Schumer: Close Loophole Allowing Possible Terrorists To Buy

[amigocabal]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/03/01/ ... uns-in-us/

Schumer: Close Loophole Allowing Possible Terrorists To Buy Guns In US
March 1, 2015 3:23 PM

ALBANY, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer is calling for passage of legislation prohibiting individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying guns.
The New York Democrat noted the arrests this week of three Brooklyn men on charges they conspired to join ISIS in Syria or carry out attacks at home. If they were on the terrorist watch list, the bill Schumer’s backing would have prohibited them from buying firearms or explosives.
The watch list prevents individuals from flying on airplanes into and out of the country.
The federal database used to check gun buyers currently prohibits convicted felons and people with certain mental illnesses from buying guns.
“There is a major loophole in the federal law that would make your jaw drop,” Schumer told WCBS 880. Astoundingly, under current law, known or suspected terrorists on terrorist watch lists or no-fly lists can legally purchase weapons and explosives anywhere in the United States.

While I applaud the senator's goals, he is asking the wrong question.

The question should be, why are terrorists on that list not in prison or dead? If these terrorists were in prison or dead, then they would not be able to get guns or explosives, would they?

[Alyeska]

The terror watch lists are bullshit to begin with. Like the No-Fly list, they have hundreds of thousands to millions of people on the lists. Of which 99% are almost certainly innocent.

There is the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. If they haven't been found guilty in a court of law, they aren't guilty. And if they aren't guilty, they are still law abiding citizens with the same rights as everyone else. Which means they have just as many rights to purchase legal firearms like you and me.

Due Process, innocent until proven guilty, the Bill of Rights, etc.

[amigocabal]

The terror watch lists are bullshit to begin with. Like the No-Fly list, they have hundreds of thousands to millions of people on the lists. Of which 99% are almost certainly innocent.

There is the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. If they haven't been found guilty in a court of law, they aren't guilty. And if they aren't guilty, they are still law abiding citizens with the same rights as everyone else. Which means they have just as many rights to purchase legal firearms like you and me.

Due Process, innocent until proven guilty, the Bill of Rights, etc.

So it would seem that the the people on this list should either be prosecuted, or removed from the list altogether.

What I do wonder is why the senator would confuse a list of people being watched by law enforcement with a list of people convicted of terrorist-related crimes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps Schumer doesn't see much difference between accused and convicted. A lot of people don't.

I'd expect that kind of garbage from a Republican, but I'd be particularly disappointed to see it from a Democrat.

Mind you, I'd like to see stricter regulations on guns in general.

[Tanasinn]

Not only is this unconstitutional, but it undermines the whole point of the watch lists in general if something so pedestrian can tip off a supposed potential terrorist that the government is watching him.

[Alyeska]

The terror watch lists are bullshit to begin with. Like the No-Fly list, they have hundreds of thousands to millions of people on the lists. Of which 99% are almost certainly innocent.

There is the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. If they haven't been found guilty in a court of law, they aren't guilty. And if they aren't guilty, they are still law abiding citizens with the same rights as everyone else. Which means they have just as many rights to purchase legal firearms like you and me.

Due Process, innocent until proven guilty, the Bill of Rights, etc.

So it would seem that the the people on this list should either be prosecuted, or removed from the list altogether.

What I do wonder is why the senator would confuse a list of people being watched by law enforcement with a list of people convicted of terrorist-related crimes.

So long as their constitutional rights are not being infringed, the lists are legal. Actively trying to punish people who haven't even gone to trial, that is illegal.

Terror watch list - Legal
No Fly List - Legality is questionable
Terror watch list = No Guns - Illegal

[Elheru Aran]

Schumer has been on the NRA's hate list for like... twenty, thirty years or something. There's a reason for that. He's been one of the biggest anti-gunners in Congress for a long time. You've got to give him points for consistency, I suppose...

[Crown]

The terror watch lists are bullshit to begin with.

Case in point; Mark Ruffalo is on the terrorist watch list for promoting the movie about the dangers of gas drilling. As is Laura Poitras for making movies about government surveillance.

[The Romulan Republic]

The terror watch lists are bullshit to begin with.

Case in point; Mark Ruffalo is on the terrorist watch list for promoting the movie about the dangers of gas drilling. As is Laura Poitras for making movies about government surveillance.

So basically its become a tool to blacklist people with political views the government doesn't like?

Well... that's authoritarian.

I'd rather it was just someone fucking up because the alternative is far worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you unconstitutionally take away someone's right to keep and bear arms, what do you expect to happen to the rest of your constitutional rights? Disrespect for the law isn't a slippery slope, we have plenty of evidence of it becoming a systematic mindset. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, change it by the rules. Until then if you try to just ignore it... Yeah, that ends nowhere well. Maybe the US will end up like Ukraine or Syria, but we can hardly stop it at this point, individually, let alone by talking about it on a message board.

[Beowulf]

The stake in the heart of this probably won't be the fact that it's designed to circumvent the constitutional protection of guns. It'll probably be the fact that it results in a Schrodinger crime. You can't know ahead of time whether you're a prohibited person or not until after you've attempted to make the buy, because the Terrorist Watch list is secret. You don't know if you're on it, and there's no way to get off of it if you are on it. And it's name based, not identity based, so if you happen to have the same name, you're just as prohibited. Or have a name similar (because they may have realized that transliterations can occur in multiple ways).

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, this is already the case with the no-fly list and that's been in place for twelve or thirteen years.

It would serve the federal government right if the numerous people on the list unfairly succeeded in a class-action suit against the government from wrongfully denying them a fairly basic right to travel... I doubt that's made or is making any progress.

[Gaidin]

Thing is, this is already the case with the no-fly list and that's been in place for twelve or thirteen years.

It would serve the federal government right if the numerous people on the list unfairly succeeded in a class-action suit against the government from wrongfully denying them a fairly basic right to travel... I doubt that's made or is making any progress.

The fundamental problem there is knowing how they got on the list and being able to use that. Or so I would think as a layman.

[Gandalf]

It would serve the federal government right if the numerous people on the list unfairly succeeded in a class-action suit against the government from wrongfully denying them a fairly basic right to travel... I doubt that's made or is making any progress.

Is there anyone who is publicly stating that the no fly lists are in any way working?

Or like Gitmo, is it one of those things where reversing it is just too much effort?

[Alyeska]

It would serve the federal government right if the numerous people on the list unfairly succeeded in a class-action suit against the government from wrongfully denying them a fairly basic right to travel... I doubt that's made or is making any progress.

Is there anyone who is publicly stating that the no fly lists are in any way working?

Or like Gitmo, is it one of those things where reversing it is just too much effort?

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

[LaCroix]

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

People on the no-fly list are not permitted to fly. Works like a charm. The bar isn't really that high if you want to claim they are working if you choose to not let other facts cloud your reasoning.

[Raw Shark]

It's probably worth noting that Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, attention whore/s in Congress. Whacking the NRA hornet's nest is a very potent and reliable (and cheap, if you invest little to no political capital in achieving the stated goal, and, as always this century, bonus points for anybody using the buzzword "terrorism") way to get lots of attention, so Schumer goes at it like it's a piñata.

[Crown]

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

People on the no-fly list are not permitted to fly. Works like a charm. The bar isn't really that high if you want to claim they are working if you choose to not let other facts cloud your reasoning.

I'm just going to throw this out there; but IIRC the son of the owner of this board is/was on a no-fly list ... at age 10 ...


Now bear in mind, this is going back a long, long time and my memory could be off, but I remember Mike having a rant about it at one point. I wouldn't quote this as fact though unless I can dig up the post.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that while they may 'work' in the sense of denying specific individuals the right to fly, they also deny a huge and ill-defined number of other people that same right without due process of law.

This is the grounds for the class-action suit: the arbitrary denial of something that normal citizens enjoy.

[General Zod]

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

People on the no-fly list are not permitted to fly. Works like a charm. The bar isn't really that high if you want to claim they are working if you choose to not let other facts cloud your reasoning.

I'm just going to throw this out there; but IIRC the son of the owner of this board is/was on a no-fly list ... at age 10 ...


Now bear in mind, this is going back a long, long time and my memory could be off, but I remember Mike having a rant about it at one point. I wouldn't quote this as fact though unless I can dig up the post.

I remember that post, but I'll be damned if I can dig it up.

[General Zod]

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

People on the no-fly list are not permitted to fly. Works like a charm. The bar isn't really that high if you want to claim they are working if you choose to not let other facts cloud your reasoning.

Except there's absolutely no way of getting your name off the list, and the government won't even tell you that you're on the list to challenge it. Frankly I wouldn't have a problem with a no-fly list if people had a way of challenging their inclusion.

[Elheru Aran]

I remember that as well but I suspect it was more a case of Mike's boy sharing the same name as the person on the no-fly list, not being the actual person. It's been a very long time, though, indeed.

[Alyeska]

I remember that as well but I suspect it was more a case of Mike's boy sharing the same name as the person on the no-fly list, not being the actual person. It's been a very long time, though, indeed.

The No Fly List isn't about specific people. If someone else with the same name is on the list, YOU are on the list. If someone else's name is spelled similar to yours, YOU are on the list.

[The Romulan Republic]

I remember that as well but I suspect it was more a case of Mike's boy sharing the same name as the person on the no-fly list, not being the actual person. It's been a very long time, though, indeed.

The No Fly List isn't about specific people. If someone else with the same name is on the list, YOU are on the list. If someone else's name is spelled similar to yours, YOU are on the list.

Why do I get the feeling that that was done with the intent of getting as many people with Muslims on the list as possible?

[Alyeska]

Every time No-Fly lists are challenged the government claims they are working.

People on the no-fly list are not permitted to fly. Works like a charm. The bar isn't really that high if you want to claim they are working if you choose to not let other facts cloud your reasoning.

No. The Government claims that the list keeps terrorists from flying. But that they cannot present proof as it would harm National Security. This is also the same claim they make when people try to challenge the No Fly List.

There was a case where the FBI acknowledged that someone had been put on the list because of a single typo. Worse, they didn't want to let her back in even when they knew it was a typo. Once in the system you are are permanently in the system because the system will always say you are too dangerous to fly even when the event that put you in the system was bullshit.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ears.shtml