Terrorist Mateen On FBI Watch List, But Still Able to Buy Guns - This Must Change

[JimBowie1958]

Until they know he plans s terrorist attack or that he actually IS an enemy combatant, they do have due process rights. After the attack they are usually dead.

Once a person says that they are willing to follow instructions from a nation or other political entity at war with the United States, they should be considered an enemy combatant and treated like a captured/free enemy agent, and Killed On Sight. Just like we did to many German partisans in the Second World War.

When did the shooter anything like that?

Dude, I have done google searches for you in the past and you ignored the results. I am not going on another Google chase for you.

IF you want to know the data is there on line. Find it.

 

[WinterBorn]

But they have to have due process to declare them that in the first place. Law enforcement cannot just declare someone one of the two and then not have to worry about that pesky constitution.

Think of things like RICO, which was designed to fight organized crime, and was corrupted to be used in other ways.

Enemy Combatants do not have due process RIGHTS.

Yes, they get processed, but it is not a Constitutional safe guard.

Get real.

Omar was a US citizen and not in any sort of combat position before he went into the bar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And how does one get declared an "Enemy Combatant", especially when the person is a US citizen on US soil?

LEO's can just say "HE's AN ENEMY COMBATANT! SHOOT HIM!!!"????

What did I suggest for a process in the OP?

Shit, calm the fuck down.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But they have to have due process to declare them that in the first place. Law enforcement cannot just declare someone one of the two and then not have to worry about that pesky constitution.

Think of things like RICO, which was designed to fight organized crime, and was corrupted to be used in other ways.

Enemy Combatants do not have due process RIGHTS.

Yes, they get processed, but it is not a Constitutional safe guard.

Get real.

Omar was a US citizen and not in any sort of combat position before he went into the bar.

He had told ISIS he would carry out their instructions for him and he did. That makes him an enemy combatant and he should have been arrested and taken in to custody and his citizenship stripped from him.

Either way he should have been in jail and not out killing AMERICAN homos.

 

[WinterBorn]

Until they know he plans s terrorist attack or that he actually IS an enemy combatant, they do have due process rights. After the attack they are usually dead.

Once a person says that they are willing to follow instructions from a nation or other political entity at war with the United States, they should be considered an enemy combatant and treated like a captured/free enemy agent, and Killed On Sight. Just like we did to many German partisans in the Second World War.

When did the shooter anything like that?

Dude, I have done google searches for you in the past and you ignored the results. I am not going on another Google chase for you.

IF you want to know the data is there on line. Find it.

Don't try to be coy or clever. You know when he said something like that. It was AFTER he had murdered 50+ people. So it was not useful in preventing his purchase of a gun, which is the topic.

 

[bucs90]

I'm actually ok with banning those on terror watch list from own f a gun.

However....I'd want it treated as a warrant. Meaning....a judge needs to sign it. There should be "probable cause"...and if a judge agrees....put them on it. And make it appealable.


Won't stop terrorists from getting a gun. But it is a situation that makes sense to do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm actually ok with banning those on terror watch list from own f a gun.

However....I'd want it treated as a warrant. Meaning....a judge needs to sign it. There should be "probable cause"...and if a judge agrees....put them on it. And make it appealable.


Won't stop terrorists from getting a gun. But it is a situation that makes sense to do.

Finally a good comment instead of libtard horse shit.

Yes, I think having a judge sign off on this and part of the board reviewing who should go on a Terrorist Restriction List would be a good idea.

 

[martybegan]

And how does one get declared an "Enemy Combatant", especially when the person is a US citizen on US soil?

LEO's can just say "HE's AN ENEMY COMBATANT! SHOOT HIM!!!"????

What did I suggest for a process in the OP?

Shit, calm the fuck down.

All of this is in the "denial of rights" category, just at different times, and to differing levels of denial. Again, what protections remain to prevent some bureaucrat from declaring people as "whatever" and denying them their rights, and how long does the recourse take?

 

[martybegan]

I'm actually ok with banning those on terror watch list from own f a gun.

However....I'd want it treated as a warrant. Meaning....a judge needs to sign it. There should be "probable cause"...and if a judge agrees....put them on it. And make it appealable.


Won't stop terrorists from getting a gun. But it is a situation that makes sense to do.

And then the local government can make the appeal process last months and years, and all this time the government is denying someone their rights, with no trial, no verdict and no due process.

 

[JimBowie1958]

All of this is in the "denial of rights" category, just at different times, and to differing levels of denial. Again, what protections remain to prevent some bureaucrat from declaring people as "whatever" and denying them their rights, and how long does the recourse take?

When the IRS freezes your bank accounts, or the DEA does the same damned thing, what happened to your Constitutional rights then, hmmm?

The same process would be engaged here.

 

[FJO]

This is just a guess, but I have the feeling that fire arms obtained illegally kill far more people than fire arms obtained legally.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And then the local government can make the appeal process last months and years, and all this time the government is denying someone their rights, with no trial, no verdict and no due process.

IT could but that is a different problem, and it already happens in criminal cases anyway, so making it a criminal process would accomplish exactly ZERO BUT AMERICANS WOULD STILL BE GETTING KILLED.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is just a guess, but I have the feeling that fire arms obtained illegally kill far more people than fire arms obtained legally.

But forcing them to obtain the guns illegally would buy time, and the initial legal gun purchase attempt would trigger grounds for a search and investigation.

 

[cereal_killer]

I'm a huge 2A supporter and agree that if someone is on the "list" they should NOT be able to purchase guns. However there should be some protections put in place to make sure Americans rights are not unduly infringed upon.

You touched on it and I would agree with it. Lets say I'm put on the terror watch list. I should not be notified of it and/or aware of it. However, once I go to purchase a gun or guns I should be rejected, notified and given 7 days to contact the authorities. The will then brief me as to why I am on the list and I can either come in for an interview or surrender my right to purchase a firearms(s). If I agree to an interview and still wish to purchase a firearms(s) I will then be charged another fee for a more thorough back ground check that WILL extend to my family/friends.

 

[Alystyr]

3. He then gets put before an internal board that decides whether to put him on a Terrorist Restriction List. Being on this list means you cannot buy a gun, an airplane ticket or anything that the BATFE considers a dangerous material. The person being put on the list is notified of the ongoing process and asks him to explain his behavior. He is given 30 days to respond. AS this is a case of agency law and not criminal law, he has no criminal protections and does not have the right to a lawyer.

The only part of your OP that I even mildly disagree with is what I bolded above.
I feel that there should be someone there to explain the ramifications of what the process means and consequences of future actions. Not everyone is fluent in Legalese.
It wouldn't have to be a lawyer per se, just some form of impartial counsel not associated directly with the board.

That being said, yes, the system is broken at this point in time.

 

[ogibillm]

be sure to thank the nra

The NRA is all for keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

The NRA is good for stopping libtards from taking away the guns the rest of us have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO.

This is an Obama Regime FAILURE, not an NRA failure as the NRA is not put in charge of counter terrorism, doofus.

you can't even admit to the truth.

president Obama has warned that he has no mechanism to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing guns and ammo like he has with the 'no-fly' list.

guess why he doesn't have it? the nra and gop

Horse shit.

The NRA is not at fault for opposing unConstitutional procedures that the Obama Regime keeps trying to slide by the American public.

amazing. you want to absolve the nra for opposing what you yourself propose by calling the measure unConstitutional.

 

[JimBowie1958]

3. He then gets put before an internal board that decides whether to put him on a Terrorist Restriction List. Being on this list means you cannot buy a gun, an airplane ticket or anything that the BATFE considers a dangerous material. The person being put on the list is notified of the ongoing process and asks him to explain his behavior. He is given 30 days to respond. AS this is a case of agency law and not criminal law, he has no criminal protections and does not have the right to a lawyer.

The only part of your OP that I even mildly disagree with is what I bolded above.
I feel that there should be someone there to explain the ramifications of what the process means and consequences of future actions. Not everyone is fluent in Legalese.
It wouldn't have to be a lawyer per se, just some form of impartial counsel not associated directly with the board.

That being said, yes, the system is broken at this point in time.

That is more a function of Agency law, as I understand it. For example the IRS can freeze your assets without prior notice, as can the DEA.

Agency law is a huge hole in our Constitutional due process rights and since it already exists we can put it to good use in cracking down on these fucking terrorists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

be sure to thank the nra

The NRA is all for keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

The NRA is good for stopping libtards from taking away the guns the rest of us have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO.

This is an Obama Regime FAILURE, not an NRA failure as the NRA is not put in charge of counter terrorism, doofus.

you can't even admit to the truth.

president Obama has warned that he has no mechanism to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing guns and ammo like he has with the 'no-fly' list.

guess why he doesn't have it? the nra and gop

Horse shit.

The NRA is not at fault for opposing unConstitutional procedures that the Obama Regime keeps trying to slide by the American public.

amazing. you want to absolve the nra for opposing what you yourself propose by calling the measure unConstitutional.

There is nothing amazing about any of it other than the libtard agenda to ratchet down law abiding citizens rights in a supposed pursuit of terrorists that they actually have more demonstrated sympathy for.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm a huge 2A supporter and agree that if someone is on the "list" they should NOT be able to purchase guns. However there should be some protections put in place to make sure Americans rights are not unduly infringed upon.

You touched on it and I would agree with it. Lets say I'm put on the terror watch list. I should not be notified of it and/or aware of it. However, once I go to purchase a gun or guns I should be rejected, notified and given 7 days to contact the authorities. The will then brief me as to why I am on the list and I can either come in for an interview or surrender my right to purchase a firearms(s). If I agree to an interview and still wish to purchase a firearms(s) I will then be charged another fee for a more thorough back ground check that WILL extend to my family/friends.

Agreed, but there is an important point in the process that needs to be focused on here, I think.

I think it would be more fair to notify the watched person when they are 'promoted' from the Terror WATCH list to the Terrorist RESTRICTION list which would be a quasi legal status designating them for all intents and purposes an enemy or threat to the people of the USA.

I think that is where the notification to the watched person needs to be made and them given the right to appeal and fight the designation.

We have to distinguish between merely 'watching' them vrs restricting them so we can continue to follow their activities and see what a web of social contacts develop prior to tipping them off with a formal notification, and also to warn them of their status so that they can argue against/appeal the designation.

 

[Alystyr]

3. He then gets put before an internal board that decides whether to put him on a Terrorist Restriction List. Being on this list means you cannot buy a gun, an airplane ticket or anything that the BATFE considers a dangerous material. The person being put on the list is notified of the ongoing process and asks him to explain his behavior. He is given 30 days to respond. AS this is a case of agency law and not criminal law, he has no criminal protections and does not have the right to a lawyer.

The only part of your OP that I even mildly disagree with is what I bolded above.
I feel that there should be someone there to explain the ramifications of what the process means and consequences of future actions. Not everyone is fluent in Legalese.
It wouldn't have to be a lawyer per se, just some form of impartial counsel not associated directly with the board.

That being said, yes, the system is broken at this point in time.

That is more a function of Agency law, as I understand it. For example the IRS can freeze your assets without prior notice, as can the DEA.

Agency law is a huge hole in our Constitutional due process rights and since it already exists we can put it to good use in cracking down on these fucking terrorists.

I'm all in favor of using every tool at our disposal, as long as due diligence is used to prevent the modified list from becoming the useless garbage heap that the current one is. I mean, a simple name/address/age cross reference on the current list would eliminate many, if not most, false positives. It might actually make the current list slightly useful.