NRA Sells Out Second Amendment on Patriot Act

[andrewjs18]

sad. defenders of the 2nd amendment, right....RIGHT?

link-
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...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."

[theo]

No surprise there. But keep sending in those membership dues.


.

[andrewjs18]

No surprise there. But keep sending in those membership dues.

.

I'm glad I haven't sent them a dime in over a year. when I was a member at my old private range, you had to be a card holder of the NRA in order to join their range. and yes, they did check your membership number.

[theo]

I'm glad I haven't sent them a dime in over a year. when I was a member at my old private range, you had to be a card holder of the NRA in order to join their range. and yes, they did check your membership number.

When I joined my range, they asked for a show of hands who belonged to the NRA. They said who ever didn't raise their hand, should be a member. I havent been a member for over 15 years, and this article supports my reason not to join.

I think i will send in an extra $35 (what NRA charges) to Dr. Paul for his efforts on this.


.

[Ricochet]

I signed up as a NRA member at the NRA convention here in Pittsburgh.
Not a month goes by and Im already regretting it!

[andrewjs18]

When I joined my range, they asked for a show of hands who belonged to the NRA. They said who ever didn't raise their hand, should be a member. I havent been a member for over 15 years, and this article supports my reason not to join.

I think i will send in an extra $35 (what NRA charges) to Dr. Paul for his efforts on this.


.

even their magazines they send out when you join suck. it's 95% ads with 5% actual firearm content.

no thanks, I'd rather save the money and buy ammo.

[andrewjs18]

I signed up as a NRA member at the NRA convention here in Pittsburgh.
Not a month goes by and Im already regretting it!

a lot of people do that. after a while, some decide it's not worth the money.

[Franky4Fingers]

for simple folk like me...could someone translate WTF that article says? I remember being in writing class in college and how they discourage using more words than needed to tell a story because its distracting. And that right there is a perfect example of it. I read that twice and I have no clue what to really make of that article, I don't see what the NRA did thats so bad.

[andrewjs18]

for simple folk like me...could someone translate WTF that article says? I remember being in writing class in college and how they discourage using more words than needed to tell a story because its distracting. And that right there is a perfect example of it. I read that twice and I have no clue what to really make of that article, I don't see what the NRA did thats so bad.

the article was pretty straight forward.

Rand Paul was attempting to amend the patriot act to prevent gun owner's records from being searched through without a warrant from a judge if I'm not mistaken. anyhow, the NRA didn't think it was necessary and thought the amendment was poorly worded. just like they didn't like the constitutional carry wording in NH so they tried to amend it.

[Franky4Fingers]

the article was pretty straight forward.

Rand Paul was attempting to amend the patriot act to prevent gun owner's records from being searched through without a warrant from a judge if I'm not mistaken. anyhow, the NRA didn't think it was necessary and thought the amendment was poorly worded. just like they didn't like the constitutional carry wording in NH so they tried to amend it.

Buddy...I must be dumb as F***, because I just read the article again for a third time and I read and understand the words, but not the overall moral of the story... but it just appears as if there were a bunch of random lines copy and pasted out of a more complete article and its all jammed together. Its not written in a progressive story form at all that can be easily followed. And when I say that, I mean for simple bastards like me.

And I still do not see what the NRA did here was so bad. How did they "sell out" because they made a comment that an amendment was poorly worded?