the head.

 

[stu454]

I want him to live with a fucked-up GI tract so that everytime he shits in the bag he's wearing he'll remember me.

 

[knewsom]

... until they actually do some thing to get labled a "terrorist" like blow up a building, shoot a bunch of people at a Walmart, or whatever, then they aren't "terrorist" yet are they? After doing their "terrorist" act they are criminals and we already have a check in place for that. You know, for people that have actually done some thing wrong.. Not people that some one, some where, thinks might do something wrong based on who knows what info..

There are quite a few people who meet this exact description currently locked away from the light of day, with no trial, no charges, etc... I suppose you're saying we should let them go?

 

[Andrew Homan]

Well, I hope that I never have to find out but, if I came across a person trying to rape someone I'll let you know what happens to me at my court date for stopping it.

Nothing better happen as you shouldn't even have a court date.

 

[Eric N.]

There are quite a few people who meet this exact description currently locked away from the light of day, with no trial, no charges, etc... I suppose you're saying we should let them go?

Sure, why not.. Then if they go back and hook up with their buddies and start planning to kill people we can just blow them up or shoot them and save a bunch of tax payer money. I'm sure you are talking about the "Gitmo" folks and some of them have been let go only to be found plotting terror and killed in the process. At least that's what I read a while ago. We sure shouldn't be brining them over here though..

 

[Eric N.]

Nothing better happen as you shouldn't even have a court date.

Ya, you'd think.. However, you never know around here. Fairfax County Gov. is a little funny about people defending themselves. They'd probably let his family sue me in civil court or some thing stupid like that.