By Ken Dilanian and Brian Bennett, Los Angeles TimesOctober 3, 2012
WASHINGTON — A federal domestic security effort to help state and local law enforcement catch terrorists by setting up more than 70 information-sharing centers around the country has threatened civil liberties while doing little to combat terrorism, a two-year examination by a Senate subcommittee found.
The so-called fusion centers were created in 2003 after the Sept. 11 commission concluded that federal, state and local law enforcement agencies needed to collaborate more in counter-terrorism efforts.
Funded by federal grants, the fusion centers were intended to share national intelligence with state and local law enforcement and to analyze potential terrorist activity detected by police. Homeland Security Department officials have credited the centers for helping uncover terrorist plans, including a 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway.
But the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in a 146-page report released Tuesday that reviewed intelligence reports from fusion centers between April 1, 2009, and April 30, 2010, “could identify nothing that uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution any fusion center made to disrupt an active terrorist plot.”
Senate investigators concluded that Homeland Security liaisons to the centers “forwarded ‘intelligence’ of uneven quality — oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.”
The investigators also found that some local analysts had written inappropriate and potentially illegal reports about constitutionally protected activities of American citizens. Homeland Security officials prevented most from being disseminated.
The Homeland Security Department could not say for sure how much federal money had been spent on the centers, the subcommittee found, providing a range of $289 million to $1.4 billion.
Homeland Security officials took issue with the conclusions, saying they resulted from a “fundamentally flawed” investigation. “The committee report on federal support for fusion centers is out of date, inaccurate and misleading,” said spokesman Matthew Chandler.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has lauded the centers, which are located in nearly every major metropolitan area. In March 2010, Homeland Security Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis Caryn A. Wagner praised them as “the linchpin of the evolving homeland security enterprise.”
The Senate report rebuts statements by Homeland Security officials that the centers helped uncover terrorist plots, including a 2010 attempt to blow up a sport utility vehicle in Times Square, saying that the same work would have been done through previously existing channels.
One of the most significant terrorism cases in which officials have claimed a success for fusion centers was that of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who traveled in 2009 from Colorado to New York City, where he has admitted that he planned to blow himself up on the subway around the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Napolitano claimed in a speech in 2010 that “it was a fusion center near Denver that played the key role in ‘fusing’ the information that came from the public with evidence that came in following the suspect’s arrest by the FBI.”
But that claim was not true, the investigation found. The Colorado Information Analysis Center’s involvement consisted of checking a few public databases and addressing media inquiries. The crucial role, the report said, was played by Colorado state troopers assigned to the center who were also assigned to help the FBI. The report found that the troopers would have been doing what they did whether or not there was a fusion center.
In preparing the report, the committee reviewed intelligence that had been edited to protect classified information. Homeland Security officials said that these redactions limited the investigators’ ability to assess the usefulness of intelligence generated by local analysts.
One of the country’s largest federally funded fusion centers covers most of Southern California. The Joint Regional Intelligence Center in Norwalk has more than 80 full-time staff members and stitches together information from 166 law enforcement departments.
Deputy Chief Michael Downing, head of the LAPD’s counter-terrorism bureau, said his department had gotten “a lot of value” from the increased cooperation: “There’s a lot of white noise, but there are occasionally gold nuggets.”
In the last year, Downing said, the Norwalk-based center has helped start terrorism investigations by sharing information about Muslim extremist literature found in the back seat of a car during a traffic stop and about an individual who went into a youth group meeting at an Islamic center and tried to recruit young Muslims to “kill infidels.”
He did not know whether any of these cases had led to a conviction.
The state and local fusion centers supported by the Department of Homeland Security have produced little intelligence of value and have generated new concerns involving waste and abuse, according to an investigative report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (NYT, WP)
“It’s troubling that the very ‘fusion’ centers that were designed to share information in a post-9/11 world have become part of the problem. Instead of strengthening our counterterrorism efforts, they have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans’ civil liberties,”said Senator Tom Coburn, the ranking member of the Subcommittee who initiated the investigation.
While it may not be the last word on the subject, the new Subcommittee report is a rare example of congressional oversight in the classical mode. It was performed by professional investigators over a two-year period. It encountered and overcame agency resistance and non-cooperation. And it uncovered — and published — significant new information that demands an executive branch response. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.
Army Documents: Complaining About Bias, Believing in Government Conspiracies are Terrorism Indicators
The nearly endless list of indicators just got longer with documents (PDF courtesy of Danger Room) uncovered by Danger Room which reveal that the U.S. military actually considers having “peculiar discussions” a sign that you might suddenly murder your colleagues along with “believ[ing] in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia.”
Other warning signs include recently changing your “choices in entertainment,” “complain[ing] about bias,” being “socially withdrawn” and being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies.”
The Army claims that “Risk Factors for Radicalization” include “youth” and “social networks,” both of which are so common that one might conclude that the vast majority of young people are potential terrorists.
Of course, some of the warning signs they include are somewhat legitimate, although still hardly conclusive, including “inquir[ing] about weapons of mass effects,” “attempt[ing] to recruit others to extremist causes,” and “stor[ing] or collect[ing] mass weapons or hazardous materials.”
However, none of these are necessarily criminal and some of the “Actions conducted by the subject that would indicate violent or terroristic planning activities that warrant investigation” are outright laughable.
One of the more insane indicators includes “suddenly acquir[ing] weapons,” which could mean that anyone who goes out and buys a gun could be seen as possibly planning terroristic activities.
Others are “organiz[ing] protests inspired by extremist ideology,” “establish[ing] website/blog to display extremist views” and “visit[ing] extremist websites/blogs.”
The glaring issue here is that these documents don’t specifically describe what “extremist” views are, which means just about anyone can be included under this troublingly large umbrella.
The Army’s “’indicators’ of radicalization are vague enough to include both benign behaviors that lots of people safely exhibit and, on the other end of the spectrum, signs that someone is so obviously a terrorist they shouldn’t need to be pointed out. It’s hard to tell if the group is being politically correct or euphemistic,” writes Spencer Ackerman for Danger Room.
Another document from 2011 published by the Asymmetric Warfare Group out of Forge Meade, Maryland entitled, “Insider Threats in Partnering Environments,” attempts to identify some signs a member of a “partner” force might suddenly kill their U.S. colleagues.
According to the Army, potential “insider threats” from Afghan troops someone who “appears frustrated with partnered nations,” reads “questionable reading materials,” or who has “strange habits,” all of which are disturbingly ambiguous.
Ackerman rightly points out that it is incredibly difficult for an American soldier with little to no knowledge of the surrounding culture who doesn’t speak Pashto or Dari to properly identify “strange habits” of people who likely seem strange in most respects already.
While the Asymmetric Warfare Group didn’t claim that they had identified every single factor leading to so-called insider threats, they did claim that they painted an accurate picture of both the signs that someone could potentially be radicalized.
Thankfully, they caution against using their assessments as “checklists,” but this doesn’t outright condemn the practice nor does it stop people from using it as if it was a one-size-fits-all terrorist identification tool.
That being said, when one of the “Actions conducted by the subject that would indicate violent or terroristic planning activities that warrant investigation” includes “tak[ing] suspicious or unreported travel (inside or outside the United States),” there is legitimate reason for concern.
Others include “emotional vulnerability,” “personal connection to a grievance” and “conflict at work or at home, which, considered together with the previously outlined potential terrorism indicators means that there is likely not a single risk-free person in the world anymore.
Let’s not forget, the Asymmetric Warfare Group calls on people to “notify the chain of command” about all the suspicious behavior outlined above, even something as laughable as “chang[ing] type of off-duty clothing.”
They point out that a “single reportable indicator is enough to report,” meaning that soldiers should likely be reporting every single person they work with.
While the concern is wholly legitimate given the more than 50 U.S. and allied troops murdered by Afghans this year alone, the approach the military is taking is hardly going to encourage a friendly native population seeing as now U.S. soldiers are trained to see just about everything as an indicator of potential terroristic intentions.
U.S. Army Characterizes ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ as Terrorists
A leaked U.S. Army document obtained by Wired Magazine characterizes people “frustrated with mainstream ideologies” as potential terrorists, while also framing those who “believe in government conspiracies” as violent radicals.
Texas Students Treated Like Cattle with Mandatory RFID Tags
Students and parents at two San Antonio schools are in revolt over a program that forces kids to wear RFID tracking name tags which are used to pinpoint their location on campus as well as outside school premises.
Brandon Turbeville Interview: What is a ‘Terrorist’ and What is the Council of Governments?
Madison Ruppert and guest Brandon Turbeville of Activist Post discuss the definition of a “terrorist” and how almost everyone in America today could absurdly be considered suspicious per the DHS’s ever-expanding definition. And who are the local Council of Governments (COGs) and how are they supporting the Agenda 21 initiative across small-town America in this information-packed, educational episode. End the Lie Radio is live from 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM EST/7:00 PM – 9:00 PM PST every Monday evening at http://EndtheLie.com/Radio.
The rise of license-plate tracking is a case study in how storing and studying people’s everyday activities, even the seemingly mundane, has become the default rather than the exception. Cellphone-location data, online searches, credit-card purchases, social-network comments and more are gathered, mixed-and-matched, and stored in vast databases.
[...] Data about a typical American is collected in more than 20 different ways during everyday activities, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Fifteen years ago, more than half of these types of surveillance tools were unavailable or not in widespread use, says Col. Lisa Shay, a professor of electrical engineering at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who studies tracking.
[...] A report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police warns that “recording driving habits” could raise First Amendment concerns. It noted that plate readers might record “vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors’ offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.” The association urged members to consider establishing “more specific criteria for granting access” to the information and to designate it only for “official use.”
A US air force systems analyst who expressed support for WikiLeaksand accused leaker Bradley Manning triggered a formal military investigation last year to determine whether she herself had leaked any documents to the group.
That is one of the most serious crimes a person can commit – it carries the penalty of death – and is committed when a person engages in “unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy”. The military investigation form also requires investigators to identify the “victim” of the crime they are investigating, and here, they designated “society” as the victim:
The US government, as part of Obama’s unprecedented war on whistleblowers, has now fully embraced the pernicious theory that any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of “aiding the enemy” or “communicating with the enemy” by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, “the enemy” will – like everyone else in the world – ultimately learn of what is disclosed.
It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of “aiding the enemy” or “communicating with the enemy” even if no information is passed directly to the “enemy” and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it “indirectly” informs the enemy.
If someone can be charged with “aiding” or “communicating with the enemy” by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn’t that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else?
International Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller made a similar point when the charges against Manning were first revealed:
“[I]f Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly ‘giving intelligence to the enemy’ (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly ‘communicating with the enemy’ (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between [Bradley] Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.”
It is always worth underscoring that the New York Times has published far more government secrets than WikiLeaks ever has, and more importantly, has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks has (unlike WikiLeaks, which has never published anything that was designated “Top Secret”, the New York Times has repeatedly done so: the Pentagon Papers, the Bush NSA wiretapping program, the SWIFT banking surveillance system, and the cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran were all “Top Secret” when the newspaper revealed them, as was the network of CIA secret prisons exposed by the Washington Post). There is simply no way to convert basic leaks to WikiLeaks into capital offenses – as the Obama administration is plainly doing – without sweeping up all leaks into that attack.
And – after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys.
The government refusedto promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge. Indeed, Hedges believes that the government hasalready detained American citizens under the NDAA.
I have discussed the terms of the Homeland Battlefield Bill – also known as the National Defense Authorization Act – with numerous other journalists, writers, and members of democracy-supporting organizations across the political spectrum, from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee to the Tenth Amendment Center. I have also discussed the bill with various political leaders, including city council members and legislators, who span the political spectrum in the United States. They all agree that the bill can potentially affect an American journalist who meets with and publishes reports on individuals connected to organizations deemed terrorist by the United States government.
According to the FBI’s Biometric Center of Excellence, voice recognition is a “popular choice for remote authentication due to the availability of devices for collecting speech samples (e.g., telephone network and computer microphones) and its ease of integration, speaker recognition is different from some other biometric methods in that speech samples are captured dynamically or over a period of time, such as a few seconds.”
Now the Russian Speech Technology Center, which, according to Slate, operates as SpeechPro in the United States, has created a program called VoiceGrid Nation capable of storing and identifying massive numbers of voice samples for governments around the world.
The software, at least according to the company behind it, is incredibly fast. It can deal with a database containing millions of voice samples of regular people, criminals, persons of interest or people on a watch list.
Computerworldreports that VoiceGrid uses three methods for voice matching along with an algorithm that automatically compares “voice models against voice recording obtained from different sources such as cell phones, land lines, covert recordings and recorded investigative interviews.” Full Article
Clear and Brief History of the NDAA & Indefinite Detention
DNI Issues Directive on Civil Liberties and Privacy
The Director of National Intelligence “is committed to protecting civil liberties and privacy, which are foundational principles of our Nation’s democratic society, preserved in the Constitution of the United States, and guaranteed in Federal law.”
Beyond affirming the value of civil liberties, the new directive — ICD 107 — also directs the establishment of oversight mechanisms and of procedures for redress of alleged violations.
The DNI directive does not include definitions of privacy or civil liberties, and its practical meaning is somewhat elusive.
“Intelligence activities shall be conducted in a manner that protects civil liberties and privacy,” the directive states. But that seemingly categorical statement is rendered ambiguous by the very next sentence.
“The IC shall protect civil liberties and privacy in a manner that enables proper intelligence integration and information sharing and safeguarding.”
Feds’ warrantless surveillance targeted more people in past two years than entire previous decade
Disturbing new documents from the United States Department of Justice reveal that federal agents are increasingly being given real-time access to the social networking accounts and e-mails of Americans without having to obtain a search warrant.
That being said, the dramatic rise in the numbers is hardly easy to brush aside.
The reports made available by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were only handed over by the government after the ACLU was forced to sue the Department of Justice and enter into months of litigation.
The documents are the 2010 and 2011 attorney general reports on the use of so-called “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance methods, which gather information on communications via Internet, e-mail and telephone.
While these surveillance tools had to be physically installed just twenty years ago, “Today, no special equipment is required to record this information, as interception capabilities are built into phone companies’ call-routing hardware,” according to the ACLU.
The pen registers capture outgoing data about communications (therefore, they supposedly do not collect the actual contents of the communications) while the trap and trace devices capture the incoming data.
In the case of telephones, this includes information about the numbers, dates, times and length of both incoming and outgoing calls.
“But the government now also uses this authority to intercept the ‘to’ and ‘from’ addresses of email messages, records about instant message conversations, non-content data associated with social networking identities, and at least some information about the websites that you visit (it isn’t entirely clear where the government draws the line between the content of a communication and information about a communication when it comes to the addresses of websites),” explains the ACLU.
The documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that the combined number of original orders for trap and trace devices and pen registered increased from 23,535 in 2009 to 37,616 in 2011, an increase of 60 percent.
The numbers get even more troubling when one realizes that the number of people who were actually the subject of surveillance more than tripled.
One of the most shocking revelations is that more people were the target of pen register and trap and trace surveillance in the past two years alone than in the entire previous decade combined.
The past two years have also seen an increase in the number of pen register and trap and trace orders specifically targeting e-mail and network communications data.
The ACLU point out that this specific type of Internet surveillance tool is still used relatively rarely, the use is increasing exponentially with a 361% increase in authorizations from 2009 to 2011.
Similarly, an ACLU public records project determined that police departments throughout the United States are using cell phone location data for tracking.
Since pen registers and trap and trace devices are considered “non-content” surveillance tools, the legal standards which must be met before they can be used are significantly lower than “content” surveillance tools like traditional wiretaps.
While the government is supposed to convince a judge that they have probable cause before “content” surveillance is authorized, in the case of a pen register, “the government need only submit certification to a court stating that it seeks information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation,” according to the ACLU.
The government needs only to complete the incredibly simple procedure in order to obtain the authorization to move forward with pen register or trap and trace surveillance without a judge having to actually look at the merits of the request itself.
One court noted that this minor judicial role is entirely “ministerial in nature.”
The ACLU points out that the division between “content” and “non-content” surveillance is purely imaginary since it “is based on an erroneous factual premise, specifically that individuals lack a privacy interest in non-content information.”
“Non-content information can still be extremely invasive, revealing who you communicate with in real time and painting a vivid picture of the private details of your life,” the ACLU argues.
Indeed, it is quite easy to determine a great deal of information from the so-called non-content information, evidenced by students at MIT being able to create a program which identified gay men based on the sexual preferences of their friends.
Since there is such a low legal standard in place for pen register and trace and trace device authorizations currently, the government can freely use these quite powerful surveillance tools with little to no oversight.
In an attempt to maintain a rough semblance of accountability, Congress requires the attorney general to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the Department of Justice’s use of these devices. Full Article
LRAD Sonic Weapons To Be Deployed “Throughout” America For Crises
Devices commonly used by police to quell civil unrest, disperse protests
The U.S. Air National Guard has purchased half a million dollars worth of portable LRAD acoustic systems, which are commonly used by police to quell protests and civil unrest, ensuring that the sonic weapons will be deployed “throughout” America during upcoming national emergencies and other crises.
The video above demonstrates how the portable LRAD works even at 200 feet high and amidst the noise of a helicopter.
LRAD Corporation has received an order worth $550,00 from the Air National Guard to ship LRAD 100X devices this quarter.
“With this order, LRAD systems will be in use by every major force of the Department of Defense,” Tom Brown, president and CEO of LRAD told Government Security News.
“The Air National Guard will be deploying the LRAD 100X systems throughout the country to support and assist civil authorities in the event of severe natural or man-made disasters. LRAD systems have proven highly effective in communicating warnings, instructions and commands over wide areas before, during, and in the aftermath of catastrophes.”
As well as being powerful communication devices, LRADs emit piercing sounds that amount to nothing less than auditory torture, and serve to disperse people from geographical areas, breaking up demonstrations and other gatherings.
The largest version of the LRAD is routinely used to break up “unlawful assemblies” at protests of global summits,including at the 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh, during which an LRAD was used to terrify local residents who weren’t even involved in the protest.
The LRAD 100X is weather proof, able to be heard clearly at distances of 600 meters and is 20 to 30 decibels louder than a standard bullhorn.
The sound which the device is capable of emitting to disperse people is both a tool of torture and psychological warfare. Despite being described as “non-lethal,” the most powerful versions of the device can kill under certain conditions.
Studies have found that the type of sound waves emitted by the sonic weapon can cause epileptic seizures, long term problems affecting brain tissue, as well as cardiovascular and central nervous system damage in humans.
As we have previously highlighted, preparations on behalf of law enforcement bodies, the federal government and branches of the military for domestic disorder have been ongoing.
Last year, DHS chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.
The U.S. Army has also been preparing for domestic disorder.
A recently leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.
A national poll shows a third of Americans worry their privacy will suffer if drones like those used to track U.S. enemies overseas become the latest police tool for tracking suspected criminals at home.
A recent Associated Press-National Constitution Center found nearly half the public – 44 percent – supports police use of drones inside the U.S., while a significant minority – 36 percent – oppose law enforcement drones.
The public concern about possible loss of privacy due to police use of drones for surveillance: 35 percent are “extremely” or “very” concerned,” while 36 percent are “not too concerned” or “not concerned at all.”
The Federal Aviation Administration working on safety regulations that would clear the way for routine domestic drone flights by 2015.
Ames, Iowa City Council Votes to Ban Gun Sales in Homes
The Ames City Council unanimously voted 6-0 to add firearm sales to the list of prohibited home occupations at its meeting Tuesday night.
The proposed change to the city’s zoning ordinance still must go through two more passages before it becomes enacted.
Greg Seaton, the man who was granted the permit back in April, made a passionate plea to the council not to ban home gun sales. Seaton’s permit lasts for a year, so if the amendment is passed, he would not be affected until the permit expired. However, if it passes, he would not be able to obtain another permit for selling firearms out of his home.
Anyone who’s purchased a firearm in the United States in the past few months may have noticed a small change to form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) prior to all gun purchases.
Where previously the form asked a general question about the purchasers’ race (ethnicity), the section now requires Americans in the Hispanic community to designate themselves as such.
Curiously, the form’s “Race” section has been divided into two parts. Section 10a, now labeled “Ethnicity,” requires you to check off whether you’re “Hispanic or Latino” or “Not Hispanic or Latino.” The new 4473 document’s 10b section no longer includes Hispanics or Latinos as a race.
Boasting a US population density of 16.3%, Hispanics, in general, encompass a large portion of the gun owning community. Given this fact, the change, that went into effect early July with little to no press or fanfare, has left many gun owners baffled as to why the ATF is singling out Hispanics.
Evan Nappen, General Counsel of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, reported on the alteration as a blatant form of racism, asking, “What if the “ethnicity” question demanded “Jew or Not a Jew”? Would that “ethnicity” question be acceptable? Like the Hispanic/Latino question, it is offensive and not necessary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s qualification to purchase a gun.”
Infowars reporter Matt Williams asked a Houston ATF public relations spokesperson why the change had gone into effect and why it specifically targeted Hispanic and Latino Americans. The ATF told us the change had been implemented by White House order of the Obama Administration’s Office of Management and Budget and has been ordered across the board nationally to be carried with all federal agencies.
Further investigation provided no answers as to why the minority group has been singled out, and no conclusive evidence shows that any other ATF form, or government agency for that matter, has adopted the protocol. Even the form licensing home manufacture of firearms/class 3 weapons (i.e. machine guns, suppressors, etc.) does not include this stipulation. (see image to the right)
Despite the fact that the ATF was caught red-handed staging the gun-walking Fast and Furious operation – a staged provocation that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent – to blame citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, the Bureau continues to throw red herrings at the public in attempts to divert attention from the real source of Americans’ woes, an overreaching, increasingly tyrannical control-freak government.
Gun owners, specifically returning and retired veterans, tea party members, and anti-Fed activists, have come under intense scrutiny following such incidences as the Aurora, Colorado massacre and Sikh temple shootings. These and other various attempts to demonize gun-owners, a constitutionally protected right, circumvent what the founding fathers saw as crucial for the liberty of a free nation.
Is the ATF attempting to single out Latino gun-owners for additional screening due to the cartel violence they themselves contributed to? Given that we’re in the middle of a government sponsored Hispanic Heritage Month, we feel the Hispanic community deserves some answers.
This article was aggregated under the Creative Commons License. If you feel this article has been re-published outside of these parameters, please contact us immediately to resolve any issues. We respect copyrights and address any concerns promptly. Thank you.