Author Topic: FBI Forming Group to Study U.S. Gun Law (Read 702 times)

FWiedner · « **on:** March 25, 2005, 03:34:29 AM »

FBI Forming Group to Study U.S. Gun Law

WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Robert Mueller is forming a study group to review the law that let suspected terrorists buy guns in the United States after they cleared background checks.

Mueller unveiled his plan to form the Justice Department working group, which will include the FBI, in a letter sent Wednesday to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. The group will also review the government report issued earlier this month that said more than 40 terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because background checks showed they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants.

The day the Government Accountability Office report was released, Mueller told a House subcommittee that perhaps the law could be altered. In his letter to Lautenberg, Mueller said "I believe a review of the law regarding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is warranted given the findings of the GAO report."
The DOJ's Office of Legal Policy will spearhead the review, and will make recommendations to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mueller wrote.

Lautenberg, who requested the GAO report, said Thursday that the "FBI knows that terrorist access to guns in our country is a real problem.

"Hopefully the FBI can talk some sense into the rest of the Bush administration and put the safety and security of the American people ahead of the interests of the gun lobby," Lautenberg said.

When the report was released, the National Rifle Association had said the law protects Americans from terrorists while allowing citizens the freedom to own guns. On Thursday, NRA spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs said the NRA worked last year with the Justice Department to ensure that people on the FBI's internal terror watch lists are cross-checked.

"We will certainly work with the Department of Justice, the (Bush) administration, and congressional leaders to review the information and address terrorism concerns while remembering our core mission to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans," Hobbs said.

The GAO report said that from Feb. 3 through June 20 last year, 35 known or suspected terrorists bought guns in the United States. From July 1 to Oct. 31 last year, 12 more were allowed to buy firearms.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/24/161143.shtml

*FW Note: Translation - Expect an FBI led attack on the 2nd Amendment by the Bush administration, cloaked in "War on Terror" trimmings. Expect the NRA to bend over and smile.

Shorty · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:16:04 AM »

I would want to know how it is that "known or suspected terrorists" are even walking around free to buy anything! Oh, yeah, we have to wait until they actually DO something illegal! :roll:

FWiedner · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:34:56 AM »

Quote from: Shorty

Oh, yeah, we have to wait until they actually DO something illegal! :roll:

People need to remind themselves that "suspicion" is only that. It is not even probable cause. If there were probable cause that these suspects had done something illegal, they could be arrested.

Some may think that "suspicious" people should be denied their rights to own a gun, but what's next?

Why not just make the system much more efficient and simply put all "suspicious" people directly in prison?

Why wait until they actually DO something?

:wink:

Leverdude · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:22:24 PM »

I'm with ya Fweid. How much of our freedom are we supposed to kiss goodbye to protect us from the bad guys. Terrorists with guns arent even a problem here are they? Oughtta be telling the good guys to arm themselves if they really want to help. :roll:

Old Syko · « **Reply #4 on:** March 26, 2005, 02:55:08 AM »

Quote

Old Syko · « **Reply #5 on:** March 26, 2005, 03:05:55 AM »

[/quote]People need to remind themselves that "suspicion" is only that. It is not even probable cause. If there were probable cause that these suspects had done something illegal, they could be arrested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought probable cause was reason to be detained for up 24hrs. Yet some type of evidence of guilt had to be present to make an arrest.

Don Fischer · « **Reply #6 on:** March 26, 2005, 06:36:26 AM »

Why do we even allow anyone that is not a US citizen to buy AND take delivery on a firearm in this country?

lostone1413 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 26, 2005, 08:05:21 AM »

We forget who the real terrorist our and our real enemy of freedom is. They our the ones in Washington DC. 911 has now just become an excuse to take away your freedoms and make us a police state!! Anyone really believe if GWB was worried about the terrorist our borders would be wide open?

?

Shorty · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2005, 12:36:37 PM »

I must amend my post. I realize that some of those "suspected terrorists" are US citizens and have rights of presumption of innocence. They, of course have a right to aquire arms, and until they actually shoot-up an airline terminal, we can do nothing to stop them.

'Reminds me of the time when I had a disagreeable neighbor who threatened to burn down my house while I was in it. The sheriff deputy said that he could do nothing about that unless it actually happened. Oh, I feel SO safe!

FWiedner · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2005, 02:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Shorty

I must amend my post. I realize that some of those "suspected terrorists" are US citizens and have rights of presumption of innocence. They, of course have a right to aquire arms, and until they actually shoot-up an airline terminal, we can do nothing to stop them.

'Reminds me of the time when I had a disagreeable neighbor who threatened to burn down my house while I was in it. The sheriff deputy said that he could do nothing about that unless it actually happened. Oh, I feel SO safe!

Neither the sheriff nor any agency of government has any duty to ensure your safety or to make you "feel safe". If you want your crazy neighbor to leave you alone, you are on your own.

If you want someone to spend any time making you "feel safe", it's going to have to be you.

You don't have a right to "feel safe", but American citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms, however you feel about it.

I don't know your neighbor. I just know what you've told me.

Knowing that you have this prexisting grudge against your neighbor seems suspicious to me. You seem like you might "go off" and hurt someone.

Should you be allowed to have a gun? Should you be in jail?

Not trying to start anything or to be critical of your opinion Shorty, just creating an example of the idea I'm trying to express. Once you start spreading out a blanket of suspicion, it will pretty much tend to cover everyone in the area regardless of relative guilt or innocence.

Peace.

Shorty · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2005, 02:36:48 PM »

FWiedner,
Is this a reasonable analogy?
I have a right to stay up all night guarding my house against arsonists, being well armed according to my Constitutional right to bear arms. The police have no duty to protect me (granted) so I'm on my own.

The government has a right to defend public areas against terrorists or criminals by stationing a police officer with an MP5 in Grand Central Station or any street corner that might be a target.

You advocate the former, but abhor the latter?

Shorty · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2005, 02:42:53 PM »

Correction; I have rights, the government has duties.

FWiedner · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2005, 03:05:41 PM »

Quote from: Shorty

FWiedner,
Is this a reasonable analogy?
I have a right to stay up all night guarding my house against arsonists, being well armed according to my Constitutional right to bear arms. The police have no duty to protect me (granted) so I'm on my own.

The government has a right to defend public areas against terrorists or criminals by stationing a police officer with an MP5 in Grand Central Station or any street corner that might be a target.

You advocate the former, but abhor the latter?

Only natural entities can have rights. People are natural entities and have rights. Government is an artificial entity created by people, and therefore has no rights, only the authorities granted to it by the people.

In troubled times, I don't have a problem with policemen doing their job protecting the public.

My concern, given that scenario, is when they abuse the authority granted to them and start treating everyone like suspects just for going about their own business, and using those guns which are issued ostensibly for protection duties, as tools for intimidating citizens and throwing that authority around.

In direct reponse to your question, I, as a rule, abhor any situation wherein an agent of government is placed in a position of authority or advantage over average citizens.

.

Guy · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2005, 03:09:31 PM »

How does a suspected terrorist pass a background check?