GOA - Fight Gun Registration Provisions in PATRIOT Act

EMail ^ | 12-21-2005 | Gun Owners of America

[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,

[Badray]

Rather than throw them a party, I'd just like to throw them. LOL

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Meant to ping you to 239 but got careless.

...the dems on the war path to impeach this president - an eye for an eye for Clinton's impeachment, it appears.

I think that is only an ancillary benefit for them. A common Communist tactic since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR, or maybe even before, is to try first to steal an open and free election and then, failing that, to cast doubt on the legality of the election. Then they continually protest that the new government is illegitimate and eventually try to impeach the existing leader. The are starting that process now with the Iraqi elections. It happened in Venezuela, with help from Carter, and resulted in Chavez. It was glaring in the 2000 election here and hasn't ceased since. It will continue.

If you familiarize yourself with Communists tactics, you will see the Democrats following them to a tee.

[Badray]

I have to run but I will be back to respond sometime this weekend. I'm off to visit my mother. She's just been transferred from the hospital to a nursing home.

Here's some homework for you (just kidding) regarding your last comment -- Get rid of Specter.

I was crucified here for working to get rid of him and excoriated for blaming Santorum for Specter's win. We put together an incredible grassroots effort that came within a 6,000 vote swing of winning (it was about 1% difference of IIRC 10 million votes) despite overwhelming odds and being outspent almost 4 to 1 with Specter being a 4 term incumbent and having the full support of the Party and the President. We tried, but got skunked by phony conservatives -- Bush and Santorum.

Merry Christmas. I've enjoyed this battle of wits and will be back to respond to a few points that you made here.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I'm off to visit my mother. She's just been transferred from the hospital to a nursing home.

I went through that last year so I can fully empathize.

My Get rid of Specter! comment was to point out that it is easier to rant about than to accomplish. You previously told about some of your efforts and I am sure you are doing more. I applaud you for that. That only illustrates my point. You are doing all you can and there is still Specter.

I can't explain the actions of Bush, Santorum, or the RC. I can only assume there were considerations we aren't aware of. Perhaps Specter threatened to run as an Independent or even switch parties and the odds weren't worth risking. Just don't know. They support McCain and the others, too. It could be that the advantages of being the majority outweigh trying to herd the rino cats.

[aligncare]

My background is in the health sciences.

Most people know that DNA serves as a template from which proteins are synthesized (there is an intermediate RNA step, but we'll keep it simple), and that occasionally 'mistakes' occur during the replication process. These mistakes are referred to as random mutations and usually are not fatal to the organism.

What does this have to do with politics?...I'm thinking...

Human values are transmitted or 'reproduced' if you will, in successive generations. Faithful reproduction of values is vital to the health of society. (Do you see where I'm going with this line of thought?)

Liberalism (or call it what it is: Communism) results from a genetic mutation that impacts brain organization and function. The Liberal brain reveals greater right-brain information processing. The right lobe of the brain is where human emotion resides. Thus, we see the consequent emotionalism which is the hallmark of the liberal response to the environment.

In fact, it is more like hyper-emotionalism. This can trigger a fear response which impels the liberal to engage in controlling behavior in order to reduce the internal fear level.

Thus, the liberal politician - or Rino (who acquires the condition through learned reward or pain avoidance behavior), is inherently immune from facts and reason. In other words, they can't help themselves. They have no inherent ability to reason.

Pity the poor, genetically defective liberal. ;-)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Very creative, but don't spread it too wide. Liberals will believe it and use it because of the reasons you state. One characteristic you left out is they are inherently dangerous to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, they must be destroyed or we must be immunized.

Perhaps that is what FR is all about.

[Badray]

That is an apt analogy. Curious, isn't it that the right brainers are leftwing whackos.

Reagan said that we are always only one generation away from losing our freedom and that we must pass on the values and an appreciation for freedom.

You asked how I can write as much as I do and with such passion. This is WHY I do.

[dcwusmc]

Doesn't matter, really, if it's been misused yet or not. Point is, FedGov has taken unto itself power it was NEVER meant to have, under any circumstances. And, having gathered it in with little or no protest from the sheeples and bootlickers, fedgov will never let it go. And at some point in time, it WILL be used against domestic "enemies," such as FReepers and others who speak plainly, as plain-speaking is the enemy of the Left and of the Globalist/OBL/authoritarian crowd, no matter WHO they claim or seem to be. Your acquiescence to this sort of thing speaks volumes about you. And from where I sit, that ain't a compliment to you.

[aligncare]

I should correct myself before I comment. The NSA intercepted a communication that was domestic but said that they had a plausible reason for the mistake occurring.

But, here's my perspective. We've had bombings at two American Embassies, an American Navy ship, the World Trade Center, earlier attacks overseas on American military installations and numerous attacks against American civilians. Then came 9-11 and the take down of the two New York City skyscrapers, plus other buildings - completing their mission to bring down the World Trade Center. There were also attacks against the center of American of military power - the pentagon and a failed attack, apparently against the center of American government - the White House or Capitol Building. We may never know which.

And, the leader of the international network of Islamic extremists, that has been at the center of these attacks, has overtly and explicitly declared war against the United States of America no less than five times.

Now, it seems to me that we are in a 21st century war with an unconventional enemy that may try to use nuclear, radiological, biological or conventional weapons here, on our homeland.

Look, I love America and have fought for the Constitution of the United States of America: USAF '69-'73, Vietnam '71. Do I really need to go into further detail as to why it makes sense to me for the NSA to intercept international calls coming from al Qaeda?

Besides, no one has been able to show that any extra-constitutional actions have been taken by this administration, or for that matter previous democrat administrations that conducted the same activities. I don't see any threat to the Constitution here. Just common sense measures to protect ourselves from further attacks and loss of innocent life.

[untrained skeptic]

And that's another of my objections. The PA was sold to the public to protect us from terrorists, when in fact it was a general prosecutorial wish list that never would have been passed at any other time.

The patriot act is designed to fix many of the problems with out methods of gathering intelligence. The majority of those changes were designed to deal with terrorism and national security. However, it's foolish to think that the legislature should address a problem as widespread as money laundering, but restrict changes to the law to terrorism.

Our technology had far surpassed the law in that area. If we had reason to suspect someone was laundering money, we still had to know which fincial institution they were using to do it in order to get a warrant.

We didn't just need evidence to show a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was happening, but the government needed to already know how and where it was being done.

So when congress took a look at this, they decided to address the issue and not just limit it to terrorism.

These provisions on money laundering weren't hidden. The fact that the addressed money laundering in general, not just terrorism related money laundering was clearly spelled out.

If Congress didn't want those provisions put in law, they could ammend them out.

The law also needs to be reauthorized, and I haven't seen anything in the bills to reauthorize it that would lead me to believe that there is a significant part of congress that wants those provisions removed.

[untrained skeptic]

So, in other words, the apologists claiming it's all about "fighting terrorists" are full of it.

The vast majority of the law is about fighting terrorism. Fighting money laundering is a very important part of fighting terrorism. However, the laws restricting how we addressed money laundering were stupid, and while Congress was fixing them in relation to going after terrorists, they fixed them for going after other criminals as well.

It's pretty amusing to hear you calling people supporting the law "appologists". You apparently oppose the law, yet know very little about it. I suggest you try reading it.

[mad_as_he$$]

You need to do some more homework.

[Tarpon]

Why, I already have a job, just not accepting the paranoia.

[mad_as_he$$]

Some where on the NYTimes website is a followup story to the the NSA flap. The NSA admits that it tracked many calls that originated in this country and TERMINATED in this country - they just aren't sure.

Camel - tent. etc. Big Brother needs to find some other way rather than spying on it's innocent citizens and then inflating the number of "terrorists" they captured. Many here would be unhinged if Clinton had done this (he did but slightly different means). The Bushbots are ok with it because we are going to get some bad guys! BS!

[untrained skeptic]

Did you read #92? That is how this type of thing gets abused by the Feds.

Did you read my response to #92?

The idiot with the laser pointer deserved to be charged with a crime. Wether charging him under the patriot act was appropriate is up to a judge and jury to decide. It did seem a bit heavy handed, however after they had to mobilize the resources to find the idiot and make sure it wasn't a serious threat, and then have him lie to investigators, I doubt they were in a very gracious mood.

He should probably gotten charged with a minor criminal crime for stupidity with a laser pointer, a more serious criminal charge for lying to investigators, and a serious fine for the expense he caused by them having to find him and investigate the incident.

The rest of the links he posted we clearly not abuses of the law, because the law clearly stated that it was intended to be used in that fasion. Read the law.

I also haven't seen any bills intended to change the money laundering provisions to make them only address terrorism.

Furthermore it is because of these types of abuses that I don't trust politicians and authoritative officials.

Sound more like you're too quick to believe people who claim there are abuses without actully reading the law and figuring things out for your self.

The more power you give officials, the more abuse you will get from them. This percentage came while we had a Republican President, what's coming down the road when we have a Dim President?

Your examples are mainly the feds using the law as it was explicitly intended. The money laundering provisions are not restricted to terrorism. The suspects don't need to be foreign nationals or agents of a foreign power like they do for the spying parts.

You're listening to people that are comparing two different parts of the law with different restrictions and calling it abuse. They are very clearly trying to mislead people to believe the law is being misused when it's being used in line with it's clearly stated purposes in that section.

If the patriot act is so horrible, why do these people have to mislead people?

Why don't they point out all the real examples of abuses? Maybe because there hasn't been any reported?

Most everyone is agreeing that no real abuses have been reported.

>>this year the Feds have used the Patriot Act to conduct searches on 962 suspects, yielding "hits" on 6,397 financial records. Of those, two thirds (4,261) were in money-laundering cases with no terror connection.<<

Like I said, read my link in the response to that post. The law is being used as intended in those cases.

[mad_as_he$$]

The forms are kept at the gun store of record. It is ILLEGAL for the BATF to search those with out a court order. Also, one of the reasons many gun stores have a going out of business fire -- get it?

[untrained skeptic]

You say that as if it were a GOOD thing, as if losing my privacy in banking transactions (amongst many other things) just so FedGov can go fishing any time it wants to is actually laudable.

Please point me to the place in the patriot act where it gives the government the authority to demand financial records without a warrant? I read through the section on money laundering and didn't see it.

The same people who claim that the law is bing abused by comparing provisions that are restricted to terrorism to provisions that aren't seem to also like to mention that the government can do certain things without a warrant, and then jump to things that they need a warrant.

The law does prohibit a financial institution that notifies the government of suspecious activity from also notifying the parties involved in that activity that they notified the government.

That's kind of necessary if the government is going to be able to investigate, gather enough evidence to get a warrant, and still act in time to seize the money before it's transferred elsewhere to launder it.

Please explain how you feel that you have lost your privacy in your fincial transactions due to the Patriot Act.

If you think that, you are a candidate for tyrant-wannabe of the YEAR. Along with Dubya, who is calling for more of the same. Go find another country, one with NO Constitution to get in your way, where EVERYONE thinks that a Constitution is just a G.D. piece of paper. Not here, not in MY country. I would guess that not only are you an untrained skeptic, but equally untrained in what the Founding Dads were trying to hand over to us, if we only had the will to KEEP it.

More hype and hysteria. Explain how the law can be used to trample your rights without violating the law.

Don't give me some B.S. about how the Patriot Act is bad because the governemnt can just lie to the Judges to get a warrant. They could do that before the Patriot Act as well, and the Patriot Act didn't make it easier. If they do lie to the Judge, the evidence and all eveidence they find as a result of that evidence becomes in admissable.

I value my privacy and my property rights, but I don't get all riled up over half baked conspiracy theories. So if you're got a valid concern, just explain it to me. I'm very willing to listen.

[B4Ranch]

I know everyone is wrong except you. No problem.

[untrained skeptic]

I know everyone is wrong except you. No problem.

Just show me where I'm wrong.

Don't point me to a blog where someone is obviously scewing the facts. Point me to examples of abuses, and point me to the part of the law that is being abused.

I started posting on this thread asking where in the bill were the provisions that were going to allow a firearm registry like the GOA was claiming. I read the bill, I couldn't find anything that would allow it.

No one has been able to point me to it.

Instead I've been pointed to references about other "abuses" that weren't abuses.

I like to make up my own mind on issues based on the truth, and it really pisses me off when people try to mislead me to gain my support.

[B4Ranch]

Read this and debate it within your own mind.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/12/24spying.html