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,
Er... neither? Why would I care which one violated my Rights? Shouldn't I be more worried that someone is VIOLATING MY RIGHTS?
It is funny that you use the word paranoid. IMO, it is paranoid to think that these half-baked wannabe-Saladins on the other side are such a threat that we need to rearrange our entire system of government to counter them.
"Yep, the ATF doesn't need a warrant either."
Depends... if it's a routine compliance check, nope, they don't need a warrant... however, if it's involving any kind of criminal activity, they must obtain a warrant for the particular firearm in question. They do not get free reign to rifle through the files.
The caveat to all this is that current law (1968 GCA) requires all 4473 forms to be handed over to the BATF if a dealer goes out of business. They claim that this is to keep the records in case of a situation where the gun must be traced back through a company that has gone out of business. Truth of the matter is, it is a database that is illegal and unconstitutional.
Mike
From your lips to God's ears. All of history says that it is exactly your attitude that leads to the downfall of Nations.
Oh yeah and we have good "Conservatives" here slamming others because they don't support making this trashy piece of legislation permanent.
I knew I smelled a rat in the woodpile somewhere, now I'm sure of it.
Damn our Government and Damn our politicians. These maggots can't and won't close a border that leaks like a sieve, but give these jackasses one moment to try and register then confiscate guns and both sides are all over it like a rooster on a june bug.
Sure, section 505 of the PA lets the FBI use NSLs to get financial information simply by declaring they want it in relation to an investigation. As amended by section 374 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, it redefines financial institution to mean anyone you do business with. A long list of eligible businesses are given, including car dealers and the Post Office, but with an allowance for the government to include anything it wishes under the definition of "financial institution."
Yeah, they decimated the Fourth Amendment, and many here cheered. I wonder how loud the cheering will be as they decimate the Second Amendment.
Yeah, yeah, someone is always violating your rights.
Sheesh.
Warning: Paranoia reaching dangerous levels on this thread.
Yeah... here's a hint for you, that kind of thought process isn't going to win you any friends here.
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. Both appointees & appointers take the same oath to support the US Constitution.
Can you agree?
Warning: Intellectual honesty required during the next several minutes, - if you attempt to answer.
In that case, you are REALLY on the wrong website. Try DU.
Do you think the riots in Australia would be going on if the citizens had free access to handguns and other firearms?
Do you think that this isn't going to be a constant battle to keep our private records private from the government?
Do you think that the goal is to eventually register, then confiscate every civilian firearm on the entire Earth?
I will give you my answer, yes, yes and yes. I do not want a government that thinks American citizens should not have the ability to defend ourselves from tyranny and the common criminal.
I do want the Muslims to be afraid of the American citizens. I want our government to further that fear.
Keeping the Muslims convinced that there will be an upheavel similar to the Roman Crusades if they ever again attempt to attack Americans is my idea of how to keep America safe from terrorists.
And cops can now search your car because they see a magazine with a graphic of a pot leaf on it, or strip and detain you because you fit the profile of a drug courier, or take all your cash because you fit that same profile (all are true stories).
Sorry but being excessivly paranoid about Govt is not real convincing argument. It is exactly your mindset that lead to the Gorelick Wall. Funny how the same people who squeal loudest in the aftermath of 9-11 now want to return us to a 9-10-01 mindset
I don't know where you have been, but from my seat at these games ( I started attending in 1960) it is quite obvious that the second Amendment has been constantly hacked away at.
Even the NRA (of which I have been a member of since 1964) settles for "just a little ban at a time".
I don't hear any cheering from any Freeper members, though it may well be drowned out by the 60,000,000 or so Democrat Party voters.
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.