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.

 

Terror Suspects Can Buy Guns, Says Report

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Terror Suspects Can Buy Guns, Says Report


www.securitymanagement.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
This is just terrific ...

Charlton Heston is laughing in his grave at some of the ridiculous gun laws governing the United states.

I'm all for the right to bear arms but to folks on the terrorist watch list?

Not that the list is anything nearing legitimate, up until recently Nelson Mandela was on it.


Still, there has to be a limit to who can buy guns, and being on the terrorist watch list is surely one of dem limits.

Thankfully there's a bill before congress to rectify this madness, I wonder which NRA lackey will oppose it.

From the GAO report:


Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list.

cont.

In summary, from February 2004 through February 2009, FBI data show that 963 NICS background checks resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information and about 10 percent were denied.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


GAO

www.securitymanagement.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Where in the constitution does it say that someone does not have the right to bear arms based on their status?


And by the way . . . have you seen what people are now terrorists?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
"Terror Watch List" is not the same as "Convicted Terrorist."

It's fascinating to watch the evolution of the English language to Newspeak depths.

Doubleplusgood.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

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?


A little research never hurt anyone: 18 USC Section 922

Should you not be inclined to read the whole thing, here's an example:


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


Surely if a convicted felon can't purchase a weapon neither should someone on a terror watch list.

And to answer your question, the US constitution also doesn't say that a 2 year old can or can't own a machine gun, or drive a car, are you suggesting that they should?

The constitution was intended as a list of guiding principles to guide future lawmakers and not as a laundry list of inclusions/exclusions.


And by the way . . . have you seen what people are now terrorists?


I have and as i said in the OP it is almost laughable. Yet one transgression is not a legitimate foundation for another.

This is so simple only the government could screw it up ...

Fix the terror watch list and don't let those in it arm themselves.


[edit on 23 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Wrong!

That is not the constitution!

Where in THE CONSTITUTION does it ban the right to bear arms if you are a felon, or on a "watch list?"

I will help you a bit

And once again . . . because one voted for Ron Paul, they should not be allowed to by a gun?

The unconstitutionality of the thing is ridiculous. The people who are deemed terrorists make this so much more so.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Anyone can make a terrorist watch list. The department of homeland security recently decided being pro-Constitution among other things made you a potential terrorist.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

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.


That is concerning forced labor. That has nothing to do with gun rights.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


What? lol

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime i.e. community service.

I am not emotional enough, honestly.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


That is not the constitution!


I am aware of that elusive fact.

Perhaps I was moving too fast for you.
I was simply pointing out that even though the constitution doesn't state that convicted felons can't own guns, the law in fact does.
You are welcome to make yourself available for consideration as a SCJ and reinterpret the constitution at your relative pleasure.


And once again . . . because one voted for Ron Paul, they should not be allowed to by a gun?


Link please?
But if voting for Ron Paul does in fact put one on a terror watch list then we're in much worse trouble than I originally thought.
Though once again this would be an issue with the terror watch list and not the flawed foundation for allowing individuals of valid concern to arm themselves.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


I'll reply to both you and pig, as you both seem a little confused on what "forced labor" truly entails.

You're a slave. A ward of the state, in nice legal terms; meaning the property of the government which has convicted you.

Does a lamp have the right to own a gun? No, because a lamp is inanimate and a piece of property.

How about a cow? Cows are animate, but fail to make a citizenship qualification.

Thus is the same with convicts. They are about on par with a beast of burden (much like slaves).

Convicted felons, like cows, can not apply for any kind of license or 'privilege' to include driving, trade, or firearms without prior consent of the convicting institution or as prescribed by law.

The 13th Amendment is what makes our treatment of inmates and their behavior.

Even after getting out of prison, the "rights" are forfeit without being formally reinstated.

The rights, that so many people like the wrap themselves up in, are largely benefits of citizenship. A legal caste system which goes all the way through English Common Law to Roman type (the archetype of Western Civilization).

So instead of trying to make the case that slaves have the right to own things, point out that lists are not convictions.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
But it the amendment is abolishing slavery.


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


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.

As for the Watch List/Ron Paul thing, it was all over ATS a few weeks ago:

Link

[edit on 23/6/2009 by xxpigxx]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.


Well there's a very easy way to test that conviction ... (pun not intended)


Commit a felony, get convicted, get a gun, and surrender to the authorities. Appeal your conviction all the way to the supreme court (quickly before they go liberal) and have the whole thing reversed.

Bob's your uncle!


But in all seriousness, what should be tested by the supreme court are watch lists themselves. So far as I can tell they are a free for all database dumping ground for multiple agencies without any scrutiny or forethought. They are also a fear tactic for the PTB to encourage conformity and restrict freedom of expression.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The watch list is full of inaccuracies and targets the wrong people more often then it gets a terrorist.

Terrorist are going to use aliases and false documents anyway.

In Calif the police departments that have the system to download the drivers licence photos of people they stop have found illegals that have cloned the identity of people that are in the US legally or were born in the US.

In the US 10000+ plus cases of identity theft happen every year.

If you have the social security number, drivers licence information, date of birth and you can get a high quality fake drivers licence with your photo on it even to cops will be fooled most if the time because everything will match there computer records. only the photo will trip them up.

The cops in Calif have found a number of illegals that have used the identity of legal relatives as there own. these cases are usually found by the IRS when tax time comes around. but in most cases the IRS does not share the Info with law enforcement.

They also have had these illegals use there legal relatives identities to get drivers licences in other states.


I am not as worried about people on the terrorist watch list buying guns as i am worried about illegals, felons,and gang bangers using identity theft to get clean identities to buy guns.

I know there will be someone that thinks to stop this we need a national firearms id card to stop this.
but they could be faked just as easily once the identity theft has the identity data.

The US government still after years been unable to come up with a counterfeit proof green card for legal immigrants



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The problem is not with our gun laws, it's with bogus, ill-defined entities like these "terrorist watch lists" and "no fly lists" - either someone has committed a crime or they have not.

Felons are prohibited from owning weapons.

People on an ill-defined, secret, and apparently fairly arbitrary "watch list" are not.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


2 year old babies are on the terror watch list. Anyone with the same name as a 'Suspected" terrorist is on the watch list. What needs to be done is to have congress state emphaticly just who is allowed to add to the list and what is considered an actual terrorist. It's so vague now that nearly anyone who might or does disagree with any administration is suddenly an unconvicted felon by these standards used now! There is also no way to chalenge the liting without a large outlay in dollars. Less than 1% of the names on the present list are convicted of ANY crime so your law and constiutional arguement is moot!

Zindo

[edit on 6/23/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Please re-read the last paragraph of my last post.

I agree with you.


However what many on this thread are unwilling to do is be pragmatic. Yes we all agree that, as I premised in my OP, the terror watch list is so flawed it is practically useless.

But as things stand, and no matter what we think of it, it is a reality.
So ... mindful of this, should those on it have legal rights of access to weapons or not?

[edit on 23 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Answer to your question.... Yes,

Because some government jackass put a name on a list is no reason to deny a non-convicted US citizen any of their rights.

By the way, have you seen what can put YOU on a list?

www.aclunc.org...

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.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Simply put yes. They have committed no crime that can be adjudicated in a court of law so they are NOT ineligible to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Nor should they even be on a list that can consider them defacto felons! What can we do about it? probably not much but the alphabet soup boys are already peeing on the constitution. I just got an email from the NRA about ATF agents knocking on doors in the Southwest and asking to inspect peoples weapons to take serial numbers of firearms they have recently purchased with no warrants or probable cause other than some illegal fishing expedition trying to ramp up the administrations anti-firearm policy using the BS border stats on gun related issues!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join