Jackson Free Press

AP is reporting:

More than 40 terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because background checks showed they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants, according to a government report released Tuesday. Gun control advocates cited the Government Accountability Office's study, "Gun Control and Terrorism,'' as evidence that stricter laws are needed to prevent terror suspects from buying firearms. The GAO said the FBI could do a better job overseeing checks involving terror suspects.

The report indicated that from Feb. 3 through June 20 last year, 35 known or suspected terrorists purchased guns in the United States. From July 1 to Oct. 31 last year, 12 more were allowed to buy firearms.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House subcommittee Tuesday that perhaps the law could be altered.

"We ought to look what can be done to perhaps modify the law to limit that person's access to a weapon,'' Mueller said during testimony before the House Appropriations Committee's Science, State, Justice and Commerce panel, which was holding a hearing on the FBI's fiscal year 2006 budget.

But the National Rifle Association says the law is protecting Americans from terrorists while allowing citizens the freedom to own guns.

Previous Commentsshow

Hasn't the NRA argued that the law was to protect Americans from a government out-of-control? You know, the whole militia argument... Now it's terrorists in general? I guess it's feasible to say the government can also be a terrorist but that's stretching the comments I hear over and over again. Those zany liberals bending all the laws... er, I mean conservatives. Whatever... Seriously, I find it mind-blowing that terror suspects can buy guns so easily in this country and women can't go and buy "pleasure devices" in most states in the South. I completely agree, Mueller -- the laws should be altered. If enforcement can keep those evil vibrating devices out of the hands of women certainly they can keep an assault weapon or even a pistol out of the hands of a known terrorist suspect! You'd think. I'm curious if all the pro-gun, anti-terror, American patriots are willing to give up or place limitations on their rights for the nation's safety? We'll call it patriotic duty. And why the hell are we just now hearing about 40 terrorist suspects purchasing guns on our own turf and being sold by our own citizens? Did I miss a newsflash last year?

kaust

Mar 9 2005

From a NYT editorial today: The good news for Americans concerned about post-9/11 preparedness is that 58 potential gun buyers were flagged in a nine-month period last year as positive matches on a federal watch list of terrorism suspects. The bad news is that 47 of them were cleared to go ahead anyway and buy assault rifles, ammunition or whatever else was on their firearms shopping list. Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control in this country enabled dozens of suspects to stock their personal or group armories. Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms. Warnings about terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles grew after 9/11 when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time, had blocked federal agents from matching gun-purchase records against the growing list of thousands of terror suspects. The privacy rights of innocent gun purchasers were deemed paramount in the national emergency.

DonnaLadd

Mar 9 2005

This might not sting so badly if the same attention was being given to the protection of the 1st Amendment.

DonnaLadd

Mar 9 2005

Given that the "Do not fly" list has netted a few members of congress already, I hold no hope that any improved "Do not sell guns to this person" list would be successful.

Ironghost

Mar 9 2005

I see your point, Iron, though it's usually less inconvenient to wait on buying a gun than it is to miss your flight.

kate

Mar 9 2005

Off topic: I see the Pentagon has released its report washing its hands of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I'm unpleased that Washington perceives its best response is passing the buck onto our finest, youngest and bravest. I hope this doesn't continue to erode morale. It's hard to maintain credibility when you turn and run whenever you are asked to account for your failings. Good leadership takes responsibility for its own actions. Either OIF is a united US military operation or it is a disjoint, treacherous bureaucracy. The Pentagon gets to make this decision. They have chosen not to stand behind our brothers, sisters and children who are serving the best years of their lives in Hell. I'd like to hear: "We trained those people. We directed them. The end result belongs to us. We will learn and improve because of this. We apologize to the victims and duly promise that these events will not be repeated." Accountability left Washington with Carter.

Spencer

Mar 10 2005

Salon ran a piece yesterday, Tough on Terror, Weak on Guns. It talks about a bill in Congress that would bar "administrative proceedings" against the gun industry, which means that along with being immune from most lawsuits, dealers -- even unscrupulous ones -- would no longer have to worry about having their licenses revoked. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives uses such administrative proceedings to regulate the gun industry. But under Craig's provision, the ATF's authority would be greatly curtailed. There's also this: Some gun law experts say the Bush administration has shown a remarkable willingness to push the edge of the civil liberties envelope, citing the necessities of war -- the "sneak and peak" provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the naming of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" being prime examples. But as conservatives have consolidated power since 9/11, they have done little to stop would-be terrorists from arming themselves here in the United States. And as they have pursued an agenda that includes an ostensible dedication to preserving the sanctity of the Second Amendment, their success may have had the unintended consequence of making it easier, not harder, for terrorists to get guns. It's pretty apparent that the NRA is a powerful lobbying force these days. This one is going to be tough to sort out, since both sides get defensive pretty quickly ("guns are evil" vs. "No! They are a sacred expression of our individuality and protected by the constitution!"). I tend to fall on the side of more regulation, rather than less. And the info that's coming out about how easy it is for people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns is just frightening.

kate

Mar 29 2005

This is also a little chilling, from the Salon piece: Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing makes the 82A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle. Accurate from a mile away, the rifle's huge round can go through an engine block or take down an airplane or helicopter. A May 2003 after-action report from an Army sniper team in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne describes the power of a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. The report said the rifle was used "to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1,400 meters." It said the snipers liked the rifle, in part, because of the "psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target." A sniper team using that rifle reported: "My spotter positively identified a target at 1,400 meters carrying [a rocket-propelled grenade] on a water tower. I engaged the target. The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower." The report says that in some cases, targets were disintegrated when shot with the rifle. These guns are widely available, and no special license is needed to buy one. If Craig's bill passes, the ATF will have little or no ability to take away the license of a dealer who unscrupulously allows Herstal Five-Sevens or .50 caliber sniper rifles to flow into the wrong hands.

kate

Mar 29 2005