Bill Would Ban Gun Sales to Terror Watch List

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A House Democrat introduced legislation on Wednesday to ban terror suspects on the "No Fly List" from buying weapons, a day after a government report showed that at least 47 had been able to legally purchase firearms.

New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced legislation barring anyone included on the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) No Fly List from purchasing firearms.

House of Representatives Republican leaders generally oppose gun control legislation, but in the Senate there have been some bipartisan efforts in the past.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg and several Democratic colleagues on Wednesday wrote to FBI director Robert Mueller asking for a meeting about what legislative fixes might be in order. The issue could emerge in the Senate in some form later this year.

The Government Accountability Office report Tuesday said people associated with terrorist groups had taken advantage of loopholes in U.S. gun laws that do not automatically bar a person belonging to such a group from buying a gun. It documented 44 attempts and 35 successful sales in five months of 2004, and another 12 sales later in the year.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7857491

[elehhhhna]

1. OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE.

[VegasWolf]

46. Hell, that means that no one who publishes on this board will be

able to get a gun. Nobody knows who is on the list or how one
gets on the list. All the insurgents, disbelievers of boosh,
on here probably are!!

[RamboLiberal]

2. Good luck on this one

I bet no way in hell will this get passed.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is one woman I do admire. She used the tragedy that occurred to her family on the LI shooting to try to better this country.

One caveat though needs to be the ability to prove to the government you do not belong on the list.

I have mixed emotions on this one. But, for those here at DU who will argue that people on this list should be able to buy guns - will you be screaming about *, Ashcroft, NRA, Repukes, etc., if ever a legally purchased gun is used to kill by one of these people?

[Rose Siding]

9. I don't see how it would work

Some people are on that list in error- names were messed up, or they attended a protest. I haven't heard that they've even worked out the bugs of getting off of the list, once you're on it. It was all classified, or something. I can't see them giving up enough secrecy for the list to be accurate.

[jpak]

33. The Pakistani national that shot up the CIA a few years back

bought his AK at a gun shop in VA.

It's happened already...

[slackmaster]

34. That was a hit, an ordinary crime, not a "terrorist attack"

In my opinion.

Was the Pakistani man on the super secret terror watch list?

Oh yeah, we have no way of knowing that. It's a secret. :eyes:

[jpak]

35. It sure as hell was a terror attack

Ordinary hit my ass.

[slackmaster]

37. Let's see if anyone agrees with your assessment

NPR called it an "apparently-random attack" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1039114

CNN called it a "shooting rampage" http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/13/cia.killings.execution/

The Centers for Disease Control didn't track "terrorism" as a cause of death before 1999 http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9.html

The BBC quotes the assailant, Aimal Khan Kansi, as saying "Yes, I did kill two people outside the CIA headquarters and I said so in my confession to the FBI..." but does not mention terror or terrorism http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/2473183.stm

terroristcentral.com said "US authorities have warned that the execution on November 14 of Mir Aimal Khan Kansi, convicted of the 1993 murder of two CIA operatives, could trigger a variety of terrorist attacks. Kansi asked that his death not be avenged." http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Newsletters/2002/111002.html

You calling the incident a terrorist attack does not make it so. Terrorists attack civilians and government targets without regard for who they are killing. Kansi attacked a US government agency with whom he had a beef. That's not terrorism, just a revenge shooting.

[alwynsw]

39. Heart v. Head argument slack.

You got the goods, but the mind you're arguing won't change.

Sad, ain't it?

[slackmaster]

40. That's always been an issue for me in interpersonal relationships

A psychologist once told me I was the most hyper-rational person he'd ever met.

:wtf:

[chopper]

44. well...

NPR called it an "apparently-random attack"

in a short blurb on all things considered, they called it 'apparently random'. not necessarily an in-depth report, there.

CNN called it a "shooting rampage"

CNN also said he did it because he was angry at the US's middle east policies.

so a guy shoots up the CIA because he's pissed about the US's policies and wants them to change, that sounds an awful lot like a terrorist attack to me.

The Centers for Disease Control didn't track "terrorism" as a cause of death before 1999

so what?

You calling the incident a terrorist attack does not make it so

and you saying it isn't does not make it so either.

[slackmaster]

45. How is that different from a disgruntled employee shooting up the office?

Or perhaps you would consider that kind of thing a "terrorist" attack as well. Suit yourself.

I think of terrorism as a broad indiscriminate attack against a subset of a population of people intended to induce terror (i.e. fear) in the entire population. The victims are not selected, they are merely people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, e.g. all of the victims of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

[Columbia]

3. And what happens when DU'ers get put on this list?

No evidence needed, no oversight, only suspicion.

Quite ironic that it is another McCarthy bringing about this legislation.

[slackmaster]

5. ZING!

The name McCarthy went right over my head.

Good call, Columbia!

[RamboLiberal]

7. That's a cheap shot on her name

Do you know she had a family tragedy from a shooting? You know what, I'm a gun owner, but I admire her for taking a stance. On this issue I could swear I'm on Free Republic!

My caveat to a bill like this would be a judicial process for the person denied to challenge the government.

Of the three nurse-Congresswomen, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, RN, (D-New York) is perhaps the best-known to the public. On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, and son, Kevin, were shot by a gunman on a rush hour commuter train returning from New York City to their home on Long Island. Dennis McCarthy was killed; Kevin McCarthy suffered serious injuries.

After the shooting of her husband and son, Congresswoman McCarthy decided to run for Congress when the district’s representative voted to lift a ban on assault weapons. Running on a platform supporting gun control, campaign finance reform and abortion rights, Carolyn McCarthy was elected to Congress in 1996.

“I often think being a member of Congress is not so different than the years I was a floor nurse,” Mrs. McCarthy said in an interview with NurseZone. “Back then I had a floor of patients to take care of – today I have 435 patients!”

Congresswoman McCarthy’s public campaign against gun violence has made her a celebrity. (She was portrayed by Laurie Metcalfe in a television movie about the shooting and her subsequent run for Congress, “The Long Island Incident.”) She uses her high profile to speak out against gun violence and believes that in order to stop the violence, Congress must address its root causes. Congresswoman McCarthy’s nursing experience – 30 years as an ICU and home health nurse – has allowed her to educate the public not just about healthcare and physical ailments, but also about society’s ills.

“Healthcare is a practice of patience and education, and so is Congress,” Mrs. McCarthy said. “Since I’ve been here, I’ve been educating the American people – and indeed my colleagues – on issues such as gun violence, and the costs of gun violence on our healthcare system. It seems no one talks about those who survive and struggle for years to regain what they’ve lost.”

http://www.nursezone.com/stories/SpotlightOnNurses.asp?articleID=4856

[slackmaster]

11. She's wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue, RamboLiberal

I haven't said she's a bad person, just criticizing her position on this specific issue as is my Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The fact that she has the same last name as the late Senator Joseph McCarthy is ironic, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out that what she is proposing is similar to the anti-Communist zealot's policies.

I hope she wakes up and sees the obvious problem with her bill.

[Columbia]

12. Since when does a family tragedy excuse curtailing civil rights w/o cause?

[RamboLiberal]

41. I have a CCW in my state - please explain this to me

Why don't I then have a right to carry everywhere? There's some places even in my state where I can't legally carry. And except for states with repricity to mine, I can't carry in other states or on planes, etc. So in many instances what the hell good does it do me to have a gun I can't have on my person?

Shouldn't my 2nd amendment rights trump those laws that were passed by some lawmakers in the instance of what they thought were the greater rights of a larger society? There's even areas where it's illegal to own a gun or certain types of guns - i.e. Chicago, DC - aren't the citizens in those cities rights being trampled by their local government over the constitution?

Seems to me that the right of people on watch lists to legally buy a gun could be argued under such an instance. That their rights can be trampled by the right of the greater majority of citizens.

Actually there is one law I'd love to see this Republican congress pass - and that would be a law that would allow all CCW holders to carry anywhere. Much like my drivers license allows me to drive in any state. They gave that right to law officers last year.

[slackmaster]

51. Warning, licensing analogies coming

You don't need a driver's license to buy and own a car, to have it towed, or to keep it in your home. The license gives you the privilege of operating the car in public. To get the license you have to prove that you are competent to drive, know the laws, have adequate vision, etc. Because we have reciprocity among the states, because they have agreed to honor each others' driver's licenses, you can drive just about anywhere. Of course you can't drive on the lawn in your city park, you can't drive in the post office, etc. Those are reasonable restrictions on the privilege of driving in public places. Your driver's license does not convey the privilege of drinking and driving.

You don't need a marriage license to shack up with someone, publicly declare your commitment, share your property, earnings, expenses, etc. But to take advantage of the alleged tax benefits and other percs of marriage you need a marriage license. Getting a marriage license generally requires a blood test, proof of age, etc. The states all recognize each others' marriage licenses. With the same-sex marriage issue boiling up, it's going to be a while before all the kinks are worked out.

A license to carry a concealed loaded weapon is analogous. You don't need one to simply own a gun and keep it in your home. You generally have to prove that you are competent with the weapon and understand the laws concerning its use. The privilege comes with some reasonable restrictions, like not packing while drinking. But the states have not yet gotten their shit together and agreed to respect each others' concealed weapons licenses. A handful of states are so backward you still have to convince some police official or bureaucrat that you have a legitimate need for the license. A few really primitive ones won't issue a license at all.

I agree that you should be able to carry your concealed weapon in any place where it's reasonable to do so.

Shouldn't my 2nd amendment rights trump those laws that were passed by some lawmakers in the instance of what they thought were the greater rights of a larger society? There's even areas where it's illegal to own a gun or certain types of guns - i.e. Chicago, DC - aren't the citizens in those cities rights being trampled by their local government over the constitution?

Seems to me that the right of people on watch lists to legally buy a gun could be argued under such an instance. That their rights can be trampled by the right of the greater majority of citizens.

I don't think the Second Amendment has anything to do with it. My basis for supporting the RKBA is that it's a subset of the right to do, say, or own whatever one pleases except that which has been prohibited by due process. The restrictions on having a handgun in Chicago or DC are all above-board. People have the right to move somewhere else. Someone on a SECRET government watch list and gets denied the right to buy a gun has no recourse whatsoever.

Our system is supposed to have protections so the interests of minority groups and individuals don't get trampled by tyranny of the majority. The majority is not always right, the police are not always right, the Bush administration cannot always be trusted to treat people fairly.

[alwynsw]

13. Good call on both!

[slackmaster]

4. Blatantly unconstitutional

You cannot deny civil rights to people who are merely suspected by police of a crime, or suspected of criminal intent. US citizens and legal resident aliens have a right to buy a gun just as they have a right to drink Starbuck's coffee or travel across state lines.

The federal government has absolutely no authority to impose prior restraint on people without proper judicial review and all the protections it gives to people.

Carolyn McCarthy is misguided, and her behavior will be harmful to the Democratic Party if she isn't brought back to Earth on this issue.

[pie]

14. Arbitrary, unlawful, and dangerous

Pukes would use this to deny guns to Democrats.

[RamboLiberal]

22. If they're on the No Fly - then they've already been denied

a right. We ban some mentally ill people from obtaining guns.

I'll be curious to revisit this topic if a terrorist ever uses a gun and kills a bunch of people. Wonder what DU'ers will be saying then if the person was on a watch list and was still allowed to obtain deadly weapons?

I personally saw what a homegrown terrorist(avowed racist) did with a firearm 5 years ago when he shot and killed 5 people including two people at a Chinese restaurant I frequent and a young karate student at one of the karate schools I knew very well. The shooter was mentally ill, but still allowed to purchase and own a gun.

[slackmaster]

27. You have to be adjudicated mentally ill or legally committed

To be denied the right to buy a gun. There are checks and balances. You can appeal the decision if you disagree with it.

The secret terror watch lists are all under control of the Executive branch, which happens to be run by Republicans at the moment.

I'll be curious to revisit this topic if a terrorist ever uses a gun and kills a bunch of people.

Please bring this thread back up if that ever happens. I don't believe it will. We've lost over 3,000 people to terrorism in a decade, and all done with airplanes and bombs.

[rkc3]

28. Richard Baumhammers, I assume? Great guy - did it right near work.

It's a shame he didn't do it in the south. He might have been rehabilitated on the spot by one of the locals.

[RamboLiberal]

42. Yes Richard Baumhammers - may he rot in hell

with Matthew Hale and all the other haters.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Ummm....there's a constitutional right to travel, not a right to fly.

just thought I'd mention that.

[denverbill]

6. But if law-abiding terrorists aren't allowed to buy guns,then only

criminal terrorists will have guns.

[DoNotRefill]

49. If they are law abiding terrorists....

then they aren't really terrorists, are they? After all, terrorism is a crime, right?

[gizmo1979]

8. Can't wait to hear the NRA's reasoning on this one.

How much do you want to bet they'll say anyone could be labeled a terrorist so until they are convicted they have the right to bear arms.

[slackmaster]

15. I hope they do say that

Because they'd be right.

The secret terror watch lists have already been used to oppress people for political reasons. That includes Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Representative John Lewis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1292598&mesg_id=1297191

[alwynsw]

10. Suspicion is not guilt.

To block purchases because of suspicion would be a blatant violation of civil rights. Here's my post from a similar thread on this topic. It pretty much sums up my opinion on the arbitrary restriction of rights.

Rant warning.

Let's just lock up everyone suspected of any crime or anyone suspected of possibly being involved in any future crime. Such a program would save us huge amounts of grief and expense. Hell, let's just lock up everyone at birth. One never knows how those babies will turn out when they're grown up.

Better yet, let's just expand the Patriot Act to include everyone who ever spoke ill of the U.S., it's government, or alllies. That ought to do the trick.

Who needs that idea about innocent until proven guilty anyway? If we think they might commit a crime, let's just deny all civil rights.

Maybe the old camp at Manzanar can be rebuilt and we'll just put 'em all in there - just in case. After all, their religion and/or ethnicity makes them automatic threats to the U.S. Besides, they look different from most of us - all that dark hair and olive skin. Yeah, that's the ticket. If they're not God fearing Christians and/or have middle eastern physical charachteristics or surnames; let's just go ahead and lock their asses up. That'll show 'em.

[Columbia]

17. It'll be interesting to see who supports giving Bush more arbitrary power

Doncha think? ;-)

[alwynsw]

26. I wouldn't care if it were Bush, Kerry, Clinton, FDR, or Ghandi

in the White House. I don't favor giving anyone that kind of power.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Won't pass constitutional muster.

Freedom of association and right to keep and bear arms and due process all come into play here.

[dansolo]

21. Good, then maybe the no-fly list will be reviewed as well

I would like to see the constitutionality of the no-fly list, considering how difficult it is to find out if you are on the list, and to get yourself off if it is in error.

[obxhead]

18. can anyone say black market?

Why pay full retail when you can get discount Sat night specials at 1/10th the price.

[Township75]

19. I remember watching Dennise Kucinich speak during the primaries...

in which he talked about how the Bush admin now places protest organizers on watch lists because of the Patriot Act. I am willing to bet that isn't well supported here.

But somehow, I bet this bill will be supported here. That is a shame. The Bush admin suspects you are a protester, so you go on a watch list, and you can soon lose your right to own a firearm.

This is just wrong. This takes the terrorist watch list violations one step further.

[slackmaster]

20. It's looking more and more like the Red Scare of the '50s

There's a terrorist hiding under every bed.

:wow:

[Columbia]

23. Only this time it'll be the Blue Scare

:scared:

[manic expression]

24. Very scary...

to disarm a specific group of people "suspected" of being a "threat" is very ominous in my opinion. We already know that the no-fly lists are sometimes used to hurt dissenters, if this goes through, it will be possible to put anybody with "undesirable" beliefs on the no-fly and no-gun lists and effectively take away that person's/group's ability to fight against an oppressive government. This could be a way of neutralizing the power of those who are against the policies of the government.

[Columbia]

25. Arm yourself now

While you still can...

[alwynsw]

29. I'm thinking about buying a gun.

I may need it. Anyway. It might be fun to shoot it.

[Retired AF Dem]

30. Snicker

:)

[alwynsw]

31. Snicker? Is that a good brand of gun? They make a fine candy bar.

[Retired AF Dem]

32. No, but gives you plenty of energy

with all those peanuts and chocolate that you never tire at a range session.

[Rainscents]

36. Gezzzzzzzzzz, I could already be on TERROR list by now since

I sit around DU lounge all day.:crazy:

[stillcool]

38. The only people I've heard detained....

due to the 'no-fly' list are Cat Stevens, and Ted Kennedy,...

[DoNotRefill]

50. There have been, IIRC, democratic grassroots activists....

that have been put on the no fly list because of their political activism, without ever committing a crime, much less being charged with a crime or convicted of committing a crime.


WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FASCISM.

[Toots]

43. Bush*'s new Amerika... Gulity til you prove different

Innocent til proven guilty is a thing of the past. We live in a new Amerika.. Home of Cowards....

[DoNotRefill]

47. YAY!!!

Let's strip our citizens of their constitutional rights without due process of law!!!

Yay!!!

/channelling "Special Ed"...


I sure do hope that this doesn't pass Constitutional muster....