NRA Finds Paul Amendment Problematic

[BamaFanNKy]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nra_opposes_paul_amendment_patriot_act-206006-1.html

[Chester Copperpot]

n=not
r=real
a=americans

[FrankRep]

Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/) > NRA


Sen. Rand Paul Seeks Gun Exemption in so-called Patriot Act Legislation
http://gunowners.org/a05232011.htm

[pcosmar]

Once again I find the NRA "problematic".

:mad:

[tsai3904]

Wow.

The author of the article wrote this:

The National Rifle Association informed Senators on Thursday that it OPPOSES Sen. Rand Paul’s gun-related amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

Yet this is straight from the NRA letter that's included in the article:

Based on these concerns and the fact that the NRA does not ordinarily take positions on procedural votes, WE HAVE NO POSITION on a motion to table amendment #363.

I guess the author believes having no position is the same as opposing.

[wizardwatson]

While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind.

Anyone have the actual amendment text? Because the way the above quote from NRA reads, it sounds like they are saying that the amendment is "problematic" because it encourages the use of existing laws rather than the provisions enacted by the Patriot act.

I'm just trying to figure out if the NRA is saying what I think they are saying, or what they are saying, hell I don't know. Who has the text?

[AGRP]

I thought their policy was to support anyone who supported gun rights?

Remember their support of this clown?


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7FOfHp7R6ScRmedPykufjjnpOoF7un jhqheDqUUoSNDSEh7kkKw

[fisharmor]

Come on, guys, give the NRA a break.
The NRA has been there defending our freedoms every time anti-gun legislation has passed.
They were on watch for NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86, the Brady Bill, etc, etc.
They're doing a bang-up job!
:rolleyes:

[tsai3904]

Anyone have the actual amendment text? Because the way the above quote from NRA reads, it sounds like they are saying that the amendment is "problematic" because it encourages the use of existing laws rather than the provisions enacted by the Patriot act.

I'm just trying to figure out if the NRA is saying what I think they are saying, or what they are saying, hell I don't know. Who has the text?

SA 363. Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. HELLER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 347 proposed by Mr. REID to the bill S. 990, to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. FIREARMS RECORDS.

Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 272), the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 120 Stat. 192), the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-178; 120 Stat. 278), or an amendment made by any such Act shall authorize the investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

[ChaosControl]

NRA is a piece of ****.

[gls]

Anyone have the actual amendment text? Because the way the above quote from NRA reads, it sounds like they are saying that the amendment is "problematic" because it encourages the use of existing laws rather than the provisions enacted by the Patriot act.

I'm just trying to figure out if the NRA is saying what I think they are saying, or what they are saying, hell I don't know. Who has the text?

Yeah that surprised me since it has always been my impression that the NRA's position (at least ostensibly) is that existing laws should be enforced in lieu of creating new legislation.

[Verrater]

I am disgusted.

[pcosmar]

Come on, guys, give the NRA a break.
The NRA has been there defending our freedoms every time anti-gun legislation has passed.
They were on watch for NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86, the Brady Bill, etc, etc.
They're doing a bang-up job!
:rolleyes:
NRA, Compromising away 2nd amendment rights for over 60 years.

[Pericles]

Title:
NRA Finds Paul 2nd Amendment Problematic

Corrected

[Lucille]

NRA Joins Mitch McConnell Against Rand Paul and Gun Owners for America (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/26/nra-joins-mcconnell-against-ra)


This fits with what a Senate staffer told me yesterday, which is that Paul's office didn't even bother reaching out to the NRA. But it doesn't exactly help the group's Tea Party credentials, certainly not when you consider that it supported the DISCLOSE Act and opposed Dick Heller taking his case to the Supreme Court.

[tsai3904]

The NRA letter specifically states that they have no position. They are not for or against the amendment.

[Verrater]

The NRA letter specifically states that they have no position. They are not for or against the amendment.

You can't be an institution that supports the second amendment then not take a position on the second amendment. Even though the NRA does it all the time.
Opposing heller going to scotus was just one of the most recent i can remember.


While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind.

Basically, we don't want to eliminate a loophole in collecting firearms owners information, because we don't want to have the government doing something illegal.

[AGRP]

Why anyone with a brain supports the NRA is beyond me.

[devil21]

Anyone have the actual amendment text? Because the way the above quote from NRA reads, it sounds like they are saying that the amendment is "problematic" because it encourages the use of existing laws rather than the provisions enacted by the Patriot act.

I'm just trying to figure out if the NRA is saying what I think they are saying, or what they are saying, hell I don't know. Who has the text?

Yeah that's what I got from it. Isn't it the point to NOT put more gun control laws on the books? WHY IS THE NRA IN FAVOR OF MORE LAWS THAT CAN INTRUDE ON THE RIGHTS ON GUN OWNERS??? Sounds like the NRA has been fully infiltrated....

eta: The only way this possibly makes sense is if the "problematic" current laws the NRA refers to are being repealed within this Patriot Act bill. I doubt that very seriously.

[BamaFanNKy]

I wish we could have a national campaign to "Dump the NRA."

[nobody's_hero]

"From my cold dead hands . . . er, living, slightly open, okay, fully open hands—on second thought, uh, I'll just give up."

NRA

[V4Vendetta]

Nra please stop sending me crap in the mail, I haven't been a member for 10 years, and this just reaffirms why I haven't.
The government SHOULD NOT have ANY knowledge of who owns guns PERIOD...

[devil21]

I just reread the letter:

So the NRA claims that current federal law allows the feds to gain gun ownership records without a warrant? That is patently false! There is no provision of law (except the PATRIOT Act) that allows for the release of private information without a subpoena or a warrant. According to the FBI itself, gun background check information is destroyed after some time, like 72 hours. How else would they get such information without a warrant?

[Elwar]

The NRA is all about protecting your right to hunt for deer.

As the founders intended.

[AJ187]

Let’s just face it guys, the NRA is for the establishment. Just watch the NRA’s American Values event to see how closely alined with the status quo they are. I stood up for the NRA many times on the platform that they thought they could compromise with anti gunners in the past and did. But this leads me to believe they are not the protectors of the 2A, but more interested in gaining power and influence with the status quo at the cost of our rights.

It’s time to let my membership lapse, but luckily I still have accounts with JPFO, SAF and GOA.