Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

U.S. Senate website ^

[Neil E. Wright]

H/T Mike at SipseyStreetIrregulars

---

Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

Wednesday, May 5, 2010
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

Add To My Calendar (vCal)

Witnesses

Panel 1

• The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg

  
  U.S. Senate

• The Honorable Peter T. King

  
  U.S. House of Representatives

• The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg

  
  Mayor
  City of New York

• The Honorable Raymond W. Kelly

  
  Police Commissioner
  City of New York

Panel 2

• Daniel D. Roberts

  
  Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  U.S. Department of Justice

• Eileen R. Larence

  
  Director, Homeland Security and Justice
  U.S. Government Accountability Office

• Sandy Jo MacArthur

  
  Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services
  Los Angeles Police Department

• Aaron Titus

  
  Privacy Director
  Liberty Coalition

---

Background information:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.

[stephenjohnbanker]

More “ Insanity On Parade “

[BerserkPatriot]

Okay, so let me get this straight: The wondrous and powerfully magical rulers of the Democratic National Socialist Party in our great and magnificently imperial government can't stop a terrorist form almost escaping by getting on a flight, bypassing the vaunted ‘No-fly’ list.

But they still want to ‘USE’ the crisis of terrorism to deprive the Law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.

Have I framed that correctly?

[BerserkPatriot]

And, not to Nitpick, but who the H*ll considers Lautenberg and Bloomberg to be “Honorable “

{I’m not nitpicking anyone here, but give me a break, those slugs being even close to being Honorable?}

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Dubai’s Fault? Obama blames Emirates Airlines for boarding
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/obama-administration-says-emirates-airlines-dropped-the-ball-911-commission-vicechair-says-us-govt-i.html

You see? We’ll be safer, so long was Obama doesn’t trust Dubai anymore.

[davidosborne]

pretty much nailed it my friend

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Obama: Police Acted ‘stupidly’ in Scholar Arrest video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZYsW_PxWAM

If disarmed, who are we supposed to trust?

Times Square Bomber “openly critical of Bush”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703866704575224451665380256.html

Is the idea to disarm Bush-bashers? Not exactly ...

NRA: Barack Obama - “bitter gun owners” video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWaxjiQyFk

So what do Americans think?

Rasmussen By the Numbers (Democrats’ nightmare)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2504583/posts

Congress’ job performance Favorable 11% Fair 31% Poor 57% ***
National Security Dem 36% GOP 51% ***

[They’r’e scared to even look at gun control issue. I’ll search that right now.]

[Old Teufel Hunden]

The next panel discussion can be on terrorists and airplanes. We’re going to ban all of those evil airplanes!!!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws - CNN.com
From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country. ...
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll

Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights, says Rasmussen poll
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Democrats-still-dont-get-it-on-gun-rights-says-Rasmussen-poll

[Quote]
The poll revealed that while 92% of identified Republicans who responded say the U.S. Constitution affirms an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment, only 64% of those who said they were Democrats believe that. They were even behind the 71 percent of respondents who claimed no political affiliation, while supporting individual gun rights..
Astonishingly, even after the Supreme Court ruled last June 26 in the case of District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, 14 % of those answering the poll do not believe there is a constitutional right to own a gun ...

[unquote]

[Marty62]

Guns?????????? Terrorists use Bombs IDIOTS.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

How about a panel on their no-fly list system?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Amen, Marty. Fertilizer control.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

We need to ban clocks and SUVs — that’ll stop’em.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Rocks are lethal weapons too. Back in the Civil War, thrown rocks killed a number of armed soldiers. Years back, someone suggested a rock ‘buy-back’ program.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I don’t understand why this is so bad. (*Caution: I haven’t read all the description - much less seen the actual proposal.) Do we really need to jump on it as “anti-2A”?

“known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism”

If they know this person has had terrorist activities, instead of simply denying him a gun when he tries to buy, why not just, oh, say, ARREST him?

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Tea Party participants?

[Bayan]

I don’t trust anything with Lautenberg or Bloomberg’s fingerprints on it.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"How about a panel on their no-fly list system?"

Exactly, the same system that shakes down 80 year old grandmas can't catch this terrorist before he gets on the plane.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“Exactly, the same system that shakes down 80 year old grandmas can’t catch this terrorist before he gets on the plane.” When the guy’s on the no-fly list.

And now they want the Feds to disarm the 80 year old granny while terrorists can smuggle truckloads of weapons up through Mexico.

Yeah, I think the American people would be thrilled with such an idea.

[EdReform]

Thanks for posting! I didn’t know about it.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

According to Justice Clarence Thomas, the Feds don’t even have the enumerated power to outlaw machine guns in the hands of felons. It’s up to the states to pass such laws.

Obama singlehandedly surrendered in the war on terror. He banned that term. Therefore, he cannot consider terrorists to be enemies. They are ‘criminals’ who need miranda rights.

So when we resume the war against terror, we can declare who is an enemy, and then the president has war powers. But we should identify them as ISLAMIC terrorists, which 0 will never do. Otherwise, a member of the tea party could be listed as a terrorist.