It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Between February 2004 and February 2009, 963 people who sought to buy firearms in the United States matched names on federal terrorist watch lists, but 90 percent were allowed to proceed with the transaction, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released this week.
In cases where purchases proceeded, despite the watch list matches, there was no "prohibiting information," such as illegal immigrant status or felony convictions, according to the report.
Originally posted by xxpigxx
Where in the constitution does it say that someone does not have the right to bear arms based on their status?
Federal law prohibits any person who has ever been "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to ever or for any reason "possess... any firearm or ammunition." 18 U.S.C. 922(g) makes it a federal crime for any person who has ever been convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm regardless if it is inside or outside of the home. This blanket federal ban on all felon gun possession is punishable with up to 10 years of imprisonment. articlesbase
And by the way . . . have you seen what people are now terrorists?
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by xxpigxx
Felons? It's the XIII amendment. Convicts don't have rights.
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
-13th Amendment
I think you're letting yourself get overly emotional.
You're right, in so much that being on a list isn't indication of conviction, and having your rights deprived requires a conviction.
Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by schrodingers dog
That is not the constitution!
And once again . . . because one voted for Ron Paul, they should not be allowed to by a gun?
The first rationale questioned in this paper is the “civilly dead” rationale which explains that through the commission of their crimes, ex-felons have rendered themselves “civilly dead” and not part of the “virtuous citizenry” entitled to bear arms. However, this hinges on the conception of a right to bear arms as a civic or political right; a privilege that is not inherent, but rather, one that is defined and limited by one’s place in the civil polity. This theory has enjoyed considerable mileage, but it is difficult to reconcile with Heller’s holding that the Second Amendment is inextricably tethered to the inherent right of self-defense; an essential right that should transcend civil standing. --Winston P. Hsiao, University of California - Los Angeles
Originally posted by xxpigxx
Please point me to restrictions on the right to bear arms that are constitutionally based (and no, I do not think that that law is constitutional, by the way.
ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As "Low-Level Terrorism"
For Immediate Release: June 10, 2009
Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as "low level terrorism." ACLU attorneys are calling the approach "an egregious insult to constitutional values" and have sent a letter to the Department of Defense demanding that the offending materials be changed and that the DoD send corrective information to all DoD employees who received the erroneous training.
"DoD employees cannot fully protect our nation and its values unless they understand that a core American value is the constitutional right to criticize our government through protest activities," said ACLU of Northern California attorney Ann Brick. "It is fundamentally wrong to equate activism with terrorism."
Among the multiple-choice questions included in its Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course, the DoD asks the following: "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?" To answer correctly, the examinee must select "protests."
The ACLU sent a letter today to Gail McGinn, Acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, asking that the materials be corrected immediately. The ACLU points out that the misinterpretation of First Amendment freedoms is particularly disturbing when viewed in the context of a larger, long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives by the government that have attempted to treat lawful dissent as terrorism. Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon's monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests, the FBI's surveillance of potential protesters at the Republican National Convention, the Fresno County Sheriff Anti-Terrorism Unit's infiltration and surveillance of Peace Fresno, a community peace and social justice organization and the covert surveillance by the Maryland State Police of local peace and anti-death penalty groups.
"Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than respected, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe and less democratic," said Michael German, ACLU National Security Policy Counsel and former FBI Special Agent, who co-signed the letter with Brick.
The Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course is an annual training requirement for all DoD personnel that is fulfilled through web-based instruction.