The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 2, 2011, 07:35 AM   #26
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
Friend works in US Army Intel. Has a TS-SBI (Top Secret - Special Background Investigation) in order to do his job. The TS-SBI was suspended because of some comments he made. His access to TS material is also suspended, pending review by US Army/FBI.

He has purchased three guns (two handguns) since his security clearance has been suspended. Never delayed.

Myself: Retired Master Sergeant, USAF. TS-BI (Top Secret -Background Investigation). Work with/inspected several classified programs/accounts. I was retiring and refused to update my security clearance again. (This is a red flag in the security community, if you refuse to update/renew a security clearance.)

Never been delayed buying any type of gun.

I think there is something else going on here, like others said. I think it is more likely to be someone with either your name or a similar name. Have you ever had your identity stolen?
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 07:48 AM   #27
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
Hey, in this brave new world it's the people they know the most about that they trust the least.

I've not run into any problems like this (I hold a DODAF Secret) and a friend of mine hasn't had this problem, and he holds a TS SCI with lifestyle poly.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 08:27 AM   #28
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
Though I couldnt swear it... It probably hase mor to do with the housekeeping of information put into the system. Some agencies or individuals may be more diligent with their input of data, and some less so. Some input data may have generic info and be used for several different kind of disposition, one of witch may prohibit firearm ownership.

Remember... this is our government at work... Civil servants you know?

Glenn D.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 08:26 PM   #29
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
A lot of the problems for exmilitary has do do with your specialized training. As a retired LTC with and EOD background, I apparently am on the watch list. Each time I attempt to fly, I am pulled out of line an checked by TSA security.

The last time I was pulled out I asked the young lady why I was pulled out of line. She started to give me some story when I interupted her and said "This is why and showed her my Military ID. She hung her head in shame.

I have not had a problem with wait times because I obtained my AZ CCW to avoide the wait times, harrassment and potential abuses by an a potentially corrupt Sheriff and his goon squad.
ltc444 is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 09:23 PM   #30
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,110
i spent a career in US Army EOD. Also worked for many years in Arab countries. i've never been delayed on an instant check or hassled at an airport.
thallub is online now  
Old September 3, 2011, 12:51 AM   #31
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I'm ex military too but never have had an issue. Even when they were about to close I can assure them that my check is instant
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 09:25 AM   #32
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeFrog
Does this "retired Major" & former veteran not know of these plans or laws?
Military personnel are not law enforcement officers and are not covered by the LEOSA, so why would a retired military officer be expected to know about the LEOSA? It doesn't affect him.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 09:35 AM   #33
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
It is apparant that some of the commenter do not believe that the administration is targeting exmilitary with a specific emphasis on SpeOps personnel.

You need to review comments made by Janet Neapolitano during her tenure. Other less prominent Administration have made similiar comments.
ltc444 is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 09:58 AM   #34
overkill0084
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Northern, UT
Posts: 1,162
Don't always assume malicious intent when incompetence is the more likely cause. Granted, with the edicts coming from DHS these days, malice isn't as much of a stretch as it ought to be.

FWIW, I am a retired USAF E-7 who held a Secret or Top Secret clearance (usually tied to PRP) throughout my military career. I currently have a Secret clearance as a USAF Civilian. Never a problem purchasing a gun, even when investigations were pending.
__________________
Cheers,
Greg
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Last edited by overkill0084; September 3, 2011 at 03:00 PM.
overkill0084 is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 10:09 AM   #35
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,110
Quote:
Don't always assume malicious intent when incompetence is the more likely cause.
+1
i'm familiar with the comments made by Neapolitano and others. IMO: It means nothing. i do not see large numbers of former military folks being hassled by the US gov't. Most of my close friends are retired military. None of them are being hassled: Their insta-checks are all promptly approved.
thallub is online now  
Old September 3, 2011, 10:11 AM   #36
45Gunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2009
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 1,735
Something is rotten in Denmark. I held a top secret clearance in the Military (Operations and Intelligence) and have worked as a Government Agent. I hold a CCW in Florida and have never had a delay with any NICS check.
__________________
45Gunner
May the Schwartz Be With You.
NRA Instructor
NRA Life Member
45Gunner is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 10:11 AM   #37
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,948
Aguila Blanca:

Exception to the rule Coast Guard Petty Officers are Military and Federal Law Enforcement and have been found by some courts to be covered by LEOSA. Will try to find the cite.
Found it look under case law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.

Last edited by armsmaster270; September 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 02:39 PM   #38
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armsmaster270
Exception to the rule Coast Guard Petty Officers are Military and Federal Law Enforcement and have been found by some courts to be covered by LEOSA. Will try to find the cite.
It happens that I shoot with an active duty Coast Guardsman, whose duties usually include boarding and searching ships. The Coast Guard is formerly part of the Treasury Department and is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. They are not part of the Department of Defense unless the country is at war (meaning a declaration of war by the Congress, not some "war on drugs" or "war on terrorism") and they have been formally transferred to the DoD. Ergo, they are not "military."

According to my shooting acquaintance, they are also NOT law enforcement, at least not in a way that qualifies them under the LEOSA. His unit conducts boardings beyond the limits of U.S. waters. They do not have domestic powers of arrest. If you read the language of the LEOSA, it is very specific as to who qualifies ... and Coasties for the most part do not.

Note the closing sentence from the Wiki article you cited:

Quote:
The Coast Guard has issued a formal directive to advise Coast Guard personnel of which Coast Guard personnel are considered to be covered by LEOSA, and the limitations of such coverage.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 3, 2011, 10:54 PM   #39
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
AB's remarks, major problem; FLEOSA issues....

To reply directly to AB's comments about the "retired major".

The forum member, in the 1st topic post stated they were a "Major" who served for years in a Sheriff's Office(sworn LE officer).
I DID NOT say the topic post member was a 0-4/Major in the US Armed Forces but they did state they are a US military veteran.

It's good to read over the posted material 1 or 2 times before you quote a forum member or the remarks.

As for the FLEOSA status I do not think it applys to retired US Army MPs, CIDC special agents(active duty), USAF security forces, US Navy MAAs, etc.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 12:24 PM   #40
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,508
As much as I admire our veterans (being one, and having children who are also), from the paranoid point of view of security agancies, veterans are a creditable threat pool. We have all kinds of training, and sadly not everyone who served in the military is pure as the driven snow.

Historical examples abound. Mc Veigh was a veteran. Hitler was a veteran. Napoleon was a veteran, etc..

I don't mind increased awareness or even scrutiny, provided it stays within reason. And that's the rub, what is within reason? And who decides it?

I have held secret, Top Secret and "Q" level clearances. I have had those clearances revoked, when it was no longer needed for my job. Never been delayed, or denied. A friend of mine,with similar clearance history has been delayed, on occassion, due to his file being "flagged".

The sole reason it was flagged was that he had a clearance. He got it "adjusted" so that now they don't flag him and have to go look up why (not sure what he did, but there is a process).

Our security people are paranoid. That's what we pay them for. Are they paranoid enough? And is what we all have to put up with (some of us more than others) worth it?

I don't have the answers, not sure if anyone does. Certainly its not fun to fly anymore, too much worry about violating some new rule,plus, being old, fat, and borderline lazy with back trouble means talking off and putting on my shoes is no trivial matter!

But if it keeps us safe, what can you say?

On the other hand, proving a negative is difficult. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean we are doing the right thing, does it?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 01:50 PM   #41
Chris84
Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36
I am an ex operator. The federle gov has given me a little grief here and there but not a huge deal in the past 5 years. When I frist left Astan and became civi. I had all kinds of issues from being on terror whatch list. Haveing pass port revoked, and SS listed as dead. Took a little work but got most of it cleared up. I figure that I am still on some whatch list somewhere due to what I did while in the service and where I was. But I have noticed that it is different then the rest of the terror list that are out there. I have had no trouble getting firearms what so ever. Got my PP redone and cleared and not had any issues at the Airports since then. I had a TS and a DCID clearance dont know how much that played into the whole thing.
I wonder now though if some where there is some whatch dog agency freakin out and all since I took a job with a PMC lol...just have to wait and see.

I feel that it is stupid for the gov to look at us ex-operators as potential terrorist unless the gov. is the one screwing up. Most military people take there oath for real while on active or reserve duty but not so much afterwards and I see this all the time and know it is true, but most operators take it for real for life. The gov is, to me, scared of that part where we said " I swear to protect the constitution against all enemies forgin and domestic". That just my opion. I am no terrorist becuase I served in SPEC OPS, I am just a freedom loving american vet and wish that my own gov would understand that. But at the same time the phyc. profile of what they look for in spec ops operators is very close to that for what HLS looks for in terrorist and the FBI look for in serial killers. The difference to me being the reasons and ways we have chosen to use that profile is what sets us apart. Just cause I am out of the service now does not mean that my reasons have changed.
Chris84 is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 02:15 PM   #42
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
My understanding is that a security clearance has as part of its process a full background records check... which is conducted, in part, by and on FBI systems and records. A security clearance runs through many sources and across many records systems. Any records check by any federal or state government agency will cause a 'flag' put on your name. This flag will be seen during any subsequent background check. These flags are just that...flags and can be for a multitude of reasons, the reason for which can not be seen until a more than just a cursory investigation is done, which in the case of a gun purchase is just that...a cursory scan for anything warranting a closer look. These "flags' will seen by the state agency doing the gun check and must be investigated as to why they are in place. In your case, you were flagged is because you have had a recent enough background investigation that can still be seen during a gun purchase background check by your state agency.

I am delayed every time I purchase a gun. And every time its because of my security clearance.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 09:26 PM   #43
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Markus Wynn...

Writer & former spec ops expert(FAA Sky Marshal, EP agent) Markus Wynn(check correct spelling) wrote a novel where a highly trained spec ops agent had to track down a former assoc & close friend.
Wynn writes in depth about these related subjects(spec ops training, personality screening/psych evals, going undercover, etc).

Retired US Army CSM(E-9) Eric Haney who was a Ranger tab infantry soldier & former Delta/SFOD-Delta member wrote about these topics in his non-fiction book; Inside The Delta Force.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old September 8, 2011, 12:48 AM   #44
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I had a secret security clearance(not top secret), and actually I believe it hasn't expired yet. I have never been delayed. That is not to say that isn't a reason sometimes for a delay.

I don't think it is "scary"; I think it is just frustrating for people to be delayed while others aren't, because they know they are good-to-go, & because it happens over and over again.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old September 8, 2011, 07:39 AM   #45
Chris84
Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36
The delay is not really my issue with it. At least it lets me know that they are doing there job and actually checking. My problem is that 99% of vets are g2g and some have been down range getting shot at for this country and that is the treatment we get once home. I dont expect any special treatment but treat us at least as good as the normal law abiding citizen, not like a potental terrorist.
Chris84 is offline  
Old September 8, 2011, 09:58 AM   #46
warrior poet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2007
Location: Whereever Uncle Sam wants to put me
Posts: 415
I am currently serving, and haven't bought a new firearm in quite a while. (I have been overseas quite a bit.) I can't wait to have this happen to me.
__________________
Trigger control: The skillful manipulation of the trigger, which causes the weapon to fire, while maintaining sight alignment and sight picture.
warrior poet is offline  
Old September 18, 2011, 08:24 PM   #47
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,948
Aguila Blanca:

The wiki reference you quoted states "The Coast Guard has issued a formal directive to advise Coast Guard personnel of which Coast Guard personnel are considered to be covered by LEOSA, and the limitations of such coverage."
Therefore the CG realizes that some personnel are covered by LEOSA.

I am aware of the history of the CG. First it was Dept. of Treasury, then Dept. of Transportation and finally Homeland Security. I was in it under all 3 Depts.
The Coast Guard Petty Officers that are not at sea and at boat stations all over the U.S. are Federal L.E. Officers they all wear guns and have machineguns on their boats, Lake Tahoe, a Federal Lake, CG are LE's there & make BUI arrests and other arrests on the lake There are many other instances. When I was CG in New Orleans, I made an arrest for boat theft on Lake Ponchartrain, Coast guard is on active duty in the Middle East serving now. In smallboats as well as ships, we had gunboat crews serving in Viet Nam ask your buddy if he has a DD FORM 2 he can find the number on the back of his United States Uniformed Services I.D. Card That is an Armed Forces I. D. Card
Your buddy needs to learn about his own service. Check it out yourself.

http://www.uscg.mil/top/missions/ A Coast Guard website.

Also read this: http://handgunlaw.us/documents/LEOSA...yCourtCase.pdf One of the Court decisions on USCG & LEOSA

Sorry Rant off.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.

Last edited by armsmaster270; September 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old September 29, 2011, 03:04 AM   #48
ftttu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2011
Posts: 125
Similar but not the same. I won a gun at a gun show back in the early 90's and was wearing a loaded and holstered duty/off-duty weapon at the time. I had to go through a week waiting period before I could pick it up. Society was protected during that week!
ftttu is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:19 PM   #49
DepOne
Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2011
Posts: 34
Re the post below, sorry but the confusion is my fault. Actually I was an O4 USAF Major, and later became a Major and CO of the Law Enforcement Division of a sheriff's department, so both issues were of interest. Since my carry permit is good in almost 40 states I have not really paid attention to HR218. And now that I know Florida is the one state that does their own instant background checks, there is a new light on the matter.

I talked to the FBI and they were most helpful. They told me to apply to them for an FBI PIN, which you put next to your SSN on the Form 4473 and you will sail right through the checks. Apparently the state recognizes that you have been vetted by the feds and that's the end of it.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

Major Major



AB's remarks, major problem; FLEOSA issues....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To reply directly to AB's comments about the "retired major".

The forum member, in the 1st topic post stated they were a "Major" who served for years in a Sheriff's Office(sworn LE officer).
I DID NOT say the topic post member was a 0-4/Major in the US Armed Forces but they did state they are a US military veteran.

It's good to read over the posted material 1 or 2 times before you quote a forum member or the remarks.
DepOne is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 01:10 AM   #50
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
from what I understand the coast guard is covered even if they have orders not to carry off duty(LEOSA still protects them).
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13843 seconds with 7 queries