Yep, these Jewish shops were real "secure" during Krystallnacht.
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 ...
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 (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.”
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)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.