Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
All of the comments I have made on this thread are about the Federal Patriot Act....NOT about wild scenarios that people make up and say what if the government did this....??? Your comments above are a prime example....if you can show me any language in the Patriot Act that allows the behavior in your hypothetical....then I will respond. Otherwise, your made up example has no value in this discussion.
Let me try to give you an example for comparison. Let us say we were discussing the right of a parent to discipline their child without government interference. Let us say my position was that the parents should be allowed to discipline the child. And then you ask well, what if they tie the child up and torture the child and then they kill the child and then they bury the child in the backyard...is that okay? Do you still believe parents can discipline the child? Obviously torture and murder are not within the realm of discipline considered appropriate by most parents. Your example is just as extreme. There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act about going into your house and doing ANYTHING so your example does not apply in this discussion.
Even if the government were inclined to act like the Gestapo many people on this thread seem to fear, they don't have the time or the resources to follow up on every cash purchase. (I know many people are going to disagree with that last statement and tell me all the examples they know, have ever heard of, or made up. Please save the bandwidth. I have stated my opinion and it is based on 30 years of personal experience dealing with the government. I believe you are all entitled to your opinion. I ask you allow me mine.)
You may also be interested in taking note of the provision that turns all businesses into undercover agents of the government. It provides no provision for the accused to confront the accuser. Piss off a clerk at the local furniture store and wind up on a list of suspects. You have right to know who accused you and no right to know you are now a suspect person.
This is bad law. This is police state crap that has no place in a republic.
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Explain the reasonableness of searching my "papers and effects" by FORCING a retailer to collect my personal identification for a CASH purchase? This law in effect creates several million agents of the national government, searching me unreasonably in response to a private act. Please note that we're talking about retailers who are NOT corporations here.
Please post the section of the new law that supports this statement. Thank you.
SEC. 365. REPORTS RELATING TO COINS AND CURRENCY RECEIVED IN NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS.
(a) REPORTS REQUIRED- Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business
`(a) COIN AND CURRENCY RECEIPTS OF MORE THAN $10,000- Any person--
`(1) who is engaged in a trade or business; and
`(2) who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in coins or currency in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions),
shall file a report described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may, by regulation, prescribe.
`(b) FORM AND MANNER OF REPORTS- A report is described in this subsection if such report--
`(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe; `(2) contains--
`(A) the name and address, and such other identification information as the Secretary may require, of the person from whom the coins or currency was received;
`(B) the amount of coins or currency received;
`(C) the date and nature of the transaction; and
`(D) such other information, including the identification of the person filing the report, as the Secretary may prescribe.
`(c) EXCEPTIONS-
`(1) AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS- Subsection
(a) shall not apply to amounts received in a transaction reported under section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.
`(2) TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- Except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsection (a) shall not apply to any transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside the United States.
`(d) CURRENCY INCLUDES FOREIGN CURRENCY AND CERTAIN MONETARY INSTRUMENTS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term `currency' includes--
`(A) foreign currency; and
`(B) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any monetary instrument (whether or not in bearer form) with a face amount of not more than $10,000.
`(2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to any check drawn on the account of the writer in a financial institution referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (J), (K), (R), or (S) of section 5312(a)(2).'.
(b) PROHIBITION ON STRUCTURING TRANSACTIONS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
`(b) DOMESTIC COIN AND CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING NONFINANCIAL TRADES OR BUSINESSES- No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section--
`(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section;
`(2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
`(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) The heading for subsection (a) of section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting `INVOLVING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' after `TRANSACTIONS'.
(B) Section 5317(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `5324(b)' and inserting `5324(c)'.
(c) DEFINITION OF NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
`(4) NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS- The term `nonfinancial trade or business' means any trade or business other than a financial institution that is subject to the reporting requirements of section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) Section 5312(a)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `section 5316,' and inserting `sections 5333 and 5316,'.
(B) Subsections (a) through (f) of section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, and sections 5321, 5326, and 5328 of such title are each amended--
(i) by inserting `or nonfinancial trade or business' after `financial institution' each place such term appears; and
(ii) by inserting `or nonfinancial trades or businesses' after `financial institutions' each place such term appears.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5332 (as added by section 112 of this title) the following new item:
`5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business.'.
(f) REGULATIONS- Regulations which the Secretary determines are necessary to implement this section shall be published in final form before the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
First, thank you for posting the section. Second, I don't see anything in the section to warrant your comment about the clerks. The requirement is straight-forward. Spend $10,000 or more in cash....you are on the list. Don't spend $10,000 or more in cash....you are not on the list. The clerk, pissed off or not, has no discretion under the law. (Which I assume will irritate you even more.)
(As someone used to say.)
The idea that we should deprive all people of the right to purchase items with cash is the same type of thinking that says we should do away with the right to own and carry guns because some people do bad things with guns.
"receives more than $10,000 in coins or currency in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions)" emphasis mine
Personally, I don't know any clerks who would think purchases made a month apart were "related transactions" under this law....but I guess if you really pissed the clerk off, he could technically use this law against you....since I don't know how you treat clerks, I will grant you might be in danger.
The idea that we should deprive all people of the right to purchase items with cash is the same type of thinking that says we should do away with the right to own and carry guns because some people do bad things with guns.
Congratulations! You are the first person to link this law to a violation of the Second Amendment. Now we are assured this thread will get another 300 hits.
And before anyone flames me on that comment, please note my car has a bumper sticker that says Armed Men are Citizens Unarmed Men are Subjects.
The thought process that makes it OK to strip away one right is the same one used to strip away others. One problem we face in defending our rights is too many people only want to protect the rights they think apply to them.
Someone uses credit cards and checks so the right to use cash is not a concern to them. Someone else (Rosie) has a team of armed guards and rides around in a limo, so the right to own and carry a gun isn't important to her. The thought process is the same.
The small infringements of our rights grow into larger ones and we slip ever farther down the slope to subjugation. Stopping the erosion of our rights means stopping all erosion notjust the erosion of rights we are using at the moment.
I agree the components are related in the way you are explaining in your example. However, I believe the wording of the law "related transactions" actually is more limited than what you envision. As you know, the Patriot Law is extending the provisions to retailers...but the same notice requirements have been in effect with financial institutions for several years. Initially that law was notice of $10,000 or more per transaction. So the money launderers started getting multiple money orders for lesser amounts (on the same day) to avoid triggering the reporting ie 2 $6,000 money orders. Hence the change in the law. That is why I believe the related transactions refers to time span, not related items. Now, if you bought the TV and paid for it and five minutes later bought the DVD and sound system and paid for it, neither being over $10,000 but together they were, then I think you would trigger the reporting requirement...but again it is because of the time frame not the purchase. Since the law has not yet been tested, neither of us really knows but I have given you my opinion.
About a month after I was turned in, the ABC came around and did an audit and the IRS came the following week. I passed both because I always over pay a little bit just to be safe. However, it was a major pain in the butt and silly.
I agree.
You, ma'am, are trying to avoid answering that question and instead are changing the subject.
Nope. I am disagreeing with you.....:)
I agree with you. The problem in our country is many voices are not heard until the larger infringements occur, and by then it is too late.
For example.....My youngest son is playing Youth Basketball. Practice has started & my money has been accepted. Now, I learn parents will be required to sign "Parent's Code of Conduct." [Refs have feelings, too] I don't think so. I am 47 years old. The idea of the Dept of Parks & Rec (local gov't) forcing me to sign a paper promising I will act like an adult is not only humiliating, it is insulting and I refuse to sign it.
My family rolls their eyes and my 10 yr old hopes I will not embarass him. "What's the big deal? blah, blah, blah"
My 10 year old was my "surprise," meaning I am older than most of the other parents. I was sickened by the number of parents with the "great idea!" reaction. Most of them were in the 20-30 range.
My point is if we don't take our stands at home, with the seemingly little things, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell on the big issues.
Again, the Constitution is nice in theory vis-a-vis our rights. But don't you think that if it said something like, oh, I dunno, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", then (for instance) photo-red traffic cameras would be illegal since there is no accuser?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The Constitution doesn't apply if you 'charge property with a crime', and you must pay tribute or else they keep it. We used to call that extortion. But that's ok, since the Constitution is a living document and doesn't really mean what it says.
Thanks, Supremes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.