Enabling The Next Fort Hood?

Warrior-Mentor · 11-30-2009, 09:59

Washington Post
November 27, 2009
Pg. 23

Enabling The Next Fort Hood?

Congress's curbs on gun data hurt investigations

By Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Kean

The news from Fort Hood shocked the nation: American soldiers shot on American soil. Thirteen dead and 38 injured. It was almost too terrible to believe. Almost.

Unfortunately, the Fort Hood rampage was not the first time that our military personnel have been murdered in the United States this year. In June, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and killed an Army private and wounded another soldier at a military recruiting station in Little Rock.

In both cases, the loss of these young soldiers was compounded by a disturbing reality: The assailants had been under investigation by the FBI. In the more recent case, it would be easy enough to point fingers at the FBI. Its counterterrorism agents concluded that Maj. Nidal Hasan's communications with the radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi -- an al-Qaeda sympathizer who acted as a "spiritual adviser" to two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers -- were for professional reasons.

A full investigation will reveal whether other red flags should have resulted in preventive action, but here is one thing we already know: A federal law repeatedly supported by Congress interfered with the FBI's ability to find out about Hasan's purchase of a handgun. Knowledge of that purchase might -- and should -- have triggered great scrutiny. And it could have saved lives.

During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan's investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record -- and then it was gone, forever.

As former FBI agent Brad Garrett has said, "The piece of information about the gun could have been critical. One of the problems is that the law sometimes restricts you in what you can do."

The Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress interfere with preserving, sharing and investigating data on gun purchases by terrorist suspects. If that weren't bad enough, Congress has also failed to close a gap in federal law that prevents the FBI from blocking a sale to an individual under investigation for terrorist activity.

The Bush administration asked Congress to authorize the FBI to block gun sales to terrorist suspects, to no avail. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed the Obama administration's support for this legislation -- for good reason. A Government Accountability Office report published in June found that individuals on the terrorist watch list had purchased guns and explosives from licensed dealers in the United States on 865 occasions over the past five years.

The fatal lesson we learned on Sept. 11 was that, if we are going to protect innocent Americans from terrorists, we must break down the walls standing between federal agencies and effective investigative practices. The attack at Fort Hood was a tragic reminder that such walls still exist. Until Congress shows the political courage to tear them down, there will be more catastrophic breaches of national security and more tragic loss of life. If lawmakers fail to close gaps in the background check system and reform the Tiahrt amendments, the next terrorist shooting on American soil will be shocking, but it will not be surprising.

Michael Bloomberg is mayor of New York and co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Thomas Kean, a former governor of New Jersey, served as chairman of the Sept. 11 commission.

**The Reaper** · 11-30-2009, 10:56

Anti-gun piece from the usual suspects.

All the ATF has to do is request a trace from the dealer after the fact, or SOME agency could put them on a prohibited purchaser list and they could not get a purchase approved.

A database of terrorist gun purchasers would also be a list of non-terrorist purchasers, which could come in handy for other, unconstitutional purposes.

OTOH, if a Major should not be able to purchase a firearm, should he have a clearance, or a commission, and be treating Soldiers?

TR

11-30-2009, 11:13

I agree with TR, there should not be a no-purchase list without some kind of legal action going on at the same time....that DHS report a while back that hinted at veterans being possible terrorists because of their recruitment value to terrorist and criminal organizations comes to mind. I do not, however, mind if the ATF comes by WITH A WARRANT to inspect the firearms as long as they are not searching the house and the homeowner has been given reasonable time to gather and present listed firearms to the ATF for inspection, as long as that person is being investigated for a crime. If the warrant has them searching for other things aside from the listed firearms they will search away. I just can't feel right, that anybody placed on a terrorist watch list cannot purchase a firearm because that person has not yet been proven guilty of a crime. I think that this is a starting point for something more effective, but it's a no go for me in it's current form, in my humble opinion.

Warrior-Mentor · 11-30-2009, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Anti-gun piece from the usual suspects.

All the ATF has to do is request a trace from the dealer after the fact, or SOME agency could put them on a prohibited purchaser list and they could not get a purchase approved.

A database of terrorist gun purchasers would also be a list of non-terrorist purchasers, which could come in handy for other, unconstitutional purposes.

OTOH, if a Major should not be able to purchase a firearm, should he have a clearance, or a commission, and be treating Soldiers?

TR

Funny you should say that TR. I was reading this last night and thought of you:

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Political-.../dp/1890626287

One section highlighted how the left tried to ostracize Charlton Heston from a fund raiser for children after Columbine, specifically because he worked to block more, restrictive gun legislation.

The left blamed Heston for the deaths. "He killed them."

Horowitz points out how ridculous the religion of the left is - that despite 20,000 gun laws, and that the Columbine killers violated 17 of the existing gun laws, that another gun law wouldn't have saved anyone.

You should grab a copy of his book....think you might like it.

11-30-2009, 15:00

Warrior-Mentor, I don't know how you find the time to write all of these knowledgeable posts, I wish I had time to read them all!

BigJimCalhoun · 11-30-2009, 21:34

Quote:

Michael Bloomberg is mayor of New York and co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Thomas Kean, a former governor of New Jersey, served as chairman of the Sept. 11 commission.

The organization should be called Mayors against all private gun ownership. There are numerous examples, but one sticks out - why did this group fight against conceal carry reciprocity if they are by title against illegal guns?

Is Bloomberg, a leftist in my book, actually admitting that Hasan's attack was terrorism? If so he must not have got the correct set of talking points from his leftist friends.

Stealthed · 12-01-2009, 04:28

Quote:

...there should not be a no-purchase list without some kind of legal action going on at the same time...

Agreed. So would they have to be only charged, convicted or possibly in the process of being extensively investigated with numerous amounts of evidence compiled against them in order for the person(s) to be barred from purchasing weapons/explosives?

Quote:

OTOH, if a Major should not be able to purchase a firearm, should he have a clearance, or a commission, and be treating Soldiers?

I would surely hope not sir...

Should this "man" even have been allowed to be on active duty around other soldiers knowing what information we know now? The information others knew before this tragedy happened? The psychiatrist who needed counseling after having problems with some patients? The "soldier" who so proudly dictated to classmates that he was "a Muslim first and an American second?" The list goes on... and so will his trial. Unfortunately the lives of the brave warrior's he so cowardly took will not.

Warrior-Mentor · 12-01-2009, 04:44

Yup. We need MORE GUN LAWS...because that's what would have saved those four Police Officers in Washington State.

Stealthed · 12-01-2009, 04:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Yup. We need MORE GUN LAWS...because that's what would have saved those four Police Officers in Washington State.

Yes because more gun laws will help stop shizerbags like Maurice Clemmons from getting a hold of a gun...

12-01-2009, 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthed

Agreed. So would they have to be only charged, convicted or possibly in the process of being extensively investigated with numerous amounts of evidence compiled against them in order for the person(s) to be barred from purchasing weapons/explosives?

I would say charged...intensively investigates still doesn't mean anything other than that. There's a high probability that there is some sort of wrong-doing but if they haven't been charged and it is not likely that the crimes they committed involved firearms they should not be taken away or barred from purchasing.

Warrior-Mentor · 12-01-2009, 05:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthed

Yes because more gun laws will help stop shizerbags like Maurice Clemmons from getting a hold of a gun...

BINGO. My point exactly.

Stealthed · 12-01-2009, 05:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

BINGO. My point exactly.

Unfortunately a lot of leftists tend to think, "Oh my God! Guns are horrible, they kill people! BAN THEM!!!" Well guess what, its a right our founding fathers gave us. Think we would've won the Revolutionary War with sticks and stones?

I can't remember the last time I read about a law abiding citizen who brutally murdered someone with a gun. I'm sure it has happened but more than likely is extremely rare.

This occasionally does happen though... http://downtownseattle.komonews.com/...-westlake-mall
Some guy's tend to think they are Eric Bana in Black Hawk Down and leave the safety off...

Last time I read about a convicted felon or criminal killing or injuring someone with a gun? Just about everyday unfortunately. Think that person bought that legally? If guns were banned, think they would obey that law?

The bad guys would have a one up (because they don't give a damn about the law anyway) on law abiding citizens if anti-gun people got their wish. Right now I wouldn't dare to try and rob someone in Texas, but if lefty's had it their way?

Why would you want the bad guys to have the ace card while the rest of us are stuck with the joker?

Don't even get me started on knives...

/rantend