Terrorist watch list

Once again, President Obama has brought up the fact that those on the terrorist watch list are not barred (via the NICS database) from purchasing firearms. Before anyone renders an opinion on the legality of tying the Watch list and the NICs together, at least take the time to review some information regarding said list.

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

The Breath-Taking Incompetence of Our American GovernmentÂ*|Â*James Moore

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet-federal-watch-lists

Note that none of these links can in no way even remotely be considered an arm of the "evil empire" NRA so you can leave the NRA ad homs and strawmen in the closet with your tin foil hats. (and before some of you even go down this route...yes, the pro gun camp has a few tin foil hats as well so stick to the subject.)

The typical Ad Hom/strawman suggestion is that anyone against tying the two together must support terrorists having access to firearms. That is simply BS. Everyone, pro and anti gun, would love to see a method of preventing a terrorist from acquiring firearms. The question of how to do so without violating the rights and freedoms of innocent people should be the central concern. Several members on this board have expressed outrage over the fact that "thousands of terrorists " have been able to purchase firearms legally and do not even remotely consider our fundamental right to due process.

The NICs database contains a list of those legally prevented through due process from purchasing firearms. So given the information presented, it seems that the best way to prevent people on the watch list from purchasing firearms is to make it illegal for someone on the list to purchase a firearm. Personally, I think the tangible right of due process for millions is a more important reason not to tie the two together. The other choice denies the right of due process to millions of innocent people for an intangible feeling of security and nothing more; All based on the actions of a infinitesimal number of criminals/terrorists. Not much different than the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII....

Thoughts or opinions?

BretJ said:

Once again, President Obama has brought up the fact that those on the terrorist watch list are not barred (via the NICS database) from purchasing firearms.

Thoughts or opinions?

Click to expand...

I think we are making a mess of this list.

If I understand the point of the "Terrorist Screening Database" right, we are talking about a screening process against obtaining visas for entry to the country, boarding aircraft, and engaging in other activity as a means to prevent certain action. In that definition it makes sense to screen against purchasing guns.

However our problem is two fold.

One, the list itself is in question. Most legislation on this matter, which does not even make it out of committee, fails on this point. There really is no evaluation going on as to determine how someone ends up on this list. As such the concern is being on this list but because of being a family member, or acquaintance, or somehow by business associated with someone else on the list for real reasons. If you target an expanded group for elimination from 2nd Amendment rights based on the actions of some that should legitimately be on the list, then it stands to reason that the government will continue to inflate the list for political purposes over and above safety.

I do not agree at all with the NRA's interpretation of this, but I do agree with the ACLU's concerns on how this list is administrated.

We already have examples, be it somewhat apples to oranges, of government lists being used to unfairly target what the ACLU calls "law-abiding citizens who may have controversial political and/or religious beliefs." We know some on the far left look at others on the far right as being inherently "Christian fundamentalists" and/or "terrorists" and by expanded lists plenty will get caught up who are not necessarily deserving of having their 2nd Amendment rights restricted. That power granted to the government, more or less without "due-process" is a Constitutional concern.

Which is point Two, the Constitutionality of these lists at all. If you can show that due-process is sidestepped for consideration on a government list of tracking (or "screening") for any reason then it is easy to show that the 4th Amendment was violated. We know the "no-fly list" itself was so poorly administered that it prevented elected Congressmen from time to time getting on a plane. Similar names, alias names, etc. have all created headaches for the wrong people. We should be questioning all these lists before expanding their power to prevent actions.

I agree that we need to be protecting this nation, but we need to be cautious with these lists else they become more a political tool than an effective weapon to prevent a terrorist from legally buying a gun.

BretJ said:

Once again, President Obama has brought up the fact that those on the terrorist watch list are not barred (via the NICS database) from purchasing firearms. Before anyone renders an opinion on the legality of tying the Watch list and the NICs together, at least take the time to review some information regarding said list.

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

The Breath-Taking Incompetence of Our American GovernmentÂ*|Â*James Moore

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet-federal-watch-lists

Note that none of these links can in no way even remotely be considered an arm of the "evil empire" NRA so you can leave the NRA ad homs and strawmen in the closet with your tin foil hats. (and before some of you even go down this route...yes, the pro gun camp has a few tin foil hats as well so stick to the subject.)

The typical Ad Hom/strawman suggestion is that anyone against tying the two together must support terrorists having access to firearms. That is simply BS. Everyone, pro and anti gun, would love to see a method of preventing a terrorist from acquiring firearms. The question of how to do so without violating the rights and freedoms of innocent people should be the central concern. Several members on this board have expressed outrage over the fact that "thousands of terrorists " have been able to purchase firearms legally and do not even remotely consider our fundamental right to due process.

The NICs database contains a list of those legally prevented through due process from purchasing firearms. So given the information presented, it seems that the best way to prevent people on the watch list from purchasing firearms is to make it illegal for someone on the list to purchase a firearm. Personally, I think the tangible right of due process for millions is a more important reason not to tie the two together. The other choice denies the right of due process to millions of innocent people for an intangible feeling of security and nothing more; All based on the actions of a infinitesimal number of criminals/terrorists. Not much different than the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII....

Thoughts or opinions?

Click to expand...

Quite right.
I see it as just one of many examples of that guy using anything he can to drag us to where he wants to go.
Climate Change, Obamacare, and Syrian Refugees are others.

It's amazing how leftists are so willing to violate others constitutional rights of due process.

ReverendHellh0und said:

It's amazing how leftists are so willing to violate others constitutional rights of due process.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, there are conservatives and libertarians out there that would do the same...

BretJ said:

In all fairness, there are conservatives and libertarians out there that would do the same...

Click to expand...

I'll give you conservatives, by definition, not libertarians.

ReverendHellh0und said:

I'll give you conservatives, by definition, not libertarians.

Click to expand...

Not saying there is not any cognitive dissonance on their part, but I have heard libertarians express issue withs refuges and who has firearms. Not many but some (I am a registered libertarian and hang with a few as well)

BretJ said:

Not saying there is not any cognitive dissonance on their part, but I have heard libertarians express issue withs refuges and who has firearms. Not many but some (I am a registered libertarian and hang with a few as well)

Click to expand...

As far as refugees, the one question, is, who is to pay for it? if you take my tax dollars and fund these refugees you are doing so by coercion, this is not a libertarian ideal.


a libertarian ideal would be the government pressure local regional countries to take care of their neighbor's crisis and not dump it on us, and if Americans want to pay for and sponsor refugees, they should be free to, on their own dime.

ReverendHellh0und said:

As far as refugees, the one question, is, who is to pay for it? if you take my tax dollars and fund these refugees you are doing so by coercion, this is not a libertarian ideal.


a libertarian ideal would be the government pressure local regional countries to take care of their neighbor's crisis and not dump it on us, and if Americans want to pay for and sponsor refugees, they should be free to, on their own dime.

Click to expand...

Absofreakinglutely.

BretJ said:

Absofreakinglutely.

Click to expand...

I'd also add over the past few years more and more people claim to be libertarians who are either social conservatives or some kind of wierd left wing collectivists...

It's odd times.

The United States should not be able to permanently, or quasi-permanently, violation a citizens constitutionally protected rights without due process.

Getting onto a plane, which requires travel onto federal land and travel through federally owned space, is not a constitutionally protected right.

Purchasing a firearm is.

It would not more be constitutionally justified to deny someone the ability to purchase a firearm for this reason than it is for someone to be forbidden from writing a blog or submitting op eds to a news paper...or attending their place of worship.

This is the problem with how the discussion goes; everything is often an extreme, and simply a measure to move closer to banning some set of citizens from owning guns OR banning some guns from being owned by citizens, instead of actually looking for a way to both respect peoples rights while at the same time take steps to act in the name of security for the citizenry.

You want to do something with regards to the terrorist watch list and guns? Sure, no problem there. Here's what you do....

When the normal background check occurs for purchasing a weapon, it also is checked against the terror watch list. If the information is a match, then it sends up a red flag to the TSC that someone on the list just purchased a firearm. At that point they can properly look at that information, make a determination if it warrants a closer look or can largely be ignored, and go from there. At best, the only action law enforcement could take off such a thing is to have a solid record of what legally purchased arms those on the list may have and simply give them reason to want to look closer at the person.

The person would not be forbidden from purchasing the firearm, so no infringement in that case.

Because he can purchase the weapon, it also helps to not potentially alert them to the fact that they may be on the terrorist watch list; an important step for those who are on there for good reason, and of little consequence for those on there wrongly.

What it does do is allow the government a bit better ability to potentially track situations where someone with known ties to terrorism may purchase a weapon and transfer it illegally to another terrorist who we have not actually identified yet.

Sadly, what'd likely happen even from that kind of suggestion would be many on the staunch "pro-gun" side screaming "OMG you're just wanting to set the government up to ban guns!" and the "pro-regulation" side going "But that's not going to keep them from going and shooting things up. You're just obsessed with gun culture!!"

I will say this: "But it's too easy to get on the terrorist watch list!" isn't an argument against requiring people on that list to clear their name before they can purchase guns. It's an argument for cleaning up the list.

It's absurd that we don't worry that potential terrorists can legally buy guns, but we worry that some Syrian refugees might be terrorists. Especially when they refugee process is the hardest way a terrorist could try to sneak in.

Mr Person said:

I will say this:

It's absurd that we don't worry that potential terrorists can legally buy guns, but we worry that some Syrian refugees might be terrorists. Especially when they refugee process is the hardest way a terrorist could try to sneak in.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It is hypocritical. Due process applies to everyone and we cannot pick and choose based on a feeling or notion someone might be a potential terrorist simply because they are a refugee. Violent extremists do not represent the vast majority of refugees

ReverendHellh0und said:

I'd also add over the past few years more and more people claim to be libertarians who are either social conservatives or some kind of wierd left wing collectivists...

It's odd times.

Click to expand...

Libertarian isn't just an ideology.

It's also a political party that I can join, for free, by checking a box on an online form (at: lp.org/membership).

I can join the party because I agree with all, or a majority, or even some of their positions, or simply as a means of rebellion against belonging to one of the two major parties, or for any other reason at all really.

In a very real sense, if I hold membership in the party, I am just as much a "Libertarian" as any fundamentalist libertarian ideologue.

I would argue that very few people who call themselves a "Democrat" or a "Republican" agree 110% with everything the current "R" and "D" parties stand for, and I'm sure the political philosophers amongst us would argue that neither of those parties is an ideologically pure representative of what it should be.

For better or for worse the Libertarian Party has become mainstream enough that it's getting watered down and perverted and there are as many different flavors of Libertarian as there are Republican or Democrat.

soot said:

Libertarian isn't just an ideology.

It's also a political party that I can join, for free, by checking a box on an online form (at: lp.org/membership).

I can join the party because I agree with all, or a majority, or even some of their positions, or simply as a means of rebellion against belonging to one of the two major parties, or for any other reason at all really.

In a very real sense, if I hold membership in the party, I am just as much a "Libertarian" as any fundamentalist libertarian ideologue.

I would argue that very few people who call themselves a "Democrat" or a "Republican" agree 110% with everything the current "R" and "D" parties stand for, and I'm sure the political philosophers amongst us would argue that neither of those parties is an ideologically pure representative of what it should be.

For better or for worse the Libertarian Party has become mainstream enough that it's getting watered down and perverted and there are as many different flavors of Libertarian as there are Republican or Democrat.

Click to expand...

note the small "l" in libertarian.


the Libertarian party's gone a bit off the rails lately.

BretJ said:

Once again, President Obama has brought up the fact that those on the terrorist watch list are not barred (via the NICS database) from purchasing firearms. Before anyone renders an opinion on the legality of tying the Watch list and the NICs together, at least take the time to review some information regarding said list.

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

The Breath-Taking Incompetence of Our American GovernmentÂ*|Â*James Moore

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet-federal-watch-lists

Note that none of these links can in no way even remotely be considered an arm of the "evil empire" NRA so you can leave the NRA ad homs and strawmen in the closet with your tin foil hats. (and before some of you even go down this route...yes, the pro gun camp has a few tin foil hats as well so stick to the subject.)

The typical Ad Hom/strawman suggestion is that anyone against tying the two together must support terrorists having access to firearms. That is simply BS. Everyone, pro and anti gun, would love to see a method of preventing a terrorist from acquiring firearms. The question of how to do so without violating the rights and freedoms of innocent people should be the central concern. Several members on this board have expressed outrage over the fact that "thousands of terrorists " have been able to purchase firearms legally and do not even remotely consider our fundamental right to due process.

The NICs database contains a list of those legally prevented through due process from purchasing firearms. So given the information presented, it seems that the best way to prevent people on the watch list from purchasing firearms is to make it illegal for someone on the list to purchase a firearm. Personally, I think the tangible right of due process for millions is a more important reason not to tie the two together. The other choice denies the right of due process to millions of innocent people for an intangible feeling of security and nothing more; All based on the actions of a infinitesimal number of criminals/terrorists. Not much different than the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII....

Thoughts or opinions?

Click to expand...

you are correct-gun banners want to ban guns. They will use any means to do so including expanding the number and type of people who're are declared "prohibited" persons. They don't care if inclusion is rational or not. So if you oppose their wholesale rape of our rights, they scream that we want terrorists, nutcases, felons, etc to have guns. They are gun banners. They lie, that is what they do

ReverendHellh0und said:

note the small "l" in libertarian.

Click to expand...

That's really just semantics.

I know what you mean, but there's no hard and fast rule that everyone conversing on social media or Internet chat forums has to understand even the most fundamental rules of grammar.

I'm sure plenty of folks who call themselves libertarians really mean that they're Libertarians and I'm sure there are many Libertarians who believe that being 60% or 70% libertarian is more than enough to consider themselves Libertarians and libertarians.

The issue comes up all the time with conservatives and liberals as well.

There are lots of tax and spend conservatives as long as you're spending on national defense, the police/industrial complex, or sending money hand over fist to Israel and there are plenty of #BLM, anti-police big government liberals.

I would hazard to guess that there are very, very few libertarians who wouldn't like to see something about the libertarian ideology change at least a little bit.

The no-fly list is a combination of several lists:

Major Watch Lists - the government has placed different agencies in charge of several separate databases and watch lists, deliberately splitting responsibility between the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies

Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) — Run by the National Counterterrorism Center, this database contains intelligence on some 550,000 suspected terrorists and their associates.

Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) — the official terrorism watch list contains more than 400,000 names of people for whom authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" they are tied to terrorism. It is run by the Terrorist Screening Center, housed at the FBI, and can be accessed by a wide range of U.S government officials.

The "Selectee" List — Originally run by the Transportation Security Administration, this list is a much more selective collection of names of people with suspected terrorist ties who must undergo secondary screening procedures before boarding airplanes. Now maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, it contains about 14,000 names.

The "No Fly" List — only about 4,000 names are on the no-fly list, including al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. Originally a TSA database, the Terrorist Screening Center now compiles this list of suspected terrorists who are believed to pose a direct threat to aviation or national security.
'System Failure' In U.S. Screening For Terrorists : NPR