« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell Are Whipping Colleagues to Oppose Gun Protections

I just received an email that Senator Jon Kyl sent out the below email to colleagues urging them to oppose a Rand Paul amendment to the PATRIOT Act that would protect gun rights.

The GOP in the Senate is encouraging colleagues to oppose this and, humorously, is doing nothing to take a stand on Paul Ryan‘s budget other than encouraging moderates to oppose it.

With friends like these . . .

The email is below. Note that the NRA has decided to, yet again on a matter involving the second amendment, sit on the fence.

“Senator Kyl wanted your boss to be aware of a possible firearms amendment that could be voted on today as part of an amendment agreement on the PATRIOT Act. Senator Kyl urges your boss to vote NO on the amendment (or YES on a tabling motion, if that is how the vote is structured). It is expected that the vote will be a 60-vote threshold.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain a court order for a subpoena of business records and other tangible things in the possession of third parties if the government proves to the court that there is: (1) probable cause that the target of its investigation is involved in international terrorism; and (2) the requested records are relevant to an international terrorism investigation. In addition, to protect records of firearms sales and other sensitive records, the Patriot Act requires that any request to the court for such records must first be approved by either the Director of the FBI himself or one of two other high-level officials. In light of these protections – judicial review, relevance to a legitimate investigation of a person who appears to be involved in terrorism, and high-level approval of any request for such information – it is extremely unlikely that this authority will ever be used to harass lawful gun owners, and, indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever that this authority has ever been abused in any way.

On the other hand, law enforcement has a legitimate need to know if a suspected foreign terrorist operating in this country has sought to or has successfully purchased a firearm. And, in order to protect the secrecy of such investigations and avoid disclosing the fact of the investigation to a suspected terrorist and his confederates, it is often necessary to use Patriot Act authorities, rather than other authorities, to conduct such investigations. Yet under the Paul amendment, for example, had the FBI been investigating Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 U.S. servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, federal agents would have been barred from using section 215 to learn whether Hasan had purchased the guns that he later used to commit that atrocity. The Paul amendment would prevent the United States from ever using Patriot Act authority to determine whether a suspected terrorist has sought to or has purchased a firearm.”

If you read that, it sounds reasonable, except that there are procedures in place for the FBI to obtain records that involve judicial review. The PATRIOT Act provision allows the FBI to obtain information on American citizens without any judicial oversight.

Below is Senator Rand Paul’s point by point briefing on what his amendment actually does without the heavy does of fear:

Sen. Paul USA Patriot Act Gun Records Amendment?05/25/11

Amendment provides that nothing in the USA Patriot Act overrides the McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act.

• In 1986, Congress enacted the McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act to limit BATFE access to 4473s and other gun records. Such records can only be viewed as part of a “bona fide criminal investigation,” in connection with a trace, or pursuant to an annual inspection.?
• Under McClure-Volkmer, the BATFE clearly could not seize every 4473 in the country because of a generalized terrorism investigation.?
• Amendment would make it clear that McClure-Volkmer is still applicable law and was not overturned by USA Patriot Act legislation.

• McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act created a finely balanced system setting out the circumstances under which BATF can have access to gun records, and those circumstances where they are denied access.?
• Gun records can be investigated in connection with a bona fide criminal investigation, a trace, or a routine annual inspection. Negotiations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms in 1984 went through session after excruciating session in order to arrive at this finely tuned balance -– which post-9/11 legislation inadvertently upset.
Hypothetical: Consider a situation in which Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) goes to the “secret court” (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or “FISA” court) and argues, without anyone else in the room, that ALL 4473’s should be seized as “business records” because they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. Paul amendment prevents this hypothetical scenario from becoming reality.

• How the Patriot Act Inadvertently Changed the Standard for Obtaining Gun Records: Under the Patriot Act, the Government must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant to a terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

• This is an extremely low hurdle, and could potentially encompass any and all gun records belonging to most U.S. citizens.
Paul Amendment ensures that this much lower “relevance” standard will not trump the McClure-Volkmer standard for obtaining gun records.

COMMENTS

  • kinghenry

    Over Conservative and GOP leadership that opposed his amendment?

    Rand Paul opposes the ENTIRE Patriot Act, its not at all unreasonable to suspect he has ulterior motives. He 100% wrongly thinks the Patriot Act is “Unconstitutional”, so when everyone is overwhelmingly against his amendment we should accept his word?

  • aesthete

    Didn’t support No Child Left Behind, FY 2002-09, the Highway Appropriations Bill, TARP, etc, perhaps? (Also, not “everyone” is against his amendment — IIRC, Mike Lee and some other Tea Partiers supported it; I don’t know where DeMint landed on it.) While we’re on the subject, what makes the USAPATRIOT Act (a piece of legislation that Clinton’s DoJ and CIA were slobbering over but couldn’t pass pre 9/11 due to Republican opposition) such an unassailable piece of conservative orthodoxy? You’d think conservatives would put more stock in Constitutional norm and in both the spirit and wording of the 4th.

    BTW, no one’s trusting Paul on this one: we’re seeing GOPers and Dems mindlessly fast-track the PATRIOT Act despite there being no pressing need for this fast-tracking, and that is why this (and all other) amendments are being forcibly tabled in breach of Senate protocal and the agreement that Rand Paul, McConnell and Reid had already agreed to.

  • kinghenry

    No, and frankly its absurd at this point the Patriot Act is even an issue. If they want to impress me on Civil Libertarian grounds, attack Criminal Law that for decades has all the powers they decry in the Patriot Act for Terrorism cases, yet not a peep.

    I do not trust anyone associatied with “Ron Paul 2008″ and now “Ron Paul 2012″ and Lew Rockwell and company, Which Rand Paul is. These poeple HATE THE CONSTITUTION, they think the Constitution is a “Statist Document” and want the Articles of Confederation to come back along with Rothbardian Anarchism.

  • congressworksforus

    Rand Paul has said on multiple occasions that there are many things on which he and his father disagree.

    Yet, according to you, he’s nothing but a stooge unable to think for himself.

  • congressworksforus

    While people aren’t paying attention, we’ve gone from a 3 month extension to FOUR YEARS.

    Why isn’t anyone asking that question?!?!

  • aesthete

    not “Criminal Law”, hence the focus on that. Regardless, I’d bet my last dollar that Mike Lee and Rand Paul both would happily roll back the infringements that have been made in recent times vis a vis law enforcement encroachment on the Bill of Rights, so if your problem is consistency then your grievance is based on the fact that *you* haven’t heard anything. I have heard both gentlemen discuss the subject.

    It’s your right to discount anything said by Rand Paul because of his father’s campaign, but I find it odd that your objections with Rand Paul (made clear in both on and off-topic comments on several threads) have to do with what Ron Paul has done and said, rather than what Rand has said. I’m not a fan of Ron: that’s why I direct my rancor at him, rather than his son.

  • kinghenry

    In 10 yrs now, there have been no miss uses despite leftist fearmongering, and not provisions have been challenged in court on their constitutionality?

    If the Patriot Act is so “Unconstitutional” then why aren’t these ACLU libs taking it to court?

  • kinghenry

    and will this year. In 2007/2008 Rand campaigned on the Patriot Act being Unconstitutional and wild Conspiracy theories like the NAU for his dad around the country during this time. Not to mention the “blowback” theory to excuse 1300 yrs of Jihadist imperialist campaigns.

    My point about this Patriot Act extension, which may or may not have some new Gun component? Has many very trustworthy and influential Conservatives behind it and against Rand Paul.

    So excuse me if I don’t trust Rand Paul, son of Ron who is a libertarian not a conservative and grew up and is heavily influenced by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. Politically he’s smarter than his dad, which is scary if they share the same beliefs.

  • aesthete

    is up for renewal, and not “Criminal Law”, it is logical that this is the subject up for discussion. Both Paul and Mike Lee have expressed discontent at the recent infringements on the Bill of Rights on the part of law enforcement in this country. Now that you’re suitably impressed on civil libertarian grounds, maybe you can tell me how a bill can simultaneously be a minor change to existing law and pivotal to the point of us being doomed if a few provisions are allowed to sunset for 24 hours (as those who want to avoid amendments/debate are alleging).

  • aesthete

    Are you really basing the level of Constitutionality on what the ACLU does or does not do, and what the courts do or do not find un-Constitutional — the same courts that will likely find ObamaCare to be Constitutional? Good God.

  • aesthete

    On what universe are there “many” conservatives in Congress? Seems to me like the conservatives currently up there are about split, with some of the Tea Partiers coming down on Rand’s side, and others against.

  • aesthete

    “On the other hand, law enforcement has a legitimate need to know if a suspected foreign terrorist operating in this country has sought to or has successfully purchased a firearm.”

    That is not at all apparent to me. What difference does it make if the terrorist has purchased a weapon legally — if he’s actually a terrorist, we have bigger fish to fry than the particulars of how he purchased his weapon. If it’s a matter of finding out where he’s at through purchasing history, or general profiling, I would think that his purchasing history would more than suffice. What, exactly, is gained through this information, if anything? I don’t know, and I won’t pretend to: maybe there’s something I’m missing. The thing is, I’d wager that Kyl and the rest of the DC gang voting for this monstrosity probably don’t know, either.

    If there actually is some purpose, the only thing that Rand’s amendment does is add one step to the process: the Constitutional step of having a judge sign for law enforcement to access those records. Isn’t it worth the time to debate this and other issues that have been brought up during the controversial bill’s 10 years of operation, rather than dismissing them and fast-tracking the bill for… some reason that completely eludes me?

  • Locked and Loaded

    nt

  • gpclaw
  • gpclaw

    If the person is suspected of being a foreign terrorist, isn’t the person, by definition, a suspected violent offender, at which point his/her fire arms purchases are irrelevant. If law enforcement finds no records of the suspect purchasing a fire arm, are they simply going to show up on the front porch, with chocolate and roses, and politely inform the person they are under arrest?

    How many violent criminals actually acquire firearms legally, in the first place? Put another way, how many criminals have purchased their weapons from a source that would leave a paper trail?

  • gpclaw

    In 10 years now, I don’t know of any acts of terror, that has been prevented because the government could look into someone firearms purchases, without the approval of a judge.

    You’re statement, just put another way.

    Shouldn’t the burden be on the government,to prove why they need this power, vs the citizen having to explain to the government, why they don’t?

  • sailingaway

    DeMint, Paul, Mike Lee and Moran, and some others backed the amendment.

    The Constitution requires due process which means probable cause, to get private effects of citizens, and the Patriot Act tries to overrule that. To that extent it isn’t necessary for its real purpose, since as Paul points out, if you call a judge you can generally get the warrant with reasonable evidence, it just keeps unsupervised officers on fanning out in fishing expeditions in private information of innocent people.

    Unfortunately, the amendments failed, and the Patriot Act was extended.

  • Menlo

    Have you been through a major airport lately? Virtual rape under the guise of “security” is more than a misuse! The power given to the executive branch, even if it has not YET been “misused” is a problem in that it would not be a “misuse” under the act!

    What’s more, to call the “Patriot” Act “big government overreach” would be an understatement. It created a much more bloated, incompetent, redundant, and intrusive bureaucracy. Bad things can happen when government acts in knee-jerk fashion in response to intense emotion.

    The left now loves the so-called “Patriot” Act because Obama supports it (like he does all big government programs). I actually strongly opposed many of the new “security” measures from the very beginning.

  • Doc Holliday

    Rand Paul is right;, we need to protect our rights or we won’t have any rights.

  • Doc Holliday

    Oh, so NOW Hassan is a foreign terrorist. I thought the Army and administration said he was just a lonely Muslim, mistreated by non Muslim troops? So, let me get this straight, “IF the FBI had been investigating Hassan”???????????

    hmm, maybe I am not so bright but I think the problem was that no WAS investigating Hassan, not that IF they were doing there job, they would not have been able to find out if he ever purchased a gun.

    “Yet under the Paul amendment, for example, had the FBI been investigating Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 U.S. servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, federal agents would have been barred from using section 215 to learn whether Hasan had purchased the guns that he later used to commit that atrocity.”

  • Doc Holliday

    If you care about the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, you can accept your own word.

  • Fla Mom

    Nidal Hasan didn’t really make a secret of who he thought the enemy was. I heard him with my own ears, with his supervisor in the room. I assumed, of course, that Hasan’s chain of command was appropriately engaged and was astounded to find out after the attack that no one had done anything. I have read that several Army officers were to be disciplined over multiple failures in the Hasan case, and I assume that officer is one of them. Even worse, Hasan was such a poor physician and soldier that he could have been disciplined and likely put out of the Army on routine grounds, but (until the last residency program director took over, very late in the game) no one ever took the time to do the documentation and counseling required to make it happen.

    Fla Mom

  • The_Gadfly

    With approval of the BATF no less. Don’t know if you remember the broohaha about that a couple months ago. The legitimate gun dealers smelled trouble and were practically begging the BATF to turn down the sale, but the BATF waved them right on through.