Bill would ban gun purchases by anyone on terror watch list
A bill that would prevent known and suspected terrorists from purchasing a firearm is moving forward in the House.
House Bill 1813 would disqualify anyone named on the FBI’s consolidated Terrorist Screening Database from buying a gun in Hawaii. Supporters said the measure will keep guns out of the hands of people who are threats to public safety.
National research shows that suspected terrorists can pass all of the current necessary background checks needed to purchase a gun. The Government Accountability Office, an investigative branch of Congress, found that between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists tried to buy firearms 2,233 times and succeeded 91 percent of the time.
“These are people that the federal government believes are terrorists. Giving them guns doesn’t make any sense at all,” said House Judiciary Chairman Karl Rhoads.
Rhoads (D, Chinatown-Iwilei-Kalihi), one of the bill’s sponsors, added that the restriction would be only a temporary hold. Citizens who end up on the terrorist watch list could regain their Second Amendment right once they get off the list, similar to a person who recovers from a mental disorder.
If HB 1813 is enacted, Hawaii would become one of the first states to implement such a restriction after it was rejected by the U.S. Senate in December. New Jersey passed a similar measure in 2013 and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed an executive order after the Dec. 2 San Bernardino, Calif., attack.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
The bill passed through its second reading on the House chamber floor on Thursday, but there were 11 representatives who voted with reservations.
Rep. Bob McDermott cast the lone dissenting vote. He argued that the criteria of how someone gets on the watch list is unknown and that the list has more than 700,000 names. McDermott also said that classified documents obtained by the Intercept, an online publication, found that 200,000 names on the list have no ties or relationships to any terrorist organizations.
“What we’re doing (here) is making burdens harder on law-abiding citizens. To infringe upon an articulated constitutional right because someone suspects them of some unreasonable act — that’s a pretty high burden and it shouldn’t be done all willy-nilly,” said McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point).
More than 70 individuals submitted written testimony in opposition before the bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26.
Glennon Gingo, a member of the Hawaii Rifle Association, cited an audit done by the Office of the Inspector General that found that 38 percent of a 105-record sample of the Terrorist Screening Center contained inaccuracies.
“We’re very concerned about the fact that our citizens would be subjected to something with such an error rate that could work against them on their constitutional rights,” he said.
26 responses to “Bill would ban gun purchases by anyone on terror watch list”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The next step is to put everyone on the list.
I like proponents point to the San Bernardino terror attack even though 1) the terrorists in that attack were not on the terror watch list and 2) the terrorists did not purchase their weapons but illegally obtained them from a friend combined with high capacity magazines which were illegal in California. This bill would not have prevented the San Bernardino attack, and would in some cases deprive US citizens who are unknowingly and mistakenly on the terror watch list, of their constitutional right to bear arms.
You actually right. Law enforcement keeps seperate intelligence files from enforcement files….arrest, convictions. They keep all kinds of files on people that have not been arrested or convicted. Intelligence Units build link analysis charts, put all kinds of people on those charts. That information is given to the FBI who then determine who goes on that watch list. Bet lots of protesters who were practicing 1st amendment on Maunakea are on a watch list, all involved in Oregon are on list…..
Aahhh, all those in Oregon and Nevada had guns and used threats. Oh and were white. Those on Mauna Kea used voices and aloha, but were brown. Big diff
Maybe, unless you float between Aloha and sovereign nation causes, disrupt government operations. Government doesn’t need an arrest or conviction to put you on watch list. More on who you associate with. This increases the ability for government see who is hanging out with who. Then you get a visit, “help us to help you”.
Bill would actually make them better acquirimg weapons. They generally work in cells, support cell have clean backgrounds. When members apply and denied, then they know they they are on a list. They go to the next in line. Another question, what qaulifers for the watch list, people speaking out against the US government, environmentalist, Hawaiians, American Indians, Black Gorillas aka the new Black Panthers…
thats why victims have to go after terrorists family and friends and so should the Feds. Charge them with a crime then soak them in civil court too. Of cours wont hurt to send them back to their homeland rather then let them run free in US
Person exercising 1st amendment denied 2nd amendment…..I would not trust the FBI’s watch list alone. Federal government probably has a broad definition of terrorist, I bet based on intelligence not conviction.
I concur. A vengeful politician can put someone he doesn’t like on the list to defeat him. A potential case of creating a law to circumvent civil rights of a select group of unpopular persons which could be you or me. Maybe this is why Apple does not want to cooperate with the FBI to unlock a terrorist’s cell phone records. Could be a first possible door to stripping us of our civil rights. Not just for privacy but all of them. I beginning to think Apple is really our friend.
The FBI believes they are terrorist but they don’t have enough evidence to arrest and bring to trail. If they are U.S. citizens, they have the right of due process (5th and 14th Amendment). Should a citizen lose their constitutional right because the government is thinks you will do something wrong?
Bergonia, you have zeroed in in the crux of the matter, legally speaking. Ever since the late Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller to interpret the 2nd amendment as establishing the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental and constitutionally protected right, equal to the others in the Bill of Rights, no American can be deprived without due process. (Scalia rejected the “in order to maintain a well ordered militia” part as peripheral) As you note, being on the watch list is not due process, nor is being diagnosed with a mental illness. Sadly, although the Heller decision is founded on the insistence of gun ownership as a fundamental right, Scalia also insisted that this won’t prevent laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. This would only be true if there are due process hearings (notice, witnesses, etc…) – which there aren’t in most cases.
A watch list is not the same as a guilty list and you wind up on it for a variety of reasons.
“Getting off the terrorist watch list is not a simple procedure, given the government won’t confirm if a person is on a list or not, and the TSC doesn’t take responsibility for names placed on the list by a law enforcement or intelligence agency.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20080516084314/http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/07/watchlists
It’s not 9-12-2001 anymore, and it’s time to stop trampling rights and due process for the artificial feeling of safety.
People who are stalked or have a restraining order against a violent person should be issued a handgun free of charge and receive a concealed carry permit.
Ah yes, because that list is so accurately verified that infants and toddlers never made it on the list.
Oh wait. Oops. ><
This has to be the stupidest thing the Gun Grabber has come up with yet. Lots of people have mistakenly been put on watch list. MLK would have been on a watch list. Ted Kennedy (or a relative?) somehow was on a watch list and was banned from boarding a plane for awhile. Columnist Stephen Hayes was on a watch list. Nobody knows what qualifies one for a “watch list” and it is very difficult to get off that list. Comrade Obama isn’t thinking here, though that’s not new…
I know a person who got on the terrorist watch list. Same First & Last name ONLY. Different middle name. 40 years age difference. Different ethnicity. Years later, still having trouble boarding a flight… even with letters from the FBI and TSA. No, this is not a good bill.
This bill should become the law of the land (Entire US and territories).
So, you think someone should be able to put you on a secret list, in secret, not tell you why, not ever let you off it, and then use that secret list to take away your constitutional rights? In America?
It’s not really secret so much as just poorly verified. Same for the no-fly list. These lists hold lots of innocent people.
The list is effectively secret. You have no way of knowing you are on it unless it directly affects you. As a reader noted above, the list is generated by name, not by the whole identity of a person, so if you have the same name (first and last is good enough) as someone intended to be on the list…poof! you’re now on the list. The list is not well vetted because it is not a tool for managing citizen’s rights. It is designed to be used in investigations of potential terror-related acts to possibly help the investigator make connections faster. And also as noted above, there is no way to get off the list, even if you are not the intended person. Don’t use this list as a tool for screening anything related to a constitutional right as it is the complete opposite of values this country is based on.
Gun owners should put Karl Rhodes on the do not reelect list……..
the premise for the introduction of these state bills is F-L-A-W-E-D! in the least, they are wrong-minded by ignorant but “well-intentioned” people….and more knowledgeable people in the SC have argued these points already. so, do our mediocre to low performing legislators presume to know better? please, give me a break!
Ferdinand Marcos once made a Presidential decree like this taking away everybody’s guns. Filipinos are gun crazy people who like to shoot everybody for every silly reason they could think of. It worked and gun deaths disappeared except for criminals and southern Muslims. The best part was how Marcos and his cousin General Fabian Ver became the biggest Warlords around. This law has good intentions but it’s meaning will get lost and give someone an opportunity to start a tyrannical government. Why not give this new law a trial period of 3 years and see if it is sincere. Then repeat it every three years until the Muslim war ends.
It should always be regarded as a dangerous and slippery slope whenever suspending an individual right is permitted because of mere suspicion or accusation. Modern Hawaii took a step on than path when Temporary Restraining Orders allowed the seizure or confiscation of personal property without requiring proof of felonious activity or a felony conviction. Thinking further back, surviving old-timers might recall what happened back in December 1941 when certain residents of the Territory of Hawaii were forced to surrender short wave radios, swords and of course, firearms, based upon a notion of “reasonable suspicion.” I know of more than one example where such property was never returned after the war and likely ended up in private collections on the mainland.
I support the environment. If the government wants to take away my right to have a gun, fine. I don’t ever want to have a gun anyway. I’d rather they err on the side of caution than for an innocent person to be killed by someone truly on the terrorist list. You can’t compare this with the after effects of Pearl Harbor and the unjust incarceration of people with Japanese descent. The proposal doesn’t call to incarcerate people unjust, only to prevent people on terrorist lists to obtain gains. You want to be killed by a terrorist who acquired a gun legally? Come on!
First, whether or not you support the environment is irrelevant to the discussion. Second, whether you yourself want to own a gun is equally irrelevant. What happened in Hawaii was used as a specific example because it DIDN’T involve a wholesale incarceration as occurred on the U.S. mainland. It did, like the proposed bill would do, strip innocent people of the right to buy or possess certain types of objects based solely on the suspicion that these people posed a threat. The parallel is there if you look at the issue with a little less passion. Is the presumption of innocence and due process of so little value to you? How far are you willing to go as you err on the side of caution?