More than 800 gun purchases were approved after background checks in the last five years even though the buyers' names were on the government's terrorist watch list, investigators said Monday.
Being on the watch list is not among the nine factors, such as a felony conviction, that disqualify someone from buying a gun under federal law. More than 900 background checks between February 2004 and February 2009 turned up names on the watch list, and all but 98 were allowed to go through.
The watch list — maintained by the FBI and used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies — is meant to identify known or suspected terrorists. However, the list has drawn criticism over the years for mistakes that have led to questioning and searches of innocent people.
I believe this is the same list we talked about last year. At that time there were reports all over the internet that the list contained a million names, obviously many who didn't belong there. Suddenly the government announced the list is much shorter than that, around 16,000 they said. So what does it mean? What does it mean for the 800 "suspected terrorists" who've purchased firearms over the last five years?
The top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association said the terrorist watch list has names of people who should not be on the list.
"Law-abiding Americans should not be treated like terrorists," the NRA's Chris Cox said. "To deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights based on a secret list is not how we do things in America."
I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list. The federal government that keeps lists on it's citizens might be all right for China and Iran, but surely not in America. But what's a government to do? How are they supposed to anticipate another 9/11 attack if they don't keep lists? These are difficult questions.
About anyone being able to buy guns, certain places in America are havens for that sort of thing, aren't they? No one goes to New Jersey for that, but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns. And let's not forget the so-called "straw purchasers" and the middle men looking only to turn a profit. That's the problem. That's where a lot of the gun flow happens.
We talked about New Jersey's new one-gun-a-month law the other day. Is it safe to assume that the crime guns in Camden and Newark are for the most part imported from out of state? Then would it be safe to assume that if those other states had similar restrictions to those of NJ, this type of gun flow would cease? I say yes, and I say that's part of the solution. I also say it would be a small price for the legitimate gun public to pay for a major improvement in the gun violence problem.
What's your opinion?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteLet's list your factually incorrect statements.
First, What does it mean for the 800 "suspected terrorists" who've purchased firearms over the last five years?
Sorry but the article doesn't say a single suspected terrorist has purchased a firearm....
even though the buyers' names were on the government's terrorist watch list
The person's name is on the watch list. That include names like Ted Kennedy. If John Jones is listed, does that means John Jones from Miami, or Dallas, or Rome Italy?
I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list.
Do you know who is on the list?
Do you know the criteria to be placed on the list?
Do you know how to get someone's name off the list?
Sorry but if the information is not disclosed it qualifies as a secret list...that one was qualified but still inaccurate.
but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns.
Nope the Federal laws apply every where as a minimum. It is not easy for a felon or mentally ill person to buy firearms...since it is against the law.
I'll let others discuss it in more detail. Time to get ready for church.
Yawn.
ReplyDeleteYet another attack on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms without a conviction, without an indictment, without even an arrest or formal accusation. Due process is such an outdated concept.
"I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list. "
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Are you able to find out if your name is on it beforehand? Can you find out why?
Think about it. The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT wants to deny rights to people that HAVE NOT been convicted or even indicted for anything.
Why doesn't that scare the hell out of you?
Should the gov't monitor these alleged individuals. To a point. But this is no more than a modern attempt at the Alien and Sedition/Espionage/Sedition acts.
And who supports it as well. Good ol Sen. Lautenburg. One of Congress's biggest anti-gun cheerleaders. Why isn't he calling for the immediate detainment of these individuals? Oh right. Because they haven't committed any crimes.
Can we agree that our Justice System is based on, in part, due process and that means that by definition, a "suspect" is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers?
ReplyDeleteThe "watch list" turns this around 180 degrees...guilty until proven innocent by government officials(I believe you referred to them as feckless idiots in the prior post).
It's difficult enough for sitting members of congress to get their names off the list...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/
An even better atricle from the NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/national/20flight.html?hp
...how does the average Joe, who shares the same name, or a similar name, get their names off the list?
How do they get on the list for that matter?
It's all a big secret.
Last time I checked, "Mike" was a very common name. Are you on the list?
"National Rifle Association counters some suspects might be innocent"
Gotta slam the NRA on this one.
By definition, ALL suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
""The current law simply defies common sense," Sen. Frank Lautenberg said in a statement Monday."
The current law he refers to is the Bill of Rights. Doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy.
"Law-abiding Americans should not be treated like terrorists," the NRA's Chris Cox said. "To deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights based on a secret list is not how we do things in America."
Damn straight.
One more thing to consider.
Let's say the Feds are keeping an eye on a suspect during a genuine investigation.
The suspect then tries to buy a gun and is denied.
When the suspect asks why they were denied the purchase, he is told that information is secret.
Presto! You've just tipped off the suspect that he is being watched!
If the Feds haven't gathered enough evidence to make an arrest, hence the ongoing investigation, then the investigation itself is now exposed and the suspect will change his behavior and warn any of his cohorts that they are being watched.
Some politician shoving his face in front of the closest TV camera and spouting off about the "Terror gap!" needs to look at the big picture, not to mention the Constitution.
Gun control laws are what politicians do instead of something.
I forgot to mention.
ReplyDeleteDo those who agree that those on "the list" should not be allowed to buy a gun, do you also agree that whatever guns they owned BEFORE being placed on the list should be confiscated by force?
Wanna open up that can of worms?
"I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a 'secret' list."
ReplyDeleteIt is secret in that there is no published list. Are you on it? Who knows but the keepers of the list.
Lautenberg's Soviet style bill that he introduced legislates the secret as well. Not only would his law stop someone from buying a gun that is on the list, another part of the bill also specifies that the government can not be made to divulge the reason that you are on the list, how or why you were added to the list or how to get removed from the list. Anyone can be added to the list that the Attorney General decides.
The media spins this bill as stopping 900 terrorists from buying guns but that is simply not true. It could stop 900 people that have never been convicted of any crime from buying a gun. An actual terrorist is either in jail, wanted for a crime or is on probation, parole or released and already cannot buy a gun.
This bill does not close the non-existent "terror gap". Terrorists will continue to buy illegal guns from illegal sources just as they do now. What this bill does is close the "due process gap". It allows the government to deny rights on a whim without worrying about that pesky Bill Of Rights.
So Mike, do you support the denial of rights to people merely "suspected" of wrongdoing?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to 14th Amendment, due process, presumption of innocence?
The government may not use "the possibility of another 9/11" as an excuse to shit all over the Constitution.
but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns.
And what states would that be, since felons and the mentally ill cannot legally purchase guns anywhere in this country, regardless of state firearms laws?
Mike W. asked, "So Mike, do you support the denial of rights to people merely "suspected" of wrongdoing?"
ReplyDeleteNo, Mike, I don't support that. Did you get the impression I do reading my post?
To you guys who questioned my assertion that anybody can buy a gun in certain states, isn't that the case? Aren't the gun shows and private sale of firearms open to anyone? Aren't those transactions done with no documentation and no checks of any kind? Isn't that what "loophole" means in these discussions? Please tell me if I've missed something.
The so-called "gun show loop hole and the "terror gap loop hole are two seperate issues.
ReplyDeleteIf a gun is bought in a private transaction between individuals, a NICS check is not required, if the sale occurs outside of a gun show.
Every state that has "closed the gun show loop hole has its own nuances. My state for example has closed the gun show loop hole but NICS is still not required if the sale occurs outside of a gun show. I can buy a gun without a NICS at a swap meet, a flea market, a garage sale or through the classified ads.
Without NICS, the AG would not have the chance to stop a sale because they wouldn't know about it.
Two seperate issues.
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteSo let's assume that John decides he wants to make some extra cash. So he breaks into his neighbors house while they are on vacation and steals a couple of handguns. He decides not to sell them to pawnshops, but rather to his cousin George for $100 each. George in turn gives one of these to his buddy Tom. Tom in turn trades his gun for a few hits of crack to Will. Will's girlfriend Sally takes the gun from Will for her personal protection. She get's into a fight with Alice and shoots her. Turns out that John, George, Tom, Will, and Sally were all prohibited persons for various reasons. Oh yeah, and all of this happened in the City of Chicago.
Why didn't our gun laws prevent this tragedy? Because, criminals do not obey the law (that is the definition of a criminal). No amount of checks, registration, etc, etc will prevent this. Chicago is living proof.
By the way, according to the BATFE, my scenario is much more realistic for how a crime gun flows than the strawman arguement that some punk criminal goes to a gun show and purchases a gun (at full or inflated price) from a private seller.
Aren't the gun shows and private sale of firearms open to anyone?
ReplyDeleteNO! I am sure this has been explained to you before. The fact that private sales are legal here in DE does NOT mean that I can sell to whomever I want, nor does it mean that Federal law doesn't apply.
Reputo,
ReplyDeleteRemember. According to MikeB, the very fact that the victim of the initial robbery had a firearm in his home makes him responsible for all the following actions.
Thirdpower,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if MikeB holds the people who mined the ore that went into the firearm responsible also?
What about it MikeB, do you hold the people who collected the bat guano that is used for the saltpeter responsible for the crimes committed with the gunpowder?
Do you hold the people who sold the firearm to the legal owner responsible because some crook stole it and used it in a crime?
Do you hold the people who constructed the factory the guns are made in responsible for the crimes committed with the firearms manufactured there?
kaveman, Before you were coming around here we beat it to death about the definition of "gun show loophole." It's a bad choice of words, which I've seen in the anti-gun sites has been avoided of late. Now for clarity's sake it's referred to as the private sale loophole, or something like that.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, in spite of what Mike W. says, private sales of firearms, which some say comprise 40% of overall sales, are done without background checks and even without any paperwork at all, if the buyer and seller agree.
kaveman, you're a reasonable guy. I ask you, don't you think this is a situation that's being abused by criminals?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhere do you stop in holding people responsible for "gun violence"?
"in spite of what Mike W. says"
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension Mike, do you have it?
Please READ what I wrote. All of the usual purchase laws still apply when I do a private sale. In spite of what YOU say, it doesn't give me permission to sell to whomever I want.
Also, where'd you pull this "40% of all sales" number? Out of your ass as usual Mike?
I ask you, don't you think this is a situation that's being abused by criminals?
ReplyDeleteThe question was directed at Kaveman, but I'd like to take a stab at it, if I may. The answer is probably "yes"--I have little doubt that criminals are abusing the system--they're kinda known for doing that sort of thing. My question is, what the hell does that have to do with me, and the rest of the non-criminals? Why should we have our freedoms curtailed, because of the actions of others?
My second biggest objection to gun laws (the first being that they're the evil tools of evil tyrants) is that they constitute a perfect example of prior restraint. Every gun law ever written criminalizes behavior that is not, in and of itself, harmful in any way, to anyone. Take the Gun Control Act of 1968--which made it illegal for felons to own guns, despite the fact that mere ownership of a gun (or a million guns) by a felon hurts no one.
Since then, as it became clear that simply outlawing possession of firearms by felons wasn't accomplishing much, because being criminals, they tended to acquire them despite the law, more laws were added to try to stop that acquisition process. So we have background checks. Selling a gun without a background check hurts no one, but without such a check, it's easier for felons to buy guns. Remember that a felon buying a gun is not in and of itself harmful to anyone, either, so now we have two layers of laws against behavior that harms no one.
Now, it's proposed that we close the "private sale 'loophole,'" adding a third layer--now we make it illegal to sell one's own property privately, even though conducting such a sale violates no one's rights, because doing so makes bypassing background checks easier. Bypassing background checks, you'll remember, harms no one, either, but it has to be stopped in order to help make sure that felons don't buy guns. Felons buying guns, remember, is also in and of itself harmless, but since felons tend to be dangerous people, they have to be kept disarmed.
How many layers of laws against behavior that harms no one are we going to accept? None, if I can help it.
"The point is, in spite of what Mike W. says, private sales of firearms, which some say comprise 40% of overall sales"
ReplyDeleteIncorrect, I have already adressed this on your blog.
If I need to repeat myself in order to communicate a point to the host of a blog, then that proves to me that you do not read the comments posted on your blog.
My time is just as valuable as yours, please don't waste it.
My apologies...
ReplyDeleteI actually addressed this 40% figure on Paul helmke's HuffPo blog which was originally posted and then deleted.
So much for reasoned discourse.
Sometimes I get my antis mixed up, so again I apologize.
Helmke states on the BC's own website that 40% of sales from gun shows don't do a background check.
What he did NOT say is that 40% of GUN sales at gun shows don't go through a background check.
I don't know how many gun shows you've attended in our country, but I have attended many.
Things and booths I see?
1. Dude with nothing but T-shirts
2. Dude with nothing but books.
3. Old pocket watches and coins.
4. Beef jerky.
5. Gut-rot coffee and hamburgers.
6. Guy with nothing but knives.
7. Guy with nothing but ammo.
8. Guy with nothing but holsters.
I could go on but I hope I've made my point.
Should I have to undergo a NICS check to buy some beef jerky and a really bad cup of coffee?
This is how the 40% figure is born.
40% of sales at a gun show does not equate to 40% of gun sales at a gun show.
I presume that you are intelligent enough to see the deception.
Should I have to undergo a NICS check to buy some beef jerky and a really bad cup of coffee?
ReplyDeleteActually, public safety might be considerably enhanced if we had some commonsense controls on bad coffee, up to and including an outright ban on the most dangerous "assault coffees."
kaveman, No problem. I was going to apologize to you for not having remembered what you wrote before. I do read everything, but the old memory ain't what it used to be, you know.
ReplyDeleteI've read that 40% figure written in several different ways. I didn't think it was deception. I thought they're saying that 60% are sold through FFL guys and 40% are not. The 40% would include everything other than the FFL guy who does the background check: gun show, flea market, someone's living room, etc.
Do you dispute that? What do you say are the right percentages?
Mike - I think you're misunderstanding what goes on at gun shows.
ReplyDeleteNot every vendor / booth setup sells firearms. In fact I'd say that at some shows that FFL's actuallly selling firearms are in the minority.
Given what is sold at gun shows there no way private sales account for 40% of the GUNS sold at the shows. 40% of everything sold? Sure, but that's not what the Brady's are trying to claim (they lie as usual.)
Hell, your average duy doing a private sale is looking to offload a couple of guns at most, while the dealers have tables full of guns for sale. Saying private sales account for 40% of the gun sales defies common sense if you've ever actually BEEN to a gun show.
Some guy doing a private sale CAN'T sell a whole bunch of guns the way the dealers do.
I run a table at local gun shows.
ReplyDeleteI sell surplus uniforms, helmets, gear, etc. along w/ my line of patches, stickers, and lapel pins.
Who are 'some' MikeB? Cite your sources.
The last gun show I went to (last month), I counted a total of 10 individuals who had firearms to sell (note I said to sell, not sold). Since I didn't go all three days, I'll multiply that by 10 and assume that 100 private firearms were being hawked. And we'll assume that 50% of them were sold (which is very conservative since there were two of the guys I saw that had the exact same firearm slung over their shoulder with the for sale sign on the barrel that I saw at the previous two gun shows).
ReplyDeleteAt this show, there were no less than 30 FFL dealers with an average of 200 firearms laid out (I don't know have any idea how much they had under the table - same model - or locked in their truck). That is 6000 firearms (minimum) being hawked. Now assume they only sold 10% of them (any FFL out there that could give me an idea of how much inventory is sold at a gun show?), that would equal 600 firearms. So 50/650 = 7.6% of firearm sales are private sales using the most loose estimates. Except that of the 4 transactions of private firearms I have witnessed, 2 were to licensed FFLs who then turned around and sold them as part of their inventory. So you could probably safely guess that the maximum percentage of firearms sold between private seller and private buyer is less than 4% of firearm sales at gun shows. For those who have never been to a gun show, there aren't that many private sellers walking around. What there are is hundreds of firearms being sold by FFLs (all doing background checks) with a few private individuals bringing 1 or maybe 2 firearms in to try and sell.