TexasCHLforum.com

The Walrus wrote: They're the same idiots who say ID is required to buy a gun from a government licensed dealer but oppose Texas requiring ID to vote in a government election.

I think both groups use that one for their own purpose. It's a restriction and fits with a particular political agenda. In reality would it change anything? Probably not.

C-dub wrote:Doesn't anyone remember that this administration is telling everyone that performing background checks is discriminatory?

Fine detail... "...in the case of job applications...."

One might think that background checks for minimum wage jobs that do not take the nature of the crime into consideration might lead to more government assistance.

I don't see anywhere where the Feds have made the argument that background checks for security purposes are discriminatory... Although it's probably not a big leap.

chasfm11 wrote: 1. If I had the same record as Alexis and I were applying for a security clearance, would I be approved? I believe that the answer is no. So the criteria for keeping a clearance is different than the criteria for getting one. I believe that is a problem. For me, there is a difference between my rights as a citizen and my ability to get a security clearance. The whole idea behind the intensive background check that is supposed to be conducted on a high level security clearance is to discover anything in that background that, while not illegal, could compromise security. For me, this is a situation just like the Ft. Hood shooter where PC has run amuck.

You'd get the clearance if you had the same record at the time it was issued.
I assume you're asking for a policy of a standard review period ? That would make sense to me, but any such policy would have to involve *private* medical records. In the military, you can probably force people to disclose those records. Civilians, it's kinda hard to get them to voluntarily hand that information over and their rights are well protected.

Remember, on the criminal side he hadn't been convicted of a crime. Should we really pull clearances of people who were potentially wrongfully arrested? This is a bad example, but I don't want to give the PD the power to terminate my ability to make a living just by slipping on the cuffs. They've got enough power already.

chasfm11 wrote: 2. Isn't the idea to control access not guns? This Naval yard is supposed to be one of the most secure facilities in the country. Yet a man, armed with a shotgun is able to take out the guards to it and take at least one of their weapons? I completely understand that it is not possible for the security teams to remain hyper-vigiliant 24/7 but the ease with which the shooter apparently took out security suggests that the base is far more vulnerable than it should be. If the gun fight had started when security was attacked, it is not a likely that there were have been such a huge loss of life. I admit that there is a lot of conjecture in my approach.

We're talking about ex-military with an active security clearance. They're probably characterized as lower risk. Want to change that and suddenly you're searching everyone almost everywhere in the government and military.

baldeagle wrote: The common denominator? The authorities have let us done. Time and time again people in positions of power and influence ignore the signs that indicate that something is amiss and requires further investigation. In the case of Aaron Alexis specifically, there were numerous signs that something wasn't right. How he passed a background check to get a Secret clearance is a mystery, but decision makers clearly dropped the ball.

My understanding:
1) He gained security clearance while working for the Navy before any problems started.
2) He was neutrally discharged after it became apparent that he wasn't a good fit for the navy. The Navy's policy on such discharges is that the security clearance remains in effect for 10 years.
3) He was arrested twice for incidents with fire arms. Although he took two rides, he never got charged with either crime.
4) He passed background checks after the above issues as relate to his employment. IE - his employers did their job in terms of qualifying him on paper.

I agree, the signs where there, but exactly what line did he legally cross that would enable "the authorities" to take away his guns? How would you fix this problem and ensure that authorities can arbitrarily restrict gun ownership on a whim?

The only incident that I've heard of reported in the media is that he told law enforcement about "hearing voices" and those LEOs followed up reporting him to the Navy.. I think a ball was dropped there. But again, most of the people on this forum don't want gun ownership qualified on being of sound mental health.