Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1076

Letting the DOJ Deny Guns and Explosives Permits for Terrorism Suspects

Argument in favor

The Attorney General and DOJ are perfectly competent to determine whether a person has been engaged in terrorist activities. Those people who are blocked from buying or possessing guns would be able to legally challenge the denial.

AndrewGVN's Opinion
···
12/04/2015
Suspected and potential terrorists shouldn't be able to purchase any lethal product. 91% of people of the terrorist watchlist were able to make a successful gun purchase and that shouldn't be the case. If we want to decrease the amount of terrorism, then we need to cut off their supply of lethal weapons.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Arman's Opinion
···
12/08/2015
This is not infringing on the 2nd amendment, it is common sense.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Rachel's Opinion
···
06/14/2016
The fact that we even have to ask this question should be deeply embarrassing to all Americans.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

There needs to be a more robust investigation that informs the decision to prevent a person from buying weapons than the simple determination of a link to terrorist activities, and the Attorney General should be compelled to explain all denials.

LibertyForAll's Opinion
···
12/05/2015
This sounds like common sense legislation, yet it could easily be turned against law abiding citizens on the premise of political affiliation, religious practices and coercion of government. Any threat to the individual sovereignty of freemen must be met and stopped before it erodes American Civil Liberties completely.
Like (79)
Follow
Share
resistor's Opinion
···
12/05/2015
Although I do agree that a method is required to prevent people with known or suspected links to terrorism, this one is neither right nor legal. It is unconstitutional to deny citizens due process of law. Further, this bill gives a political appointee the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and withhold the information on which that decision was based simply by claiming a national security interest. EDUCATE YOURSELVES - READ THE FULL TEXT. I would be inclined to support this if a grand jury were reviewing any evidence and determining its merits, but cannot support it as currently written. We citizens must find ways to protect ourselves while still preserving our rights, and it absolutely can be done by avoiding knee-jerk reactions like this piece of legislation.
Like (29)
Follow
Share
Buster's Opinion
···
12/05/2015
A political owing should not have the power to deny anything to a citizen without due process not the whim of a politically motivated decision
Like (25)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 1076?

This bill would give the Attorney General and the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) the authority to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any person if the Attorney General:

  • Determines that the individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities;

  • Has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.

The sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to any individual whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities would be prohibited. Any individual whose firearm or explosive license application has been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial.

The Attorney General would be permitted to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would compromise national security. Additionally, the Attorney General could revoke the firearms and explosives licenses and permits of those deemed to be engaged in terrorism.

Impact

Those suspected of terrorism who hold or apply for federal firearms and explosives licenses or permits, the DOJ, and the Attorney General.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1076

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Peter King (R-NY) introduced this bill to help prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing or possessing firearms:

“After September 11th, common sense dictates that the federal government stop gun sales to suspects on the terrorist watch list. Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals. Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail it’s too late.”

Originally this bill was proposed in 2007 during the Bush administration, but then as now, the National Rifle Association (NRA) pushed back against the legislation and prevented its passage.

Currently this bill has the support of 52 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, with 50 Democrats and two Republicans having signed onto the bill.


Of Note: During the 2004-2014 period, there were 2,043 gun purchases made by suspected terrorists who were on the FBI’s watchlist, while only 180 of those on the watchlists were denied their purchase. That amounts to a 91 percent success rate for a suspected terrorist purchasing a gun despite their presence on a terror watchlist.

Concerns about the accessibility of weapons to potential terrorists were raised following the shootings in San Bernadino, one of whom had pledged allegiance to ISIS. While the shooters were not on a terrorism watchlist and bought their weapons legally, they had been in contact with extremists — actions which could have landed them on such a watchlist under other circumstances.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: )

AKA

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015

Official Title

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
    IntroducedFebruary 25th, 2015
    Suspected and potential terrorists shouldn't be able to purchase any lethal product. 91% of people of the terrorist watchlist were able to make a successful gun purchase and that shouldn't be the case. If we want to decrease the amount of terrorism, then we need to cut off their supply of lethal weapons.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like common sense legislation, yet it could easily be turned against law abiding citizens on the premise of political affiliation, religious practices and coercion of government. Any threat to the individual sovereignty of freemen must be met and stopped before it erodes American Civil Liberties completely.
    Like (79)
    Follow
    Share
    Although I do agree that a method is required to prevent people with known or suspected links to terrorism, this one is neither right nor legal. It is unconstitutional to deny citizens due process of law. Further, this bill gives a political appointee the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and withhold the information on which that decision was based simply by claiming a national security interest. EDUCATE YOURSELVES - READ THE FULL TEXT. I would be inclined to support this if a grand jury were reviewing any evidence and determining its merits, but cannot support it as currently written. We citizens must find ways to protect ourselves while still preserving our rights, and it absolutely can be done by avoiding knee-jerk reactions like this piece of legislation.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    A political owing should not have the power to deny anything to a citizen without due process not the whim of a politically motivated decision
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    This is not infringing on the 2nd amendment, it is common sense.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    The fact that we even have to ask this question should be deeply embarrassing to all Americans.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    The DOJ has demonstrated to America that it's incompetent when it gave a female terrorist a K1 visa to enter the US WITH FALSE INFORMATION. Same thing with Boston bombers. A fish rots from the head and Obama is the head.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    If a person has proven themselves to hold these kind of dangerous and hateful ideas then they don't get a gun. Unfortunately that's tough to prove but you have to draw a line somewhere, and I would say that's a logical place to start. But it has to be done on a case by case basis. No blanket policy covering just the Muslims or just people of middle eastern descent etc.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    If you're actually participating in these activities, and there is 101% evidence that you are a terrorist, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to get guns. However, if there is ANY evidence to the contrary, their second-amendment rights will be preserved.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Here is absolutely no reason for people we won't let on a plane, buy a gun. Besides of the course the NRA propaganda campaign everyone seems to have fallin into.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Terrorist suspects should not have the right to gun ownership. It's common sense to not enable the endangerment of Americans.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no set definition for a terrorist. Would operate as a blanket law to revoke 2nd amendment rights of political dissidents.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Being suspected is too vague to reach a decision on the matter. Due process is required by our constitution.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This is an obvious bill to support. It's not easy to accidentally land on the list. Why should we allow someone who lands on the list to buy weapons? It's the terrorist watch list. Revisiting though there should be a way to appeal as many people of Arabic descent got on the list either for petty reasons or due to "mistaken identity" ( i.e. They can't distinguish names).
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This proposal is myopic. It only focuses on firearms and explosives, which is sure to agitate those Americans who hold the Second Amendment as the fulcrum to a debate. I am a legal owner, a Veteran, a Emergency Response Professional and a Veteran if 9/11. So, I come at this proposal from many views. A suspected terrorist should not be granted to obtain or maintain any formal licenses in this country. Lest we forget box cutters, and aviation training were major contributors to 9/11. Above all was our lack preparation, intergovernmental transparency, and international relations prior to main-stream terrorism. Let’s work together as Americans, not against each other.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This also "sounds good" but is a dangerous infringement on our Constitutionally-protected liberties. Under this rule, the government could, after classifying an individual or group as terrorrists, remove their Constitutional right to bear arms and defend themselves (potentially from government tyranny) without due process.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    First, Obama and Peloski already announced that all US Veterans are potential terrorist and should be watched! (A watch list). Any American can be put on a watch list for Any reason and there is no recourse, NO BURDEN OF PROOF, NO DUE PROCESS, NO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, And finally THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS!! This is a complete circumvent of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment, or half of the bill of Rights!!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like something that could eventually be turned around on U.S. Citizens that considered a "potential" threat to our government.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This seems to be a no brainier! I am a big believer in the 2nd amendment; however, In today's volatile climate, precautions such as this are just good common sense.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Sensible and pragmatic legislation that will go a long way towards protecting us from those with evil intentions. I see nothing here that violates the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding US citizens who are gun owners.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE