View Full Version : FBI removes criminals from data base
Who was/is on that list and what crimes get one on that list that were then removed? Per MistWolf comment, more to the story than the article covers?
The FBI has removed thousands of people who are wanted by authorities from a criminal background check database that stops them purchasing weapons.
The law enforcement agency moved in February to narrow its definition of a “fugitive from justice.” That definition now only applies to wanted people who have crossed states lines, The Washington Post reported.
The change in definition and the fugitives’ removal from the list are significant developments because it means those who are wanted but no longer remain on the list can purchase weapons again under federal law.
Cont:
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-removes-thousands-wanted-fugitives-background-checks-gun-purchases-721249
hotrodder636
03-16-18, 09:53
And people wonder...SMDH
The article is very misleading. Prior to the purge, anyone with an outstanding warrant was denied. That includes warrants for such things as not paying a parking ticket. I once got a speeding ticket in New Mexico. As I lived out of state, I called to find out how to take care of the fine and they told me the amount over the phone. I paid that amount, but was short because they didn't tell me about the $5 "brain damage tax" and missed out on a very nice International Harvest M1 Garand because I was denied. The shop cancelled my layaway and sold the rifle to someone else while I cleared it up. I had no idea I was a "fugitive from the law" for a warrant over $5.
What has been purged are the names of those who have any kind of outstanding warrants but have not crossed state lines. According to the Washington Post, the BATF is behind this, not the FBI. Also, the names purged are on hold until the DOJ can reassess the issue. Not everyone that was purged is a dangerous criminal. Not everyone on that list was actually a prohibited person.
The list does not contain the names of all prohibited persons. Only those who have come in contact with the system. For example, someone who smokes marijuana is a prohibited person whether or not there is a record of it.
This is actually a good thing. The removal and reassessment is being done to protect our rights and remove names that shouldn't have been in the system in the first place.
The article is very misleading. Prior to the purge, anyone with an outstanding warrant was denied. That includes warrants for such things as not paying a parking ticket. I once got a speeding ticket in New Mexico. As I lived out of state, I called to find out how to take care of the fine and they told me the amount over the phone. I paid that amount, but was short because they didn't tell me about the $5 "brain damage tax" and missed out on a very nice International Harvest M1 Garand because I was denied. The shop cancelled my layaway and sold the rifle to someone else while I cleared it up. I had no idea I was a "fugitive from the law" for a warrant over $5.
What has been purged are the names of those who have any kind of outstanding warrants but have not crossed state lines. According to the Washington Post, the BATF is behind this, not the FBI. Also, the names purged are on hold until the DOJ can reassess the issue. Not everyone that was purged is a dangerous criminal. Not everyone on that list was actually a prohibited person.
The list does not contain the names of all prohibited persons. Only those who have come in contact with the system. For example, someone who smokes marijuana is a prohibited person whether or not there is a record of it.
This is actually a good thing. The removal and reassessment is being done to protect our rights and remove names that shouldn't have been in the system in the first place.
I hate to do this as I laugh at people who post this kind of stuff, but here goes: It said the process was begun under the Obama administration, why? What reason would DOJ under Obama have for the action? Was Obama playing 3D chess?
MistWolf: I don't believe that the majority of the records removed fit your 'profile' - sure I'm sure there are some in there for minor offenses, but a lot of those folks are folks wanted for more serious offenses.
I think it is too broad a brush. The list is now said to contain only 788 names, really, only that many folks in the whole U.S. of A. that have outstanding warrants and should be prohibited? I find that hard to believe.
ETA: I'm sure most don't agree, but if you have an outstanding warrant, you aren't square with our society. I'm not too upset you can't purchase a gun until you get it squared. In your personal example you got screwed, I get that, but I'm not upset that someone who doesn't pay their child support, thumps on people and doesn't show up for court, drives while intoxicated and doesn't show up for court, shoplifts and doesn't show up for court, etc. can't buy a gun without first taking care of their obligation to our society.
Averageman
03-16-18, 12:03
I hate to do this this I laugh at people who post this kind of stuff, but here goes: It said the process was begun under the Obama administration, why? What reason would DOJ under Obama have for the action? Was Obama playing 3D chess?
MistWolf: I don't believe that the majority of the records removed fit your 'profile' - sure I'm sure there are some in there for minor offenses, but a lot of those folks are folks wanted for more serious offenses.
I think it is too broad a brush. The list is now said to contain only 788 names, really, only that many folks in the whole U.S. of A. that have outstanding warrants and should be prohibited? I find that hard to believe.
I agree with the above;
A lot of District Attorneys are overwhelmed and they clear a lot of crap up by promoting deals for a plea.
So ask yourself, if you're overwhelmed and your desk is piled high with more cases than you can possibly prosecute would you be willing to deal some of this away for a plea bargain that might just wipe a portion of the slate clean for a quick conviction?
I would imagine more than a few of these felons had a gun either in their house/car they were dealing from on on their body when they were arrested. Will the plea deal wipe out the charges related to the gun?
If anyone gets anything expunged for any reason the totality of the original charges, not just the plea should be the mitigating factor.
I hate to do this as I laugh at people who post this kind of stuff, but here goes: It said the process was begun under the Obama administration, why? What reason would DOJ under Obama have for the action? Was Obama playing 3D chess?
MistWolf: I don't believe that the majority of the records removed fit your 'profile' - sure I'm sure there are some in there for minor offenses, but a lot of those folks are folks wanted for more serious offenses.
I think it is too broad a brush. The list is now said to contain only 788 names, really, only that many folks in the whole U.S. of A. that have outstanding warrants and should be prohibited? I find that hard to believe.
ETA: I'm sure most don't agree, but if you have an outstanding warrant, you aren't square with our society. I'm not too upset you can't purchase a gun until you get it squared. In your personal example you got screwed, I get that, but I'm not upset that someone who doesn't pay their child support, thumps on people and doesn't show up for court, drives while intoxicated and doesn't show up for court, shoplifts and doesn't show up for court, etc. can't buy a gun without first taking care of their obligation to our society.
The biggest issue with this that i see is that you can be a “fugitive” and not know it... at least as i understand it. Do they not mail you anything to tell you you are “wanted?”
ETA: I'm sure most don't agree, but if you have an outstanding warrant, you aren't square with our society. I'm not too upset you can't purchase a gun until you get it squared. In your personal example you got screwed, I get that, but I'm not upset that someone who doesn't pay their child support, thumps on people and doesn't show up for court, drives while intoxicated and doesn't show up for court, shoplifts and doesn't show up for court, etc. can't buy a gun without first taking care of their obligation to our society.
I can see this for fishing and hunting licenses, but unless these are felonies, I don’t see an “Square with society” legal criteria anywhere they suspends the Bill of Rights to citizens.
I don’t like those behaviors either but unless you suspend ALL their rights, they shouldn’t be cherry picked to support your statist ideal.
I am a bit of a loner in this opinion, but I think felons should be able to own guns and carry. They can get weapons if they wanted anyway.
Averageman
03-16-18, 17:27
Remember all of the "nonviolent" drug related criminals who POTUS "O" rallied around releasing?
By nonviolent did he mean convictions, or charges?
Of those who were released, how many have since been convicted of a crime with a gun?
How many had been charged with a crime with a gun, but pled out of the gun crime and took a deal on the charges for drugs?
We have a justice express lane that for expediancy sake allows some serious criminal stuff to slide in the name of a plea bargain.
But be the unlucky guy who's had no negative interaction with law enforcement, but for whatever reason has a random warrant out there.
26 Inf, the WaPo article said it was the ATF that wanted the list reduced and have been fighting with the FBI about it for 15 years. The article also stated that the names that were expunged from the list will be looked at again. The names will stay removed until they can come up with a better system of which people should be included. The whole list hasn't been reduced to 788 names. Just the portion of those with outstanding warrants who have crossed state lines.
I can see this for fishing and hunting licenses, but unless these are felonies, I don’t see an “Square with society” legal criteria anywhere they suspends the Bill of Rights to citizens.
I don’t like those behaviors either but unless you suspend ALL their rights, they shouldn’t be cherry picked to support your statist ideal.
Hey, I'm just about big boy rules, you take care of business, won't have no problems. I don't see this as permanently suspending any right, they have the opportunity, to reassert their right to purchase by getting the problem taken care of in a timely manner. It should be the .gov's responsibility to ensure once they are square they can purchase a firearm.
Their right to bear the arms they already possess wasn't infringed, nor was their right to manufacture, or, at the present, buy from a private party.
I also don't see anyplace in the BOR that says you have the right not to be inconvenienced as a result of stupid/illegal actions you undertake.
If that viewpoint meets your criteria of 'statist' - all I got to say is guilty.
26 Inf, the WaPo article said it was the ATF that wanted the list reduced and have been fighting with the FBI about it for 15 years. The article also stated that the names that were expunged from the list will be looked at again. The names will stay removed until they can come up with a better system of which people should be included. The whole list hasn't been reduced to 788 names. Just the portion of those with outstanding warrants who have crossed state lines.
Sorry, didn't read that.
I don't subscribe to the WaPo and I've used up my free articles.
I don't have any problem with the FBI's attitude: The FBI has long held that anyone who remains at large and wanted for arrest should not be allowed to purchase a weapon.
Averageman
03-16-18, 20:05
I don't have any problem with the FBI's attitude: The FBI has long held that anyone who remains at large and wanted for arrest should not be allowed to purchase a weapon.
Stated that way it definitely makes sense.
There are very few people with outstanding warrants that don't know about them.
I've also been surprised at how many people who know that they have a felony still use the system to attempt to make a gun purchase. It makes me wonder about the accuracy of the system if they are willing to take the risk.
I hate to do this as I laugh at people who post this kind of stuff, but here goes: It said the process was begun under the Obama administration, why? What reason would DOJ under Obama have for the action? Was Obama playing 3D chess?
MistWolf: I don't believe that the majority of the records removed fit your 'profile' - sure I'm sure there are some in there for minor offenses, but a lot of those folks are folks wanted for more serious offenses.
I think it is too broad a brush. The list is now said to contain only 788 names, really, only that many folks in the whole U.S. of A. that have outstanding warrants and should be prohibited? I find that hard to believe.
ETA: I'm sure most don't agree, but if you have an outstanding warrant, you aren't square with our society. I'm not too upset you can't purchase a gun until you get it squared. In your personal example you got screwed, I get that, but I'm not upset that someone who doesn't pay their child support, thumps on people and doesn't show up for court, drives while intoxicated and doesn't show up for court, shoplifts and doesn't show up for court, etc. can't buy a gun without first taking care of their obligation to our society.
Serious question: can we also revoke their right to vote until they are "square with society"? If not, why not?
Serious question: can we also revoke their right to vote until they are "square with society"? If not, why not?
Wow, it's later than I thought.
First, I want to make two points - 1) the only thing that getting rejected by NICS will do for most of these folks is prevent them from buying a firearm from that dealer, it does not in and of itself forfeit their right to keep and bear the arms they already possess. Now, if they are a felon, well, that is another matter; 2) unless they are a felon the 'suspension' is temporary, lifted once they are right with society.
As for voting, lets see, you have to register to vote, and you have to show ID. If the system was relatively efficient in terms of timeliness, what would be the problem with suspending a persons right to vote for the reasons we've been talking about? Considering many states have put fairly stringent voter registration laws into place which prevent some otherwise qualified Americans from voting without jumping through a bunch of hoops, what is the difference?
If you can't vote because you don't have the right ID, why should you be allowed to vote if you have a warrant, etc. The expectation is that you take care of business and get proper documentations, what is the difference between that and the expectation you take care of your fugitive status before you are allowed to vote?
Although I doubt the impact would be significant, somehow I don't see the fugitives from justice as a group of folks who are passionate about their right to vote.
The biggest issue with this that i see is that you can be a “fugitive” and not know it... at least as i understand it. Do they not mail you anything to tell you you are “wanted?”
Yeah, this one doesn’t make any damn sense to me. Why on earth don’t they drop something in the mail to say, “Hey, missed that court date, you’re going to want to take care of this.” Happened to a colleague at work (Guy was going through a divorce, ex may have just thrown the summons out on him to be a snag) and he didn’t know about it for YEARS. It got worked out, but with a lot more hassle a long time later.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.