iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Max J. Rosenthal
GET UPDATES FROM Max:

Gun Sales To Terrorist Suspects Would Be Halted By Passage Of Bill Backed By Veterans

Posted: 02/28/12 01:40 PM ET  |  Updated: 02/28/12 03:37 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Under current U.S. law, there are several ways a person can fail the background check required to purchase a gun. Being on the FBI's terrorist watch list is not one of them.

A group of military veterans is hoping to fix that problem by reviving a long-stalled bill, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The proposed law would allow the FBI to block gun sales to people on the watch list, closing what the veterans call the "terror gap."

"This is common-sense legislation that does not infringe on a gun-owner’s rights, and will protect our troops and our nation," said Vet Voice Foundation in a press release. The group, founded by veteran and progressive activist Jon Soltz, recently formed a new working group to rally veterans and ramp up pressure on Congress to prohibit such gun sales.

The working group is led by Ruben Gallego and Jackie Rodgers, both veterans and gun owners. Gallego, a former Marine infantryman and now a Democratic member of the Arizona legislature, argued that closing the gap was a smart move. "You wouldn't allow a known terrorist to get an airplane," he said. "Why are we are going to allow known terrorists to go pick up weapons?"

Both men said they were motivated by the threat to men and women in uniform, who have been targeted by shooting attacks over the past few years. In addition to shootings at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009, that same year a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., was fired upon. Terrorist suspects also attempted to purchase weapons to attack Fort Dix, N.J., in 2007.

Rodgers, who served in the Army, said that veterans are uniquely placed to understand the issue. "A lot of veterans are gun owners," said Rodgers, who served in the Army. "And if you have veteran gun owners supporting this, they are speaking from both sides, from an understanding of being a gun owner and from an understanding of the potential of terrorism."

A 2011 report by the Government Accounting Office found that from February 2004 to February 2010, "individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times; 1,119 (about 91 percent) of these transactions were allowed to proceed because no prohibiting information was found."

Gallego said that such numbers represent "a clear and present danger."

For years, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) has introduced legislation in Congress to close the watch list loophole without success. "It goes to committee and just sits there," he told the New York Daily News in 2009. "It's been going on for a while."

Two years later, King is still waiting. He resubmitted the bill to the House in early 2011, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) submitting legislation to the Senate. But last year, as in 2009, the legislation never emerged from committee. Vet Voice plans to pressure members of Congress who voted against the bill in committee, a group that includes Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), who represents Fort Hood in his district.

Gallego believes that the inaction stems from a lack of information rather than widespread opposition. "A lot of congressmen just aren't well educated on the subject matter. I think they think this is some kind of anomaly, but it is a real threat," he said.

Gun lobbyists, however, disagree. The National Rifle Assocation is adamantly opposed to the law. The group posted a fact sheet online in April 2011 saying that the bill was "aimed primarily at law-abiding American gun owners." The NRA said that such gun owners could be in jeopardy of jail time if they were mistakenly or arbitrarily placed on the watch list. "Ninety-five percent of watchlisted persons are already prohibited from acquiring firearms in the U.S., because they are not U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens," they wrote.

An NRA spokesman confirmed to The Huffington Post that his organization's position has not changed since last year.

But some of the group's members appear to back the the proposal. In a 2009 poll of NRA members conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 82 percent said they would support measures to prevent those on the watch list from buying firearms. "If you look at prohibiting terrorists from buying guns, requiring background checks at gun shows, or other issues, you find widespread support for these measures," said pollster Frank Luntz, who ran the survey.

Gallego and Rodgers are both former NRA members. While they both left the group over disagreements with some of its positions, neither was surprised that most gun owners would agree with them on the terror gap. "NRA members are great Americans," Gallego said. "And they want to see the country protected as much as anybody else."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Under current U.S. law, there are several ways a person can fail the background check required to purchase a gun. Being on the FBI's terrorist watch list is not one of them. A group o...
WASHINGTON -- Under current U.S. law, there are several ways a person can fail the background check required to purchase a gun. Being on the FBI's terrorist watch list is not one of them. A group o...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 166
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
06:15 PM on 07/16/2012
That whole "Due Process" thing is so 18th Century, anyway...
photo
cromag
ban the parties
03:03 PM on 04/01/2012
Is this the April 1 article?

there are already many, many ways someone can wind up not being able to purchase a firearm. Moslty through the ever growing list of what counts as a felony.
12:29 PM on 04/01/2012
Firearms legislation is determined by a tiny minority of all Americans. For the sake of argument say that all households that no not own firearms support reasonable gun laws. Then take those households that do own guns and you'll find 80 percent do not belong to the NRA and many -- if not most -- do not agree with NRA policies.
I've been a shooting enthusiast since the 1960s, own many guns and defend the right to do so, but I abandoned the NRA decades ago.
Like the TEA party which has RINOed moderation out of the Republican party, the NRA and Gun Owners of America use intimidation to enforce their dogma. A columnist for an outdoors magazine who suggests it's not sporting to use a Kalashikov to hunt deer loses his job when the gun nuts threaten the guns and ammo firms that advertise there. A precision, custom firearms craftsman in Montana faces a boycott when he mentions in passing in a news article that he voted for Obama. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper saying 30-round handgun magazines should be banned and you can expect death-threat phone calls in the middle of the night.
Of course politicians are the most scared of all. Some of them actually get shot.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
01:37 PM on 04/01/2012
Are you arguing in advocacy of Representative King's proposal to deny a Constitutionally protected liberty based solely upon entry upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list while offering those affected neither due process nor means of appeal, or is your entire comment a non-sequitur with respect to the article subject?

Additionally, are you unaware that Kalashnikov-derived semi-automatic rifles are becoming popular amongst hunters and thus the claim that the use of such rifles for deer hunting is "not sporting" is a demonstrable lie, and thus that any individual who issues such a claim rightly deserves to be identified as a liar?
photo
cromag
ban the parties
03:08 PM on 04/01/2012
I hate the NRA with a passion. Particularly the pandering they do to vets and the whole-hearted lying they do to everyone else.

that said.
I also grew up in, what was, a traditionalist hunting state, PA. No semi-autos, no electronic sights, no crossbows, flint-lock rifles only for muzzle loader season, no mechanical release of any kind for archery, etc. As it should be.
There is absolutely no need for 10-30 round hunting rifles. If you are that bad of a shot I don't want you in the woods with ,

Are you doing the hunting or is the weapon doing it for you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
02:14 AM on 07/17/2012
There is no porn in my house (I outgrew it), but I do not support "reasonable censorship laws".

As a male, there will be no abortions in my future, but I do not support "reasonable abortion control".

I am not a criminal, and do not really forsee armed police breaking down my door any time soon, but I do not support "reasonable 4th Amendment exceptions".

And so on...
photo
The Patriot
I'm not pretty, but neither is the truth.
10:54 AM on 04/01/2012
hmmm...and since ever american is a "potential threat", then no american should be allowed to own firearms? nope. not gonna happen.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daveh88
SLTFATF
10:19 AM on 04/01/2012
Wait. SO the FBI watch list which only has names like Ted Kennedy (remember when he and everyone with that name was on the list and had trouble) and no other identifier can be banned, So if one person names John Smith was on the terror list then every John Smith in the US would be banned from having guns, with no due process (see constitution). That's how primitive the FBI list is. Plus, if it is really you they are after there is no process for challenging that the FBI was is error. That's right if they put you on the list their is no way for you to challenge, like if it was a mistake or you're a muslim immigrant who makes calls to family back in the old country and sometimes visit, you do go on the list, it has happened to innocent people with no right to challenge. You need a right to challenge your placement on the list under due process

So to ban someone without due process or proof of anything on a primitive list that uses names only and no other identifier is good? nope keep this law down until the terror list improves (like photo, address, etc. so we know the exact person, not just a vague name) and give citizens the right to challenge their names on it, then I'll support it, but not until then.
photo
JudMiller
Truth Telling is All I Know
10:08 AM on 03/22/2012
More guns mean a safer and free society. Simple as that.
10:05 AM on 04/01/2012
And the Constitution and the rule of law be damned?
photo
cromag
ban the parties
03:01 PM on 04/01/2012
An armed society is a polite society.
11:52 PM on 03/02/2012
They are using the term "terrorist" way too much. According to the DHLS I may be a terrorist because I own guns and am missing part of my finger.

So for owning a gun i could be put on a list that states i can not buy a gun.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ABSORB
Google The Non Aggression Principle
10:18 PM on 03/02/2012
We all no this list has nothing to do with terrorists. If this watch list bill did pass, suddenly everybody would be a terrorist.
07:19 PM on 03/02/2012
If you take away one right the next one is easier to take away.
03:20 PM on 03/02/2012
Is your name:

James Robinson?
Robert Johnson?
Gary Smith?
John Williams?
Edward Kennedy?
John Lewis?
Daniel Brown?
James Moore?
Robert Campbell?
David Nelson?
John Anderson?

or the same or similar to any of the other 1 million plus names on the watch list?

Our country's watch list system is grossly bloated and unfair with over a million names -- including many unlikely suspects -- and not very effective as a security measure.

To be effective, and to be fair, terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat.

The use of this bloated list with all its problems as a method to restrict a Constitution right is simply wrong. No one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns - and anyone on the list who isn't a citizen (or LPR) can't buy a firearm under current law anyway. Anyone on the list with a criminal background cannot buy a firearm under current law anyway. Anyone on the list who tries to buy a handgun outside of their home state will be denied anyway.

Should those US Citizens with names suspiciously similar to someone on the terrorist watch list also be prohibited from voting? have their rights to free speech revoked? not be entitle to petition for redress? be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment? forced to quarter soldiers?

How many Constitutional rights do we want to take away because a name (or similar name) is on a bloated and dysfunctional government list??”
12:37 AM on 03/02/2012
Sweet.

Now all Rahm has to do is put the entire city on a "watch list" (which is easy since there's basically no review, appeal, or criteria for being on it) and blammo, no guns for anyone!

Gun control is back, baby! Screw the constitution!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
09:03 AM on 03/01/2012
Jon Soltz supports this?? Well, why didn't you put this out before? Now, I'm even more opposed to the bill than ever! Soltz' group speaks for an extremely small percentage of GI's. He has come out in favor of draconian treatment of men and women who may have stepped a bit over the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims that his group supports GI's in their efforts to get elected to political office, but oddly, he never mentions any Republicans. I wonder why that is??!! He is as partisan as they get, and deserves no credibility from ANY veteran beyond his military service!
Semper fi
11:03 AM on 04/01/2012
Wanna know how I know you didn't read the article?

For years, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) has introduced legislation in Congress to close the watch list loophole without success. "It goes to committee and just sits there," he told the New York Daily News in 2009. "It's been going on for a while."

Vet Voice plans to pressure members of Congress who voted against the bill in committee, a group that includes Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), who represents Fort Hood in his district.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
01:39 PM on 04/01/2012
Do you believe Representative King's proposal, which would deny a Constitutionally protected liberty based upon a secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous list while offering those affected neither due process nor means of appeal, to be reasonable?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
02:32 PM on 04/01/2012
Loophole? The watch list is compiled secretly, and anyone on it may not find out whether they are on it!
Semper fi
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
01:20 AM on 03/01/2012
A "suspected terrorist" is someone who has: 1.  Not been arrested for any crime. 2. Not been indicted for any crime. 3. Not been convicted of any crime. Based on the above I strongly suspect that I and most other Americans would match the criteria to be a "suspected terrorist". Kinda like the Department of Pre-Crime that would arrest the bad guys before they had broken the law.
11:36 PM on 02/29/2012
It doesn't matter if a handful of vets support this proposal. That doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

There is no due process involved in the terrorist watch list. The government can place anyone it wants on the list for any reason, and once a person is on the list, the burden of proof is on them to get off, even if they were put on it incorrectly. The Government Accountability Office has already revealed many people are on the list based on outdated or irrelevent information.

Constitutional rights can't be restricted based on such a list. In order to restrict the rights of an American citizen, they must be tried and convicted of a crime in court. Being a "suspected" or even "known" terrorist is not good enough. Suspicion or even probable cause isn't what's needed to restrict rights. A criminal conviction is.

This article is particularly dishonest on this issue. It cites the Fort Hood and Little Rock shooters as examples, but doesn't mention that both shooters were never on the terror watch list. It cites 1,119 cases where people on the list bought guns, but no cases where such people used them illegally. This is strong evidence against the terror watch list, not evidence in favor of it. Finally, the Luntz poll is cited without mentioning it was bought and paid for by an anti-gun group to further an agenda, the MAIG. As such, it has no credibility.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
10:01 PM on 02/29/2012
There is a reason these lists are called "Watch Lists". They are for information gathering and sharing, nothing more. There is no due process involved and they should not be used for anything except "watching".

Look, I get that these laws sound appealing and sensible, but what they do is prey on emotion, not fact, and they violate some of our most basic tenets of freedom -- the assumption of innocence and the right to due process.

This proposal should be unpalatable to all Americans.