Pro-gun Victory In Congress

Gun Owners of America ^ | 01.11.06 | Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

[Simo Hayha]

You would think that the recent historical record would be evidence enough that gun registration leads to gun confiscation. A reasonable person could easily conclude, what with the vocal gun control advocates from the U.N. to the individual, that any piece of legislation that could be used to address a "problem" perceived by those same people would be used, eventually to effect the goal they have stated repeatedly, in numerous forums, the global disarming of all.

It is not the total P.A. in question, but one provision of the act that is a concern.

[Simo Hayha]

Actually, doesn't Section 923 of the Gun Control Act say that any FFL holder is subject to search?

[mr_hammer]

I will answer your question counselor when you answer mine first.

Are you a gun owner and if this administration were serious about the war on terror why has the southern and northern boarder not been sealed.

IMO this admin. is looking for change in the seat cushions or making political hay at the potential expense of our liberties and not addressing the real issues of boarder security, what by the way is how this whole mess came to pass in the first place.

[mr_hammer]

I don't know, but I have been present in a gun store when the fed's came blowing in and everything gets dropped and those boys are taken care of real well.

[untrained skeptic]

I own a variety of firearms. I have been a member of the NRA for more than a decade. I am a member of the USPSA and shoot in IPDA competitions. I help a friend who has his FFL keep his costs low by sometimes helping him out at gun shows.

and if this administration were serious about the war on terror why has the southern and northern boarder not been sealed.

Sealed means completely closed. I don't think we need to completely close our boarders and hinde inside, not do I think the threat justifies the harm doing so would do to our country.

I suspect that you did not mean completely closing the border. I do agree that we do need to properly police our border and that it is not happening now.

I agree that the administrations efforts to do that are anemic.

However, what has that to do with the GOA's assertion that HR 3199 could be used to create a gun registry? I wonder why people keep wanting to change the topic?

IMO this admin. is looking for change in the seat cushions or making political hay at the potential expense of our liberties and not addressing the real issues of boarder security, what by the way is how this whole mess came to pass in the first place.

You know your accusations of the administration playing bait and switch would bear a little more weight if you weren't doing the same thing in this post.

Why don't you point to the text of HR 3199 that concerns you and explain how it can be abused.

Border security is a very important issue that needs addressed better, but it's not the only issue. It also will take billions of dollars and it will take a significant increase in the number of federal judges we have and those judges will need to be confirmed.

It's not as simple as the President just saying we need to do it better. It's not as simple as just enforcing the existing laws better, because we don't have the judges to hear the cases, and we're playing catch and release enforcemnt because we don't have room in jails to incarcerate the illegal immigrants.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work to enforce our immigration law better, and I'd be happy to discuss this with you, but lets do it on an appropriate thread instead of this one being hijacked.

I will answer your question counselor when you answer mine first.

Your turn.

[Simo Hayha]

I guess then, that the law is whatever the lawman with the gun in your ear says it is.

[Simo Hayha]

I believe that would be Section 215 of the original Patriot Act. On page H11541 of the House Congressional Record, for the legislative day of December 14, 2005, and I believe as it stands now, Section 215 would have a four-year sunset, though I may be wrong about that. It created the ability to seize "any tangible things," a rather broad category that includes gun records and a number of other kind of "things". It doesn't need to be connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization.

[untrained skeptic]

I believe that would be Section 215 of the original Patriot Act. On page H11541 of the House Congressional Record, for the legislative day of December 14, 2005, and I believe as it stands now, Section 215 would have a four-year sunset, though I may be wrong about that. It created the ability to seize "any tangible things," a rather broad category that includes gun records and a number of other kind of "things". It doesn't need to be connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization.

Section 215 requires a court order. The difference between it and a normal court order requiring seizing something as evidence appears to be that the person who is the information is related to cannot be notified about the court order.

That person must either be a foreign national, or it must be related to terrorist activities.

The request must be made by the Deputy Director of the FBI or his designee.

I don't see how this could be used to create a widespread firearms registry. It allows access to a broader variety of items, but it requires a court order and is still very limited in who can be the target of such searches.

I didn't look up the legislation in the House Congressional Record. I used google to look up the legislation in the Thomas register. Do a google search on "Patriot ACT thomas", select the link for "Text of Legislation", then select the version that was passed by both the house and the senate.

I believe that is the current legislation.

[jmc813]

No. But it is a worry far down the list of things to worry about.

Speak for yourself. Thank goodness the vast majority of freepers disagree with you.

[jmc813]

I didn't join the NRA to support seizure of the citizenry's guns.

The NRA led the fight against that nonsense.