People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

When people on the government's terrorist watch list have tried to buy guns or explosives in recent years, the government has let them the vast majority of the time.

That's the finding of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, sent to lawmakers last month and released publicly Monday.

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.

"Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list," wrote the GAO's director of homeland security and justice issues, Eileen R. Larence.

"Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigration status."



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/terror.guns/index.html

[mikelgb]

1. of course, that is the only fucking amendment left

[AndyA]

3. It appears to be, doesn't it?

So sad that so many innocent victims die due to gun violence, but by God that person had a RIGHT to bear arms!

What about the other person's right to live? It would seem that would have precedence over all else. :shrug:

[RamboLiberal]

8. This isn't about the rest of the populace not on the watch list

So let's not start that old DU fight.

[Raskolnik]

19. Fine. You don't like this particular civil liberty.

Please feel free to take a crack at modifying the Constitution as needed.

[AndyA]

42. Someday people will get their PRIORITIES straight, and they'll realize

that once people are killed, they don't come back. Life seems to expendable to people today. They are so horrified when a bunch of kids get their heads blown off in a mass killing spree, but not to the point where they face the fact: gun laws in place DON'T WORK.

You may not value life much, you'll have to deal with that on your own. :eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Did you think the 'terror watch list' was a good idea from the start?

Or did the addition of gun purchases cause the scales to fall from your eyes?

Lautenberg is just doing now what another, equally distinguished US senator did back in the Fifties-

He's got a list of dangerous people!

[Raskolnik]

48. Like I said--you are welcome to try to change the Constitution to remove the civil liberties

you don't think we need or don't think we can handle.

[beevul]

79. Right...

Because people just don't have thier priorities strait unless they are exactly the same as yours, and see everything just the same as you do ,right?

Arrogant much?



There happen to be facts other than yours, like the fact that guns themselves are not the problem, nor are gun owners by and large.


Of course, those facts just don't fit your biases, and anyone that takes them into account just doesn't "have thier priorities strait".



I'm betting you wont deny that.

[slackmaster]

81. Authoritarian governments have killed far more people than have lawful private gun owners

:nuke:

[defendandprotect]

122. True . . .and that should be clear to gun lovers who arm themselves against government -- !!!

Remember Katrina . . . ??

[Butch350]

133. What the difference between the two?

[MicaelS]

94. Many people DO have their PRIORITIES straight

They are ardent defenders of the Second Amendment, and are very politically active. The old adage of the squeaky wheel gets greases applies. History of the last 20 years has shown politicians who vote for gun control lose elections. If those people whom are anti-gun can't muster enough political activism to counter the activism of gun owners then they have no one to blame but themselves. Perhaps if feminists learned the lesson of non-stop activism, instead of resting on their laurels, womens' reproductive freedom wouldn't be as threatened as it in many places.

[defendandprotect]

121. It is modified by the opening clause, which NRA and "guns for everyone" continue to ignore --

[beevul]

55. Maybe...just maybe...

You need to be reminded what the bill of rights is.

It is a list of enumerated restrictions that tell the government what it MAY NOT do.

The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms. Amendment 2 however dictates that it shall not be infringed by government.

And maybe after that sinks in, you could learn a lesson from those of us that vehemently oppose unreasonable restrictions on amendment 2 - that lesson being that you need to be ever vigilant, and network with folks who are like minded where those other restrictions on governmental power are concerned.


That alone, is why we win. And win. And win.


Hell, if the ACLU would get off its high horse and defend amendment 2 as it does the rest of the amendments, maybe it wouldn't alienate millions of people that would otherwise be willing to support it.

What you have here, is the result of the "salad bar approach" toward civil liberties. On both sides.

[EndersDame]

59. I totally agree. I also think that it one of the most important amendment.

Seeing how it helps to make sure the others are safe

[Raskolnik]

21. Yeah, the secret, non-appealable list with a million names on it is a wonderful tool

for limiting civil rights, isn't it?

[Somawas]

25. Touchy, aren't we?

[davepc]

2. The Bush administration secret list should be done away with all together

Another relic of the 'war on terr-ah'

[krispos42]

4. "People on terrorist watch list still have constitutional rights", in other words...

...so far.

I'm sure the repubs are working on fixing that, too.

[DBoon]

15. more like "the terrorist watch list is so useless"

it isn't worth the bother of denying people on it the ability to buy guns

[DesertFlower]

5. what happened to the Brady Bill?

when hubby and i purchased guns in the 90s, we had to have a background check.

[RamboLiberal]

7. You still have to have a background check if buying from an FFL

It's an instant check - NICS. What they are saying is that even though individuals are on terrorist watch list - which means you go through hell at the airport if trying to fly, these people have no problem buying a gun. Of course the watch list is full of errors.

[davepc]

9. Nothing. The NICS is alive and well.

Being on George Bushes secrecy list dosent mean you lose your rights. The 1968 gun control act is specific about who is prohibited from posessing firearms. Being on a double secret list created by the Bush DoJ that you don't know your on, can't apeal to get off, and that was historically used to harrass political oponents on the republicans is not a disqualifying state.

[slackmaster]

65. It became law, and the permanent provisions took effect in 1994

If you were to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer today, you'd still have to have a background check.

[billyoc]

6. How many millions of us are on that list now?

Just askin'.

[Ian David]

10. Terrorists have private property to defend, too! n/t

[davepc]

11. Everybody Bush put on his secret list is a terrorist?

[Ian David]

16. Are you saying The Bush Administration was untrustworthy? n/t

[TheWraith]

20. Um... Yes. Exactly. nt

[Ian David]

23. I am SHOCKED! Shocked, I tell you! n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Terrorists can have all the guns they want. They just can't...

take them on planes.

(Because they can't get on planes.)

[sellitman]

13. Gun rights trump all.

Until our sick gun culture changes this won't surprise anyone.

[benEzra]

44. So, you *favor* the Bush administration secret blacklists?

Or do you just like them when someone adds the word "GUNZ" to the word "TERRAH"?

[Demeter]

14. Well, Isn't That Special?

[tomreedtoon]

17. So they can buy guns...

...they just can't board planes or busses, right? So they don't care how many they kill, the government doesn't want them to kill people anywhere else?

[old mark]

18. They also evidently have free speech.....There's that pesky

Constitution again.


mark

[TheWraith]

22. What I find absolutely pathetic...

Is the number of people who recognized that this entire list was a GROSS violation of pretty much every standard of law when the Bush administration put it together, but when you suddenly put guns into the mix they're scrambling all over each other to take the black marker to the Constitution.

A secret, unaccountable list with no oversight or appeals restricting your legally guaranteed protections including privacy, travel, due process, etcetera, is BULLSHIT whether guns are involved or not. And just because some people have as much of a hardon about guns as the Bush administration did for harassing dissidents is not a good enough reason to break the law.

[X_Digger]

24. Excellent summation! n/t

[Raskolnik]

28. No, you must be mistaken. The terrorist watch list is an invaluable tool

and those on it should, nay, MUST have their civil liberties restricted*.



*provided its a civil liberty we find distasteful

[beevul]

80. No doubt about it. Spot on.

Lets remember though, that these are the same people that carry water for the republican founded, republican led brady bunch.

It should come as no surprise that they will even go so far as to carry water for bush administrations policies when guns are thrown into the mix.


I mean...seriously, does the depth of thier bias...and the fact that they are ready and willing...nay...CHOMPING AT THE BIT...to use those bush policies which are nearly universally condemned - against guns - really surprise you?

No offense, but I find it completely predictable.

And utterly reprehensible. (I know you do as well, don't mistake the tone of my post, you and I are in agreement here.)

[kristopher]

26. ON MSNBC now (4:10 PM) Lautenberg (Sen D NJ) wants to have DOJ do in depth review

of all the background checks for gun purchases by people on the watch list.

Considering the known problems with "The List", this proposal seems poorly thought out. The ACLU recently estimated the number of individuals on The List as nearly 1 million. Since we have a population of 300 million that means 1 person out of 300 is suspected of being a terrorist. What is wrong with this picture?

[Butch350]

27. Oh please. You ought to see some of the americans they allow to buy guns!

You mean like that guy who walked into the Jewish Museum and shot the guard, or like the iranian thug who shot Neda,
or the guy who shot oswald, JFK, RK, MLK, john lennon etc. Who gives a F**K about your terrorist?!

[FailureToCommunicate]

29. Well I feel safer. So... gun nuts on "watch-list" can shoot up their own nursing homes

but not get on a plane to find where my mother is. Yup, I feel safer.
Good old FBI.
Good old NRA.
Wimpy old Congress.

[Raskolnik]

30. The good old terrorist watch list: a terrible infingement on civil liberties when Bush uses it

but a common-sense approach that doesn't go far enough in the context of restricting the Second Amendment under Obama.

[FailureToCommunicate]

32. Boy do you have the cart before the horse. So, 2nd Amendment aside, do you

believe there shouldn't be ANY list that authorities use to check who gets on a plane with you. Really? Maybe you don't ever fly.
Can anyone have or keep a driver license after killing others while driving drunk?
No rights infringements for you? Or is this just about the 2nd Amendment?
Confused.

[Raskolnik]

33. The "terrorist watch list" is a bad joke on our civil liberties

It has nearly a million names on it. A million names. Which means that the government thinks that roughly 1 in 300 people should have their civil liberties restricted in some manner or another because there is a reasonable suspicion that they may be involved in terrorism. Does that sound reasonable to you?

The criteria for being put on the list are unknown, there is no mechanism for an individual to appeal his or her inclusion, and there seems to be no sunset provision. It is a ridiculously ineffective tool that serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. If the government has a reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in "terrorism," there are plenty of legitimate investigatory tools at its disposal that do not permanently blacklist an individual.

And your comparisons to drivers' licenses is inapposite, because the terrorist watch list encompasses people that have not done anything illegal and/or suspicious enough to warrant actual adjudication or investigation. Bah to that, and bah to people like you that would give away our liberties for the promise of a little theoretical safety.

[FailureToCommunicate]

51. Your response started out reasonably. Of course a list has to be legitimate and be not be abused

but you seemed to say 'throw em all out' cause they infringe our liberties.' My referencing driver licenses you say is wrong cause the 'watch list' "encompasses" people that have done nothing wrong. Well, it also may 'encompass' many that HAVE.
And I am not one of those people who "give away our liberty for the promise of "theoretical" safety." I've been arrested countless times in the causes of civil rights, the Vietnam War, various wars since then, and the disability rights movement. But we "give up rights all the time in a society: the right to drink and drive recklessly, the right to go thru any intersection without stopping, the right to start a deadly stampede by shouting "fire!"...

Oh and this: there is nothing "theoretical" about safety: Two of my dearest friends died on 9/11. One on a plane and one in the Tower. I'm sure they would trade a few minutes of background checks for any suspicious passenger of those flights for the possibility of not dying a horrible fiery death thousands of feet in the air.

And let me ask you a question. Do you know someone wrongly on the watch list? Is that what's bugging you?

[NickB79]

53. I'm sure dying people would glady trade away their freedom for a few minutes more of life

That still doesn't make it right, and is no excuse to do so for the entire population of the United States.

The famous quote "Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" comes to mind.

[FailureToCommunicate]

56. Right. We live in such a terribly repressive country. 'I want a pony but I don't

want to be forced by the terrible government to have to wear a helmet' Boo hoo, boo hoo.
Grow up.
'I want freedom to let ANYONE on a plane.'
What country is that exactly where that happens?

[beevul]

58. Heh...

"I want a pony but I don't want to be forced by the terrible government to have to wear a helmet' Boo hoo, boo hoo."


In case you had forgotten, or possibly weren't aware, being "grown up" means making your own decisions, rather than someone else deciding them for you.

Do you disagree?

[FailureToCommunicate]

74. Yes, I do. Of course a responsible adult would want to wear a helmet, or not shoot

a gun in a crowded mall, or let a sober person drive you home. I'm sure you and I would agree. But what about all the knuckleheads out there that think otherwise? What about those "grown ups"? Are you okay with paying for those persons' catastrophic head injury long term health care costs (like we all have to) just cause he likes to feel the wind in his hair? Or the costs of the carnage of the shooter or drunk driver? Those "adults" made their own decisions that impact you and me. And I for one am willing to put up with a few laws, and the police that enforce them, so I'm not spending all my money on high insurance and medical costs and all my weekends at funerals.
"Grown ups". Please spare me.

[beevul]

78. A reasonable adult...

Where helmets are concerned, a reasonable adult would tell you its none of your fucking business regardless which way they choose.

The rest ( not shoot a gun in a crowded mall, or let a sober person drive you home) I can agree on.


"Those "adults" made their own decisions that impact you and me."

Yes indeedy. Some of those decisions effect others DIRECTLY. Others indirectly. I note with interest that you make no such distinction.

"And I for one am willing to put up with a few laws, and the police that enforce them, so I'm not spending all my money on high insurance and medical costs and all my weekends at funerals."


Like I said. Grown ups make thier own decisions rather than having them decided for them.

"What about those "grown ups"? Are you okay with paying for those persons' catastrophic head injury long term health care costs (like we all have to) just cause he likes to feel the wind in his hair?"

I assume you will of course extend this to anyone that eats steak bacon or fast foods, smoking, alcohol use, the occasional slip when one decides to take a shower (you WILL mandate a helmet in the shower, will you not?), sexual practices that are found to be more at risk for life threatening STD's and so on...

If you aren't willing to extend it to all those things, you have no room to criticize where I draw MY line either, do you.


Indeed I am ok with it. Its a small price to pay for not being dictated to in areas where nobody has any business doing any dictating of any kind.

And not because I like to feel the wind in my hair - I dont own a motorcycle or bicycle - but because its simply none of your damned business. Just like its none of your damned business whether I eat steak bacon or fast foods, smoke, use alcohol, shower without a helmet, or have sexual practices that are found to be more at risk for life threatening STD's and so on... None of your damned business. All of it.


Shooters and drunk drivers are a different matter. They involve the safety of the public in general rather than just that of the person making the decision. Helmet and seatbelt laws simply do not.

Thats where I draw the line. I have no desire to place any controls, or see any controls on people under that context, and equally no desire to have those controls exerted on me.

Lets see, before helmet and seatbelt laws, was anyone spending "all thier money on high insurance and medical costs and all thier weekends at funerals"?

Spare you indeed.

In the worst car accident I have been in, I would have been dead had I been obeying the law and wearing my seatbelt. I wasn't thankfully, and I walked away from it without even stitches.

And I bet that means exactly nothing to you. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette right?

[Raskolnik]

60. "I want freedom to let ANYONE on a plane."

Ok, why don't you tell me why people who have not been convicted of any crime, seen any evidence against them, or had any chance to challenge their designation as a potential "terrorist" should be denied their civil liberties? Because they have a funny sounding name? Because they took part in a demonstration against warrantless wiretapping? Because the clerk at the bookstore saw them buy a copy of the Quran and a book about electrical engineering?

Who exactly deserves to be on your blacklist?

[FailureToCommunicate]

69. How are people 'denied their civil liberties' by being checked briefly against a list?

A list that is clearly now too big and too crazy to work as it should. The people I would have on a no-fly list would be the same ones you probably would -if you ever flew - people with a background check flag regarding terrorism. Not from buying the Qur'an.

[slackmaster]

82. Any "background check flag" sufficiently dire to keep a person from boarding an airplane

Should be sufficient to bring criminal charges or at least deport the person in question.

[Raskolnik]

85. You didn't answer the question. *Who* belongs on that list.

You don't get to guess at who I believe should be on a secret, non-appealable, apparently permanent blacklist and then agree with it, because I don't believe such a list should exist in the first place.

Who do you think deserves to be placed on the "terrorist watch list" and thus be subject to its limitations?

[FailureToCommunicate]

101. Sure I did. Not the dead beat dad who may now be on the list. But certainly

the guy with a bomb in his shoe, or a box knife and plans and skills to fly my plane -or your plane- into a skyscraper. Terrorists, like I said. Or do you believe there ain't no such thing as a "terrorist"?

[Raskolnik]

102. Folks with bombs in their shoes and/or plans to fly planes into skyscrapers

can and should be arrested for those activities. Last time I checked, those are pretty well covered by the existing laws, and if someone tries to do either, they can and should be prosecuted. That has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist watch list, however.

To use your earlier example against you, the state may legitimately deny a driver's license to those convicted of multiple drunk driving offenses. That's a legitimate use of due process, and no on could reasonably argue otherwise. However, if the state compiles a secret list of people to be denied drivers' licenses based upon the fact that they (or someone with a similar name) might have been seen leaving a bar within the last year by someone who may or may not have a grudge against them, that's just stupid. That's essentially what you're arguing for when you defend something as stupid as a "terrorist watch list."

[FailureToCommunicate]

106. Okay, let me see if I get your drift. A bad guy shouldn't be kept off a plane 'cause

there should BE no list in the first place because to even have a list infringes on our rights. But after he has blown up the plane -assuming they can find enough pieces of his body- there are laws in place to convict what's left of him. Again, I'm not saying the "watch list" is without flaws, but wouldn't you want there to be SOME way to keep that terrorist off your flight?
It has EVERYTHING to do with a terrorist watch list.
Maybe a better one.
Any other ideas?

[Raskolnik]

108. Frankly, your post is ridiculous, and you either genuinely don't understand the

issues implicated by a secret list of pre-crime candidates, or you are being intentionally obtuse.

Do you understand that *if* a law enforcement agency (i.e. the FBI, the DEA, ICE, etc.) has reasonable cause to investigate someone, they are perfectly free to conduct their investigation to their little hearts' content, over a nearly unlimited timeframe. If required, they can get something called a "warrant" and perform fairly intrusive investigation into the suspect's activities. If that investigation does not produce anything, our law does not provide a third category between "convicted" and "not convicted" that allows permanent penalties to be levied against an individual on the off chance that they might try to do something bad in the future.

And no, I'm not going to provide tips on how to make the terrorist watch list less objectionable, because I'm not the one who thinks it should exist. That burden is on you, chief, and so far, you haven't even attempted to carry it.


edit grammar

[FailureToCommunicate]

118. Some guys on that list are not "pre-crime" They have some reason for suspicion.

And not all people that had done terrorism crimes have been found, tried, let alone convicted. But they MIGHT be on a list to check before they fly away forever. Or fly in for an attack.

Your method sounds reasonable when the justice system and law enforcement are working as they should. But what about when the system isn't working smoothly?

[Realityhack]

137. Here in the United States those who are found not guilty...

may not be punished by the government as if they were found guilty just because you or the government thinks the verdict was wrong.

We will let a known murderer out on a technicality. It is the price we pay for our freedoms. Some of us our happy to pay that price.

There are some countries that use your method of guilty until proven innocent. They tend to be big fans of watch lists. I personally have no idea why you would want to make the US more like them.

[ProudDad]

142. Considering the source, I'd say intentionally obtuse .. or

imbued with an appalling lack of understanding.

Or a troll....

[Irreverend IX]

95. I'd take a hundred terrorist attacks over one abrogation of due process.

In a free society, people do not have their rights restricted without getting the opportunity for a trial where they can hear the charges against them, face their accusers and defend themselves. If you're on Bush's list of bad boys and girls you could go to the grave without knowing it, and no has any idea why people get put on it or if it's ever possible for them to be taken off.

[Raskolnik]

61. Is that how our system works? People that "may" have done something wrong

get put on a list and have their civil liberties restricted, just to be on the safe side?

And I'm sorry for your friends, but I'm even sorrier when people (e.g. you, Dick Cheney, etc) use dead bodies as a club to justify taking away civil liberties in the name of "safety."

[FailureToCommunicate]

63. Wow, you put me and Dick Cheney together as the same. Now I really feel I'm part of the DU

family of civil discourse!
I really doubt you're 'sorry for my friends' but that's okay. You go on believing your 'civil rights' allow you to do anything or go any where you want in good ol USA. Fine. I'm guessing you are white, because folks of other colors know that civil liberties disappear fast at the whim of an angry cop. When you are next time in line at DMV waiting for your license renewal, just pretend 'they' are not cross checking you against some list. No rules for you: No OSHA. No FAA. No Helmet laws. No gun laws. Is that it?
Go to Mogadishu if you want to see how that works out for safety.

[Raskolnik]

84. If you don't like being lumped in with Dick Cheney, don't use his "reasoning" to justify

a secret, non-appealable blacklist used to restrict the civil liberties of people that haven't been convicted of any crime.

You go on believing your 'civil rights' allow you to do anything or go any where you want in good ol USA.

So much disdain for civil rights...are you sure you aren't comfortable being lumped in with Cheney?

folks of other colors know that civil liberties disappear fast at the whim of an angry cop.

And you want to beat those angry cops to the punch by limiting civil liberties of those who fit some unkown criteria for some unknown period of time. Good for you.

[rrneck]

93. I don't know anybody on the list

because the list is classified. About a million people have been accused of terrorist association and/or activity and are being punished for it without legal or social remedy.

A secret list of undesirables that offers no chance of appeal or even the knowledge that one is on it patently unconstitutional. And the real danger is the cancer that can spread when something like that is allowed to happen. The Obama administration should have dispensed with it on 1/3/09. Instead it still seems to be there and some special interest group with an axe to grind has found a new use for it.

[FailureToCommunicate]

99. 1/3/09? Did you mean 1/20/09? And of course it has to be a secret list. But you'll

certainly know if you try to get on a plane whether you're on it. Hardly secret then.
Look, I'm not a proponent of Bush's anything. But there has to be some mechanism to keep the Mohammed Attas of the world off hijack-able jet planes.

[rrneck]

111. Oops. Thank you. Wrong date.

Yes, of course there should some mechanism to keep terrorists off planes. That mechanism would include some way to determine who actually is a terrorist, and some mechanism for someone accused of such activity to dispute that allegation. Creating a mine field of regulations that disrupt peoples lives willy nilly is a tried and true tactic of repressive regimes to keep populations in line without having to shoot at them.

We have a police force and due process. That is the mechanism that you seek.

[Realityhack]

136. You are equating...

Continuing to hold a drivers license after "killing others while driving drunk?"
with
Getting on a plane never having been convicted of any crime in any court?

Seriously? You think those two things are constitutionally equivalent? They meet the same requirements that the government not infringe on your rights without due process?

Seriously?

[derby378]

31. The "no-fly" list has proven worthless - burn it (n/t)

[biermeister]

34. I only have 2 questions-

How do you get on the list? No one knows- maybe you say the wrong thing, who knows. Seems fair though, you wouldn't be on the secret no fly list without a reason.

How do you get off the list? There is no process to get off the list. You're basically fucked, forever.


There is no due process. You aren't convicted of a crime, you're not even accused of a crime. You have no chance to face you accuser or any evidence against you. This list is completely illegal & it should be banned. Anyone who supports shit like this should consider what they would do it they were on the list not just how great it would be if someone who didn't share their opinion was on it.

[Psephos]

62. very well said eom

[slackmaster]

68. Those are EXACTLY the right questions you should be asking

And you have the right answer.

There is no due process.

Kudos to you, biermeister, for having a basic understanding of civics that too many on this forum lack.

[biermeister]

90. sometimes i actually pay attention nt.

[FailureToCommunicate]

71. I have only one question: how do you know these things? "There is no process for

getting off the list" Are you on the list? Or do you know someone who is?

[X_Digger]

77. I can answer that..

A friend of mine got on the list. He lives in Dallas and his daughter lives in Austin. His last name is Chhadhua, he's a first generation citizen (his parent's emigrated to the US from Southern India in the early '80s.)

Every other weekend, he picks up his daughter from the airport on Friday and puts her on a plane every Sunday evening. In August or September of '06, he went to the airport to purchase a ticket for himself since the airline rep said that they didn't have a 'guide/guardian/monitor' (whatever it's called when a flight attendant takes responsibility for an unaccompanied minor) for this flight. He found out that he was 'subject to additional screening' at the security chckpoint- 45 minutes later, he was told that he would not be allowed to board the flight. They would not tell him why. He was escorted back to the parking garage after purchasing a ticket on another airline for his daughter (all the while, TSA goons looming over his shoulder.)

When Muna was in college at UT Austin, he dated a state senator's daughter and served as unofficial "IT guy" for her father. He made some calls and was able to ascertain that he was subject to.. lemme think how it was worded.. "he meets the criteria of a DHS advisory". Further calls were met with "we'll call you, don't call us."

He didn't know _for sure_ that he was on the 'no-fly list' but in any case, there was no due process, no way to refute any presumption of guilt, and no legal recourse.

Last I talked to him, he was able to fly again, but damned if he knows what the problem was, or how it was resolved.

[FailureToCommunicate]

89. Apparently people can get "on the list" for lots of reasons besides "terrorism" And now

with agencies working more in concert (something everyone clamored for after 9/11) the TSC -Terrorist Screening Center- has now a much bigger catch then they can deal with. Glad to hear you one friend got off the list. And the process sounds tough like getting your credit score list problems cleaned up (but worse) However, all this is put in place to make air travel safer (after the horse left the barn) Not to blacklist and deny rights to innocent folks. It was put in place because real people had their bodies shredded to pieces in the skies. Perfect? Hardly. Necessary? Well, I'd still have two dear friends alive today if they had stopped Mohammed Atta at the Portland airport.

[X_Digger]

97. No to make your friends' tragedies any less important, but..

Public policy should not be predicated on the 'if we stop just one..' mantra.

The cost of having freedoms is that sometimes, some people may abuse those freedoms. It can be a terrible cost to those who suffer those abuses, but our society as a whole is better off than had we restricted those freedoms (IMHO).

[FailureToCommunicate]

98. "...if we stop just one" One? How many died on Flight 11 and in the North Tower?

Look around you. In our "free" society there are loads of "freedom"restricting rules and laws. From helmet laws to child kidnapping laws to FAA regulations and, yes, FBI databases. Do you really think next time you get on a plane that the mechanics are the only ones keeping that flight safe?

[X_Digger]

117. I refuse to make a bad situation worse..

I'd like to see the patriot act rolled back, the list destroyed, and gitmo emptied. Then roll back the legislation protecting telecom carriers from suits pertaining to participating in warrantless wiretaps. (And I work for a telecom company!) Tear the ass end out of the NSA, CIA, and anyone else who participated.

Is 3,000 a terrible number? Absolutely. In a country of 300 million where more 50,000 die in auto crashes, 100,000 from coronary related diseases, 25,000 suicides- not that big a number in the grand scheme of things, and definitely not big enough to make me want to give up my right to privacy or protection from illegal search and seizure or self-incrimination.

[Raskolnik]

103. "all this is put in place to make air travel safer" The hell it is.

Things like this (along with taking our shoes off at the metal detectors and the color-coded terrorism alert system) are put in place as theater to give the *appearance* that the government is doing something to make air travel safer. There is a world of difference between the two.

[FailureToCommunicate]

107. So... you don't believe air travel is any safer now? Just more inconveniences?

Well again, I remember the bored fat lady at the Portland "security checkpoint" that didn't bother to check ANYTHING about Mohammed Atta. And I kinda wish she had that September morning.

[Raskolnik]

109. I don't think taking our shoes off at the metal detectors makes us one iota safer

I don't believe that having to throw away a six oz. bottle of Pepsi before going through security makes us one iota safer. I don't believe the color coded terrorism alert system has made us one iota safer. I don't believe the terrorist watch list has made us one iota safer.

Clear?

[FailureToCommunicate]

112. Inescapably. Resent the heck out of TSA for all their silly rules. This massive and

expensive new agency is all just there for show, to slow us down, embarrass us in front of others and provide minimum wage jobs. It's not actually there to protect us one bit. Or iota.
Got it.

[Raskolnik]

114. I'll thank you not to ascribe things to me that I didn't say.

If you can't make your point without silly strawmen, you don't have a point.

[FailureToCommunicate]

116. Since you ask so politely I'll agree.

"Strawmen" aside, extrapolating someone else's argument for the sake of counter argument is a common convention (at least within the confines of back and forth writing) and certainly often used here at DU.

You wrote:

"I don't think taking our shoes off at the metal detectors makes us one iota safer
I don't believe that having to throw away a six oz. bottle of Pepsi before going through security makes us one iota safer. I don't believe the color coded terrorism alert system has made us one iota safer. I don't believe the terrorist watch list has made us one iota safer. "

Got it.

[slackmaster]

83. Here is what the FBI officially has to say about that question...

Redress Procedures

The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) works with the Department of Homeland Security and other Government agencies on a daily basis to resolve complaints from individuals experiencing repeated screening delays or difficulties that may be related to the consolidated terrorist watchlist. Because individuals could experience problems during screening for any number of reasons, not just because of the terrorist watchlist, they should contact the agency conducting the screening process in question.

Because the contents of the consolidated terrorist watchlist are derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information, the TSC cannot confirm or deny whether an individual is on the watchlist. The watchlist remains an effective tool in the government's counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. The nondisclosure of the watchlist information protects the government's operational counterterrorism and intelligence collection objectives, as well as the personal safety of those involved in counterterrorism investigations.

See Frequently Asked Questions for additional information about the TSC.

Filing a Redress Inquiry

The TSC does not accept redress inquiries directly from the public. Instead, Members of the public should contact the relevant screening agency with their questions or concerns about screening. The screening agency is in the best position to identify and resolve issues related to that agency's screening process. Information on how to contact screening agencies is listed below.

Underlining added for emphasis. Source = http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/redress.htm

Compare and contrast with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances unless you have a beef with the agency of the government that maintains the sooper seekrit terra watch list. You can direct your petition for redress to any of several agencies who have no legal authority to actually remove names from the list.

:eyes:

[FailureToCommunicate]

88. Thanks for the link. However, it seems to say check with the agency that originated

the screening notation first before proceeding with any attempt at redress. It may be a slow or difficult process, but how else could it be done? If it is repeated firearms violations, or parole, or child kidnapping charges doesn't it make sense to you that a person has to sort that out with THAT agency first before going next to the TSC? That's all they seem to be saying.

[rrneck]

96. How would I determine the relevant screening agency?

Especially in light of this sentence:

Because the contents of the consolidated terrorist watch list are derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information, the TSC cannot confirm or deny whether an individual is on the watch list.

It says call the screening agency but we won't tell you what information put you on the list, so it will be almost impossible to determine which agency to contact. It's a classic Catch-22.

Per your post:

it seems to say check with the agency that originated the screening notation first before proceeding with any attempt at redress. It may be a slow or difficult process, but how else could it be done?

It is designed to be an onerous process. Why is it that people worry about repression at the muzzle of a gun when repression begins with onerous bureaucracy? Why shoot at people and damage expensive infrastructure when you can have them turn themselves into slaves just by making life difficult?

You cannot possibly be that naive.

[FailureToCommunicate]

104. Thanks. You're correct, I'm NOT that naive. The TSC list isn't posted on their website

for obvious reasons. But you would know if you're on it when you are questioned before boarding a plane. Not secret then.
Do you really think we are SLAVES in one of the most free democracies on Earth just because there are laws restricting some things, and government bureaucracies? Slaves?

[rrneck]

115. I shouldn't be questioned or detained at all

for any reason unless there is evidence that I have committed a crime. The presumption of innocence the cornerstone of our legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

Of course we aren't slaves. Here's what I wrote: Why is it that people worry about repression at the muzzle of a gun when repression begins with onerous bureaucracy? Why shoot at people and damage expensive infrastructure when you can have them turn themselves into slaves just by making life difficult?

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

If you like a secret list of with millions of "persons of interest" on it that could subject them to costly and frustrating inconvenience I suggest you not engage in any sort of political or social activism, write no letters to the editor of you local paper, or books with any meaningful content.

You would also do well to avoid associating with anyone who you think might be on that list. Also avoid attending any place of worship or any other public event that may put you out of favor with the authors of that list.

And I guess if you like that list you wouldn't dream of demanding that your name be taken off it. Do you see a pattern here? If not, please see the Bill of Rights.

Those people got on that list not because they were a national danger. They got there because they were a political danger. They got there because a corrupt administration saw an opportunity to create a mechanism to punish their political enemies.

But if you're happy with that, you just jump right into that express lane at the gate. I hope your enjoy your destination.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. Some of us are less comfortable wearing chains than others are

However light and necessary they are said to be, or how ostensibly 'good' the reason given for them.

[Paladin]

127. Well Now, Aren't You Special...... (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. Just paraphrasing a local politician. I agree with one of his associates:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

T. Jefferson, 1791

Or is that too libertarian?

[beevul]

138. Ouch...

Thats gonna leave a mark...

[Paladin]

140. Not Hardly..... (n/t)

[Paladin]

139. The Notion Itself Is Sound.

However, Jefferson managed to state it a lot less self-righteously than you did. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger---Jefferson generally used language better than anybody else, then or now......

[slackmaster]

110. I don't know that repeated firearms violation, parole, or child kidnapping would get a person listed

Are you just guessing here?

[FailureToCommunicate]

113. Yes. But anecdotal bits have suggested a much wider net being cast. From your

link to the FBI site: "...the CONSOLIDATED terrorist watch list are derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information" Could mean just about anything could get you on it.
Heck, even being an overweight US senator with an Irish name gets you on it. And lots of Republicans believe him to be a terrorist!

[slackmaster]

124. I've always had a fear of an overweight person sitting on me

I'm terrified of them.

[FailureToCommunicate]

125. Me too! And as much as I admire Sen Kennedy, I'm not sure I'd like to be squeezed

in a seat next to him on a long flight.

[biermeister]

91. I don't think I am on the list nor do I know anyone who is but

the whole process is secret and lacks due process. It is illegal and should be stopped immediately. It certainly should not be expanded and used as an arbitrary reason to deny a person their rights unless they are afforded the protections guaranteed under the Constitution. We still have a Constitution, right?

[michreject]

92. How did Ted Kennedy get off of it?

He was on it.

[Raskolnik]

105. He knew a U.S. Senator or two that could put in a good word for him.

For some reason, I don't think other included on the list are afforded quite the range of remedies as the Senator.

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. People who arent convicted felon's shouldnt be prohibited from exercising thier rights...

I am however not 100% on what the laws are on foreign nationals buying firearms in the US though. I thought they could only buy them if they were immigrating to the US. If that is the case why is the government allow terrorist suspects to become immigrants in this country?

I'm against denying American citizens their rights without due process, IMO things are different when the person in question isnt a citizen.

[NickB79]

37. Unless most of those on the watchlist are actually legal US citizens

But we all know the Bush administration wouldn't do that, would they? Spy on their own citizens and such? :sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

41. Must be a citizen to purchase firearms.

(The question is asked on the 4473 form you fill out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.)

[S_B_Jackson]

49. No, you do not have to be a citizen to purchase a firearm.

Per the BATFE's FAQs:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#r7
(R7) I have a "green card" and have lived in Texas for several years. Am I prohibited from purchasing firearms and ammunition from an FFL in Texas?
As long as you are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition (for example, a felon), Federal law does not prohibit you from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition. However, you will need to put your alien number or admission number on the Form 4473 and provide the FFL with documentation establishing you have resided in Texas for more than 90 consecutive days preceding the transaction. Moreover, you must make sure there are no State or local restrictions on such a purchase.

[X_Digger]

52. Sorry, meant legal resident..

A friend of mine on a student visa can't (not sure why, but I was standing next to him), but a co-worker with a valid h1b did.

[S_B_Jackson]

70. No problem....

your friend on the student visa is legally defined as a nonimmigrant alien under an addition to the Gun Control Act passed in 1998. Under this law, a nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm, UNLESS it is for hunting and they have first obtained a valid State hunting license or permit. (see FAQ link above)

[NickB79]

36. If there's enough evidence that they're terrorists, arrest them.

Until then, they're free, legal citizens of the US and able to exercise ALL of their rights as such. This includes legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.

Or are there any DU'ers out there that really want to argue those on the bullshit "terrorist watchlist" are guilty until proven innocent?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Lautenberg explains it all for you right here:

http://www.politickernj.com/paganm/30812/lautenberg-conyers-scott-known-or-suspected-terrorists-cleared-buy-guns-or-explosives-8

LAUTENBERG, CONYERS, SCOTT: KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS CLEARED TO BUY GUNS OR EXPLOSIVES 865 TIMES SINCE 2004

By Michael Pagan

Lautenberg Introduces Legislation to Close "Terror Gap" In Nation's Gun Laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Congressmen John Conyers (D-MI) and Bobby Scott (D-VA) today released a new GAO report finding that, from February 2004 to February 2009, there were 963 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist attempted to buy a gun. In 90 percent of those cases - a total of 865 times - they were cleared to proceed with that purchase. One of those cases involved the purchase of explosives.

"The special interest gun lobby has so twisted our nation's laws that the rights of terrorists are placed above the safety of everyday Americans. The current law simply defies common sense. This new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This 'terror gap' has been open too long and our national security demands that we shut it down," Sen. Lautenberg said.

Congressman Robert C." Bobby" Scott, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security said, "This report is disturbing and certainly warrants consideration by Congress and the Administration. One might reasonably ask what the purpose of a Terrorist Watch List is if those on it are free to acquire firearms and explosives."

In response to this report, Sen. Lautenberg is introducing legislation to close the "terror gap" in the nation's gun laws by giving the Attorney General authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists. Under current federal law, there is no legal way to stop someone on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns and explosives.

According to the new GAO report released today, which the lawmakers requested in July 2008, only ten percent of the time were terrorists suspects denied weapons because of disqualifying factors, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigrant status. Being on the Terrorist Watch List is currently not a disqualifying factor for buying firearms. The complete report can be downloaded by clicking here.

In January 2005, a previous GAO report requested by Senator Lautenberg found that from February 3 to June 30, 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the federal government. In 35 cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information (such as felony convictions or illegal immigrant status) within the federally prescribed three business days. Today's report shows an alarming increase in these numbers.

Under the federal Brady Act, a licensed firearms dealer must request a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before an unlicensed individual may purchase a weapon. However, even if a NICS check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, nothing in current law prevents that person from purchasing a gun unless he or she meets one of the other disqualifying factors, such as felony conviction, illegal status, or domestic violence convictions.

Sen. Lautenberg's measure, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009," would:

· Provide the Attorney General with discretionary authority to deny the transfer or issuance of a firearm or firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism;

· Requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines describing the circumstances under which such discretionary authority will be used;

· Include due process safeguards that afford an affected person an opportunity to challenge a denial by the Attorney General; and

· Protect the sensitive information upon which terrorist watch lists are based.

In 2007, the Bush Administration backed the introduction of a previous version of this bill written by Senator Lautenberg.

###

MICHAEL PAGAN can be reached via email at [e-mail].

[Raskolnik]

39. Fuck you, Lautenberg, and fuck your transparent use of "TERRORISM!" as a blank check

to restrict the civil liberties of people that haven't been convicted of any crime or been the object of an actual investigation. It was bullshit when Bush did it, and its just as much bullshit when you do it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Links to the GAO report:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-125R

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09125r.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-125R#recommendations

[benEzra]

43. I see the MSM hasn't given up on the Secret Terrah Blacklists.

News flash: Those "terrah-ists" can also work at elementary schools, drive school buses, manage daycares, fly airliners for a living, work as police officers, and even have LEGAL!!! access to the U.S. Capitol, the Smithsonian, the National Mall, the Mall of America, and the Washington Post building!

Quick, bring back the secret terrah blacklists, for the children!!! Be afraid!!! Them environmentalists/war protesters/Muslims/people who dress funny are DANGEROUS!!!!!!1111

:sarcasm:

[New Dawn]

45. Most people on the "terror watch list" are just anti-war protesters.

And yes, anti-war protesters should be able to buy guns just like anyone else can.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. That fool Lautenberg just offered REAL terrorists a great way to see if they are on the list.

Scene: A meeting of a Gondwanaland National Liberation Army cell. Cell leader "Comrade A" is speaking:

A: "Comrade B, you are still undercover, are you not?"

B: "Yes, Comrade, I have maintained my cover, and have not had any contact with the security organs.
By all appearances, I am a loyal citizen of the United States with no criminal record."

A: "Excellent! Now we must check that the authorities agree. Take your identification and
the requisite cash to <local gun shop>, and attempt to purchase a shotgun. If the purchase is refused,
we will know your cover is broken and can take steps to evade the police."

Security theater at its finest!

[Thor_MN]

50. Looks like the only foiling done in *'s Terra Town was Pickles dye job and Chenny's hat

[Sweet and Spicy]

54. This scares me

The inappropriateness of this is so obvious I won't even go into details explaining why.

[slackmaster]

66. You think that merely being suspected of having bad thoughts should disqualify a person from...

What, exactly?

[Realityhack]

134. Thinking rooted in fear is usually of very poor quality.

I imagine you probably support the idea of due process as you are here on DU. Care to explain how the government meets that burden here?

[beevul]

57. Aparently, some folks hereabouts think this guy shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

He was prevented from boarding a plane because of this "watch list" in case anyone hereabouts has forgotten.

[slackmaster]

67. Cue the sound of crickets chirping

:rofl:

[beevul]

72. Indeed, however...

I must admit, the sounds of cockroaches scurrying away trying to escape the light is more what came mind for me.

Give them an inch, and they take a mile:

They carry water for the republican founded, republican led brady bunch, and because it has been allowed hereabouts, they have become emboldened to the point that they're now carrying water for the bush administration itself through support of this policy.

And theres no spinning it or denying it.

I don't know whether to laugh at them or pity them.

[Realityhack]

135. Not sure what is so funny.

This is a good example of how such a list can be very wrong and the average person has little to no recourse. The burden of due process for removing a right is not met.

[slackmaster]

64. People who haven't been convicted or even charged with a crime still have civil rights

I don't see a problem here.

[Endangered Specie]

73. So let me get this straight, so called "liberals" and "progressives" support the mere existance...

of a "Terrorist watch list". A list that no one knows how you get on, and no way to get off.
Does that not go against what it MEANS to be a progressive? I think anyone who supports this (no matter the gun bit) would be better off calling themselves a 'McCarthest' than a 'liberal'.

[Caliman73]

119. Well some do...as long as it involves restricting scary guns.

Due process be damned we just need to "feel" safe.

[951-Riverside]

75. I think its pretty sad that people are labeled as terrorists without notice or trial

Its pretty pathetic to deny people rights simply because they're on this list. Its very hard to get a reason why one is on this list let alone get a hearing.

[iandhr]

76. conforting thought

[rocktivity]

86. Whose fault is that? You're not supposed to KNOW you're on the terrorist watch list!

And if there's no information on the watch list that prohibits you from purchasing firearms, then maybe you shouldn't be on the watch list to begin with!

:crazy:
rocktitivy

[Vidar]

87. How does the terrorist watch list coincide with the "no fly" list? Are unarmed

planes the only weapon we worry about now?

[Blaze Diem]

100. Terrorists??? Then so should those with a non-violent related felony from 10 years ago also

be allowed to protect their property and person.
keyword: Nonviolent felony convictions, 10 years ago or more.

[Caliman73]

120. It is possible for felons to have their rights restored.

There is a process for that. the problem with the "terror watch list" is that it is "confidential" and arbitrary regarding inclusion criteria, and the process for appealing inclusion is also vague. The big difference is that convicted felons have at least had due process and the option to defend themselves against their accusers. People on the list don't even know they are on the list, have not been charged, tried, and convicted of any crime. They are just "suspicious".

[EndersDame]

126. My SO will have his voting rights restored only because we live in Texas

Texas is pretty progressive in that respect most states will not do that. He will never be able to own a gun though. He was young (17) and dumb and probably didnt realize his actions would stay with him the rest of his life.

[Paladin]

128. You Know, It Is Possible To Raise The Guns Issue.......

....without supporting the government's terrorist list in any way, shape or form.

You Gun Militants try to keep up with this, OK? The government established the loathsome terrorist list with assurances that those listed were either real or potential Bad Guys, and that the nation was made safer by the designation of these individuals. That being the case, why would that same government allow these "terrorists" the opportunity to acquire firearms? If these people are truly as dangerous as represented, why wasn't the government monitoring this sort of thing? Conclusion: the terrorist list is bullshit---and dangerous bullshit, to boot---beyond our wildest speculation......

[benEzra]

129. I agree, the secret blacklists are BS and should go,

regardless of what scare words are used to justify them.

These people who think that watchlisted people should be denied the right to own guns---if they're THAT dangerous, why should they be allowed to drive school buses, work as police or security guards, work at chemical plants or hospitals, have access to bombmaking materials (fertilizer, fuels), or have keys to buildings that hold >1000 people?

But you know what? Living in a country that allows you be denied civil rights and life choices because some official somewhere decided to put you on a blacklist is a hell of a lot scarier than the overhyped "terrah" threat, IMO.

[Paladin]

130. Always Nice To Find Common Cause With You, Ben. (n/t)

[sofa king]

131. Hmm. Could it be because the terrorist watch list is TOTAL BULLSHIT!!??

And someone on the decision end knew it?

[ProudDad]

143. And why didn't the Obama Admin.

and Dem Congress immediately fixed it?

Because just like the pukes, they don't give up power unless forced to do it.

We've got the egregiously misnamed "patriot" act, MCA, still huge WAR supplementals on top of the largest war budgets in history, Wall Street in charge of the economy, DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still the law of the land...

We've got an "energy bill" being voted on tomorrow that was all but written by the polluters (and their hired lackies in the Senate and House).

And Single-Payer Health Care is still off the table. All done (or not done) by folks with "-D" after their names...

With Dems like these, who the hell needs republicans...?

[ProudDad]

141. Hell, in the fascist state of Arizona...

They can not only buy guns but they can carry them, concealed, onto anyone's private property including bars, stores and restaurants.

Not only that the fucked up repuke Arizona legislature (which is rapidly taking the mantle of the craziest mother fuckers in the country away from the Texas Leg) are about to pass legislation that would allow use of deadly force by anyone, ANYWHERE who "feels threatened"...as "self defense"...

Arizona is rapidly becoming the outlier of outliers...a very scary place for human beings...

With all the armed-up, wack-job, right-wing, fucked-up wackos in this state, I feel less safe here than I was in the WAR ZONE OF DOWNTOWN OAKLAND, CA!