FBI approved gun sales to 47 of 58 terrorists in 04

tintcutter

New member
Updated: 10:55 AM EST
Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds

By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times



Getty Images


Officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period in 2004, the investigation found.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON (March 7) - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would require a change in federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

"We're in a tough position," said an F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been formally released. "Obviously, we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything beyond what the law allows us to do."

After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-checking between gun-buying records and terrorist intelligence.

Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if there is a match, bureau field agents or other counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine whether they have any information about the terror suspect.

In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information into the database, the accountability office's report said.

In one instance last year, follow-up information provided by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror watch list was deemed "mentally defective," even though that information had not yet made its way into the gun database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications were denied.

Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department should clarify what information could and could not be shared between gun-buying administrators and terrorism investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep closer track of the performance of state officials who handle gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.

"Given that these background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks," the report said, "more frequent F.B.I. oversight or centralized management would help ensure that suspected terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law."



This came from the AOL homepage.
 
The thread title is misleading. The guns were sold to terror suspects, not known terrorists. There is going to be a huge legal difference in the two, based on presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

At any given time, a lot of people are considered suspects in various crimes, but that does not make them the committers of the crimes. "Suspect" simply means they are a person of interest, but nothing has been substantiated one way or the other as to whether they were involved in the crimes or not.

Notice the information did not note if the 'suspects' were foreign or domestic.

Now, if the study had found that convicted terrorists had been able to legally purchase guns, that would have been a real problem.
 
+1 double naught spy



things like this like to play into peoples fears and would have them forget what basics our country is formed on and forget to read deeply into what they see, hear, or read.

so according to this democrat. being suspected means you are disbarred from buying, or maybe even owning a gun.


and for the small list of those "suspected" that applied for carry permits. well if alot of people around this so called terrorist are armed then you can be d*** sure that this terrorist wont be doing much terror
 
So out of the hundreds of thousands of firearm transfers performed through dealers last year, exactly 11 "supposed" terrorists were prevented from buying a firearm. Even if it had been 100% accurate and effective, it would have stopped 58 firearm transfers. Doesn't sound exactly cost effective to me.
 
If these guys are terrorists who have committed some crimes, they should be arrested. Fact is, they are just being flagged and that really isn't enough to deny them rights.
 
Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe they should deny them the ability to rent ryder trucks, buy airplane tickets, or drive semi-trucks containing hazmat or explosive substances. It seems that most of the terrorists have used means that are not, or at least at the time, regulated in any way, except by the company itself (Air port security, while better than nothing, wasn't that secure before 9/11, and we all know it. Terrorists like to make a statement, they have connections (at least the ones that we are currently afraid of), and probably won't be buying guns through the legal venue, when they can get better weapons from their own supporters, for cheaper. Go ahead and watch their gun buying habits, more power to them, but the minute that I become a "flagged" (in this way) person for driving 5 MPH above the limit, is the day I become a millionaire.
 
Ryder truck rentals should be limited, but not because of terrorists, but because of morons driving overloaded trucks about which they have no idea how to handle or drive properly.

I don't think I would have a problem with precluding gun purchases by foreign nationals who are suspected terrorists, but that is probably still a Constitutional violation. Personally, I find it odd that we sell to foreign nationals living in the US, but we do and as far as I know, there isn't much of a problem.
 
A terrorist who wishes to do harm with a gun probably isn't going to a) draw attention to himself by incurring an FBI background check to purchase a weapon and b) buy a semi-automatic rifle when they can probably easily enough get a full-auto which would be much more effective for their sinister purposes.
 
A terrorist who wishes to do harm with a gun probably isn't going to a) draw attention to himself by incurring an FBI background check to purchase a weapon and b) buy a semi-automatic rifle when they can probably easily enough get a full-auto which would be much more effective for their sinister purposes

I have to agree on the above statement.

Another thing bothers me with the story here, and that is what the FBI, is considering seems unconstitutional in my eyes because if someone is a suspect that tells me they have not been charged with a crime. Now in the cases where people were denied they obviously had a criminal record that kept them from legally owning firearms so in those cases the system is working. Many people have been suspected of commiting crimes and were later found not to be the right person, it happens all the time. Same thing happens with the airlines detaining people all the time because there name is on the list either inadvertently or because someone else is using there identity. So I guess my point is an American Citizen who goes to buy a firearm should be allowed too do so until they have a criminal record that disallows them. Being a suspect doesnt mean a person is guilty of said crimes.
 
I agree with Wayne LaPierre in wanting to know how one gets on or off this list. Being on a "watch list" is the secular version of the "visit from the Bishop." "We think you may be doing something wrong or thinking about doing something wrong or may be related to somebody who has done something wrong so until we have proof we will watch you very carefully."

I am sensitive to such things since a work colleague called me in to the Highway Shooter Tip Line last year and had me investigated. The police were very apologetic about that since I was obviously not in the profile but they were forced to investigate every tip. They said it was obviously workplace retaliation. So the detectives came over and we talked about hunting and wildlife photography! One even gave me a good squirrel recipe!

It definitely helped to have a good relationship with the police and no criminal history whatsoever, not even a traffic stop.

Some suspicions are well-founded but you can come to the attention of the wrong people very easily.
 
Lautenberg again

Lautenberg, the illegally elected* Senator from the Garbage State, has jumped on this issue. He would like to take us back to the days when you could be deprived of your rights upon suspicion of being something, like a Communist, that the government didn't like. That is how a Fascist or Stalinist police state works.

In the United States, however, a person has to be indicted or found guilty before he can lose his Second Amendment rights. If the FBI has more than mere "suspicion" that the individuals in question are terrorists, they should be indicted, arrested, prosecuted, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and put in jail before they can hurt anyone.

A hearty "Heil Hitler" and "Sieg Heil" to Herr Reichsfuhrer Lautenberg (whom I actually think is at least nominally Jewish, so he should REALLY know better than to advocate this kind of thing).

* He was placed on the ballot after the legal deadline, when scandal-ridden Toricelli dropped out. If the LibDems can say Bush was "appointed" President by the USSC, we have at least as much to say that Lautenberg is not a legitimate Senator and his vote should not be counted in the Senate.
 
Key word: suspects. That's all they are. If there were any evidence that these people were actually linked to any terrorist group - in the criminal context - they would be arrested and tried right?

People are going to find out down the road that there is much more to this war-on-a-noun than first meets the eye. While this overlaps with several other threads on other subjects, let's start with an objective look at the spin on this one ....

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

"a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups"?

Ah, now things are a little clearer; we see the injection - once again - of terms like "militia-style" and another ambiguous term, "and other groups". Think Minuteman Project, or in the case of the latter ... just pick any group of people that might be subject of distrust.

Really folks; aside from the issue of whether anyone "trusts" the current adminstration or not, how do you all feel about the idea of a "democratic liberal" Congress and a WH administration under say Howard Dean swinging this and the other blunt instruments coming down the pipe?

With certainty this whole pretext, if not nipped in the bud is going to be here to stay when it arrives. Remember the "watch list" for travel - like through airports etc? The lists where a considerable number of people have found they were on - to their surprize? And all the hassles to get a flight? Or to get off "the list"?

So this one is going to extend the airport hassles of being "on a watch list" to buying a gun. Yes, in the name of "national security" and the "war-on-a-noun", if you are "on a watch list" you might find yourself "delayed" in your next FFL purchase.

You might even find that when you go to make that next purchase, not only are you turned down - but you might get a "visit" shortly thereafter.
 
Everyone is forgetting one small little fact: Just because a person doesn't have any criminal record doesn't mean he isn't a criminal, he may just be a very careful criminal. Look at the guy they are trying in Kansas for the BTK killings. He was actually a leader in his church! Background checks are fine, and I think we need them, but security is actually in the hands of the common, vigilant citizens of this country. Carry a gun everywhere you legally can and all the time--it seems to be pretty effective in Israel, and it works here a lot more than the liberal mainstream media lets on. The FBI can't deny legal weapons to a person who has no criminal record--PERIOD. Besides, how many true terrorists do you think are going to stroll into the local gun shop and leave a paper trail that they have a gun? I'm sure they have the resources and resolve to illegally import fully automatic weapons into the U.S., don't you?
 
think about it from another angle. with the patriot act they can already detain "suspects" of terrorism for long periods of time. if you truely feel that they are a terrorist and should loose their rights then detain them, instead of saying you need to cross-reference with terror lists and never destroy files
 
Texas Gun Runner
Everyone is forgetting one small little fact: Just because a person doesn't have any criminal record doesn't mean he isn't a criminal, he may just be a very careful criminal

Yep - like half of Congress. Like many thousand "known members of the [various] mafias". A few hundred thousand "known drug dealers" ... ETC

Allow this idea to become "normal" and the time will come when there will be less than about three million people in this country who are not in one of the "convicted felons [and the other growing list of "offenders"] ", or "suspected/known" catagories.
 
Back
Top