General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Sen. Rand Paul Seeks Gun Exemption in so-called Patriot Act Legislation

<< < (4/4)

Dan W:
I wont disallow any posts, I am just trying to keep the thread on point, it was not about cheerleading for Rand Paul, but about the de facto firearm registration  we are getting imposed on us  whenever a police officer decides to write up his own warrant for "terrorist activities" so he can view 4473's at any FFL's store.

There is plenty of room here for all political persuasions, just the point I was making was not about candidates for president.


As to Rand Paul, my understanding of his NO vote on that budget plan was that it was not nearly conservative enough to garner his support. 

In my opinion Medicare has already failed, so anyone relying on it has his head deep  in the sand.

Dan W:
http://gunowners.org/a05272011.htm


     Friday, 27 May 2011 17:23                The Senate, by an overwhelming 85-10 vote, tabled an amendment by Senator Rand Paul which would have protected 4473’s and other gun records from blanket searches by the ATF under the PATRIOT Act.
 A mere 24 hours earlier, Democratic Leader Harry Reid went through parliamentary convolutions in order to prevent a vote on the Paul 4473 amendment, fearing that a vote on his language would have devastating implications for his Democrats running for reelection.
 But Reid had some important allies in the Republican leadership. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his second-in-command, retiring Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), used their “Republican whip” apparatus to mischaracterize the Paul amendment and try to force Republicans to vote against it by spreading misinformation and lies.
 For instance, they claimed that had the FBI been investigating the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, and the Paul amendment had been in effect, authorities would not have had the necessary tools under the Patriot Act to conduct an investigation.
 But the terrorism legislation was fully in force at the time of the Fort Hood shooting, and did nothing to prevent it!  The answer to every government inadequacy is not simply to grant it more power.
 Republican leaders also claimed that there was no evidence that the PATRIOT Act has been abused on a “widespread” basis, either in general or with respect to the Second Amendment.
 But given that all investigations are SECRET and it is a crime to disclose them, it is hypocritical to argue that we don’t know all the abuses.
 Here’s what we do know:  First, we know of thousands of illegal phone records which were procured by the FBI.
 Second, the Obama administration is pushing to illegally seize 4473-type information through its illegal regulations on multiple semi-auto sales in the Southwest –- a demand which is being made under the rubric of “national security.”  This effort to register gun sales along the border just underscores how easily the ATF could use the excuse of “terrorism” to register gun sales across the entire country.
 Opponents of the Paul amendment claimed that gun owners are protected under the PATRIOT Act, because a request for gun records must be relevant to a terrorism investigation and must first be approved by the Director of the FBI or a select few high-ranking officials.
 But this argument does not address the fact that the standard of “relevance” is a low standard ripe for abuse, and it is not much of an assurance at all when you have an administration (like Obama’s) that is hostile to the Second Amendment.
 Reid had one additional ally:  the National Rifle Association.  In the end, the NRA helped both Democrat and Republican leaders by not taking an "official position" on the bill.

Husker_Fan:
Both parties want big government, they just don't want their ox gored.  Apparently 85 senators don't want to be on record as having repealed this law in the event that there is another attack.  I think this has more to do with keeping themselves in office than fighting terrorism or upholding the Constitution.

There will be attacks.  Times Square, the shoe bomber, and others were only foiled by their own incompetence.  No amount of sacrificing our freedom will make us completely safe.

As for Paul, I don't always agree with him, but he is principled most of the time.  His position on Medicare, however, may have more to do with his experience as a doctor and not wanting to lower reimbursements.  Like I said, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

FarmerRick:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page