gun registration

Senators announce opposition to Obama-backed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) faces a nearly impossible road to ratification after half of the United States Senate reiterated their opposition to the measure in a letter to President Barack Obama.

The letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and signed by 50 senators, meticulously explained the reasons for opposition, including the lack of consensus at the U.N. and weak recognition of the lawful use of firearms.

“[T]he treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by ‘the rule of consensus decision-making,’” noted the senators in the letter to President Obama.

“But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly,” the senators wrote. “We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.”

President Obama supports the treaty, which was signed last month by Secretary of State John Kerry. Many Second Amendment supporters believe that the treaty will serve as a backdoor for gun control regulations, including gun registration, as a provision of the measure requires countries to track gun ownership of small arms to the “end user.”

The senators noted that the treaty’s lack recognition of lawful ownership and tracking requirements played a factor in their opposition.

Why gun owners see background checks as registration

guns

There’s a lot of back and forth on the internet right now.  Guns tend to get folks riled up pretty well.  Gun rights advocates are screaming to the top of their lungs about universal gun registration, while gun grabbers are yelling that it’s about keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

Well folks, you may not realize it, but the gun rights advocates are actually right on this one.

Sure, no one who supports universal background checks is saying registration.  In fact, they honestly believe they’re avoiding gun registration.  Unfortunately, there’s a reason why gun rights advocates don’t believe them.

First, one must understand the entire process of purchasing a gun through a licensed dealer.  The background check is only part of the process.  The rest involves paperwork that also registers information about the weapon purchased.  These records aren’t shredded after a certain period of time.  No, the dealer is required to hold onto these records indefinitely.

By forcing all gun sales to go through Federal Firearms License holders, you force all weapons to have paperwork filed on each and every firearm purchase.  That is a form of de facto registration.

Now, this isn’t some gun armeggedon or anything.  Most guns would still transfer just as they always have (Obama’s figure that as many as 40 percent of all sales don’t go through the background check is complete bull), but some will now have to go through a third party.  So what’s the big deal?

Kerry will sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Despite bipartisan opposition in the United States Senate, Secretary of State John Kerry has signed the United Nations’ controversial Arms Trade Treaty, which gun rights supporters fear is a backdoor way to advance strict gun control measures:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

Many gun rights supporters believe that the treaty will serve as a backdoor for more strenuous gun control measures than what is currently being pushed by the White House. In particular, there is a requirement for countries to track gun ownership of small arms to the “end user” (gun registration).

More laws won’t prevent the next shooting

I get a little sick of having to write this post every time some maniac shoots up a place.  Every single time it happens, the left begins hand wringing and plotting how to take away our Second Amendment rights, and folks like me are left to talk about how new laws wouldn’t have prevented anything.

First, let’s note that it’s still very early so the policy wonks who are screaming at the top of their lungs like teenage girls at a Justin Beiber concert really can’t possibly know what the hell would prevent another tragedy like this even in their Utopian world of all knowing government and unicorns that poop cotton candy.

Now, let’s take a look at some facts.  A shooting happened on Monday that claimed 12 innocent lives.  It took place in a pretty secured building on a military base.  It was, probably, the safest place to be in D.C. short of the White House and the Pentagon, right?

Military bases are great big “gun-free zones.”  It was that way when I served in the mid 90’s, and nothing has changed in that regard.  Neither military personnel, nor the civilians employed there, were permitted to carry a firearm.  People have this view of military bases as bristling with firearms, but that’s false.  There are tons of weapons there, but the rank and file troops have little to no access to them and they can’t carry personal weapons either.

The Washington Navy Yard is no exception.  The laws already forbid weapons on the base, but the shooter (I am not going to use his name as a choice to not encourage the next maniac seeking to make sure he gets a Wikipedia entry) didn’t care.  He made it through security, entered a secured building, and killed a dozen people and wounded more.  Gun free zones clearly do not intimidate the criminal.  It’s time that the left comes to terms with this fact.

Senate Democrat: Bloomberg a liability on gun control

Thanks for telling us what we already knew, Sen. Leahy. Over the weekend, the Vermont Democrat told CSPAN that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was a liability during the gun control push earlier this year because of ads run by his rabidly anti-gun group:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pointed some of the blame for the failed Senate debate over comprehensive background checks at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who dedicated millions of dollars to eviscerating senators who opposed such legislation.

“Unfortunately, you have some on the left like the mayor of New York City, who actually didn’t help a bit with his ads. He actually turned off some people that we might have gotten for supporters,” Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview to air on C-SPAN Newsmakers on Sunday. “Then you have some on the far right who say that the second amendment allows us to have anything. I mean, you can take a machine gun to deer hunting. There needs to be a balance between the two.”

In the weeks following the Senate’s unsuccessful vote on the background check bill, Bloomberg poured millions of his own money into television ads attacking Republican senators like Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who voted against the legislation. Bloomberg also launched an airwave assault on Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., a vulnerable incumbent in the 2014 election.

Leahy surmised that stricter gun control measures, including expanded background checks, are “not going to get through [the Senate] now.” That’s probably true, despite talk from the White House of another big push on the issue.

Obama will Sign U.N. Arms Treaty

The spotlight may have drifted away from gun control, but it may soon become an issue again in the United States Senate. Earlier this week Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Obama Administration will sign the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

Many gun rights supporters believe that the treaty will serve as a backdoor for more strenuous gun control measures than what is currently being pushed by the White House. In particular, there is a requirement for countries to track gun ownership of small arms to the “end user” (gun registration).

Gun Control Proponents Turn to Ballot Measures

With the recent failure of Manchin-Toomey in the Senate, a measure that would have expanded background checks to gun shows and online firearms sales, Politico reports that gun control advocates are looking to push the proposal through ballot measures in various states around the country, starting with the State of Washington:

After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.

While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers.

Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement.

ACLU on the Side of….Conservatives?

Freedom is nonpartisan. At least, that’s the message I got this morning from my Twitter timeline when these two stories appeared. The first is out of Alaska, where the local ACLU chapter is defending an…anti-abortion group?:

The ACLU of Alaska is urging Alaska Governor Sean Parnell to provide more information about some creative censorship by state workers earlier this month during a street protest in Juneau. The street protest was staged by a group called the Center for Bioethical Reform, a fringe anti-abortion group that displays explicit pictures of aborted fetuses in public places to get their message across.

That’s what they were doing early in April on the sidewalk across the street from Alaska state Capitol building. The protest wasn’t exactly a rally. The CBR group included between four and six people, as counted by the Press from videos and photos of the incident. The group was around the Capitol about four days total, and on Tuesday, April 2, some state workers grew tired of the banner featuring a giant photo of an aborted fetus.

Some state employees parked delivery vans on the street, in between the protest banner and the capitol building. Rather than move their banner, the CBR protesters held their ground and began making video of the rather awkward attempt at censoring the graphic images. It’s “attempted censorship” because the CBR protesters could have simply walked to another part of the sidewalk. Alternatively, they could have recruited more than a half-dozen people to help them display graphic images of bloody fetuses in public places.

Barack Obama: Liar-in-Chief

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama missed his golden moment on guns.  Despite what the talking heads on CNN may believe, the president wanted this moment.  He was desperate for it.  Early in his first campaign, he commented that he wouldn’t go after guns because he knew he didn’t have the votes for it.

It’s amazing what a few years can change when it comes to an attitude.  He went after the guns, starting with background checks and assault weapons.  After coming up with a goose egg on background checks, he proceeded to call the gun lobby liars.  He’s one to talk.

Here’s part of my piece over at TheBlaze:

President Barack Obama stood outside the White House last week and lamented the defeat of the expanded background check bill in the Senate. He stood there, repeating over and over how 90 percent of all Americans wanted such a law and how it wouldn’t have infringed on the rights of a single American.  He called the pro-gun lobby lairs for calling it registration.

Mr. President, you are the liar!

Obama can say that the bill outlawed a registry, but to what effect? Congress passes and overrides laws all the time. He knows this. Anyone with a single course in civics knows this as well. To tout this as proof that there will never be a registry is disingenuous at best…and with this president, I don’t see the best.

Head on over to read the rest.

Gun Control Bill is Another Step to Registration

gun show

Yeah, we all know what the media and gun control advocates are telling us — that the background check compromise between Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) explicitly prohibits gun registration and that the White House doesn’t support such a policy.

That may be true today, but let’s not deny that the eventual goal of the anti-gun Left. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) summed up the issue well during an interview last night on Hannity.

“Why is all this focus directed at background checks?” he asked. “The reason is because the Department of Justice has said the only way to implement what they want–universal background checks–is a registry, a federal list of every gun owner in America. And that would be wrong; it’d be unconstitutional.”

The most underreported part of this whole is discussion is the Department of Justice (DOJ) research memo that Cruz referenced. It stated very clearly that the effectiveness of universal background checks, which would cover private gun sales, “depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.”

The Toomey-Manchin deal only addresses gun shows and online firearms sales, which essentially makes it a useless policy. If you walked into a gun show this weekend and purchased a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you would have to go through a background check.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.