Justice Department sued for cross-checking gun buyers with terror lists

[NonoBadDog]

Justice Department sued for cross-checking gun buyers with terror lists

A federal class-action lawsuit filed this week accuses the Justice Department of treating “every potential gun owner like a terrorist” by requiring the cross-checking of names of firearm purchasers with those on secret watch lists.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has conducted more than 222 million searches of likely gun buyers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check system between Nov. 30, 1998, and Nov. 30, 2015, the lawsuit alleges.

But beginning in February 2004, the government also started cross-checking those same persons with the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) database of suspected terrorists — a maneuver that the plaintiffs accuse of having been done for more than a decade now without any legal authority.

“The federal government has enacted nine specific categories of persons, who, through their actions and omissions and after a rigorous legal course, can be deemed to have forfeited their privileges under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Being a named person on a ‘terrorist watch list’ is not a federal statutory disqualifying factor, nor should it be,” Ms. Capanna said in the complaint.

“Permanent deprivation of a fundamental civil right cannot and should not occur because something as small as an alleged, anonymous tip places an individual in a secret database managed by the attorney general, the FBI, and/or the TSC to which the individual has no right of access and no method of recourse,” she added.

The lawsuit also calls into question the effectiveness of the government’s own alleged counterterrorism measures, noting that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Rep. John Lewis have landed on federal “no-fly” lists alongside the likes of conservative journalist Stephen F. Hayes.

Additionally, Ms. Capanna alleges that the government’s cross-checking of potential gun buyers has proven to be ineffective by citing the armed rampage that took place this month in San Bernardino, California. Neither the two terrorists nor Enrique Marquez, an acquaintance who had purchased one of their guns, had appeared on any federal watch list, despite the ambush being declared an act of terrorism, the attorney wrote.
The plaintiffs have asked a federal judge in the Western District of New York to impose an injunction barring federal authorities from using the National Instant Criminal Background Check system in tandem with the database of suspected terrorists. They charge that such usage violates constitutional rights to bear arms, to be free improper searches and seizures, and to due process.

This might trigger a ruling that would prohibit states from using the same list to restrict gun purchases.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This may help to explain why so few are ever prosecuted for lying on form 4473 (a felony).

VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

And, yes, I realize that this unconstitutional policy appears to have started under Bush 43. It would be quite embarrassing to have to admit, under oath, that one has been illegally denied a gun purchase so it was deemed best just to let them be denied their 2A rights and yet never charged with a "gun control" law violation.

This is why we do not need more gun control laws - the "reasonable restrictions" soon morph into secret (government eyes only?) lists of unAmerican folks and extremely selective prosecutions.

 

[Chomsky]

Justice Department sued for cross-checking gun buyers with terror lists




This might trigger a ruling that would prohibit states from using the same list to restrict gun purchases.

This may help to explain why so few are ever prosecuted for lying on form 4473 (a felony).

VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

And, yes, I realize that this unconstitutional policy appears to have started under Bush 43. It would be quite embarrassing to have to admit, under oath, that one has been illegally denied a gun purchase so it was deemed best just to let them be denied their 2A rights and yet never charged with a "gun control" law violation.

This is why we do not need more gun control laws - the "reasonable restrictions" soon morph into secret (government eyes only?) lists of unAmerican folks and extremely selective prosecutions.

Ah, but right away the assumption here is thought to be that a cross reference between buyers & those suspected, is done to *deny* the purchase (unconstitutionally).

But we see, no purchases seem to have been denied.

It may be the government is not standing in the way of these purchases at all, but is gauging the level of escalation of those suspected terrorists it is already monitoring. IOW, are those suspected of plotting now furthering their plot by acquiring the materials needed to commence an attack (arms, explosives, etc.)?

If so, I'm thinking this may be constitutionally legit.

But I'm no lawyer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ah, but right away the assumption here is thought to be that a cross reference between buyers & those suspected, is done to *deny* the purchase (unconstitutionally).

But we see, no purchases seem to have been denied.

It may be the government is not standing in the way of these purchases at all, but is gauging the level of escalation of those suspected terrorists it is already monitoring. IOW, are those suspected of plotting now furthering their plot by acquiring the materials needed to commence an attack (arms, explosives, etc.)?

If so, I'm thinking this may be constitutionally legit.

But I'm no lawyer.

That may, or may not, be the case. Even if a "hit" does not occur it still presumes that merely buying a gun is probable cause for such a "terror list" search. What is next - a BGC for pressure cookers? For a government that "lacks resources" to prosecute actual felonies (lying on form 4473) it sure seems to have plenty of resources to waste making the exercise of 2A rights into probable cause for "terrrorist" database searches.

 

[Chomsky]

That may, or may not, be the case. Even if a "hit" does not occur it still presumes that merely buying a gun is probable cause for such a "terror list" search. What is next - a BGC for pressure cookers? For a government that "lacks resources" to prosecute actual felonies (lying on form 4473) it sure seems to have plenty of resources to waste making the exercise of 2A rights into probable cause for "terrrorist" database searches.

Your speaking from a matter of one perspective.

And that's from a gun app --> to checking the suspects' list.

But what if the matter is monitoring the suspects --> and becoming alerted they've purchased arms?

It seems like a subtle difference, but it could make the difference in Constitutional terms, which is the point I was arguing.

But to the larger point you were making - fair enough. I can see the fears of a slippery slop. But arms and explosives in this country are monitored and regulated due to the simple fact of their being capable of tremendous destruction when in the wrong hands. And if done in concert with the Constitution, I'm fine with that.

I also have no problem with keeping an eye on suspected terrorists.

Now as to defining a 'suspected terrorist', well that's the 64 thousand dollar question.

 

[Captain America]

Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your speaking from a matter of one perspective.

And that's from a gun app --> to checking the suspects' list.

But what if the matter is monitoring the suspects --> and becoming alerted they've purchased arms?

It seems like a subtle difference, but it could make the difference in Constitutional terms, which is the point I was arguing.

But to the larger point you were making - fair enough. I can see the fears of a slippery slop. But arms and explosives in this country are monitored and regulated due to the simple fact of their being capable of tremendous destruction when in the wrong hands. And if done in concert with the Constitution, I'm fine with that.

I also have no problem with keeping an eye on suspected terrorists.

Now as to defining a 'suspected terrorist', well that's the 64 thousand dollar question.

A warrantless search is still a warrantless search no matter what "perspective" you try to use. The question is whether the mere exercise of 2A rights is probable cause for an unrelated database search per the constitution. Sales of gasoline in "to go" containers is common for both arsonists and those with small engine equipment - should they too be subject to extra scrutiny. just in case?

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]

if they know he is a terrorist WTF is he on the streets? do people ever actually think things through

if someone is on a terrorist watch list and has a clean record that seems to be actionable strict liability slander/defamation to me. If you don't have any real evidence that someone is a terrorist-then he shouldn't be on the list. If he has a record that establishes that his constitutional rights should be raped, he should be at least under indictment if not being actively prosecuted

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]

Expecting terrorists to shop in person at FFLs while knowing that it triggers a federal BATFE/DHS alarm is a great plan and will surely lead to many excellent results in the war on terror. [/sarcasm]

 

[Chomsky]

A warrantless search is still a warrantless search no matter what "perspective" you try to use. The question is whether the mere exercise of 2A rights is probable cause for an unrelated database search per the constitution. Sales of gasoline in "to go" containers is common for both arsonists and those with small engine equipment - should they too be subject to extra scrutiny. just in case?

So you're equating a gun background check to a warrant-less search?

I don't see how you got there.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Ah, but right away the assumption here is thought to be that a cross reference between buyers & those suspected, is done to *deny* the purchase (unconstitutionally).

But we see, no purchases seem to have been denied.

It may be the government is not standing in the way of these purchases at all, but is gauging the level of escalation of those suspected terrorists it is already monitoring. IOW, are those suspected of plotting now furthering their plot by acquiring the materials needed to commence an attack (arms, explosives, etc.)?

If so, I'm thinking this may be constitutionally legit.

But I'm no lawyer.

I think it is preemptive strike to head these types of restrictions off at the pass. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut wants to pass this as a law. It might also be a shot over the bow in case Obama wanted to do an executive order.

With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0

 

[Chomsky]

if they know he is a terrorist WTF is he on the streets? do people ever actually think things through

if someone is on a terrorist watch list and has a clean record that seems to be actionable strict liability slander/defamation to me. If you don't have any real evidence that someone is a terrorist-then he shouldn't be on the list. If he has a record that establishes that his constitutional rights should be raped, he should be at least under indictment if not being actively prosecuted

I can see the problem with the list being suspect rather than determinate, but how did you get to "constitutional rights raped"?

The guns are not being held-up.

I have not heard of any sales stopped due to this, but I'm willing to listen if wrong.

 

[NonoBadDog]

So you're equating a gun background check to a warrant-less search?

I don't see how you got there.

I think what he is saying is that person being restricted because of being on the watch list is a warrant-less search, not the back ground check itself. There are a number of ways to wind up on the list. The reasons for putting someone on the list is Secret as is the list. A person would never know they were on the list unless they were told until they tried to buy a firearm.

 

[Chomsky]

I think it is preemptive strike to head these types of restrictions off at the pass. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut wants to pass this as a law. It might also be a shot over the bow in case Obama wanted to do an executive order.




http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0

That's fair.

I can see fears of the slippery slope. We all have some fears of that type.

But as it currently stands, I don't see any constitutional issues here, but like I said earlier: I'm no lawyer. I suspect the guy with the shell will be more than willing to correct me on any of my (perceived or not) legal shortcomings!

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you're equating a gun background check to a warrant-less search?

I don't see how you got there.

Nope, the BGC is against the NICS database, things recorded via due process that preclude the legal purchase of a gun. Adding a check for the terrorist watch list has nothing to do with the legal purchase of a gun or due process.

 

[NonoBadDog]

That's fair.

I can see fears of the slippery slope. We all have some fears of that type.

But as it currently stands, I don't see any constitutional issues here, but like I said earlier: I'm no lawyer. I suspect the guy with the shell will be more than willing to correct me on any of my (perceived or not) legal shortcomings!

Yeah, you can be sure he will weigh in on it. :2wave:

 

[ttwtt78640]

if they know he is a terrorist WTF is he on the streets? do people ever actually think things through

if someone is on a terrorist watch list and has a clean record that seems to be actionable strict liability slander/defamation to me. If you don't have any real evidence that someone is a terrorist-then he shouldn't be on the list. If he has a record that establishes that his constitutional rights should be raped, he should be at least under indictment if not being actively prosecuted

The same could be asked/said about dangerous convicted felons or those adjudged to be criminally insane. In the land of unicorns and rainbows, the mighty powers of the all knowing (and seeing) government, via ever more strict gun control laws, will assure us that these known to be evil folks never get "access to" a gun yet may otherwise walk freely among us. Doesn't that make you feel all warm, fuzzy and safe?

 

[Chomsky]

Nope, the BGC is against the NICS database, things recorded via due process that preclude the legal purchase of a gun. Adding a check for the terrorist watch list has nothing to do with the legal purchase of a gun or due process.

Alright, I'l buy that.

But like I said, conversely, is it reasonable for people on the list to monitored for weapons purchases?

You're speaking of monitoring guns.

I'm speaking of monitoring suspected terrorists.

I realize the current list is probably way to large and arbitrary, so in practice your argument has some reasonableness.

But the crux of the matter is monitoring possible terrorists for weapons purchases, and I haven't heard a rational argument against it yet in this thread.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Alright, I'l buy that.

But like I said, conversely, is it reasonable for people on the list to monitored for weapons purchases?

You're speaking of monitoring guns.

I'm speaking of monitoring suspected terrorists.

I realize the current list is probably way to large and arbitrary, so in practice your argument has some reasonableness.

But the crux of the matter is monitoring possible terrorists for weapons purchases, and I haven't heard a rational argument against it yet in this thread.

Who, exactly, is not a possible terrorist, criminal or mental case? Maybe we need that list published, just so we can be sure that we are not under constant scrutiny and subject to warrantless searches and/or government observation.

 

[Chomsky]

I think what he is saying is that person being restricted because of being on the watch list is a warrant-less search, not the back ground check itself. There are a number of ways to wind up on the list. The reasons for putting someone on the list is Secret as is the list. A person would never know they were on the list unless they were told until they tried to buy a firearm.

I was arguing the legal aspect of it, since it is a court case. I believe it will be found in general that the feds can monitor suspected terrorists.

I think what will make it constitutional, is that no guns are being denied or held-up (as far as I know).

So I think the legal concept will hold, as long as the gun buying is not infringed (i.e., the guns are always delivered).

Now in relations to this specific list, I dunno. It is a mess, very large, and seemingly arbitrary, and the courts may indeed go against it.

But I see a big difference been a 'check', and a 'refusal'.

 

[Chomsky]

Who, exactly, is not a possible terrorist, criminal or mental case? Maybe we need that list published, just so we can be sure that we are not under constant scrutiny and subject to warrantless searches and/or government observation.

I can't argue that.

The list does seem to be the problem here.

I doubt many of us would have problems with the feds monitoring arms & munitions purchases of those they were actively investigating.

If you reduce my argument to the smallest scale, it comes down to the feds watching a terrorist suspect who has yet to act but is amassing weapons, and I have no problems with them monitoring that scenario.

Maybe the best solution would be to require a judge's order to be placed on any type of list like that, though to be honest the list itself seems like a poor idea to begin with.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can't argue that.

The list does seem to be the problem here.

I doubt many of us would have problems with the feds monitoring arms & munitions purchases of those they were actively investigating.

If you reduce my argument to the smallest scale, it comes down to the feds watching a terrorist suspect who has yet to act but is amassing weapons, and I have no problems with them monitoring that scenario.

Maybe the best solution would be to require a judge's order to be placed on any type of list like that, though to be honest the list itself seems like a poor idea to begin with.

Meanwhile, why not arrest and prosecute those that lied on form 4473 and actually feloniously tried to buy a gun? We know who they are and even have signed evidence to back up the charge. Isn't it likely that once denied service by a FFL dealer that they just might elect to find an alternate (non-FFL) source to obtain a gun?

 

[Chomsky]

Meanwhile, why not arrest and prosecute those that lied on form 4473 and actually feloniously tried to buy a gun? We know who they are and even have signed evidence to back up the charge. Isn't it likely that once denied service by a FFL dealer that they just might elect to find an alternate (non-FFL) source to obtain a gun?

I think a few well publicized prosecutions to discourage attempts would be a good idea.

Though I think we make some a felon a little too easy today, especially in the war on drugs.

 

[VanceMack]

Oh sure. Checking to see if the guy at Gander Mountain trying to buy an AR15 might be a terrorist is just a terrible idea. What are they thinking? [/sarcasm]

A British Muslim and his family were just denied access to the US to go to Disneyland. His name was on the no fly list. Was that the correct call by TSA and the administration?

 

[winston53660]

A British Muslim and his family were just denied access to the US to go to Disneyland. His name was on the no fly list. Was that the correct call by TSA and the administration?

Read the article in the paper today. It doesn't seem like it was the right decision