Planes, Guns and Terrorists

Should suspected terrorists be blocked from buying guns before they commit a violent crime? The gun lobby apparently doesn't think so.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently made the astounding discovery that, in the five years ending in February, 2009, 865 individuals on the government's terrorist watch list were able to buy guns at licensed gun dealers. Of course, if 865 people on the watch list had been permitted to board airplanes during that period, heads would roll. It is now taken for granted that suspected terrorists should not be allowed on airplanes. If we think someone is sufficiently dangerous to bar him from getting on a plane, why should we let him buy a gun?

The concern about gun-wielding terrorists is real. Two years ago, the FBI arrested a group of terrorists who had been training with assault weapons for an attack on soldiers at Fort Dix. We should not forget that, on January 25, 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani who was on the terrorist watch list at the time, opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle on cars waiting to enter the grounds of the CIA building in Langley, Virginia. He killed two CIA employees and wounded three others. Despite being on the watch list, Kansi was able to buy his gun three days before the shooting at a Chantilly, Virginia gun shop, after passing a Virginia State Police background check.

The problem is that federal gun laws are so weak that individuals who have close ties to terrorist groups can be denied guns only if they have committed a felony, or fall into another of the limited categories of prohibited buyers. Legislation to close this "terror gap" has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and in the House by Representative Peter King (R-NY). It would give the Attorney General discretion to prevent gun sales to any person known or suspected to have engaged in conduct in aid of terrorism. Presumably, the candidates for such treatment would be those on the existing terrorist watch list.

The National Rifle Association opposes the terror gap legislation, citing concerns about "the quality and integrity" of the existing watch list. Indeed, deficiencies in the list have been well documented. In May of this year, the Justice Department's Inspector General issued a report finding that, of the 400,000 names on the FBI's consolidated terrorist watch list, 24,000 were on the list based on outdated or irrelevant information. The question is: Are these problems with the existing list a good reason to oppose closing the "terror gap" on gun sales?

No one would seriously argue that the over-inclusion of names on the list justifies a policy of allowing other individuals with known ties to terrorist groups to board airplanes. The rational course is to institute policies that reduce the risk of over-inclusion, not to jettison all efforts to keep suspected terrorists off airplanes. Just as the current over-inclusion is insufficient to justify junking the "no-fly" list, it also is insufficient to justify the failure to institute a "no-gun" list. Unless, of course, we think that it is fine for suspected terrorists to have guns, but not to board airplanes. Few would see the logic in that position.

If the Lautenberg/King approach were to become law, there would no doubt be some mistakes made, in which gun sales are blocked due to incorrect information, mistaken identities, or other problems. Recognizing that no public policy applied in the real world is perfect, the Lautenberg/King legislation provides for mechanisms to correct such mistakes while making it harder for terrorist suspects to arm themselves.

There is certainly room for argument as to what the appropriate standard should be for denial of gun sales to persons who present a risk of terrorist activity, but have not yet been convicted of a crime. This is a particularly interesting issue in light of last year's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller interpreting the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to have guns in the home for self-defense.

But the core issue is whether the government should have some power to block gun sales to suspected terrorists who do not yet fall within an existing category of prohibited purchasers. As to that issue, the shortcomings of the existing terrorist watch list should hardly be decisive.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

Comments

[fishyjay]

The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't go far enough.

The Supreme Court may have established that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, but we cannot let such things stand in the way of the war on terror. Suppose someone is on the terror suspect list (who is on the list is classified, as is the criteria for being on the list -- good!). It is not enough to deny their 2nd A right to buy a gun -- they could already have some at home. So we need to deny their 4th A rights and search their homes without warrants. We also need to question them as to why they wanted a gun, and none of that right to remain silent stuff. We must deny their 5th A rights and jail them if they don't tell us what we need to know.

This is a logical escalation of the Bush war on terror policies -- in fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales supported this proposal. Previously, the Bush administration only supported the denial of Constitutional rights to those who were arrested for terrorism. The next step is to deny Constitutional rights to those whom we just (for some reason) suspect of some sort of terrorist sympathy.

Super8, I would not have pegged you as a supporter of Bush-type measures in the war on terror, especially such an escalation -- but welcome

[twogunmojo]

for jsgaetano....here are some names that would appear on that list...john lee malvo and accomplice­...lovelle mixon....bill ayers....patty hearst....

[djkrlsn]

twogun--I doubt anyone can claim that the people you mentioned could qualify as "conservative"--but then again people like js are long on hate and short on logic

[jsgaetano]

Hate? I'm saying the exact same things conservatives say.

So why is it ok for conservatives to say it, but it's hate when I say it? Try making sense of your double standard.

[super8]

I have an idea for most of the commenters here:

Start your own airline called "No Terrorist Watch List," or NTWL, founded for you and everyone on the watch list.

But only you and people on the terrorist watch list can fly on NTWL Airlines, and each of you has to carry a gun on board to try and avert a terrorist attack with the plane you happen to be on.

That way, the rest of us who want to get the list fixed AND try to keep terrorists from buying guns can fly a little more safely, since all of you would have bravely shifted the risk of a terrorist attack by plane to the airline you fly on - also helping the USAF know which planes to shoot down first.

Seems fair to me.

[djkrlsn]

Super8--your proposal does not pass constitutional muster--there is already a procedure to make it illegal for someone to own/purchase a gun--convict them of a felony or have a judge decide that they are 5150 (a danger to themselves or another). A bureaucrat putting a name on a secret list without judicial process or oversight is NOT on the list of legal and constitutional ways of taking away someone's rights

[jsgaetano]

Nobody seemed to care about this much during the last 7 years.

Why all the sudden concern? Just because a few Bubbas were thrown onto the list?

[cbr858]

You are just another uninformed lost soul that does not realize that this is all a ploy to take guns away from everyone! They have already successfully removed guns from law abiding citizens under the Lautenberg act. I won't be surprised if people like you continue to allow him and the rest of these idiots in congress to pass laws to take more guns from honest citizens... What are they afraid of? If it were not for guns, we would all be speaking German or have had our whole family wiped off the face of this earth!

Get real and stop watching and listening to these left wing socialists!!!

[jsgaetano]

Every conservative is a potential domestic terrorist. Make a list of everyone ever registered as a Republican, and add them to the list.

Like Cheney said, if there's even a 1% chance, you have to attack it with all possible resources. You wouldn't want to disagree with Cheney, would you?

[Thirdpower]

And get sued for discrimination?

Nope.

[jsgaetano]

So you'd sell weapons to terrorists because you're afraid of getting sued for discrimination?

Nice logic you have there. It comes with a wad of cash too.

[1will]

So all it should take to strip away someone's rights is a list. That's it? A stroke of the pen and your rights are gone?
Perhaps you could read a very old yet timeless document. It's called the Constitution. It's not living, It's not breathing and it was written by both smarter and better men than yourself.

[djkrlsn]

Dennis forgets that the Heller decision trashed what little reputation he had left--a lawyer that can not get the 2nd amendment correct while on the steps of the Supreme Court HAS NO CREDIBILITY

[LindaCat]

If these individuals are such a danger why just deny the sale from a licensed FFL? Why not arrest them and charge them ... well, with something?
To be effective, why not prohibit possession as well? One can obtain firearms without bothering with registering the sale with the Feds. A stiff jail term for possession by persons on the list will work. Not knowing that they are on the list won't be an excuse ya know.
Why the restriction to firearms? Knives and other bladed instruments should be included. We all know what box cutters can do in the hands of a terrorist.
Nunchaku are also a threat these days. Goin' to The Supreme Court.
As to these suggestions - If Not, Why Not?

[blueman55]

Remember kids!

In Bradyland, guns are bad, but sending Americans to die for Halliburton's stock price is good!

[procopios]

Watch list? The same watch list that kept Senator Kennedy from being able to board a plane? What a bunch of malarkey. If enemy combatants with no constitutional rights, and no Geneva rights weren't weird enough, you want a new twilight class of untried, unconvicted, and unimprisoned criminals?

[Ohio9]

Yeah just think, If that list applied to guns as well, then Kennedy would have a really hard time getting machine guns for his bodyguard:

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/kennedy.html

[GoingBust]

I think the problem here is that you have a constitutional right to buy a gun. SCROTUS has said so. So to deprive you of that right there must be due process.

Boarding a plane, like driving a car, is not so much a right as a privlidge. Due process requirements are less in these cases.

[djkrlsn]

Mr Hennigan is having difficutly understanding that people lose rights only as a result of 2 judicial processes--namely being convicted of a felony or being adjudicated mentally defective/dangerous to self or another. Don't forget Dennis could not even get the 2nd amendment correct on the steps of the Supreme Court

[cbr858]

What you are forgetting is that they have already successfully banned people with a misdemeanor of owning a firearm for life with no chance of ever changing that! (See Lautenberg Act) There are police officers that were fired, moved to desk jobs where they can’t touch a firearm, soldiers that can’t hold a firearm? Think I am kidding? What is next? How hard would it be to make it a ban to anyone that has any misdemeanor conviction? Say a DUI? Wow... Have a DUI and lose your ability to own a gun?

People better wake up soon or your rights to ever own a firearm will be long gone!

[molonlabe]

"Should suspected terrorists be blocked from buying guns before they commit a violent crime? The gun lobby apparently doesn't think so."

What a ridiculous statement. Good thing Ted Kennedy is anti-gun. Because we wouldn't have wanted him buying a gun before committing a violent crime. (Kennedy was on the watch list).

I don't know, Dennis. Should suspected anti-abortion advocates be blocked from protesting before they kill a pro-choice Doctor? Should conservative media outlets be blocked from their freedom of speech before they encite a riot against the government?

Let me guess, along with quoting Ozzy Ozbourne in your book, you also quote the script from Minority Report?

[OdinsEye]

I need to clear something up about Kennedy and the watch list. Sen Edward "Ted" Kennedy was not on the the watch list.

First, please be aware that the "no fly list" and the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) are not exactly the same thing, though both are called the 'watch list'. The history behind the two lists is somewhat convoluted. The "no fly list" actually existed before the TSDB. When the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was formed and the TSDB instituted, they pulled from 'watch lists' from numerous organizati­ons/agenci­es to populate the TSDB. Each agency still has its own criteria and inputs to its own list, which inturn populates the TSDB. Some agencies then use the TSDB in place of or to supplement their own lists.

Sen Kennedy was not acutally on the list. A person with the first initial "T" and last name "Kennedy" apparently was on the list. Sen Kennedy's first name is Edward, "Ted" is a nickname. He was delayed due to confusion.

Regardless, confusion occurs within NICS as well, sometimes resulting in a "Delay" response from the system and occasionally a "Deny" response; however, confusion in NICS is far less frequent and easier to get cleared up than with the TSDB.

[molonlabe]

Thanks for the clarification. Still, the delay and confusion shoul dbe something of concern.

[dan-o]

Why is there all kinds of outrage by civil rights groups and advocates when an Arab-American is stopped or profiled because their name is on the no fly list but there is no outrage when those same people are refused their civil rights of gun ownership. Why are these groups discriminating against people who are most likely mistakenly on the list or are only guilty of having the same name as one of the million or so whose name was thrown on the list for the vaguest of reasons.

[vespasian1]

"Why is there all kinds of outrage by civil rights groups and advocates when an Arab-American is stopped or profiled because their name is on the no fly list but there is no outrage when those same people are refused their civil rights of gun ownership."

What 'rights of gun ownership'?

You are talking to a man who omitted 'The Right Of The People' from his quotation of the 2nd Amendment, in an interview ha gave on the steps of the Capitol, during Heller.

Did you think we wouldn't notice, Dennis?

[Ben Miner]

Enough people have brought up the Constitutional issues already so I will skip it. Has anybody considered that if a law like this were to go into effect it would be a cheap and easy way for actual terrorists in hiding (and if you recall, the 9/11 hijackers spent years in hiding) to find out if the government was onto them? Wouldn't this potentially compromise investigations? I would love to know if the FBI and ICE support this proposal.

[OdinsEye]

Excellent point.

[molonlabe]

Gun banners aren't interested in compromised investigations. Look at their position on the Tiahrt Amendment.

[djkrlsn]

The fact that the BC/VPC want the Tiarht amendment changed when law enforcement does not is telling

[OdinsEye]

"There is certainly room for argument as to what the appropriate standard should be for denial of gun sales to persons who present a risk of terrorist activity, but have not yet been convicted of a crime. "

If they have not been convicted of a felony crime, are not under indictment for a felony, then there is no reason they should be denied their rights. If they are that big of a threat, then they should be under indictment, convicted, or deported. Fix the problem using due process, not a Star Chamber.

[OdinsEye]

Oh, and while we are at it, since the gun dealer will only be given one of three responses (Approved, Denied, Delayed), a person mistakenly on the list will not know why they are denied. And petititioning the government to find out if and why you are on the list is nearly impossible.

[OdinsEye]

"Recognizing that no public policy applied in the real world is perfect, the Lautenberg/King legislation provides for mechanisms to correct such mistakes "

You mean like the mechanism currently in place for getting one's name removed? The mechanism which failed to remove people's names for more than 6 months after the mechanism had been used and it was determined that they did not belong on the list?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

[OdinsEye]

Hey Dennis, since terrorists need to communicate to plan their attacks, let's just go ahead and toss out the 1st Amendment rights to free speech and free press for anyone on the watch list as well.

The fact is, and it is admitted to by the FBI and the GAO, that not everyone on the list is a terrorist and many of them have never done anything wrong.

The "watch list" AKA the TSDB is actually a conglomerate list built using inputs from various agencies with varying criteria for being on the list. According to the GAO, a great many people are on the list who should not be. Some estimates are that most of the over 1 million people on the list should not be there.

So BC and the VPC want to infringe these people's rights without any form of due process? Fine, then we'll infringe not just their RKBA, but their right to free speech and press as well. Remember that the next time a US Congressman can't get on a plane.