Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Longtime Gun Control Politicians Pushing Gun Owner Blacklist Bills in Congress

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 07:00 AM
Original message
Longtime Gun Control Politicians Pushing Gun Owner Blacklist Bills in Congress
--snip--

H.R. 2159 and S. 1317 would give an attorney general “the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

However, the bills would not impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for “appropriate suspicion.” They instead propose that “any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.”

http://www.ammoland.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yet another Bush administration proposal.
The Brady Campaign has long been a fan of the secret Bush administration blacklists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Due Process? We don't need no stinking Due Process! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. yes the ocd crowd will soon eliminate all restrictions of gun use by criminals too nt
Edited on Wed May-05-10 08:52 AM by msongs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Flip to the 'B' side, that one's scratched from mindless repetition. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Definitely , yes , yes, definitely repetition , definitely ,definitely
Seemingly endless repetition is but one of the pitfalls of living with OCD .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. So I should be denied the ability to exercise a right because I'm on a no fly list?
I share a name with a bad guy. We have different birthdays, countryside of origin, but because my parents gave me the same first name of this individual, I should be denied a civil right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Please support your assertion "eliminate all restrictions of gun use by criminals" since as is it's
a mindless statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. While nobody wants terrorists to have guns... this measure appears to circumvent due process.
In addition to (very likely) being unconstitutional... the phrase "fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind.

Something like this would have to go through congress as a bill... right?
Even if this "hearing" backs these measures... I can't see congress critters supporting this.
The grabbers just don't have the political capital to waste on jim-crow style gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, I'm just a law student but...
"appropriate suspicion" is not a legal standard that I am at all familiar with. Saying that it sounds quite a bit lower than probable cause, and that isn't all that high a standard in itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. k*r Do it!
Why not. They deny gun rights to felons and people with certain mental illnesses. Do terrorists get a free ride? Hell no.

I'll make it easier. If your on the terrorist watch list, then you should be automatically denied the right to buy a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Did you read post #7 before you posted? Do you think all civil rights
should be subject to government restriction (without trial or really any due process), or just those you disagree with? Are you comfortable with this power in the hands of a future repub administration? You do know that there are LOTS of non-terrorists on the no-fly list right? And if we have all these "terrorists" walking around the USA why don't we pick them up?

Just think it through - that's all I ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. I did think about it.
Edited on Fri May-07-10 12:55 AM by autorank
This is the last stop on my 'apology tour.' You're right. My reaction was emotional and then I figured, I'll be corrected, which I was, then I'll have to eat some crow, which I am. Apologies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Yes, and while we're at it... no abortions or voting for suspected terraists
See how rediculous it sound... stripping people of rights without any due process of law, review, or petition?
Yes, you sound rediculous.

Imagine you or someone you know was denied the right to vote or terminate a pregnancy simply because their name was on a list - a secret list with no checks, balances, appeals, or probable cause. The name was on the list so tough shit. That'd be pretty authoritarian, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Agreed... moment of excess on my part.
Edited on Fri May-07-10 12:55 AM by autorank
Apologies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. People with felony records, mental health adjudications, etc. have had due process and have recourse
Edited on Wed May-05-10 07:37 PM by slackmaster
Their status was the result of a civil or criminal court action, which is in the public record and available for review by anyone. They all have avenues of appeal by which they can challenge their status in the court system.

A person on the Sooper Sekrit Terra Watch List has no recourse whatsoever. There is no process by which a person can petition a court of law to rule that he or she was put on the list without just cause. There is no Habeas Corpus process through which you can demand that the government show that it had a good reason to put you on the list. There is no way to get your name off the list if it was put there in error.

If your on the terrorist watch list, then you should be automatically denied the right to buy a gun.

You're a big advocate of free and fair elections. How would you feel about denying those individuals the right to vote?

I think it's pretty ironic that an outspoken advocate of transparent and auditable elections would support giving the government the power to arbitrarily deny a person a civil right based on a secret police suspect list.

Welcome to the Gungeon, autorank. Most of the regulars here value ALL civil rights equally.

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. I was wrong. I stand corrected.
Edited on Fri May-07-10 12:55 AM by autorank
How about that. I'd just heard some dreadful creeps on C-Span making arguments - oh, right, it was Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and took it out on your thread.* My mistake. Apologies!

(*This is an explanation, not an excuse)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Maybe this will be a teachable moment for nohandle, sharesunited, depakid

et all.




Nahh. Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Graham does tend to make one crazy.
So it's an understandable nervous twitch to be against whatever he says ;)

However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. rofl Graham is a digital clock
Even when he's right, he's not;) But I get the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. lol! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. I think I'm going to have a heart attack now
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. No health events!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. If the terror watch list was not full or errors ...
I might support the plan.

But...


How to improve terrorist watch lists
Posted: May 3, 2010

The terrorist watch lists have been plagued by errors throughout their post-9/11 evolution. Mistakes in the lists have led to the embarrassing detainment of such prominent figures as the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and implicated countless innocent travelers like Kiernan O’Dwyer, a veteran American Airlines pilot stopped more than 80 times by U.S. customs agents. But the problems go beyond simple inconvenience.

Late last year, the Washington Post reported shocking new FBI data indicating that the ever expanding watch list database has swelled to over one million entries, and continues to grow by one thousand individuals each day. These estimates come on the heels of a series of internal government audits in which the Government Accountability Office and Justice Department have found severe flaws in the FBI’s terror watch list nomination practices.

The latest DOJ Inspector General’s report concluded that approximately 35% of those sampled were left on the list based on outdated information or material unrelated to terrorism. emphasis added

http://www.freep.com/article/20100503/OPINION05/100430069/1336/Opinion/How-to-improve-terrorist-watch-lists


Girl, 6, lands on terror watch list
April 20, 2010 12:41PM

A FAMILY is baffled to discover their six-year-old daughter has landed on a "no-fly" list alongside suspected terrorists.

Peter Mosher said he was “flabbergasted” to discover daughter Allison was on the terror watch list.

“It’s not just an inconvenience. It makes us less safe because they’re spending time investigating a six-year-old, instead of actually going after real terrorists,” Mr Mosher told the Boston Herald.

The list is operated by the US Terrorist Screening Centre. Copies are passed to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which hands them out to airlines.

Mr Mosher, from Worcester, US, discovered the error while attempting to print out boarding passes for his family’s trip to Phoenix, finding he was unable to obtain one for Allison.

He was informed by United Airlines that she had been “flagged by TSA security”, probably because she didn’t have a frequent-flyer number.

Despite offering to get her one Mr Mosher was told her name would remain on the list as it is managed by the TSA, and that Allison would most likely need to undergo additional security screening.

“I am very sorry she is on the list. But when that happens, we are required to conduct a secondary set of security steps," United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said.

A TSA spokeswoman said that because there are no children on the No Fly List, airlines can let kids younger than 12 bypass the tighter security.

Earlier this year eight-year-old Michael Hicks from New Jersey found himself on the terror watch list as he shares his name with a suspicious person.

Hicks is stopped and searched at nearly every airport, causing delays and headaches for his family.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/girl-6-on-terror-watch-list/story-e6frg8ro-1225855929483



Senator? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport
Published: August 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19— The meeting had all the hallmarks of an ordinary Congressional hearing. There was Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, discussing the problems faced by ordinary citizens mistakenly placed on terrorist watch lists. Then, to the astonishment of the crowd attending a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Mr. Kennedy offered himself up as Exhibit A.

Between March 1 and April 6, airline agents tried to block Mr. Kennedy from boarding airplanes on five occasions because his name resembled an alias used by a suspected terrorist who had been barred from flying on airlines in the United States, his aides and government officials said.

Instead of acknowledging the craggy-faced, silver-haired septuagenarian as the Congressional leader whose face has flashed across the nation's television sets for decades, the airline agents acted as if they had stumbled across a fanatic who might blow up an American airplane. Mr. Kennedy said they refused to give him his ticket.

''He said, 'We can't give it to you,''' Mr. Kennedy said, describing an encounter with an airline agent to the rapt audience. '''You can't buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.' I said, 'Well, why not?' He said, 'We can't tell you.'''

''Tried to get on a plane back to Washington,'' Mr. Kennedy continued. '''You can't get on the plane.' I went up to the desk and said, 'I've been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years. Why can't I get on the plane?'''
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html?pagewanted=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. The ACLU makes some interesng a valid points on the terrorist watch list...

May 3rd, 2010
We quickly learned that the would-be bomber who sought to bring down Flight 253 just before landing in Detroit on Christmas Day was in a terrorist database, but still allowed to board the plane. As a result, President Barack Obama has called for a much needed review of our terrorist watch list system, and members of Congress are floating ideas about how to keep alleged terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab off our planes and out of the country.

But we must be careful to address the actual problems with watch lists and avoid solutions that would only make it harder to find the terrorist needle in the ever-expanding hay stack of watch list entries. We must avoid the pattern in which time and time again, Congress has overreacted to external forces by embracing solutions that have proven unhelpful, if not counterproductive.

Rather than hastily expand the contents and use of these watch lists, Congress should enact reforms that improve the accuracy of the lists while limiting their potential for misuse.

The terrorist watch lists have been plagued by errors throughout their post-9/11 evolution. Mistakes in the lists have led to the embarrassing detainment of such prominent figures as the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and implicated countless innocent travelers like Kiernan O’Dwyer, a veteran American Airlines pilot stopped more than 80 times by U.S. customs agents. But the problems go beyond simple inconvenience.

***snip***

To ensure that watch lists actually protect against national security threats and to avoid penalizing innocent victims like Tom Kubbany in the future, Congress should take some simple steps to improve our government’s use of watch lists. Many of these vital reforms, outlined in the Constitution Project’s report “Promoting Accuracy and Fairness in the Use of Government Watch Lists,” are long overdue.

First, we must improve the accuracy of the lists on the front end. Most important, our intelligence agents need clear written standards that detail the specific evidentiary requirements for placing a person on a list.

Second, we must have a meaningful process to fix mistakes on the back end. There must be real redress opportunities for individuals erroneously placed on a watch list. Improved and standardized remedial procedures will promote enhanced government accountability and restore confidence in watch lists.

Finally, we must not allow use of watch lists to invade every sector of our daily lives. Grave threats to our country will not be averted by using watch lists as a blacklist to deny employment, licenses or other contracts to individuals. In these facets of everyday life, a more than adequate opportunity exists to conduct thorough background checks, and reliance on flawed watch lists poses an undue risk to individual civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/how-improve-terrorist-watchlists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Will ACLU support S1317 since it opposes RKBA or oppose S1317 because it supports due process? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC