NRA Sells Out Second Amendment on Patriot Act

[DirtyDawg]

Just posting the facts.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7662-nra-sells-out-second-amendment-on-patriot-act

The NRA sold out the Second Amendment during the Patriot Act fight, criticizing Senator Rand Paul's amendment to exempt gun purchases from search provisions of the Patriot Act in e-mails to Congress while sitting on information showing the need for Paul's amendment. The information shows that the FBI and the federal government's Joint Terrorism Task Force have already begun trolling the records of law-abiding gun owners, using the excuse of terrorism surveillance.

The NRA published information May 27 — the day after the vote — indicating that Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was right in warning that Patriot Act provisions threatened law-abiding gun owners. In fact, the NRA proved that Patriot Act surveillance of law-abiding gun owners as terrorists was already occurring.

The NRA sent at least two e-mails to Congress during the Patriot Act debate this week calling Rand Paul's amendment to exempt gun purchases from the provisions of the Patriot Act a "poorly drafted amendment" and stating that "the NRA could not support this." The Senate rejected the Paul amendment by an 85-10 vote May 26. And the NRA e-mail, according to Reason magazine, claimed:

There have been no reports of the current PATRIOT Act being abused with respect to firearms records, however supporters suggested a far-fetched scenario in which every firearms sales record in the country — tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968 — could be sought. Again, we nor anyone else is aware of any case in which this authority has been used to abuse gun owners. (In fact, published reports indicate that few of these orders are ever sought for any reason.)

Senate leadership may have relied upon the NRA's advice, according to Redstate.com, citing a letter from Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl that echoed the NRA letter: "it is extremely unlikely that this authority will ever be used to harass lawful gun owners."

But on May 27, the very day after the Paul Amendment vote, the NRA's own Institute for Legislative Analysis released a press release that proved Senator Paul's warnings prescient. The NRA/ILA claimed:

Since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, dealers and other federal firearm licensees typically contact that agency (or state or local police) when they encounter suspicious customers. So, it raised eyebrows when the FBI began circulating flyers in gun shops and ranges, encouraging owners of those businesses to report suspicious customers to “your local Joint Terrorism Task Force” instead. The flyers first appeared in Connecticut, with a revised version appearing more recently in Utah.

But the flyers, which the NRA had received from gun shops and gun ranges in the Salt Lake City, Utah and New Haven, Connecticut, areas, contained demands that gun clubs and gun shops submit law-abiding gun owners information to the federal government. The flyers demanded that gun information be proffered up to the FBI's Terrorism Joint Task Force if a gun buyer had an "altered appearance from visit to visit (beard shaved off, hair color changed, etc.)" or "insists upon paying with cash" or had made "racist" or "extreme religious statements" or issued "vague or cryptic warnings."

In short, if an American buys a gun and gets a haircut, dyes his gray hair, or shaves his beard, his gun records will be sent to the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force for a terrorism investigation. Other "suspicious" activities also raise questions: If a person says homosexuality is a sin, is that an extreme religious statement that would lead to the FBI investigating him as a terrorist? If a person is against affirmative action, is that a racist sentiment that fingers him as a terrorist?

The FBI flyer was clear that the fact that the gun buyer was an innocent, law-abiding citizen was no excuse for a gun shop not to send the gun records to the FBI: "Some of the activities, taken individually, could be innocent and must be examined by law enforcement professionals," the flyer demanded.

Investigating law-abiding gun owners as terrorists may be just what President Obama reportedly told Jim and Sarah Brady back on March 30. "I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled Obama telling the anti-Second Amendment activist organization. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

While the NRA did not say when it obtained information about the FBI/Joint Terrorism Task Force flyers sent to gun shops, the phrasing on the press release does suggest they possessed them before the Patriot Act vote: "The flyers first appeared in Connecticut, with a revised version appearing more recently in Utah."

By way of contrast, Gun Owners of America enthusiastically supported the Paul Amendment: "Without Paul’s exemption, it is possible that the BATFE could go to a secret (FISA) court, and, in a one-party (ex parte) proceeding, obtain an order to produce every 4473 in the country, ostensibly because a 'terrorism investigation' requires it. If such an action were taken, the government would have a list of every gun buyer in the country going back decades."

 

[HiPower]

Go ahead, tell me you're surprised by this.

 

[Glocktogo]

Most of have already figured out that the NRA is much more concerned about the NRA than they are gun owners or the 2nd Amendment.

 

[juscvin]

This is a slippery slippery slope. So if you insist on paying in cash they need to report you last time I checked U.S. currency was a widely used form of payment.

 

[HMFIC]

Why use slanted and biased reports just to seemingly further an agenda against the NRA?

The NRA did not support the amendment for good reason and those reasons were because it was poorly drafted and in the NRA-ILA opinion (they have lawyers ya know), would have actually HARMED gun owners more than it helped. They maintained that the current method requires procedural limits that are trackable and monitored whereas the Rand Paul proposal would have allowed for methods which would have required those being investigated to expend considerable effort and money to fight.

Here are the full FACTS and text of the NRA-ILA's position and not just a snippet out of context to portray the worst possible view:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/26/nra-claims-rand-pauls-gun-amen

"As often happens with complex issues, NRA's position on Sen. Rand Paul's defeated PATRIOT Act amendment is being mis-reported by those who either don't understand the facts, or prefer their own version of "facts."

This amendment was rejected by 85 Senators, which included many of the strongest Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, Senator Paul chose not to approach us on this issue before moving ahead. His amendment, which only received 10 votes, was poorly drafted and could have resulted in more problems for gun owners than it attempted to fix. For this reason, the NRA did not take a position on the amendment.

To be more specific about the amendment and its problems, the amendment would have prohibited use of PATRIOT Act legal authority for any "investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under [the Gun Control Act]." There have been no reports of the current PATRIOT Act being abused with respect to firearms records, however supporters suggested a far-fetched scenario in which every firearms sales record in the country--tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968--could be sought. Again, we nor anyone else is aware of any case in which this authority has been used to abuse gun owners. (In fact, published reports indicate that few of these orders are ever sought for any reason.)

In particular, the amendment appeared to be aimed at so-called "section 215 letters"--orders from the FBI requiring the disclosure of "tangible things" such as records and documents.

Under the current PATRIOT Act, an application for this type of order with respect to firearms sales records has to be approved no lower than the director or deputy director of the FBI, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security. The application is made to a federal judge based on "a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation ... to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The judge has the power to modify the order and must direct the use of "minimization procedures" to protect the privacy of Americans.

If the Paul amendment were adopted, the FBI would have used other ways to access whatever firearms records it might need for intelligence or anti-terrorism investigations. This is especially troublesome for gun owners.

This would result in United States Attorneys simply demanding the same records through grand jury subpoenas, which require no judicial approval before issuance. Fighting a subpoena after the fact can be very costly and carries legal risks of its own, including possible charges for obstruction of justice.

Even worse, the government would have used the Gun Control Act's provision that allows the Attorney General to "inspect or examine the inventory and records of [a licensee] without ... reasonable cause or warrant" during a criminal investigation. That means by simply characterizing its activities as a "criminal investigation," it would enter a licensee's premises and demand these records without "reasonable cause or warrant"--in other words, without judicial oversight of any kind, and without any of the procedural limits imposed by the PATRIOT Act.

Therefore, given all of these potential problems for gun owners, the NRA could not support this poorly drafted amendment."​

 

[alec_f1]

This is why I tell the NRA to shove it everytime the call me and literally demand money from me and tell me what horrors of draconian gun laws are coming becasue I don't fork over a "gift" of money to them. They never seem to have an answer to stories like this or tell you that they are aiding and abetting the institutionalization of the draconian gun laws.

 

[alec_f1]

The NRA money begging tactics are abhorrable.

 

[rlongnt]

Their mail stamped "FINAL NOTICE" really pisses me off too! Like I'm late for a bill or something. I will show the same lack of support for the NRA they did us on the Oklahoma Open Carry issue.

 

[Rod Snell]

Why use slanted and biased reports just to seemingly further an agenda against the NRA?

The NRA did not support the amendment for good reason and those reasons were because it was poorly drafted and in the NRA-ILA opinion (they have lawyers ya know), would have actually HARMED gun owners more than it helped. They maintained that the current method requires procedural limits that are trackable and monitored whereas the Rand Paul proposal would have allowed for methods which would have required those being investigated to expend considerable effort and money to fight.

Here are the full FACTS and text of the NRA-ILA's position and not just a snippet out of context to portray the worst possible view:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/26/nra-claims-rand-pauls-gun-amen

"As often happens with complex issues, NRA's position on Sen. Rand Paul's defeated PATRIOT Act amendment is being mis-reported by those who either don't understand the facts, or prefer their own version of "facts."

This amendment was rejected by 85 Senators, which included many of the strongest Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, Senator Paul chose not to approach us on this issue before moving ahead. His amendment, which only received 10 votes, was poorly drafted and could have resulted in more problems for gun owners than it attempted to fix. For this reason, the NRA did not take a position on the amendment.

To be more specific about the amendment and its problems, the amendment would have prohibited use of PATRIOT Act legal authority for any "investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under [the Gun Control Act]." There have been no reports of the current PATRIOT Act being abused with respect to firearms records, however supporters suggested a far-fetched scenario in which every firearms sales record in the country--tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968--could be sought. Again, we nor anyone else is aware of any case in which this authority has been used to abuse gun owners. (In fact, published reports indicate that few of these orders are ever sought for any reason.)

In particular, the amendment appeared to be aimed at so-called "section 215 letters"--orders from the FBI requiring the disclosure of "tangible things" such as records and documents.

Under the current PATRIOT Act, an application for this type of order with respect to firearms sales records has to be approved no lower than the director or deputy director of the FBI, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security. The application is made to a federal judge based on "a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation ... to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The judge has the power to modify the order and must direct the use of "minimization procedures" to protect the privacy of Americans.

If the Paul amendment were adopted, the FBI would have used other ways to access whatever firearms records it might need for intelligence or anti-terrorism investigations. This is especially troublesome for gun owners.

This would result in United States Attorneys simply demanding the same records through grand jury subpoenas, which require no judicial approval before issuance. Fighting a subpoena after the fact can be very costly and carries legal risks of its own, including possible charges for obstruction of justice.

Even worse, the government would have used the Gun Control Act's provision that allows the Attorney General to "inspect or examine the inventory and records of [a licensee] without ... reasonable cause or warrant" during a criminal investigation. That means by simply characterizing its activities as a "criminal investigation," it would enter a licensee's premises and demand these records without "reasonable cause or warrant"--in other words, without judicial oversight of any kind, and without any of the procedural limits imposed by the PATRIOT Act.

Therefore, given all of these potential problems for gun owners, the NRA could not support this poorly drafted amendment."​

Well, there you go again, trying to confuse the knee-jerk NRA bashers with facts.
I was extremely disappointed at the sloppy staff work done by Ron Paul and staff. Their heart was in the right place, but their head just isn't yet up to speed with DC dirty politics. Requiring a court order is much better protection than having to deal with sub poenas.
For every complex problem, there is a simple solution that is wrong.

 

[tRidiot]

Their mail stamped "FINAL NOTICE" really pisses me off too! Like I'm late for a bill or something. I will show the same lack of support for the NRA they did us on the Oklahoma Open Carry issue.

I agree with this... I get the same kind of crap from the AMA.... Marked on the outside with something like, "Membership Dues Due - Final Notice!" I am not now nor will ever be a member of their organization, yet they feel the need to make the mailman think I'm late paying to dues for a professional organization.

Screw that.