Centralized Gun Registration

Search OhioCCW

Join OFCC Today!

Upcoming Events

Utah Concealed Carry Training
When: January 28th 2pm
Details Here

When: Sunday, April 1st
Where: Tactical Defense Institute
Details Here

Amazon.com Widgets

Centralized Gun Registration

Written by Daniel White

Wednesday, 25 March 2009 01:52

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Although not widely discussed publicly, the Bradys, in conjunction with new Obama officials, are working out the details of a new centralized gun registration scheme. It would avoid existing legal safeguards and allow the dangerous first step toward gun-confiscation. Currently, the federal government is explicitly banned by law from centralized gun registrations, historically the precursor to confiscations.

The plan involves having all retail gun sales reported to and recorded by the gun's manufacturer. This would defeat the ban against central government registration, while giving full access to the records to BATFE and FBI officials with little control of any kind. The unpaid burden this places on firearms makers and dealers would be overlooked. Tucked deeply in the Brady's proposal to Obama, "ATF should require dealers to report details to manufacturers about all guns sold. This action can be taken without additional statutory authority." (emphasis in original)
http://www.gunlaws.com/pdf/BradyMemoToObama.pdf

The scheme will be predictably proposed as 'an important step for gun safety,' though compiling tens of millions of records on the innocent has little crime fighting value, and diverts scarce resources away from crime control and to people control. Reporters are expected to obey and support the plan, and not question how gathering the names of the innocent will have an effect on crime. The Bradys will claim, with some truth, that certain crime traces may improve -- after every gun owner in America is in the data.

The Brady law (1994), and the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (1986) both outlaw collecting gun-sale information by the federal government, to prevent gun confiscation programs. Historically, such record collecting preceded every major genocide in the past century (see, for example, Innocents Betrayed, http://www.gunlaws.com/books13history.htm, which "documents the unthinkable slaughter of unarmed human populations by their governments"). Skeptics will not be comforted by the fact that both California and New York have already used such lists, after promises of confidentiality and safety, to demand forfeiture of targeted firearms from gun owners who had listed themselves.

The Brady group is convinced that requiring every licensed dealer to send all transaction information to the manufacturers would not only sidestep the legal safeguards, it could be done by the Attorney General without the need for congressional action or oversight. The Justice and Treasury departments control gun makers and dealers, largely through regulation instead of statute, which conceivably could allow them to institute the plan on their own. Manufacturers and dealers would have no choice but to comply if they wish to remain in business. It's a very clever scheme actually.

New and used guns would be included in the new government-accessible databases, ostensibly for "tracing" purposes. The inclusion of private gun-sale data, omitted in this scheme, would be part of step two of the plan. There is no cost estimate for recording an average of one million transactions per month, and the feds presumably would use existing facilities, computers and staff to tap into the databanks at will.

One radical bill, HR45, with no co-sponsors and little current chance of passage, proposes repealing the record-keeping ban altogether. It's proponent, Bobby Rush of Ill., also proposes rewriting the Constitution by statute, showing a complete absence of understanding or responsibility, creating a gross breach of his oath of office.

He writes in his bill, "Because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce." It is a naked attempt to repeal by statute a portion of the Constitution that limits federal government power.

The Constitution can only be legally changed through a complex, difficult and slow amendment process spelled out in the document itself, which Rush seeks to ignore.

If any action justified removal from office, that would certainly be high on the list.

The Firearms Coalition, a wealth of pro-rights information supported entirely by donations, contributed to this report. http://www.firearmscoalition.org