"FBI Watch List"

[Anonymous]

1. What does it entail?
2. Who decides if you get on it?
3. Who decides if you get off of it?

[Anonymous]

Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

The National Counterterroism Center has a database called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. It contains the names of suspected terrorists and all the highly sensitive details about why a particular person is in it.

From that th FBI gets the Terrorist Screen Database, minus the classified "why" details. From the FBI database, TSA gets the "No Fly" list.

[Anonymous]

I think if you're under FBI investigation you should not be allowed to buy a gun. I also think if you're under FBI investigation you probably shouldn't be allowed to run for President.

[Anonymous]

What about if you were under investigation but it was closed? Because Mateen wasn't under any active investigation so he wouldn't have been prohibited from buying a gun based on that rule

[Anonymous]

How are Repubs pushing for a 72hr appeal process when much of the info used to put someone on a watch list is classified?

[Anonymous]

Here's a nice, short summary of the lists, from a Washington Post article last year.

People included in the “no fly” list, the database that the Transportation Security Administration uses to screen passengers, are deemed a threat to commercial aviation or national security. This list is a subset of a larger watch list, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center’s consolidated Terrorist Watchlist. The Terrorist Watchlist also includes the Selectee list, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database and some individuals found in the National Counter Terrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datasmart Environment (TIDE).

My general understanding is that a person gets on the lists when certain branches of law enforcement (eg, FBI or DHS, not just Barney Fife down at the Mayberry PD) determine there's a "reasonable suspicion" he is involved in terrorist activities. In most cases, simply being on the watch list doesn't affect the person's freedoms, so there's no way he'd even know he's on it. It's just a red flag attached to his name, so law enforcement can keep an eye on him and (hopefully) connect the dots if he starts taking steps toward illegal activity. For obvious reasons, the government is somewhat vague about exactly what causes a person to get added to any of the watch lists, or what steps the government might go through before removing someone. If bad guys know those precise steps, it becomes easier for them to avoid the watch lists.

I recall reading there's a specific & public process for getting removed from the no-fly list, because that list does directly impact a person's freedoms, and it's obviously no secret you're on the no-fly list once you've been blocked from flying.

My understanding of the current proposals on guns is that they're trying to thread the needle between blocking suspected terrorists' access to guns, versus allowing the FBI to maintain some secrecy for its watch list. And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

FWIW, IMHO, ...

1. Blocking gun access for people on the no-fly list is a no-brainer. That list is not secret once someone gets blocked from a flight, he knows he's on it. If someone's too dangerous to get on a plane, surely he's too dangerous to be given a gun.

2. Blocking gun access for people on one of the other watch lists is a little more complicated, because those watch lists have been kept secret and it's easier to get added to those than to the no-fly list. But it does seem obvious that if someone's done something to warrant being included on a terrorist watch list, that person should not be given free access to guns.

3. For either the no-fly list or the watch list, there needs to be a process for allowing people to challenge the restriction on gun ownership. It's certainly possible someone without any terrorist ties can be added to the lists through misunderstanding. The government needs to prove a good reason to block that person from obtaining a gun. My understanding is that the current Dem proposal allows anyone blocked from buying a gun to demand that the government take its proofs to court and convince a neutral judge that it's reasonable to block the gun sale. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

4. The FBI has raised concerns that it wants to protect the secrecy of some of its investigations of people on the watch list. For a small number of people under active surveillance, the FBI doesn't want them blocked from buying a gun, because that might tip them off they're being investigated. That seems reasonable too. But it also seems pretty easy for the FBI to simply remove that small subset of active surveillance targets from the watch list, and keep them on some sort of separate "active surveillance" list. It's a logistical hurdle, but one that can easily be solved.

HTH

[Anonymous]

My understanding of the current proposals on guns is that they're trying to thread the needle between blocking suspected terrorists' access to guns, versus allowing the FBI to maintain some secrecy for its watch list. And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

PP again. I just want to add to this point to make sure it's accurate. Most Republicans in Congress oppose further gun restriction. But Donald Trump apparently agrees with me that preventing people on the no-fly list from getting guns is a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My understanding of the current proposals on guns is that they're trying to thread the needle between blocking suspected terrorists' access to guns, versus allowing the FBI to maintain some secrecy for its watch list. And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

PP again. I just want to add to this point to make sure it's accurate. Most Republicans in Congress oppose further gun restriction. But Donald Trump apparently agrees with me that preventing people on the no-fly list from getting guns is a no-brainer.

But the questions stand:
1. Who exactly gets to put you on that list?
2. For what reasons?
3. Who can take you off?
4. And for what reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

This is untrue and stupid. Republicans (and gun owners, not the same btw) do NOT want to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime. Those who should not have access to guns include those who answer YES to the questions asked on the BATF firearms purchase form, i.e.,
- felon or under indictment for serious crimes
- fugitive from justice
- drug user
- mentally defective or committed to a mental institution
- dishonorably discharged from armed forces
- those who renounced US citizenship
- illegal aliens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

This is untrue and stupid. Republicans (and gun owners, not the same btw) do NOT want to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime. Those who should not have access to guns include those who answer YES to the questions asked on the BATF firearms purchase form, i.e.,
- felon or under indictment for serious crimes
- fugitive from justice
- drug user
- mentally defective or committed to a mental institution
- dishonorably discharged from armed forces
- those who renounced US citizenship
- illegal aliens

Fair enough. It's an overstatement to say "complete and total, anywhere and anytime." I'll correct to say complete access to anyone who doesn't volunteer on his BATF form that he's in one of the seven restricted categories you list. Happy?

Apparently those seven categories weren't enough to stop people like Dylann Roof, the Charleston church shooter, who was a drug user but simply chose not to check the box. Apparently they were not enough to stop people like the Orlando shooter, who was planning to commit mass murder but didn't fit within any of the seven categories. So maybe we can agree there ought to be some process more restrictive than those seven simple questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My understanding of the current proposals on guns is that they're trying to thread the needle between blocking suspected terrorists' access to guns, versus allowing the FBI to maintain some secrecy for its watch list. And obviously, most Republicans in Congress are just trying to water them all down as much as possible, or block them entirely, to ensure complete and total access to guns anywhere and anytime.

PP again. I just want to add to this point to make sure it's accurate. Most Republicans in Congress oppose further gun restriction. But Donald Trump apparently agrees with me that preventing people on the no-fly list from getting guns is a no-brainer.

But the questions stand:
1. Who exactly gets to put you on that list?
2. For what reasons?
3. Who can take you off?
4. And for what reasons?

I think I did answer those questions in my longer post ...

1. Law enforcement agencies like FBI or DHS can put someone on the list.
2. They put a person on if there's a "reasonable suspicion" he is involved in terrorist activities.
3. Law enforcement agencies like FBI or DHS can take someone off the list.
4. They take a person off the list if they determine there's no longer any "reasonable suspicion" he is involved in terrorist activities.

The Democratic proposal might allow for an additional way to get off the list - by forcing the government to bring its "reasonable suspicion" evidence to a federal judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about if you were under investigation but it was closed? Because Mateen wasn't under any active investigation so he wouldn't have been prohibited from buying a gun based on that rule

Again, this is not about Mateen. It's about closing loopholes to start reducing these tragedies overall. And if we do that, and even one of these situations is prevented, that's good enough for me. If you're under investigation, you should not be able to get a gun. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

The government monitors who frequents ISIS propaganda sites and other Islamic terrorist sites. My guess is that's how Omar Mateen got flagged by the FBI.

But the crazy thing is, authorities are allowed to put people who frequent these websites on the No Fly List, but they are not prevented from buying AK-15 rifles or stocking up on guns.

[Anonymous]

If you're under investigation, you should not be able to get a gun. Full stop.

But......Mateen was not under investigation. It was closed.