Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Obama announted with president Calderon of Mexico that he would push for the The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials
Am I understanding this treaty correctly? Does this treaty mean mandatory registration and licensing of ALL guns and ammunition? Every gun owners worst nighmare in one swipe?
Article I of the US Constitution, which outlines the authorities and limitations of the congress, has this to say in Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Ex post facto means "retroactively" and this clause means a law cannot be passed that makes one responsible for doing something that's illegal now, that wasn't illegal when he did it in the first place. Without this clause, it would have been possible, after the passing of the 14th amendment, to jail all former slave owners.
If I owned any firearms, I would have acquired them when there was no requirement for registration. Thus passing a "registration" requirement would not apply to me.
Furthermore, let's look at the term "infringe."
Quote:
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
Synonym: Trespass
is what Webster has to say about it. Requiring registration, would definitely "encroach" upon my right to bear arms. It would frustrate it, with the aim of defeating it.
It has the effect of transforming a right in to a privilege, which the SCOTUS has determined cannot be allowed.
It boils down to this: I have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" at least seven times in military and civilian service and I do not consider separation from service to mean I can repudiate the obligations contained therein. I remain obligated to this principle in perpetuity.
Registration of firearms by the Federal Government would violate the Constitution and I am obligated to avoid doing that.
What is the problem with registering guns? We register our cars, don't we? There must be something I'm missing. I'm not a gun owner, so maybe I'm really missing the obvious but why would anyone be against registering their guns?
What is the problem with registering guns? We register our cars, don't we? There must be something I'm missing. I'm not a gun owner, so maybe I'm really missing the obvious but why would anyone be against registering their guns?
What is the point of registration?
And no,you do not need to register your car to own it....
Perhaps people should register to have the right to free speech?
What is the problem with registering guns? We register our cars, don't we? There must be something I'm missing. I'm not a gun owner, so maybe I'm really missing the obvious but why would anyone be against registering their guns?
You can register your gun with your insurance company - or with your Uncle Bill - if you WANT to.
No one has given me a valid argument as to why it is such a big deal to register their guns. All I've heard so far is I basically "I don't want to and I don't have to".
Maybe it would help to stop so many guns moving from state to state and out of the country illegally. Will it solve the problem? No, but it might help. At least, if you lose a gun or have one stolen you might actually get it back!
I'm sure people are going to jump on me and say it wouldn't be of any benefit. That is a matter of opinion, but doesn't explain why there is any reason NOT to register guns.
Canada: Where Gun Registration Equals Confiscation
Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns," Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said in Clintonesque tones on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms."
Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing the new law did.
No one has given me a valid argument as to why it is such a big deal to register their guns. All I've heard so far is I basically "I don't want to and I don't have to".
Maybe it would help to stop so many guns moving from state to state and out of the country illegally. Will it solve the problem? No, but it might help. At least, if you lose a gun or have one stolen you might actually get it back!
I'm sure people are going to jump on me and say it wouldn't be of any benefit. That is a matter of opinion, but doesn't explain why there is any reason NOT to register guns.
Registration failed in Canada.
How would registration stop illegal guns moving anywhere,you do know criminals do not obey the law?
How would registration stop illegal guns moving anywhere,you do know criminals do not obey the law?
My question was what's the big deal about registering guns, not how well it would work in regards to stopping crime. (I have no idea) You appear to think that it would have no positive impact. But others feel it might. At least police could run a check on a gun to see if it was stolen or not, in the same way they do with motor vehicles. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
