Posted on 01/11/2006 6:12:12 AM PST by mr_hammer
Wow, sounds like the FBI could just demand every form 4473 from every FFL holder and build a database.
That is until you actually read the law.
Who's records can be attained without a court order?
`(B) the statement of facts contained in the application establishes reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought--
`(i) pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
`(ii) are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or
`(iii) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; and
That seems like they'd be building an awfully limited firearms database.
However, that's not the only limitation. Congress was particularly sensitive to worries about firearms records, so they added this section.
(c) Director Approval for Certain Applications- Section 501(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `The Director' and inserting `Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Director'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) No application shall be made under this section for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, or medical records containing personally identifiable information without the prior written approval of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director may delegate authority to approve such an application to the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but such authority may not be further delegated.'.
So it requires the Director of the FBI, or the Deputy Director acting on his authority, to approve each request for firearms sales records.
On top of that this bill does not strike down the provisions from the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 that you mentioned.
Those protections still exist, preventing this from growing into a firearms registration system even if you assume that the FBI could get away with it's director declaring everyone owning a firearm an agent of a foreign power and authorize their firearms sales records seized.
The bill would only authorize obtaining such records as part of an investigation under very limited circumstances and then only if the person being investigated is a foreigner or an agent of a foreign power.
You are certainly familiar with the rule of construction that deems more recent legislation to trump older legislation when there is a clear conflict between the two.
Show me the conflict between HR 3199 and the Firearms Protection Act. Don't quote me third party claims about what someone said some in the FBI said they could do if this were passed, or tell me what the GOA claims unless it's backed up in the bill itself.
Authorizing the seizure of individuals as part of a limited investigation is not authorizing a firearms registry. There is no direct conflict. Even if they could legally do widespread gathering of such records, linking them together into a firearms registry would still be illegal.
Law enforcement has always been able to get firearms records as part of an investigation. The big change is that in this very limited case, they don't need a court order to get them, so it could be done secretly.
The assertion that the the FBI could secretly obtain significant numbers of such records from the approximately quarter million FFL holders in the US is completely and totally absurd!
I see absolutely no way of interpreting HR 3199 as authorizing the legal creation of a firearms registry, or making it significantly easier to organize the current 4473 forms to be more of one than they currently are.
I believe there is justification to argue that the current requirement to keep 4473 forms does constitute a firearms registry, however that does not justify opposition to HR 3199 on that basis, because it doesn't allow the government to create one or facilitate the use of those forms to create one.
Please vote against cloture on H.R. 3199, unless gun records are removed from the records which can be demanded under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act -- a move which would return the McClure-Volkmer protections as the operative law concerning when and where gun records can be demanded.
In my opinion the limitation of this to foreigners and agents of a foreign power, combined with there requirement that the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI approve such requests, protects our rights while giving the FBI the tools the need to go after those who would seek to harm our country.
Read the bill and decide for yourself. But do so based on an informed opinion, which you will not get from reading the GOA press releases.
Hunting has to do with firearms ownership perhaps you believed the Soviets had a Second Amendment.
New York's guns have not been seized. Nor have those in New Orleans and registration had nothing to do with the latter in any case.
States were not even bound by the Second Amendment until the Fourteenth was passed either and could do whatever their constitutions allowed like make sure Blacks did not own firearms.
I find it quite ironic to worry about gun seizures when any President which would allow that has control of the nuclear arsenal and US military. But I guess all is cool if we are incinerated by nuclear weapons as long as we can hold our rifles while being evaporated.
"I've looked through the bill and found no way that the government can use it to go on widespread fisihing expiditions."
Ok, that's fine. Sounds like it didn't belong there in the first place. Then the senators will have Zero problem with specifically excluding it. Exclusions get written into bills everyday. Right? Then do it. Now.
I don't care for all of the broad definitions and interpretations that seem to be the rule of thumb in interpreting our rights anymore. I also don't care for the incrementalism, or knee jerk reactions to contrived events that seem to define our policy of late. If the definition of the word "is" can change between elected officials, so can the definition of "reasonable". If they want the act passed, specifically exclude it.
If our intelligence gathering efforts are limited to glaring red flags, then we're going to miss too many links and we will not be able to put things together in time to stop terrorists.
The part of the bill that the GOA is mentioning isn't specifically about firearms sales records, it's about any kind of sales records related to an investigation of terrorist activity by foreign nationals or people deemed to be agents fo a foreign power.
The only place that firearms are mentioned is in the section requiring the additional protection of requiring the Director's approval for seeking some forms of sales records congress felt needed additional oversight.
The bill recognizes the need for protections of our rights to bear arms and privacy in our selection of books, and places additional approval on seeking such records.
However, that's hardly what the GOA would lead you to believe.
It's all BS and all smoke and mirrors. The only effective way to deal with this problem is to destroy the 4473s after the background check is completed.
Otherwise it alone is a de facto registration system.
The Feds go to a manufacturer with a serial number to find out where the gun was first shipped. The manufacturers ALL know where each gun they sell was first shipped.
The Feds then go to the distributer/dealer to find the "yellow form". Bingo. You're busted.
Your right, I would like to see a law allowing gun shops tp destroy those forms.
Neither article supports your initial claims.
The provision in the bill allows for the siezure of sales records in an investigation only if the person is a foreign national or or an agent of a foreign power.
It then places additional restrictions on some documnet types.
(3) No application shall be made under this section for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, or medical records containing personally identifiable information without the prior written approval of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director may delegate authority to approve such an application to the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but such authority may not be further delegated.'
It places the additional oversight of requiring the Director of the FBI to approve seizing such information if it's related to library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, or medical records.
If still doesn't require a court order in those cases, but we are only talking about documents for foreign nationals and people deemed to be agants of foreign powers.
So firearms are already excluded from being easily accessed without oversight explicitly in the bill. The question is the level of oversight (FBI director as opposed to a Judge) appropriate in this case?
I can personally see how it can be important for the FBI who is investigating suspicious foreign nationals to be able to get a hold of firearms sales records for such a person in a timely manner to help them put together pieces of intelligence they've gathered to try and determined if an attack is being planned and the nature of that attack before it happens.
I also don't see how this infringes on the rights of american citizens unless such a citizen falls under the definition of an agent of a foreign power.
I don't care for all of the broad definitions and interpretations that seem to be the rule of thumb in interpreting our rights anymore.
According to who? The ACLU and the liberal media who consistently distort stories to make it sound like every person in the US is being spied on illegall by the Bush administration?
Try taking a critical look at the media hype. Read the actual bills. Look at the details of the cases beign cited and compare them to the laws. Then direct your anger at the people who are lying to you.
HR 3199, section 7. Read it for yourself. Tell me how the words can be reinterpreted to allow for the creation of a firearms registry.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c10937fWdS:e9983:
Do you really think that the Senators filibustering this legislation are doing so because they want the law to specifically exclude the creation of a firearms registry. Something that is already law and not contradicted by this legislation? If so, where is their proposed ammendments to add that? Why hasn't such an ammendment to the bill even been proposed? Here's the list of proposed ammendments, look for yourself.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bdavccp:1[1-19](Amendments_For_H.R.3199)&./temp/~bdSTp6
At what point do you look at the evidence that you're being misled and start considering that you're being used? What do you do then?
True, privacy is an illusion.
I can remember listening to people get red in the face taking about how they were demanding privacy protections. and then I'd point out to them how they were freely distributing information about themselves to anyone who wanted to look every day.
If Cubans are armed, how is Castro still in power?
Hamilton helped write/enact a procedure like this for those who distilled/home-brewed spirits--where they were subject to searches, upon request, during our nation's early days.
I'm a bit curious why the NRA does not seem to be concerned about the PA provision that would potentially lead to a gun registry. At least, I haven't been made aware of any concern.
Here in Michigan, I have a CPL (concealed pistol license) which allows me to walk into any firearms dealer and purchase the handgun of my choice right on the spot. The only requirement by me is that I register it with my local law enforcement agency.
If I didn't have a CPL then I would have to go to my local law enforcement agency and aquire a "purchase permit" which I would then have to take to the firearm dealer in order to purchase the handgun. After purchase I then have approx. 10 days in which to legally register it with my law enforcement agency.
As far as purchasing shotguns and rifles, here in Michigan an on the spot background check is performed while you are in the process of purchasing them.....Once the dealer receives the on-line approval then you walk out of the store with your shotgun or rifle........
Life is so much easier when you don't have to deal with Socialism.
But does the article contradict your statement that New York guns were not seized ?
Does this imply that you do not approve of us having rifles ?
What year is this ?
I thought the number had decreased far below this, since the BATFE started making it more difficult to have an FFL -- for instance, they must have a "place of business" and can not operate out of their homes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.