Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But can you still run for president? Full stop.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm shocked that a history of domestic violence doesn't disqualify you. To me it's more disturbing that the Orlando shooter was able to buy a gun as a known wife-beater than as a Jihadist. I'm sure husbands kill more wives with guns in the US each year than Jihadis kill anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean it never happens? Isn't that exactly what happened with the Orlando shooter ... he was taken off the watch list after the investigation closed?

Obviously in hindsight, they should have investigated him more closely ... or maybe there really just weren't any signs there. But even if they missed the Orlando shooter, it show that the process of putting a few extra steps between people on the watch lists and guns is a good idea. The watch list process had identified the Orlando shooter as a potential problem, and if he'd tried to buy a gun while on the watch list, I'd certainly have wanted him blocked until the investigation could be assessed. If he was dropped from the watch list too soon, that's a different problem with a different solution.

We know nothing about his watch list status, that's classified. The whole point is that being on the watch list doesn't disqualify you from buying guns.

As to never getting off the no-fly list, the next time you see a peace activist ask him which train he came in on.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's been reported all over the place that he was on a watch list, but then got removed. One example ...

One of the people they spoke to was Omar Mateen, a young security guard from a nearby town who had attended the same mosque as the suicide bomber and had been on a terrorism watch list for incendiary comments he once made to co-workers at a local courthouse. But the F.B.I. soon ended its examination of Mr. Mateen after finding no evidence that he posed a terrorist threat to his community.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen.html

Several thousand others - https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=omar%20mateen%20watch%20list&oq=omar%20mateen%20watch%20list&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS533US533&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.5017j0j4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean it never happens? Isn't that exactly what happened with the Orlando shooter ... he was taken off the watch list after the investigation closed?

Obviously in hindsight, they should have investigated him more closely ... or maybe there really just weren't any signs there. But even if they missed the Orlando shooter, it show that the process of putting a few extra steps between people on the watch lists and guns is a good idea. The watch list process had identified the Orlando shooter as a potential problem, and if he'd tried to buy a gun while on the watch list, I'd certainly have wanted him blocked until the investigation could be assessed. If he was dropped from the watch list too soon, that's a different problem with a different solution.

We know nothing about his watch list status, that's classified. The whole point is that being on the watch list doesn't disqualify you from buying guns.

As to never getting off the no-fly list, the next time you see a peace activist ask him which train he came in on.

One of the people they spoke to was Omar Mateen, a young security guard from a nearby town who had attended the same mosque as the suicide bomber and had been on a terrorism watch list for incendiary comments he once made to co-workers at a local courthouse. But the F.B.I. soon ended its examination of Mr. Mateen after finding no evidence that he posed a terrorist threat to his community.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... 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.

And #4 never happens. There's no upside for any agency ever to take anyone off a list. Look at how much grief the FBI is getting for closing the investigation of the Orlando shooter. Don't you think the bureaucratic response is going to be that investigations never get closed any more?

The step of going before a judge is a long-overdue reform.

What do you mean it never happens? Isn't that exactly what happened with the Orlando shooter ... he was taken off the watch list after the investigation closed?

Obviously in hindsight, they should have investigated him more closely ... or maybe there really just weren't any signs there. But even if they missed the Orlando shooter, it show that the process of putting a few extra steps between people on the watch lists and guns is a good idea. The watch list process had identified the Orlando shooter as a potential problem, and if he'd tried to buy a gun while on the watch list, I'd certainly have wanted him blocked until the investigation could be assessed. If he was dropped from the watch list too soon, that's a different


problem with a different solution.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm shocked that a history of domestic violence doesn't disqualify you. To me it's more disturbing that the Orlando shooter was able to buy a gun as a known wife-beater than as a Jihadist. I'm sure husbands kill more wives with guns in the US each year than Jihadis kill anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... 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.

And #4 never happens. There's no upside for any agency ever to take anyone off a list. Look at how much grief the FBI is getting for closing the investigation of the Orlando shooter. Don't you think the bureaucratic response is going to be that investigations never get closed any more?

The step of going before a judge is a long-overdue reform.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

peace activists and anti-nuclear protesters onto the watch list just to show them who was boss.

Anonymous wrote: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.
HTH

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.