Posted on 12/21/2005 8:39:03 AM PST by jmc813
Twice, the leadership in the U.S. Senate has tried to run H.R. 3199 up "the hill." Twice it has failed.
On Friday, supporters of the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to stop the filibuster of the PATRIOT conference report. The final vote was 52-47.
At issue for gun owners is a provision that would allow the FBI to obtain "firearms sales records." The bill extends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and allows agents of the federal government to get "firearms sales records" which, in their opinion, are relevant to investigating terrorism.
These records would be obtained from gun dealers, who are required by law to keep the gun purchase records (4473 forms). Thus, an anti-gun administration could then easily compile gun owner registration lists -- an enterprise which has often been a prelude to gun confiscation.
Congressmen on both sides of the fence made reference to GOA's concerns last week when the House considered the latest version of H.R. 3199.
During the debate, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) stated that people "should take note of what is happening here because the expanded police powers of the Federal Government will be used against them. Our Second Amendment friends already understand that...."
And Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenged House Republicans to consider whether they are really comfortable with "allowing the FBI to access Americans' reading records, GUN RECORDS, medical records and financial records without judicial approval; [or] allowing the FBI to search someone's home without probable cause and without telling that person about the search."
In the Senate, Larry Craig (R-ID) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) led the opposition to the latest version of the bill. If a compromise is not reached, 16 provisions of the bill will expire on December 31 -- provisions that include the Section 215 "gun registration" language.
Much has been made of the expiration date later this month. People should understand that only 16 provisions of the original PATRIOT Act will expire on New Year's -- and these provisions are some of the most controversial ones in the original act, as they affect the Fourth Amendment protections that American citizens enjoy.
REGISTRATION OF GUN OWNERS
H.R. 3199 would extend provisions which the FBI claims would allow it to seize 4473 forms, without the approval of any judge.
This runs contrary to the protections that were gained in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, when it prohibited the establishment of any registration system with respect to firearms [18 USC 926(a)(3)]. It is also significant to note that federal code bans inspections of gun dealers records, excluding four, narrowly tailored exceptions [18 USC 923(g)(1)(b)]. Those exceptions are absent with regard to the FBI's current practice of soliciting 4473 forms under the PATRIOT Act.
The protections that were won during the McClure-Volkmer battle took years to achieve, and it would be a shame to see those protections superseded by another enactment of gun control -- all in the vain hope that gun owners' purchase records can somehow help authorities curb terrorism. (Gun registration certainly hasn't worked to curb crime in any of the states or localities that have implemented it.)
For this reason, Gun Owners of America has told Senators that we would like to see serious reforms in this bill, including language which further restricts the ability of a future, anti-gun administration to muster a gun owner registration list.
The status of H.R. 3199 is unclear at this time. But it is more than likely that the Senate will hold another vote later this week.
ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to vote against the House-Senate conference report on H.R. 3199, unless gun records are removed from the records which can be demanded under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
-----Pre-written letter-----
Dear Senator:
Please vote against the current version of the PATRIOT reauthorization bill (HR 3199) because it would extend provisions which the FBI claims would allow it to seize 4473 forms, without the approval of any judge.
This runs contrary to the protections that were gained in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, when it prohibited the establishment of any registration system with respect to firearms [see 18 USC 926(a)(3)]. It is also significant to note that the law bans inspections of gun dealers records, excluding four, narrowly tailored exceptions [18 USC 923(g)(1)(b)]. Those exceptions are absent with regard to the FBI's current practice of soliciting 4473 forms under the PATRIOT Act.
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. The protections that were won during the McClure-Volkmer battle took years to achieve, and it would be a shame to see those protections superseded by another enactment of gun control -- all in the vain hope that gun owners' purchase records can somehow help authorities curb terrorism. (Gun registration certainly hasn't worked to curb crime in any of the states or localities that have implemented it.)
It is imperative that H.R. 3199 be amended to protect gun owner rights.
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.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
I called Senator Ensigns office in DC and had a nice, friendly chat with a staffer about Section 215/3. When I explained it to him the way I posted in #85 and asked if he voted for the Director of the FBI, he said no and then blurted, "Let me show this to the Senator."
I don't know what part got to him but it was one of these, library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, or medical records.
I suggested that we keep the idea of having warrants issued by judges not bureaucrats and he agreed.
And just because a dealer has a record of selling you a gun doesn't mean you still own it. Example: My dad and my uncle both bought the same S&W 9mm pistol at the same time. My uncle died and my dad took his pistol and is keeping it, in turn my dad gave me his pistol. No paperwork and this is all legal since you are allowed to give a immediate relative a firearm without transferring registration. They will go to my dad's door looking for the pistol he gave me, and then they'll go to my grandmother's house looking for my uncle's pistol that he gave my dad.
The Australians didn't think it would ever happen either. Our heads are DEEP in the sand as witnessed by many FReepers comments.
So whilst the 'Civil Right' endearing democrats are using this tiny angle as their claim to shoot down the Patriot Act I personally find that tactic to be so absolutely hypocritical and false; but then again I've come to expect nothing less of thos folks.
The Democraps dont say what they mean nor mean what they say. They are absolutley false, lairs & hypocrites and full of spin (and other 4 letter words I wont use here).
Why won't a NICS check reflect suspected terrorist red flags?
It seems that the domestic spying is over the top.
"I see nothing different from the status quo."
Then read http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1544717/posts?page=85#85
"None of [y]our rights and/or liberties should ever be determined by a government official who can be dismissed by the President!"
Are you an agent of a foreign nation? If not, this isn't talking about your rights.
Or are you concerned that the director of the FBI is going to declare us all agents of foreign governemnts? Are you also concerned that the judges that oversee this process are just going to let them do it and not shut them down?
If they're going to do that, why not just lie to attain a warrant? There is at least judicial oversight on this after the fact.
So how is the FBI going to use this to create a firearms registry?
I can understand a concern that this could be abused in individual cases and that they could find out if someone they suspect or claim to suspect is a terrorist owns firearms.
However, this does not give them the power to seize firearms records of ordinary citizens, and it definately does not give them the ability to collect firearms records in a wholesale manner, create a database, and then search for the individuals they want information about.
I simply don't see the justification for the GOA's claims.
I do have the same concerns as many of you, regarding our liberties.
I believe, however, there is historical record to ease my concern.
For example, it was Lincoln who said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". First, we must win.
By the way, you are right. We will not lose our America to direct terrorist slaughter of our citizens, but more likely by disruption of electronic infrastructure and by the ensuing chaos.
You didn't vote for that judge, did you.
I voted for the people that appointed that judge, didn't I?
But you voted for the people that appoint FBI. Who is more responsible to you?
Both are equally responsible
Absolutely agree.
Good, then you agree that we should not rely on either judges or those that appoint them to protect our liberties. Why then should we give them even more power in an 'Act'?
Both appointees & appointers take the same oath to support the US Constitution. Can you agree?
But, by extension, appointers can lose their job in the next election. Just try getting rid of a bad judge...lifetime appointment for judges.
Even more reason to let the PA die. Can you agree?
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." -Abraham Lincoln
Same guy right?
Some people have no desire to be woken up.
I know it can be sniffed, but they're not set up to do it practically, as in the FBI comes in and says "Record all calls from Customer X." They have told the FCC they aren't set up for that or 911 calls yet.
"What do you think would really happen if they tried to take peoples firearms from them?"
90% of Freepers would roll over if they were told it would keep them SAFE.
I am not in favor of any large controlling government agencies. Old history that should be changed.
Semper Fi
That was said first by Justice Jackson in a dissent (the majority voted for freedom of speech, against him).
It was later used by, and often attributed to, Justice Goldberg, but then it applied to limiting the powers of Congress (as in the Constitution granted great powers to Congress, but not enough to be a suicide pact). A quote from the ruling is
"The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action."I love it when that quote is taken out of context in a call for limits on the rights of the people. It brings up that quote that states my feelings on the subject better than I can.
"90% of Freepers would roll over if they were told it would keep them SAFE."
You've got that right!
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.