H.R. 838 TAPS act -- is Precrime becoming a reality?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No problem.

[critter]

Again, connect A (signing of the TAPS Act) to C (government abuse of gun owners) with an actual mechanism in the TAPS Act.

I didn't mention abuse of gun owners. I asked if you'd be comfortable with 50 Strzoks involved in this. I then responded by giving you my reason as to why I wouldn't want anyone who makes such statements in positions of authority. What more is there?

Dude, because your statements don't make any sense. What are you imagining in your mind that this is?

Political bias with leads to doxing, leaking, harassment, from what?

The TAPS Act is not creating a group of Political Commissars ala the Soviets that have the job of identifying undesirables. This is not creating a new agency or task force with enforcement powers, nor even the job of identifying persons of interest.

1 SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT BEHAVIORAL THREAT
2 ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT TASK
3 FORCE.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the
5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
6 within the Department of Homeland Security a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force

ETA: if they don't identify, or report, do anything with the threat.. what's the point?

As related to my last comment, what are you seeing as the "role in question"? They're high school counselors. They're exactly the person we want to spot warning signs early and be able to refer the student ASAP. Counselors in some places are already getting this training and doing seminars with law enforcement on behavorial threat assessments, so what exactly is it that you imagine this TAPS Act is doing with these counselors that makes this such a slippery slope?

If you're concerned about government overreach and abuse of powers with regards to behavioral threat assessments, anything that could happen after the TAPS Act could already happen now. The TAPS Act is not changing the enforcement powers of any entity.

It's not ambiguous. You have no idea what you're talking about and are filling in the blanks with your imagination, positing that pre-crime is coming to America. There's a difference between ambiguity and ignorance. As harsh as that is to write that, there's no other way to state that truth.

I see their role as, bottom line, threat assessors as well as informants working directly with law enforcement. What I imagine in one scenario is something along the lines is one of these assessors having a disagreement with DHS of a particular severity of a threat and going public.

This is no different than commentary that came about from the FIX NICS Act and people on the forum claiming it would create V.A. thought-police squads running around with impunity, certifying gun owners as prohibited persons......or the when Obama had proposed re-creating a civil defense corps with a rank structure to include Warrant Officers, and people on the forum blowing up because they didn't know what a Warrant Officer is and assumed it was automatically dudes in black helicopters reporting directly to Obama with the ability to be judge/jury/executioner, empowered to carry out Order 66 against gun owners.

I don't think I was here for that one.

[critter]

(b) DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL STRATEGY.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the duty of the
11 Task Force to provide recommendations to the appropriate committees of Congress and the Secretary
13 on the development and implementation of a national strategy

@TGS

NOW I see where you're coming from. I blew right over this.

[TGS]

1 SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT BEHAVIORAL THREAT
2 ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT TASK
3 FORCE.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the
5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
6 within the Department of Homeland Security a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force

ETA: if they don't identify, or report, do anything with the threat.. what's the point?

Good lord, man.....look at the next paragraph after it. You actually have to read the Bill if you're going to make a thread about it being a danger to our Constitutional protections.

It shall be the duty of the Task Force to provide recommendations to the appropriate committees of Congress and the Secretary on the development and implementation of a national strategy for preventing targeted violence through behavioral threat assessment and management (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘national strategy’’).

and on Page 12....HR 838(f) lists "Powers of the Task Force" to include contracting, obtaining official data (meaning a participating agency has to furnish info when requested), administrative services (monetary reimbursement to participating entities), a requirement to make a final report to Congress within 180 days of the Act being signed, and right after that a requirement to dissolve.

It's just a big think tank tasked to write a big term paper, Critter.

[HCM]

Good lord, man.....look at the next paragraph after it. You actually have to read the Bill if you're going to make a thread about it being a danger to our Constitutional protections.



and on Page 12....HR 838(f) lists "Powers of the Task Force" to include contracting, obtaining official data (meaning a participating agency has to furnish info when requested), administrative services (monetary reimbursement to participating entities), a requirement to make a final report to Congress within 180 days of the Act being signed, and right after that a requirement to dissolve.

It's just a big think tank tasked to write a big term paper, Critter.

Exactly.

As I said in post 10:

the use of “task force” implying an LE task force making arrests is a poor choice of words.

Unfortunately the use of the phrase “task force” is trendy right now - for example the model for integrated response to active shooter events by LE, Fire/EMS, local emergency management agencies, hospitals etc being referred to as the “rescue task force” model

The threat assessment processes described in this bill are already in use. Right now you have different states and localities forming their own working groups of LE, LE Intel / fusion centers, mental health professionals, fire/EMS, school officials etc to share information. They are a resource for LE to try and identify viable threats from those just talking the talk and to give options other than arrests, such as mental health services,etc.

The issue is these group statements are all doing different things and using different processes. This bill would create a “commission” that would look at all these existing working groups, ID what they are doing right /wrong, and create a model of best practices and “what not to do” to improve existing working groups and create a model for other places that want to stand up a threat assessment working group.

Think something like the standardized NIMS template.

[critter]

Good lord, man.....look at the next paragraph after it. You actually have to read the Bill if you're going to make a thread about it being a danger to our Constitutional protections.



and on Page 12....HR 838(f) lists "Powers of the Task Force" to include contracting, obtaining official data (meaning a participating agency has to furnish info when requested), administrative services (monetary reimbursement to participating entities), a requirement to make a final report to Congress within 180 days of the Act being signed, and right after that a requirement to dissolve.

It's just a big think tank tasked to write a big term paper, Critter.

& @HCM

Yeah, my bad. The saddest part is that I actually did read the entire thing. I read it as "reporting to the committee" .. like for oversight. And damn.. I thought I really had something there... reading comprehension goes a long way sometimes.

[Ed L]

The big concern is where this could lead and what might be considered concerning behavior. Are people being under investigation going to be put on red flag lists or something to that effect?

And what effect does this have on any firearm licenses you have or your future ability to acquire them?

We live in an environment where gun owners and gun rights are under greater attack than ever before, and from a variety of directions.

Let's take a look at some of the verbiage from the proposal:

"For decades, a process to identify, investigate, assess, and mitigate threats has been in place to counter targeted violence. Pioneered by the U.S. Secret Service, behavioral threat assessment and management has proven successful in protecting our presidents and foreign dignitaries. If this process works to protect the president, elected officials, foreign dignitaries, and even celebrities, why aren’t we using it to protect our children and local communities?"

In the cases listed above the individuals investigated come under attention due to threats or suspicious contacts they made, or statements they made to other people that make them seem like potential threats, or stalker-like behavior.

I think In this case many gunowners are worried about who decides what innocuous activities might be considered grounds for investigation. Things like displaying a heavy interest in or owning a lot of firearms might be considered by some to be a warning flag.


"(A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts; and (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary."

In some cases like the Parkland, Florida school shooter this makes sense, since there was more than enough information out there about him--from multiple visits by the police to his house to multiple people calling the police and FBI and warning them about him. If I remember correctly he even made statements that could be considered terroristic threats on social media prior to his acting.

However, we also see overextension of this. Look at the Red Flag laws in general or specifically California. If a co-worker or supervisor considers you to be angry and knows that you own firearms they can complain to the police and get your guns confiscated, and then you have to spend the time and money to get it back. It violates due process and opens the door for abuse. Or maybe you get into a debate with an antigun co-worker or relative, and they decide to report you. Or someone who doesn't like you and decides to do so out of spite. I could see this whole threat assessment/pre-crime thing headed in the same direction.

I think people are concerned that laws might be moving in this direction on a variety of fronts, and that this is just another well-intentioned program that could have some applicability in some cases, but could also turn into something that would be a threat and nightmare to gunowners, and make them live in fear of modern day witch hunts.

[TGS]

@Ed L,

What "pre-crime" thing are your referencing? What mechanism within the TAPS Act creates pre-crime or punishment arising from such?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What should be the procedure when a co-worker, supervisor, teacher, counselor/psychologist/psychiatrist (Tarasoff situation) views you as a threat?

1. Seize guns on the say-so of the 'threatened' person?
2. Send an investigative team and set up a hearing?
3. Do nothing

How is the level of threat to be determined and action taken?

It's all nice to be worried about Mister NiceGun being harassed. Tell me your ideas when faced with aberrant and threatening behavior that does not rise to the obvious level of Parkland's extreme case.

[Alpha Sierra]

What should be the procedure when a co-worker, supervisor, teacher, counselor/psychologist/psychiatrist (Tarasoff situation) views you as a threat?

1. Seize guns on the say-so of the 'threatened' person?
2. Send an investigative team and set up a hearing?
3. Do nothing

4. Investigate the person who "feels threatened" to look for bias against the person the feel is threatening them.

#3 is also a good option.