Obama Admin Ruling Allows Thousands of Fugitives to Buy Guns

[InTheLight]

Tens of thousands of people wanted by law enforcement officials have been removed this year from the FBI criminal background check database that prohibits fugitives from justice from buying guns.

The names were taken out after the FBI in February changed its legal interpretation of “fugitive from justice” to say it pertains only to wanted people who have crossed state lines.

What that means is that those fugitives who were previously prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms can now buy them, unless barred for other reasons.

The interpretation of who is a “fugitive from justice,” a category that disqualifies people from buying a gun, has long been a matter of debate in law enforcement circles — a dispute that ultimately led to the February purging of the database.

For more than 15 years, the FBI and ATF disagreed about who exactly was a fugitive from justice.

The FBI, which runs the criminal background check database, had a broad definition and said that anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant was prohibited from buying a gun. But ATF argued that, under the law, a person is considered a fugitive from justice only if they have an outstanding warrant and have also traveled to another state.

Late last year, before President Trump took office, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel sided with ATF and narrowed the definition of fugitives, according to law enforcement officials. The office said that gun purchases could be denied only to fugitives who cross state lines.


Tens of thousands with outstanding warrants purged from background check database for gun purchases

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Reynolds]

Tens of thousands of people wanted by law enforcement officials have been removed this year from the FBI criminal background check database that prohibits fugitives from justice from buying guns.

The names were taken out after the FBI in February changed its legal interpretation of “fugitive from justice” to say it pertains only to wanted people who have crossed state lines.

What that means is that those fugitives who were previously prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms can now buy them, unless barred for other reasons.

The interpretation of who is a “fugitive from justice,” a category that disqualifies people from buying a gun, has long been a matter of debate in law enforcement circles — a dispute that ultimately led to the February purging of the database.

For more than 15 years, the FBI and ATF disagreed about who exactly was a fugitive from justice.

The FBI, which runs the criminal background check database, had a broad definition and said that anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant was prohibited from buying a gun. But ATF argued that, under the law, a person is considered a fugitive from justice only if they have an outstanding warrant and have also traveled to another state.

Late last year, before President Trump took office, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel sided with ATF and narrowed the definition of fugitives, according to law enforcement officials. The office said that gun purchases could be denied only to fugitives who cross state lines.


Tens of thousands with outstanding warrants purged from background check database for gun purchases

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

A first hand example of how stupid the Criminal justice system is.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, on the other hand, does the issuing of a warrant constitute a criminal conviction?

This is the same problem we have had with the Lautenberg Amendment. All that had to be done to deny a person the right to be in possession of a firearm was for a domestic partner file a restraining order against the gun owner. That restraining order immediately made it a felony for the person owning the firearm to keep it even if locked in a safe. It had to be transferred to a non-prohibited person. That is nothing more than lynch-law.

Case in point. After going back to work in the secular world in order to jump-start my social security, I was Chief of Physical Security for the largest defense contractor in San Diego as well as being Chief of Sector for Defense Industrial Base for Infragard/FBI's CIPP.

I had about 175 people working for me as armed security officers. One of my men, who was executive officer of the unit, was married to a woman who suffered from Bipolar Disorder and often went off her medication and insisted her husband do irrational things such as rob banks or kill the neighbor. When he refused she would call 911 and report that he had hit her (he didn't. He was on of the nicest men I have ever known - a retired Marine Master Sergeant).

As soon as she would get a restraining order against him (to punish him for not doing the irrational things she demanded) he lost his right to be in possession of a firearm, and as carrying that firearm while on duty and in uniform was one of the requirements of his job, he had to take time off, without pay, until the issue was cleared up. That is just wrong!

The ''fugitive from justice" issue is similar. The person does not have to be convicted of a crime. He does not even have to be aware there is a minor arrest warrant open against him. But he becomes an instant felon for being in possession of a firearm when the warrant is issued, even though he has never been convicted of a crime.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

By the way, being suspected of being a terrorist is NOT a prohibiting factor. Try and figure that one out!

 

[Reynolds]

Well, on the other hand, does the issuing of a warrant constitute a criminal conviction?

This is the same problem we have had with the Lautenberg Amendment. All that had to be done to deny a person the right to be in possession of a firearm was for a domestic partner file a restraining order against the gun owner. That restraining order immediately made it a felony for the person owning the firearm to keep it even if locked in a safe. It had to be transferred to a non-prohibited person. That is nothing more than lynch-law.

Case in point. After going back to work in the secular world in order to jump-start my social security, I was Chief of Physical Security for the largest defense contractor in San Diego as well as being Chief of Sector for Defense Industrial Base for Infragard/FBI's CIPP.

I had about 175 people working for me as armed security officers. One of my men, who was executive officer of the unit, was married to a woman who suffered from Bipolar Disorder and often went off her medication and insisted her husband do irrational things such as rob banks or kill the neighbor. When he refused she would call 911 and report that he had hit her (he didn't. He was on of the nicest men I have ever known - a retired Marine Master Sergeant).

As soon as she would get a restraining order against him (to punish him for not doing the irrational things she demanded) he lost his right to be in possession of a firearm, and as carrying that firearm while on duty and in uniform was one of the requirements of his job, he had to take time off, without pay, until the issue was cleared up. That is just wrong!

The ''fugitive from justice" issue is similar. The person does not have to be convicted of a crime. He does not even have to be aware there is a minor arrest warrant open against him. But he becomes an instant felon for being in possession of a firearm when the warrant is issued, even though he has never been convicted of a crime.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

By the way, being suspected of being a terrorist is NOT a prohibiting factor. Try and figure that one out!

All examples of a screwed up system. The reason I believe a fugitive should be disqualified because they should be in jail. Once they make bond it becomes another issue.