Tweet
May 20, 2013
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., there has been substantial debate about gun control. I hope we can learn more about what warning signs were missed and how we can better prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future.
In April 2013, the Senate considered two legislative options related to gun control. I chose to support the substitute amendment offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (S.Amdt.725) to S. 649, which would have reauthorized and improved the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). In 2010, approximately 48,000 felons and fugitives were denied guns after being discovered by NICS. However, only 44 were actually prosecuted by the Department of Justice. This amendment would have encouraged prosecution of felons trying to buy guns. It would have improved and reauthorized grants for the maintenance of the NICS database, conditioned federal grant money for states on their submission of relevant court and mental health records to NICS, and prioritized funding and increased resources for school safety and mental health programs. It would also have criminalized so-called straw purchases in which an individual purchases a firearm for someone else that is legally prohibited from doing so.
The Grassley amendment also would have enhanced Second Amendment rights by allowing for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms under certain conditions. It also would have defended the rights of veterans and other Americans who have received mental health treatment. It would have protected due process rights by requiring such mental health adjudications to go through a court, in which the individual has the opportunity to participate and seek legal counsel. Unfortunately, the Senate defeated the bipartisan amendment by a vote of 52-48. I supported it.
I do not believe we should rush to enact reactionary legislation curtailing anyone's rights. No amount of gun control will be able to prevent mentally disturbed individuals from committing despicable acts of violence. High-risk individuals will still be able to acquire firearms and other lethal weapons, even with an increase in prevention. I opposed the underlying gun control bill (S. 649) due to my concerns with the fact that the bill would not have prevented the Newtown shooting, and only infringed on the rights of law-abiding Americans.
One of my primary concerns with S. 649 is that it would outlaw almost all private sales and transfers of firearms, except among immediate family. It would require all private firearms sales and transfers to go through a licensed dealer, who would be required to take possession of the firearm and perform a background check on the transferee. However, S. 649 defines the loan of a firearm as a transfer, meaning that a full background check would also have to be completed on someone even temporarily borrowing a gun from a friend, neighbor, or family member, except under very limited circumstances. S. 649 would also give the U.S. Attorney General unlimited authority to levy fees on firearm sales and transfers, conceivably making any sale or transfer prohibitively expensive for many Americans.
Another troubling provision of S. 649 is that it would require individuals to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours to local law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Attorney General. Failure to report in the 24-hour window would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. It is highly unusual in American law to criminalize inaction. Although it is important to report lost or stolen firearms, slapping felony charges on otherwise law-abiding victims of gun theft who forget to report in a timely manner, or are unaware of the requirement, is overly harsh and runs counter to the principles of our judicial system.
Finally, S. 649 would water down important privacy protections in current law that require the government to destroy records on individual gun transactions after the background check has been processed. Current law prohibits the sharing of these records with other agencies without the individual's consent. These important protections would not apply to the new records required by S. 649. Without these privacy protections, the new recordkeeping requirements could serve as a first step toward creating a national gun registry.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, raised concerns about the lack of privacy and civil liberty protections in the bill. Fortunately, the Senate did accept one amendment to the bill (S.Amdt.717), which would withhold five percent of federal justice grant funding from any state or local government that releases confidential and sensitive information on law-abiding gun owners. In light of the release of the names and addresses of firearm permit holders by government officials in several New York counties, this amendment is an important protection for the safety and privacy of gun owners.
On April 18, 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to table consideration of the legislation due to a lack of support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Although S. 649 has been set aside for now, please be assured I will continue to oppose any legislation that infringes upon our constitutional rights, and will continue to defend the proper role of government, as outlined by the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., there has been substantial debate about gun control. I hope we can learn more about what warning signs were missed and how we can better prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future.
In April 2013, the Senate considered two legislative options related to gun control. I chose to support the substitute amendment offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (S.Amdt.725) to S. 649, which would have reauthorized and improved the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). In 2010, approximately 48,000 felons and fugitives were denied guns after being discovered by NICS. However, only 44 were actually prosecuted by the Department of Justice. This amendment would have encouraged prosecution of felons trying to buy guns. It would have improved and reauthorized grants for the maintenance of the NICS database, conditioned federal grant money for states on their submission of relevant court and mental health records to NICS, and prioritized funding and increased resources for school safety and mental health programs. It would also have criminalized so-called straw purchases in which an individual purchases a firearm for someone else that is legally prohibited from doing so.
The Grassley amendment also would have enhanced Second Amendment rights by allowing for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms under certain conditions. It also would have defended the rights of veterans and other Americans who have received mental health treatment. It would have protected due process rights by requiring such mental health adjudications to go through a court, in which the individual has the opportunity to participate and seek legal counsel. Unfortunately, the Senate defeated the bipartisan amendment by a vote of 52-48. I supported it.
I do not believe we should rush to enact reactionary legislation curtailing anyone's rights. No amount of gun control will be able to prevent mentally disturbed individuals from committing despicable acts of violence. High-risk individuals will still be able to acquire firearms and other lethal weapons, even with an increase in prevention. I opposed the underlying gun control bill (S. 649) due to my concerns with the fact that the bill would not have prevented the Newtown shooting, and only infringed on the rights of law-abiding Americans.
One of my primary concerns with S. 649 is that it would outlaw almost all private sales and transfers of firearms, except among immediate family. It would require all private firearms sales and transfers to go through a licensed dealer, who would be required to take possession of the firearm and perform a background check on the transferee. However, S. 649 defines the loan of a firearm as a transfer, meaning that a full background check would also have to be completed on someone even temporarily borrowing a gun from a friend, neighbor, or family member, except under very limited circumstances. S. 649 would also give the U.S. Attorney General unlimited authority to levy fees on firearm sales and transfers, conceivably making any sale or transfer prohibitively expensive for many Americans.
Another troubling provision of S. 649 is that it would require individuals to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours to local law enforcement, as well as the U.S. Attorney General. Failure to report in the 24-hour window would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. It is highly unusual in American law to criminalize inaction. Although it is important to report lost or stolen firearms, slapping felony charges on otherwise law-abiding victims of gun theft who forget to report in a timely manner, or are unaware of the requirement, is overly harsh and runs counter to the principles of our judicial system.
Finally, S. 649 would water down important privacy protections in current law that require the government to destroy records on individual gun transactions after the background check has been processed. Current law prohibits the sharing of these records with other agencies without the individual's consent. These important protections would not apply to the new records required by S. 649. Without these privacy protections, the new recordkeeping requirements could serve as a first step toward creating a national gun registry.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, raised concerns about the lack of privacy and civil liberty protections in the bill. Fortunately, the Senate did accept one amendment to the bill (S.Amdt.717), which would withhold five percent of federal justice grant funding from any state or local government that releases confidential and sensitive information on law-abiding gun owners. In light of the release of the names and addresses of firearm permit holders by government officials in several New York counties, this amendment is an important protection for the safety and privacy of gun owners.
On April 18, 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to table consideration of the legislation due to a lack of support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Although S. 649 has been set aside for now, please be assured I will continue to oppose any legislation that infringes upon our constitutional rights, and will continue to defend the proper role of government, as outlined by the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator
Comment