iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Rand Paul's Controversial Gun Records Amendment May Get Patriot Act Vote After All

Rand Paul Filibuster Patriot Act

First Posted: 05/26/11 12:40 PM ET Updated: 07/26/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leadership seems poised to acquiesce to Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) demand that the chamber vote on an amendment that would restrict national security officials from examining gun dealer records in their efforts to track potential terrorists.

The Kentucky Republican had been insisting that such language at least receive a vote as an addition to the extension of the USA Patriot Act. As of Wednesday night, it appeared that he would be stymied.

By Thursday morning, however, the landscape had changed and multiple sources on the Hill confirmed to The Huffington Post that a vote on that amendment and one other would happen -- likely as a means of expediting passage of the Patriot Act's extension.

It's unclear whether the Paul amendment, which would restrict law enforcement from accessing firearm receipts, will have the 60 votes needed for passage. [UPDATE: The amendment failed to pass the Senate on Thursday afternoon, garnering only ten votes, 50 short of the amount needed to achieve cloture.]

There are, certainly, objectors in the Senate. When Reid initially tried to get the amendment a vote, by packaging it with five others and asking for a unanimous consent (UC) agreement to bring it to the floor, he was stopped by members of his own party.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg's office confirmed on Thursday that the New Jersey Democrat had put a "hold" on the Paul amendment, thereby killing the UC agreement. An aide to the senator, Caley Gray, told The Huffington Post that "all options remain on the table" for stopping the language from being inserted into the Patriot Act's extension.

Additionally, Lautenberg has introduced an amendment of his own, this one to close the "terror gap" by giving federal authorities the power to block the selling of guns and explosives to individuals on the terrorist watch list. As of Thursday morning there was no word from Democratic leadership if that amendment, like Paul's, would get a vote.

The possible passage of Paul's amendment had left gun-control advocates nervous, spurring a last-minute effort by several groups to draw attention to, and condemnation of, the measure. Those efforts appeared to have reaped benefits when Lautenberg put the hold on the amendment and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) decided to bring the Patriot Act extension to the floor without it.

Why Reid reversed course isn't entirely clear, though the likelihood is that he and others (President Obama chief among them) felt that the benefits of getting the Patriot Act extended before it expires at midnight on Thursday outweighed the risks of tempting Paul to hold up the bill over his amendment. The possibility also exists, as one Senate aide speculated, that Reid knows the 60 votes aren't there for Paul's amendment to pass, and is comfortable letting it come to a vote if it means placating the Kentucky Republican.

UPDATE: Paul's Senate campaign committee put out a statement on Thursday saying that Republican leadership is now responsible for holding up his amendment and may be whipping support against it.

Word is that the GOP leadership is holding up Senator Paul's amendment to protect law-abiding gun owners from the PATRIOT Act. As if that wasn't bad enough, we are also hearing that GOP leadership is lobbying other Republicans to oppose the amendment!
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leadership seems poised to acquiesce to Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) demand that the chamber vote on an amendment that would restrict national security officials from exami...
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leadership seems poised to acquiesce to Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) demand that the chamber vote on an amendment that would restrict national security officials from exami...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,358
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Juan
We built America without BO
04:42 PM on 05/30/2011
Convicted Felons and Watch List are two very different lists. The latter has tons of people that are harmless, just critical, like many posters here. Next they will be adding any one that down loads anything off the Alex Jones web site or anything concerning conspiracies from the Great Depression to Building 7 collapse or anyone that parades around with a T-party sign. From that point there is little stopping them from moving the whole heard to a FEMA camp with the excuse that we want to be sure we don't have any terrorists running around. The government in its apparent incompetence to prevent 9/11 has grossly over-corrected with the un-Patriot Act.

From the perspective of having an unwanted government like the British occupying the nation, we need the Bill of Rights. The problem is our government is morphing into something that is completely corporate controlled, and soon possibly internationally/UN controlled and is becoming unwanted by more and more citizens - so like the British they are rolling out more and more laws such as the un-Patriot Act to make any resistance futile. And you liberals are swallowing the punch thinking the Patriot Act adds any degree of security from terrorism.

And if there is ever another incident even remotely like 9-11, what kind of outlandish laws will then be enacted by DC? We will all be treated like Palestinians and probably all need traveling certificates with reasons and approvals to cross town.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justan Olfrend
Liberal, Progressive, Independent, American
11:35 AM on 05/27/2011
Who really thinks it is a good idea to tie the hands of Law Enforcement from being able to check Gun Show purchases against the terror watch list? If you think that is ok...security is not really an interest of yours.
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
05:00 PM on 05/31/2011
The problem is with the list itself-- it is full of inaccuracies and innocent people (see the audit done by the Department of Justice for details). As someone else said:
The process that the government uses to make someone as a "suspected terrorist" is done completely without any due process of law. To be on the suspected terrorist list, there does not have to be any criminal conviction­, or even a pending criminal charge. There is no process of judicial or administra­tive review of the classifica­tion as a "suspected terrorist"­. Someone who is deemed to be a "suspected terrorist" only learns about it inadverten­tly, such as when boarding an airplane is denied. In short, the decision to label someone a "suspected terrorist" is done unilateral­ly by some faceless government official. This is tyranny, pure and simple. It is the same kind of tyranny which is widely criticized in authoritar­ian regimes around the world...
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
05:08 PM on 05/31/2011
Also this:
[“As we first addressed in our March 2008 audit, FBI policy allows for the nomination of individual­s to the watchlist who are not the subject of FBI investigat­ions.”
In total, more than 62,000 watchlist records have been created using the FBI’s processes for nominating individual­s who are not being investigat­ed for terrorism. Additional­ly, we found almost 24,000 FBI watchlist records that were based on an FBI investigat­ion but not sourced to a current terrorism case classifica­tion. Many such watchlist records that we reviewed were based on cases that had been closed years ago and should have been removed at that time.]
http://www­.justice.g­ov/oig/rep­orts/FBI/a­0925/final­.pdf

Approximately one-third of the people on the "terrorist watch list" may be innocent, and no one knows how some of them got on the list in the first place. This includes such obvious no-brainer cases as small children who parents would their names taken off the list now, thank you very much. Again: Do we allow our government to infringe our civil rights at will, without due process, because some people are afraid of terrorists and do not care? No.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justan Olfrend
Liberal, Progressive, Independent, American
06:05 PM on 05/31/2011
If they're innocent then no problem. If they are on the list then they deserve further screening, but it is impossible to convince me that law enforcement should not be allowed to check. I am not saying to deny them if they can jump through the hoops, but definitely not turn a blind eye to create a security hole.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:55 AM on 05/27/2011
For Republicans, security of the country always comes first.

Unless it interferes with business.
04:06 AM on 05/27/2011
For Democrats, certain things are bad.

Except when they themselves do it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chixsngr
My ancestors fought the Revolutionary War, and the
11:28 AM on 05/27/2011
Really? Perhaps you could give us a few examples.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:20 PM on 05/27/2011
Such as?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oussa Jman
11:12 PM on 05/26/2011
WTF are these senators doing.. 99% of their time is spent on guns, abortions, gays and appropriation.. wtf happened to public service....???????????
10:54 PM on 05/26/2011
Did you see Paul on the floor of the Senate?

I rise in defense of the scurilous words that I wrote. My amendment was never intended to be interpreted as law. It's the principle I envisioned when I wrote it that counts.

What am I, some kind of legislator or something?
I take that as a personal insult!
10:11 PM on 05/26/2011
Rand Paul is failing magnificently at becoming a player. Don't be fooled. His schtick is subterfuge.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:20 PM on 05/26/2011
No, it isn't. He's one of the few with principles--it just bothers you that he's Republican.
10:31 PM on 05/26/2011
He even lies about that. He's a conservative Libertarian.
10:02 PM on 05/26/2011
To gbrooks: You said the the NRA was against the bill. My research didn't find any information to support this. Could you post links to support this claim?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:39 PM on 05/26/2011
Did you actually read the email?.
09:18 PM on 05/26/2011
So the fascists in government want to make it impossible to buy firearms if you are on the terrorist watch list. And nobody knows how you get on the terrorist watch list, or how to get off of it, and there's no judicial oversight.

This is the nation people *want* to live in? My countrymen are a million times scarier than Osama ever was.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Juan
We built America without BO
10:08 PM on 05/26/2011
Don't they put most returning veterans on the watch list? Marxism
12:06 AM on 05/30/2011
Veterans, organized religious groups, political groups, etc..all on terror watch list (supposedly). Pretty crazy it seems. I guess all these young men and women we send overseas to secure our oil and opium caches are dangerous once we're done with them. Hmm....
08:55 PM on 05/26/2011
In the world of Senator Paul the Government checking gun purchase records for terrorists is a bad thing, but allowing the the Goverment to check lists of people getting on planes and trains is okay. To me this isn't logical. The guy is just an idiot.
10:04 PM on 05/26/2011
"Goverment to check lists of people getting on planes and trains is okay. To me this isn't logical. The guy is just an idiot."

Rand Paul is against the TSA and checking people on trains and airplanes. Maybe the idiot here is someone other than Rand Paul.
12:08 AM on 05/30/2011
He is definitely against the TSA. Reading his book would help a lot of people actually understand better his positions. You don't have to agree, but don't made biased, misinformed statements about the man either. He's also not against checking any records of terrorists. What he doesn't want is for the Government at some time in the future to database and record what guns are out there and who has them. Do any of you know what happened to law abiding citizens with guns during Katrina? Wake up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
longeye67
When all else fails, play dead.
08:38 PM on 05/26/2011
Geeze, Rand Paul must have a really paranoid base or have business interests in weapons manufacture or distribution. Is he a domestic terrorist?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wonder Woman2
Whats a micro-bio?
07:31 PM on 05/26/2011
But they should be able to access records when looking for specific terrorists.
07:38 PM on 05/26/2011
The amendment would require a warrant, but don't worry the amendment didn't pass. The Fourth Amendment has been thrown out the window.
12:10 AM on 05/30/2011
Exactly! All he wants is for a judge to sign off on it, instead of some dirty secret FISA court.
07:04 PM on 05/26/2011
Repeat after me: the NRA, THE NRA, THE NRA, THE NRA, THE NRA.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:00 PM on 05/26/2011
NRA was against it.
10:12 PM on 05/26/2011
How odd.
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
10:02 PM on 05/26/2011
Why? What are you talking about? Both the NRA and the ACLU support the Fourth Amendment-- for a good reason. Do you have a problem with it?...
12:11 AM on 05/30/2011
NRA let the 4th amendment fly out the door. Next is the 2nd, and they can only blame themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robmclaughjr
N.M.E. of G.O.P.
07:02 PM on 05/26/2011
Rand Paul's message to would-be terrorists, "we're tracking all your communications and purchases. Except for FIREARMS." I think that's a pretty sweet deal for the bad guys. I mean, if one's intent is to hurt a large number of people, a large stockpile of firearms, ammunition, body armor, and a crowded mall would get it done quickly. I'm sure law enforcement would agree as they'll be the ones paid to stop them. When it's already too late. It's ridiculous how gops scream that foreign prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have no Constitutional rights then protect the 2nd Amendment rights of foreign terrorists. What about the "well-regulated militia"?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:02 PM on 05/26/2011
I guess you're not fond of your other 8 rights protected by the Bill of Rights?

If you don't like the 4th and the 2nd, why not try to go about it the right way and amend the Constitution?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giovanni Campanella
10:48 PM on 05/26/2011
You're ridiculous. You wield the word terrorist as if law-abiding American citizens are supposed to be illegally spied upon are a threat to this country.

Your Message: ''I support the Patriot Act and think that sacrificing liberty for safety will not result in both being lost.'' ''I also believe in stripping away Civil Liberties in the vain of safety, just like in Soviet Russia or Communist China.'' ""Dog Bless America.''

There is no excuse for people who make a living off our taxes to treat Americans as suspects simply b/c they own the means of their own protection. This is scary stuff but the people who don't think for themselves and blindly support this anti-American and corrupt legislation are even scarier.
06:52 PM on 05/26/2011
Thank you Obama for renewing The Patriot Act! I am so glad I voted for you. Oh wait, I voted for Ron Paul who would of made of damn difference. Thank you Obama supporters who gave me the renewal of the Patriot Act just like Bush. You are all wonderful. I hated my freedom anyways.
07:37 PM on 05/26/2011
Maybe Iran would be a better place for you to live, then.
08:28 PM on 05/26/2011
Did you not understand the sarcasm or are you do you hate our laws so much you just want to follow your leader?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Juan
We built America without BO
05:49 PM on 05/30/2011
Better wait till after we bomb Iran it to bits. The Pentagon is just itching and looking for any excuse. You can see it coming.
10:16 PM on 05/26/2011
You can't possibly know what Ron Paul would do if he won.

Everyone said guns would be severely restricted if Obama won. The current restrictions are the loosest in decades.
06:52 AM on 05/27/2011
30 years of consistent voting. 3 books explaining what he would do. Doesn't pander to the party like Obama did. In fact, the establishment hates him for his defiance. If a person with that record can't change anything, we are done as a nation. You must admit Obama is more like Bush Jr. than campaign Obama. My main point is we know that Obama has lost the plot, switch parties and give someone else who actually has a long record of trying to actually change something. That is unless you don't want to have your liberties while the money you make is devalued by the Federal Reserve.
06:52 PM on 05/26/2011
To Jerry Bourbon: i wrote about the IRS being able to audit women who have abortions and how they pay for it. It is H.R. 3.

All you need to do is type in the words IRS and auditing abortion and all manner of sites are googled. explaining the proposed bill.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wonder Woman2
Whats a micro-bio?
07:33 PM on 05/26/2011
what happens if they find the majority of abortions are paid for by congressmen?
12:15 AM on 05/30/2011
HAHAHAH touche'.....very funny..and possibly true :)