Skip to comments.National German gun registry on target for launch
Posted on 11/23/2012 7:43:19 AM PST by KeyLargo
National German gun registry on target for launch
The German interior minister has said a countrywide database of all legal gun owners is set for launch on January 1. Hans-Peter Friedrich predicted a "considerable increase in security" as a result.
The German government plans to launch its complete registry of legal gun owners at the beginning of next year, two years ahead of a deadline set by the EU.
As with many German authorities, those responsible for weapons licensing and tracking operated on a local basis - with a total of 551 authorities around the country. Under new EU laws, all member countries are obliged to compile a centralized register.
There are an estimated 6 million licensed firearms in Germany.
Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich told reporters in Berlin that the database would provide "a very concrete contribution towards improving public safety." Thanks to the information, he said; police would be able to check "who owns which weapons legally, across the entire country," perhaps more quickly than in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.de ...
National German gun registry on target for launch
Registration. Confiscation. Subjugation. Annihilation.
Don’t these people remember Hitler?
hitler was ahead of his time.
Safer? In what way exactly?
Didn’t Germans do a gun registration once before and it didn’t work out well?
Way to go Deutschland!
Pave the way for a new Hitler.
Germany to keep national record of weapons
Submitted by admin4 on 20 November 2012 - 6:33pm
Berlin : The German government is all set to maintain a centralised weapons’ register from next year onwards to enable authorities access information regarding weapons and their owners with the help of a central national database.
This will make it possible for police to establish whether weapons are present at the locations to which they have been deployed such as whether or not a gun has been registered in a house reported for domestic violence.
The move comes nearly four years after the tragedy of the Winnenden school shooting in Baden-Württemberg state which left 16 people dead, DAPD news agency reported.
According to the country’s federal Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (Christian Social Union - CSU), the country’ new national weapons register is set to be launched Jan 1, 2013
The new register thereby makes a “considerable contribution to improving national security in Germany”, he said.
According to president of the federal criminal police office, Jorg Ziercke, the introduction of the register is the fulfilment of a long-standing request made by German security authorities for a central database.
At times it took months to get a response from local registration office, Ziercke said, adding that the integrated electronic database would make investigations considerably faster and easier.
I guess most people don’t bother reading the dates on articles.
UN Small Arms Treaty Means Big Changes for our Constitution
By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Flush with a new sense of purpose after his re-election victory, President Obama signaled his administrations support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. What follows are two of the treatys provisions:
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regulations of the items referred to such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred and end-users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
That means every firearm, its various parts and ammunition will be regulated. And you, the end-user, will earn the privilege of having your name recorded in an international registry.
That cant happen here, you say, The Supreme Courts 2010 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller denies the feds, the states and local authorities the power to restrict my right to bear arms.
If you believe so, you are dead wrong.
Most Americans believe the only way the United States Constitution can be revised is when Congress passes an amendment for the states to ratify. However, the president and Senate can do just that by signing and ratifying an international treaty. And just in case you have forgotten, Fast and Furious Democrats control the White House and Senate.
In 1920, the Supreme Courts ruling in Missouri vs. Holland said the Constitutions treaty-making provision (the Supremacy Clause) means that international agreements entered into by the United States are the supreme law of the land. The issue in the case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The U.S.-British agreement limited the hunting of certain endangered birds. The State of Missouri contested the treaty for violating their 10th Amendment states rights.
“I guess most people dont bother reading the dates on articles.”
Huh? What are you referring to?
Germany and Illinois are not so different
For whom, Hans? Maybe for you tyrannical bastards, but definitely not for people who deserve it and can only get it by holding on to their God-given right of self defense.
It would take 2/3 of the Senate to pass this treaty.
I don’t think 67 Senators will be willing to tattoo “BENEDICT ARNOLD QUISLING TRAITOR” on their faces.
Not in a nation with tens of millions of scoped rifles.
The article was published on 11/19/2012, no?
I don’t think it’s the German people, just like it’s not most of us here (voter fraud aside). It’s always the globalists telling us what the agenda will be.
I pray that you are correct.
Yep, these Jewish shops were real "secure" during Krystallnacht.
“...the president and Senate can do just that (override the US Constitution) by signing and ratifying an international treaty.”
Wrong! The supremacy clause does not mean treaties override constitutional protections!
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Note that the supremacy clause actually starts by referring to the constitution. The founders made it very difficult to amend the constitution. Did they intend for the president and the senate to be able to bypass the amendment process through a treaty? No way.
Check the source article and the linked related article there. This is allegedly a response to “right-wing” groups (so-called Neo-Nazis) accumulating both legal and illegal firearms. IOW, the handy permanent go-to villains.
Ummmm. Why? Hitler pulled this kind of crap. It looks like the Nazis are making a big comeback. Geeez. Commies, Nazis and Islamoterrorists. The whole world has gone to hell. The freaks are on a roll.
After all, it worked out so well with Hitler...
Fool me once, their fault.
Fool me twice, my fault.
Treaties do not amend the US Constitution. However, treaties that comply with constitutional protections are part of the supreme law of the land (can’t be overridden by simple legislative acts).
That said, does an international gun registry violate the constitutional right to bear arms? Registration does not prevent someone from owning a gun. Therefore, I think the SCOTUS would uphold the provisions of this treaty. I am NOT saying I agree with the treaty, but I think it will pass constitutional muster given the SCOTUS makeup.
“The article was published on 11/19/2012, no?”
Yes. November 19, 2012. Three days ago. And exactly what is your question?
“Treaties do not amend the US Constitution. However, treaties that comply with constitutional protections are part of the supreme law of the land (cant be overridden by simple legislative acts).
That said, does an international gun registry violate the constitutional right to bear arms? Registration does not prevent someone from owning a gun. Therefore, I think the SCOTUS would uphold the provisions of this treaty. I am NOT saying I agree with the treaty, but I think it will pass constitutional muster given the SCOTUS makeup.”
Yes, and Obama could deem a third term for him is necessary.
It worked so well the first time.
If such a treaty were to be ratified, your reasoning would be correct.
My post was made only to point out that treaties cannot override, or “trump”, the constitution.
That being said, the article in post 10 mentions identifying registered weapons being in homes with reports of domestic violence. Those weapons will be immediately removed from their owners once that information has been compiled, IMO. I have no doubt our own country will attempt any and every angle to disarm as many citizens as possible through any “backdoor” avenues available to them.
Just the LEGAL owners are required to register.
I was born in 1940 and my earliest memories are of talk about WW2 and Germany in particular. Then I remember seeing pictures of starving Jews after the news got out. It had a very strong affect on me even tho’ I was a little girl in Texas half way around the world. I have always held it against the German people that they were stupid and blind enough to let Hitler rise to power, now our country has elected obama twice and I am despondent.
My understanding is that is is 2/3 of the Senators present therefore it would only require 34 vote assuming a quorum of 51.
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
Less likely to get in trouble with the government for breaking the anti-gun laws....
Yes, as it fall under that "shall not be infringed" thingy.
Of course, that doesn't mean the SCOTUS will see it that way, just like they believe the right can be infringed in certain instances for certain people, i.e, Felons, domestic violence, court imposed restraining orders etc.
Too bad many FReepers feel the same way. (not saying you)
Don’t they have lakes there???
Yup. My parents and grandparents had to choose between Stalin's and Hitler's concentration camps (dad's family went to Hitler's). Now we have Wilson/FDR in BO and I'm sure he's itching for more domestic concentration camps, just like those two had. My parents escaped Communism/Fascism once only to be back here again.
As far as the EU and today's situation, my brother has spent a lot of time in Germany now -- he's in the military. From the comments you overhear on the trains and such, the people are not behind this EU one-world government thing, but it's rammed on them anyway. After all, they're carrying all the looters and moochers like Greece, etc.
In a few years I have a bad feeling that the left will no longer fear any reprisals after attempting something such as this.
LOL - I would imagine that the fine for polluting a lake, by accidentally losing them in the deeps, might be even higher than being caught with the gun...I've heard of people here being fined after an accident that landed their vehicle in the water due to the pollution from the gas and oil leaking into the environment..
After seeing what the left has gotten away with, nothing would surprise me anymore, but they really need to start fearing our wrath.
As my dad says “there’s no such thing as an accident. It’s all premeditated carelessness” - but better to pay the fine for “accidentally” loosing your guns when your boat sinks ....
Following global economic strife, the Germans were faced with the choice between outright Marxism and a flag-waving variant of Socialism. It's not at all surprising that they fell for Hitler's line of B.S.; after all, he was a good public speaker and had even written a book.
P.S. i'm guessing that must be a girl holding that .45