Printable View
" If this obligation were to be enacted and followed, it could result in registration for any American that purchases an imported firearm."
NRA-ILA | Obama Administration Endorses New U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations
Not sure I understand the uproar over registration?
When I purchase my guns, am I not in a registry with my DOB, address etc...?
If the gov wanted to confiscate my guns, they would know exactly where to look.
..or is the concern more over sales made via Non FFL means?
From the article:
That is why it will never pass the UN unless it is very diluted. Countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and other countries have stated that if it is counter to their Constitutions and laws they will not vote for it. Consensus means all nations have to approve the language.Quote:
As in past negotiations, the March conference will require consensus on the treaty's text.
According the the law setting up the NICS background check, all government records of the transaction are supposed to be destroyed after a certain amount of time (I believe measured in days). Of course the dealer has to keep the paperwork for (I think) 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by RightsEroding
Also, there is no record keeping for private transactions. The dealer would only have records of the orginal purchase. Any transactions after that between private individuals would have no record beyond what the individuals wanted for themsleves.
"According the the law setting up the NICS background check, all government records of the transaction are supposed to be destroyed after a certain amount of time (I believe measured in days)."
Somehow, I doubt that is happening regardless of what the "law" says. Isn't that right NSA, FBI, CIA, and the rest of the alphabet. ;)
I think its a testimony to the sad state of affairs in this country when we look to nations like Syria,Iran and Iraq to throw up opposition to a U.N. Treaty because we can't trust our own Government to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
I dont beleive it for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piratesailor
There have already been several highly publized events over the years illustrate that the law isnt being followed.
Its a well known fact that the alphabet soup agencies make up things as they go. If they feel hindered by a particular law, they will find a way around it. Trust me.
I've always thought it interesting that some laws get passed only to alleiviate the fears that citizens may have of certain abuses. Want to "chill" everyone out? Get a law passed that says "it's illegal to do this"...and most folks quit worrying about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightsEroding
What guns???????? :confused:
Actually the US insisted on consensus also. In fact, if you go back to the ATT threads here and other forums folks thought that was an Obama administration conspiracy. That is, they wanted to make sure the ATT would not be an issue for him during the election because he knew there would never be a consensus. He could tell the Brady folks he tried and the 2A folks woould be happy becasue it did not get through.Quote:
Originally Posted by HotGuns
I gave you a like anyway because your statement in red is applicable to more than just this issue.
It is.Quote:
I gave you a like anyway because your statement in red is applicable to more than just this issue.
Unfortunatley.
I have always maintained that this UN treaty crap was only one administration away from being enacted.
Previous administrations would have no part of it.
John Bolton, the UN advisory, was very forceful with the insistence that it would not fly here in the United States.
Now that we do have an Administration that is hostile to the US Constitution and everything that it stands for, the U.N. has been emboldened and put it on the table again....knowing that it had more of a chance of happening than ever before.
Here is the thing though...
the rag-tag war torn countrys of the Middle East that have been fighting since the beggining of time, see an ally(of the kind they have never seen from the U.S. before) in Obama. That also emboldens them to do things that they never would have tried before.
So put your seat belts on. We are just now beggining to see what its going to be like.
[QUOTE=HotGuns;2479793]It is.
Now that we do have an Administration that is hostile to the US Constitution and everything that it stands for, the U.N. has been emboldened and put it on the table again....knowing that it had more of a chance of happening than ever before.
/QUOTE]
Now? That's rich...how about always...from both parties? Who enacted the Patriot Act again?
The fact is the powers that be, whether they be left or right at the time are going to do whatever they feel they can get away with to push their agenda forward.
Lets not pretend that the current administration is the first to be "hostile to the Constitution".
I don’t know about Indiana, but the federal government does not have a registration for gun ownership unless it is a class 3 firearm or some other such restricted item. Some states do have registration, but here in Colorado there is none.Quote:
Originally Posted by RightsEroding
Would I have an issue with having to registering my legally owned possessions with the government? You betcha. As long as I own it legally and it is not a controlled item, then I don’t feel that it is any business of the governments what I do, or do not, own.
All states require you to register your car to drive it on the roads. Do I like it? No, but I understand it. Some stated also require you to register your car as an unused vehicle even if it is up on blocks and does not have a motor in it. Do I like it? No, but in this case I also consider it to be an invasion of my privacy. Until that car operates on a public road, it is none of their business.
Likewise, registering my firearms is an invasion of my privacy. Requiring a permit to carry a concealed permit is another thing I don’t like. I feel that it is in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment, but at least I understand it. To have to register a legally owned piece of property that I keep in my safe is simply an invasion of my privacy and, so long as I do not use it to commit any crimes or endanger anybody, I don’t feel that it is any of their business what I do, or do not, have.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
My opinion is that the NICS check is a form of registration, whether we want to believe that or not.
And I will say this again for the benefit of the newcomers that are here...
Registration IS the first step towards confiscation.
There is no other reason.
^^^^^^^^^Yup^^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by HotGuns
First they will force you to register your guns. Then they will come to take your registered guns away by force.
What guns? They were all lost is a tragic boating accident!
Your guns too? The same thing happened to me. I guess boating accidents are more common than I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrizzleP95