Here is an interesting read about the "Gun Walker" scandal

[coma]

I agree with most if not all of the writers opinion on the deal.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mega-scandal-was-gunwalker-a-pr-op-for-gun-control/

What doe the HighRoad think?

 

[rajb123]

It is not surprising to me that the Obama administration would do this.

There are also efforts to move a U.N. resolution and ratify a treaty that would require registration of all small arms worldwide.

 

[B1gGr33n]

It really is disgusting the level of corruption Americans are forced to endure. I hope these clowns get taken down like the rats they are.

 

[General Geoff]

There are also efforts to move a U.N. resolution and ratify a treaty that would require registration of all small arms worldwide.

The Bill of Rights supersedes international treaties insofar as applicability to the People of the United States.

 

[Zoogster]

General Geoff said:

The Bill of Rights supersedes international treaties insofar as applicability to the People of the United States.

However the Bill of Rights is interpreted by the SCOTUS which in Heller (the 2nd held incorporated by the later McDonald case applying Heller to the states) made it seem as if registration is not a violation of the Constitution.
In fact DC was basically ordered by the SCOTUS to allow the person to register and go through some sort of process to own firearms.


Currently the legislation prohibiting registration at the national level is the 1986 FOPA. Not the Bill of Rights.
That part of FOPA could theoretically be undermined by a treaty without violating current SCOTUS interpretations of the Bill of Rights. It would only be altering legislation passed by Congress, not the Scotus interpretation of application of the Bill of Rights.




As for Gun Walker, the motivation behind that appears likely to be increased gun control and restrictions for US citizens after demonstration of the problem they insured was allowed to happen.
That motivation and likely outcome is the biggest reason those involved deserve to be called on all the resulting mayhem, like the death of people shot with the firearms they made sure were sold and even told FFLs they could not refuse selling.
However I must note that within that operation the ATF was targeting people involved in foreign problems, and not regular US citizens and their guns in that operation. The use of their resources on such an issue rather than targeting FFLs and regular citizens over minor issues as is more typical would seem a more desirable situation.

Now the embarrassment from this situation is likely to cause them to focus less on such activity and more on regular US citizens, minor FFL paperwork errors, and similar familiar areas that are legally safer to conduct.
This means more of their resources will be available to harass regular gun owners and FFLs, not as busy monitoring drug cartels and the border.
A government agency wants to demonstrate the need for their existence and funding by showing results, in the form of arrests and prosecutions. If those arrests and prosecutions cannot be for actual serious offenses, then they will be from exaggerations and prosecutions for technicalities.
Now more of those results will have to come from people that make honest mistakes, or minor clerical errors doing things like abbreviating when they were not supposed to.
FFLs should expect more audits and harassment in the future.

 

[General Geoff]

However the Bill of Rights is interpreted by the SCOTUS which in Heller (the 2nd held incorporated by the later McDonald case applying Heller to the states) made it seem as if registration is not a violation of the Constitution.

Heller did not address registration as a possible violation of the 2A because the plaintiff did not argue that it was; nothing more. It may very well be struck down in a future suit.

 

[rajb123]

The government "sting" intentionally ignored the law but many sting operations do this so the government can bring many criminals to justice instead of only one or a few; right?

 

[azmjs]

Gun registration is unambiguously not unconstitutional.

We have to register to vote, among other basic rights.

Gun registration does not prevent any legitimate aspirant from owning a gun.

 

[azmjs]

It really is disgusting the level of corruption Americans are forced to endure. I hope these clowns get taken down like the rats they are.

We have a very low level of corruption in this country.

Unless you count the ability to pay politicians money during their campaigns as corruption.

 

[Danb1215]

^^ except in that gun registration has never been used for any productive purpose and will in virtually every case result in blanket confiscation down the road.....Why else is a registration "necessary", and what else does it facilitate besides confiscation?

 

[azmjs]

The only protection against gun confiscation is the will of the people.

If the people want guns confiscated, they'll be confiscated, if they don't they won't.

 

[Twiki357]

Glad I'm in Arizona where gun registration is prohibited by state law. The only records are those in the FFL's records.

 

[Tommygunn]

Gun registration is unambiguously not unconstitutional.

We have to register to vote, among other basic rights.

Gun registration does not prevent any legitimate aspirant from owning a gun.

The problem is not that registration is unconstitutional, the problem is that it will lead to unconstitutional actions. Tyrants either enact it in order to find and confiscate firearms, or, they use a previous leader's registration records for their gun grab.
This is not theory.
It is history.
And it has happened in America. It has happened in New York City and in California.

We have a very low level of corruption in this country.

Unless you count the ability to pay politicians money during their campaigns as corruption.

That may be true across the U.S. in general, but there are area of the U.S. where "corruption" is called "business as usual."
I know you didn't say this, but my first reaction when I read this statement was that 'people who think like that might accept more corruption.' Now as I said I KNOW you didn't say that .... but I hope you would agree that no matter how deep or widespread it is corruption should be intolerable by everyone.

 

[cbrgator]

The problem is not that registration is unconstitutional, the problem is that it will lead to unconstitutional actions.

Really? What if you weren't allowed to talk about politics unless you registered with the state and got a Free Speech license? Or you couldn't practice your religion without getting a Free Exercise license? Do you believe that requiring registration to exercise your First Amendment rights is constitutional? If not, why would exercising the RKBA be different?

 

[azmjs]

The problem is not that registration is unconstitutional, the problem is that it will lead to unconstitutional actions.

That's nonsense which would be dismissed out of hand by the courts. Unless you have the power to see into the future, prophesies about the future are not at all sufficient as a basis for legal arguments.

The only thing which leads to unconstitutional actions is the decision to take unconstitutional actions.

Gun registration is plainly not unconstitutional, because it does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms, because it does not prevent anyone from keeping or bearing arms.

If the people decided to outlaw weapons without amending the constitution, then that would be unconstitutional.

The political will necessary to outlaw guns would also be sufficient to amend the constitution though, so the constitutionality of it probably wouldn't come into play.

 

[azmjs]

Really? What if you weren't allowed to talk about politics unless you registered with the state and got a Free Speech license? Or you couldn't practice your religion without getting a Free Exercise license? Do you believe that requiring registration to exercise your First Amendment rights is constitutional? If not, why would exercising the RKBA be different?

If such licenses were given out freely to all people not specifically disallowed by reason of their civil rights being suppressed as punishment for a felony, why would they be different from the license-to-vote laws which are becoming more and more popular?

Or, if we're going to go back to the topic of gun registration, which is not the same as gun licenses, why would gun registration be any different from voter registration?

 

[Danb1215]

Ever notice how you can't walk into your favorite gun store and buy a NIB full auto like any other gun? Thats because some geniuses 77 years ago decided that a machine gun registry was a good idea. They couldn't ban them outright so they just registered them. Lo and be hold 52 years later they close the registry. Who could have seen that coming? A clean quiet de facto ban slipped right into the "firearms owners protection act" must be protecting us I mean its right in the name.

History will repeat itself in many locales with a gun registry. The best outcome will be a closed registry but no confiscation. A more likely outcome of firearms registration is a 3 am no knock warrant.

 

[rajb123]

In New York state, long guns (rifles and shotguns) are not registered. However, handguns (pistols) must be registered and owners must have a NY gun license. Black powder handguns are not registered and are not considered "guns" unless the owner also possess either black powder or lead balls.

Could someone please explain the rationale for this law?

I can't think of a single good reason for this legal distinction. I would assume from this law, however, that NYS law-makers have concluded that shotguns, rifles and black powder pistols do not present a danger to society in NY but modern handguns do.

If I was about to get shot by a third party, I would rather be shot with a pistol and not a rifle or shotgun because my survival chances are slightly better. Obviously, each is deadly.

 

[azmjs]

Ever notice how you can't walk into your favorite gun store and buy a NIB full auto like any other gun? Thats because some geniuses 77 years ago decided that a machine gun registry was a good idea. They couldn't ban them outright so they just registered them. Lo and be hold 52 years later they close the registry. Who could have seen that coming? A clean quiet de facto ban slipped right into the "firearms owners protection act" must be protecting us I mean its right in the name.

History will repeat itself in many locales with a gun registry. The best outcome will be a closed registry but no confiscation. A more likely outcome of firearms registration is a 3 am no knock warrant.

What you said might have had a faint ring of truth four or five years ago, but no longer.

In the interim, two landmark supreme court decisions have been made, which brand as unconstitutional the prevention by government at any level of the purchase and ownership of firearms.

In a future where Americans do not support gun ownership, the constitution might be amended to remove the protections of the second amendment.

Whether or not guns are registered will have no bearing on this.

 

[azmjs]

In New York state, long guns (rifles and shotguns) are not registered. However, handguns (pistols) must be registered and owners must have a NY gun license. Black powder handguns are not registered and are not considered "guns" unless the owner also possess either black powder or lead balls.

Could someone please explain the rationale for this law?

I can't think of a single good reason for this legal distinction. I would assume from this law, however, that NYS law-makers have concluded that shotguns, rifles and black powder pistols do not present a danger to society in NY but modern handguns do.

If I was about to get shot by a third party, I would rather be shot with a pistol and not a rifle or shotgun because my survival chances are slightly better. Obviously, each is deadly.

Or, more accurately, they believe that the danger of the proliferation and misuse of handguns is greater than the danger of the proliferation and misuse of rifles and shotguns.

I would not be surprised to learn that the facts back this up, and that most violent gun crimes are committed using hand guns. Would you be surprised to learn that this is the case?

 

[Danb1215]

You're absolutely right about the will of the people being the deciding factor. My argument is that if/when (and I'm betting on when) the "people" decide that they will tolerate/support gun bans, registration makes the job of collection substantially easier.

 

[baylorattorney]

The article states that agents surveillance followed all these straw purchased guns to the border, but that is false. Agents were actually called off the tails of these gunrunners way before the border. In some cases agents didnt know where the guns went once they walked out of the store. Hence, many bad guys on this side of the border may have kept the guns too. A big F... Up.

 

[azmjs]

You're absolutely right about the will of the people being the deciding factor. My argument is that if/when (and I'm betting on when) the "people" decide that they will tolerate/support gun bans, registration makes the job of collection substantially easier.

Not in any significant sense.

Guns are already so extremely widespread that the only way to confiscate them would be to go door to door and search for them, or else to have people turn the majority of them in, and then impose extremely severe penalties on people caught with them afterwards.

Both scenarios require an enormous shift in the beliefs and attitudes of Americans, and neither rely on guns being registered.

Gun registration, which has already existed for decades in a de facto form because of 4473 records, would only ever be a fly on the back of this elephant.

Also, gun registration would have no extra utility or effect different from outright confiscation, because people who wanted to hide their guns would neither register them nor turn them in.

 

[kozak6]

Why are you guys talking about registration?

What does registration have to do with anything?

The article doesn't say absolutely anything about registration at all.

Could you gentlemen at least read the article before getting all fired up :banghead:?

Erm, I mean... um... cold dead hands!!11! Them damn blue helmets are always hatin' on our fredoms!!1!!!

 

[Strykervet]

The only protection against gun confiscation is the will of the people.

If the people want guns confiscated, they'll be confiscated, if they don't they won't.

Yeah, well it'll be pretty interesting to see how the anti-guns come take the pro-guns firearms!

When it happens, I guarantee you it will be a grandfather clause. You can keep what you own, but not transfer or sell --when you die, they do too. I think they know what the end result of national disarmament would be.

Bear in mind that Hitler, in his Nuremburg speech, called for the national registration of firearms. Of course you know how this worked out for the Jews. Interestingly, Clinton gave almost the same speech in 1994.

Different man, different place, same agenda. An unarmed populace under total control of an armed government.