(ThillyWabbit is our newest front-page guest editor. Say hello! – promoted by Colorado Pols)
In between coverage of the train crash in DC and the death of Ed McMahon, the talking heads on my television this morning are hyperventilating over a GAO report showing that most people on the “terrorist watch list” who attempt to buy guns are allowed to do so.
From February 2004 to February 2009, 963 background checks using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System “resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information,” the GAO report says. About 10 percent were denied.
I know we usually only write about local stories, but Colorado has become the battleground on the issue of gun control since the Columbine killers bought their weapons through a straw purchase at the Tanner Gun Show.
I am a pro-gun liberal. If I weren’t so busy right now, I might have been getting drunk with Joe the Plumber, celebrating the “over 180 years” of American history by drinking liberally and shooting guns while smoking. But I rarely can say I agree with the NRA, because they are usually so extreme, and always extremely partisan.
In this case, however, they are exactly right.
“The integrity of the terror watch list is poor, as it mistakenly contains the names of many men and women, including some high-profile Americans, who have not violated the law,” said a statement by Chris W. Cox, the NRA chief lobbyist. “In fact, a March 2009 report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice concluded that many people whose names were mistakenly placed on the list remain there even after their cases have been vetted and closed.”
The GAO notes that being on a terrorist watch list does not mean that someone is involved in any terrorist activity.
Last month, the Justice Department reported that the FBI had kept thousands of names on its watch list based on outdated information and should have removed them.
It wasn’t until last year that I stopped being “randomly selected” for “enhanced screening” on every single flight I took. For the uninitiated, this involves everything from hand searches at the ticket counter, the security checkpoint, and the gate to strip searches and interrogations. I missed many flights as a result of having a name that SOUNDEX matched a name on the terrorist watch list.
The GAO report shows that my Second Amendment rights have been well-protected. My Fourth Amendment rights, on the other hand…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Who Will Win the Republican Vacancy Appointment in CO-04?
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Who Will Win the Republican Vacancy Appointment in CO-04?
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Who Will Win the Republican Vacancy Appointment in CO-04?
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Who Will Win the Republican Vacancy Appointment in CO-04?
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: It’s Official: Colorado Republicans Need A New Lawyer
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: davebarnes
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Thursday (March 28)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Yes, Please: Guns Out Of The State Capitol
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I’ve been completely swamped at work this week. Had I not received an e-mail from the Dead Guvs, I wouldn’t even have known that I shared the top spot with ClubTwitty for the front page slot.
Thanks for all your votes! And congrats to ClubTwitty and Barron X. Hopefully we’ll do honor to the long and storied history of the blog Lynn Bartels wakes up to every morning!
because I wanted the practice for my upcomiong reign.
I happened to be looking at an NRA rag the other day at the local sandwich shop (yes, there is only one) and have to say: “Whew them fellas is wack!”
But I agree that the so-called ‘Terrorist Watch list is a joke.’ My name is (or might not be) John Brown. Ever try flying with a name like that?
Looking forward to reading all three of you.
I’m also pro-gun. I believe in reasonable gun control laws and we have plenty of them, at this point.
…I couldn’t love you any more…
You naughty boy. 🙂
but must admit the list is indeed a joke, completely unreliable, full of names of innocent people. Must reluctantly join in agreement here. Good call Thilly. It must be so much easier belonging to one of the kneejerk groups that doesn’t have to think once the talking points are distributed.
How’s that feel? What if it came with abrogation of your constitutional rights?
If there was a substantial amount of evidence backing up the names of the suspected on the watch list, enough to bring them to trial, for instance, there would be justification for both keeping those named off planes and preventing them from buying guns. Of course if that were the case, wouldn’t there be reason to simply apprehend them altogether instead of just sending them away at the gate or refusing to sell them a gun?
This is why the watch list, as commonly used, never made any sense. Remember when Ted Kennedy was found to be on it? It seems like more of a way of looking like we’re improving security than actually improving security.
This is one of the issues Republicans love to throw at Dems because they know (rightfully) that there is no unified messaging or branding within the party; it throws them off and confuses most candidates immediately. It needs to stop being an issue.
If we simply enforce the laws already on the books and clean up the idiocy Bu$h left in his wake, as is referenced in your story, we can begin to take a harder-line on the issue. Right now, anyone can go south, go into a Kmart or Walmart or “swap meet” and get anything from a revolver to a grenade launcher. Laws are in place that are supposed to prevent hydrocephalics from getting such weapons but no one enforces them and the “list” of terrorists has been so flawed as to be irrelevant since its inception.
reinstate the assault weapon ban.
I support those two changes in gun laws, and think that municipalities should have the ability to impose some additional regulations, but otherwise am fine with gun ownership, CCW permits, etc.
1) Gunshow Loophole. Let prospective buyers get “pre-cleared” via Brady Check law before they go to the gun show. NRA could do this for their members, and they can be on the hook if they let a felon or terrorist buy a firearm. Otherwise, you get a little form from the City/County/State.
(Like my marriage license I had to get in Washington State..that had a 3 day waiting period, and it had far more dangerous consequences…)
2) Assault Weapon Ban – convene a special master and committee to review and recommend a list of banned firearms. They’d also provide a set of guidelines to include any firearms manufactured after the initial list was released.
The Panel would consist of former military, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense lawyers, NRA and the Brady center members, and a few average folks invited by random selection.
reinstated but I don’t think there’s much support for that these days even within the Democratic Party. Personally, I wish there were but I just don’t think it’s an issue of high importance for the Dems anymore.
If Obama were to sign a bill reinstating the assault weapons ban, i would be counter-productive to everything he’s trying to do with the economy and health care. It’s hard enough to get legislation passed without the right wing having something to legitimately gripe about.
The definition of “assault weapon” was entirely arbitrary and determined by things like the weight of the unloaded firearm. So a very deadly weapon made out of steel is illegal, but an equally deadly weapon made of carbon fiber could be legal (and less detectable by magnetometers) if it fell under the weight limit.
The machine guns that people cite in shootouts with cops as reasoning for reinstating the ban have already been banned and remain so.
The weapons that were actually covered by the assault weapons ban were more marginal, and they were used in such a small number of crimes before the ban that there isn’t a statistically significant enough sample to tell if the ban actually helped or not.
To ThillyWabbit for knowing the facts. I am seriously liking having a gun rights lib as the front page editor.
He’s not FPer yet.
Besides, you’ve had a gun rights lib as FP editor for 6 months now.
I like you as well. 🙂
did I tell y’all I’m vice chairperson of the West Slope Wing of PETA? Save the Flys!
is highly over-estimated. For one thing, we are so awash in guns, anyone who wants one will be able to get one for the foreseeable future no matter what laws are passed. If you’re a felon and can’t legally buy a gun, how hard is it to get a friend or associate with a cleaner rap sheet to get you one?
I can think of other priorities that liberals can spend time and energy on with better prospects for actually accomplishing something. When I, as a progressive Dem on all kinds of e-mail lists, get those e-mails from the Brady bunch etc., I just delete them. Would rather go to the wall for other goals.
It just doesn’t rate high on my personal priority list and hopefully, it doesn’t on his, either.
The “no” vote came with a reason that isn’t mine, but I voted no anyway.
“No, because you don’t need a damn gun.”
When the lists started up in the late 90’s he found out that he was on it. Seems that because he was a suspect in a car theft when he was a teenager, never charged, he was a risk to own a firearm.
The list is only as effective as the accuracy of the data, obviously.