Posted on 06/27/2005 9:52:14 AM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Jun 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Registration leads to confiscation. We all know that, and that is why GOA has vehemently opposed all attempts by government forces to compile or retain information pertaining to lawful firearms purchases.
But the United States Senate does not appear to see it that way. People on Capitol Hill seem to think that any "edge" in the war on terror is worth trampling on the rights of law-abiding Americans, no matter what the Constitution (and current law) happens to say.
At issue is a provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill (S. 1266) authored by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). Now, GOA has long opposed the vast majority of Patriot Act powers as being detrimental to freedom in general and dangerous to gun owners in the particular.
In short, Sen. Roberts' language would allow the FBI to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without first seeking permission from any court in the land.
Gun sales are business transactions, and FFL holders must retain copies of the 4473 forms (yellow sheets) filled out on every gun sale. Thus, an anti-gun administration could easily determine that such records would be useful in the fight against terrorism, and demand them all. (In fact, shortly after 9/11, liberal Democrats in Washington were screaming for exactly that.)
It gets worse. It is conceivable that your local gun dealer would risk his license, his business, and lots of money to protect your privacy and refuse to turn over the records. But under this legislation, the Attorney General could order the dealer NOT TO TELL YOU WHAT IS GOING ON. So that dealer would be the ONLY person who could contest the action before your life is raked over the coals... and honestly, how many among us would risk everything rather than tell the feds who it was that stopped by to pick up a Glock a couple of months ago?
After having used an "administrative subpeona" (again, not subject to judicial review) to collect all gun purchase records across the country, your friendly anti-gun but oh-so-patriotic government would have brought about the gun owner's second-worst-case scenario: a national firearms registration list.
Registration leads to confiscation.
This monstrosity must be stopped. Please take the action requested below, and urge all freedom-loving Americans you know to do the same.
ACTION: Contact your United States senators. Politely but firmly demand that they oppose the bill to expand the Patriot Act (S. 1266), and specifically, its provision to allow "administrative subpoenas" of all gun records.
You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
Dear Senator:
The Patriot Act expansion bill (S. 1266) would allow the United States government to seize every lawful gun sale record in the country... solely on the basis of a bureaucrat's determination that a national registry of gun owners would be useful in an anti-terrorism investigation.
Registration leads to confiscation.
Section 213 of the bill allows a designee of the Attorney General to issue "administrative subpoenas" for any business records which, in his opinion, are relevant to investigating terrorism. Even more ominous, the Attorney General could order gun dealers NOT to disclose the existence of the investigation to their customers, meaning that the dealer (rather than the gun purchaser) would be the only person who could contest this action. And why should he risk his livelihood on my behalf?
None of the above is subject to prior judicial review -- it is massive gun control by simple executive fiat.
I believe that a national gun registry is a step this country cannot afford to take, and one that the citizenry will not abide.
I would ask you, in the strongest terms, to oppose this Patriot Act "reform" bill outright, and especially its administrative subpoena provision.
Sincerely,
Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving...
As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support.
Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail goamail@gunowners.org to request information on how to keep control of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:
Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an obligation.
Duly noted.
First of all I believe Larry Craig, who we elected here in Idaho, does just that. Is he battin a 1000? Of coarse not! But he comes closer than any friggin liberal or Repub I have run across in years!
Now to your question..............as rediculous as it sounds......
Absolutely not! When has there been such a candidate? I am 51, and have yet to find a politician who does not believe he/she is self appointed important after they get into office. Even when they appear that way before election, they turn into the same money grubbing, power hungry egotists we see every day. The main body of both arms of goobernment in DC have set the rules by which you must play and it is certainly not ehtical in any way, shape, or form. Until you can get enough of these power mad, self serving a$$h@les to agree, we will never have the government you envision.
Now, inform me how to stop human nature. Unfortunatlely it seems to go with the job to turn into an idiot most of time after one gets elected. If promises were nickels, our elected oficials could clear up the national debt!
"In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Senate Bill Would Grant FBI Unlimited Access To Gun Sales Records , Eagle Eye wrote:
We ended up with Slick Willy because of third party shenanigans
WRONG-O!!
We ended up with Clinton because the Republican Party ran a weak candidate that couldn't EARN enough votes.
If a party runs a strong candidate it won't matter how many 'third parties' there are."
"WRONG-O!!" Eagle Eye!!!
Perot got 18.9% of the vote in the 1992 election and 8.4% in 1996. Yes, the republicans could have done better. But it would have been a whole different ball game without Perot.
But I thought all those background checks were to be destroyed after a certain time frame. You mean there really might be a master list somewhere?
Perot did not 'steal' any votes. None. Zero.
All votes are up for grabs; some candidates just don't do a very good job of earning them.
That percentage for Perot also includes a number of votes that would have gone uncast before they went to either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The simple fact was that Perot was more attractive to some people than Dole.
If you want to win elections, run better candidates, don't blame your parties piss poor performance on some other candidate. That strategy is for losers....doh! I forgot to whom I was speaking!!
"Brady Bill" Dole didn't deserve the Votes he got.
It has gotten to the point that most votes a candidate receives are really votes against the other guy.
"Vote for me, I'm the lesser of two evils."
I'm done voting for Evil.
Be Ever Vigilant!
10-4. Roger that. Well said. True.
"Criminals and terrorists do not buy their weapons legally and try not to leave a paper-trail."
I hesitate to say anything negative about the government since so many Freepers seem to idolize it but what makes you think they're aiming all this legislation at criminals and terrorists? Do you ever question the fact that the "Patriot" Act was waiting in the wings and was passed by the ninnies in our congress without being read?
Anything is possible.
Thank you for your comments, you've pretty much proved every one of my points.
WallyWorld is NOT your friend.
BTW, the low voter turn out only proves how weak the candidates were.
IMO, the Perot voters were actually excited about casting their votes while the rest of us were either holding our noses or voting against the other main candidate.
DOle may have lost teh electino but the real BIG TIME losers are those that still blame Perot for Dole's lackluster performance. Quite sad, really.
Even, possibly ESPECIALLY, if that means going without a President like Slick Willie again...
Remember GOP boot-lickers, this is a REPUBLICAN sponsoring this.
"I trust the government to always do the right thing."
I'm sure that's what a lot of Jews in Germany said during the 1930's. Please tell me you forgot to include the sarcasm indicator.
My guess is that they don't want to waste any capital on what will be dead on arrival in the House. They want a clean Lawfull Commerce in Firearms Bill out of Senate.
What's PTB?
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.