How much of our tax money has been funding this Global Gun Ban Scheme?

Dillon Precision

Scottsdale, AZ – -(Ammoland.com)- A legally binding, global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is being prepared in the back rooms of the UN.

One goal of the Treaty’s proponents is to create national weapon databases, leading to regional databases, and then to an eventual global database.

Countries will be charged with the duty to keep track, not only of all transfers, but also of the locations of all arms and ammunition, from manufacture to destruction. A UN discussion paper states “the advent of modern information technology… promises to be a boon to the establishment of an effective tracing system in many States.” But it will take a “global harmonized system of electronic registers” before the firearm-prohibitionists are satisfied.

The expectation for these databases is to provide the ability to trace weapons that have been used either by criminals or tyrants to commit crimes, in order to ensure that these people are caught and brought to justice.

Preventatively, tyrants with a history of human rights abuses will be denied access to weapons. Or so we are told.

The Treaty will cover seven categories of conventional weapons, which include aircraft and large artillery systems, plus small arms and light weapons (SALW), plus ammunition, or “7+1 +1.” Here, we concentrate only on small arms and light weapons. We will need hardware and software that has the capability to deal with the estimated world stockpile of 875 million firearms.

The first task on the path to a global database is the marking of weapons and weapon parts. Most major manufacturers already do so. But many weapons are not marked.

Our taxes, funneled through the Department of State, Office of Removal and Abatement, fund [firearms] marking and data collection programs in Costa Rica, Paraguay and the Bahamas. We also fund programs run by the Regional Center on Small Arms (RECSA) in Africa -comprised of countries such as Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda.

How much of our tax money has been funding this?
In order to ascertain how much of our own US tax money has been funding this, we sent a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of State, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (WRA), but as of this writing, have not received any reply.

The marking machines provided by the WRA are sensitive to the environment, and require a certain degree of proficiency by the operator. It should come as no surprise that the RECSA program had been “temporarily halted as a result of the machines developing some technical problems.” The UN rationalizes these setbacks in third world countries as a step toward “capacity building.” Capacity building is an educational and developmental process that eventually, it is hoped, will enable third-world countries to catch up to Western technology. But the fact remains that these weapons must be properly marked, and third world countries fall short of such a capability.

In the firearm-prohibitionists' zeal for total weapons control, they are determined that the 875 million small arms must be marked.

In the firearm-prohibitionists’ zeal to create a peaceful world through total weapons control, they are determined that the 875 million small arms must be marked on at least three - and in many cases - six parts: the frame, barrel, firing pin, ejector, extractor and magazine. And some firearm-prohibitionist groups suggest that the slide should be marked, as well.

As each weapon - or each part - crosses a national border, an additional marking would need to be added.“Secondary markings” will add another layer of complexity. In Canada, the attempt to institute the UN’s proposed import marking scheme “met with serious setbacks.” Postponed several times since 2004, it is currently scheduled for completion in 2012.

If Canada had such difficulties, how could a country such as Nigeria accomplish this? It becomes even more confusing when parts are replaced or transferred. The paperwork that would be required, should one wish to replace the barrel or a worn-out firing pin, would be costly, time-consuming, and error-ridden.

Imagine the expense to us of changing a barrel, or replacing a firing pin, should our laws be harmonized with the UN’s “best practices.”

After marking, the entering of weapons into databases for the purpose of tracking begins. Even in relatively developed countries, the present condition of weapon databases is a nightmare. Canada’s justice Department has estimated the error rate in its registry’s database to lie between 71 and 91 percent. So, even in a modern, technologically advanced society, where cost was not a limiting factor and personnel are well educated, competent and well paid, there is an accuracy rate of only about 10-30 percent.

Additionally, “police have admitted it [their gun registry] has been breached by unknown hackers over 300 times.”

In Australia, the New South Wales Police Firearms Registry estimated its accuracy rate as 40 percent. And a few months ago, in March 2011, in the state of Western Australia, technical issues threw their licensing system into a “shambles.”

The police indicated that “they are working hard to reactivate the firearms infringement register, which will occur once they have completed the firearms registry stabilization project.”

Here in the U.S., it is evident that the same data-entry problems are endemic within our own databases.

In Colorado, it was recently reported by the Denver Post that 63 percent of the records entered by sheriffs’ offices contained inaccuracies. This single database, alone, consists of only 51,000 records, far smaller than what would be required for 875 million needed just for small arms, globally. In Texas, a computer system that tracked city-owned small arms failed to accurately keep track of their whereabouts, and about 30 percent of those inventoried weapons had gone missing. The San Antonio database tracked only 1,129 weapons.

It only gets worse from here because of a lack of “transparency.” “Transparency” means that all arms transfer data is revealed. However, in the previous decade, there was a 45-percent drop in the number of nations reporting conventional arms transfers to the UN Registry of Conventional Arms (UNROCA). As of September 2009, only 65 countries, out of nearly 200 countries, had reported any arms transfers for that year. And only a few more were expected to do so.

Compliance
The commonly used term that describes the willingness of individuals to inform their government of the weapons they possess is “compliance.”

Obviously, virtually 100 percent of the world’s criminals will never comply.

In Canada, LUFA (Canada’s Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearm Association, v/vvw.iufa.ca) admits to a 30-percent compliance level for that country’s handgun and long-gun registries. Donald Blake Webster, of the University of Toronto, noted that, “No country in the world has ever remotely approached full compliance with firearms owner licensing and registration.”

There is yet one final hurdle to overcome – the weapons-prohibitionists “global harmonized system” – their term for “interoperability.” Interoperability means that one database can be merged with another, and yet another, and yet still another. While this occurs in simple compatible systems, lack of such a capability is much more common. The complexity of language conversions will add another dimension to this dilemma.

Technically, a global weapons computer database containing the 7+1+1 might be possible, regionally and even globally. But the practical ability to implement such a system lies off the horizon. Costly, foolish schemes have rarely prevented tyrants and criminals from obtaining weapons.

About:
Dillon Precision is the only choice for all your reloading needs. Consider the quality and innovation behind each product, the lifetime “No BS” warranty, and the unparalleled reputation for post-sale service, and there simply isn’t any other option. Your only decision is which machine to buy. Dillon offers a machine for every budget or reloading need. From the “pistol only” Square Deal, the “workhorse” RL 550B, the fully progressive XL 650, to the commercial grade Super 1050. They even offer a progressive shotshell loader that blows away everything on the market. Visit: www.dillonprecision.com

NRA - ILA

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- NRA-ILA grass roots news continues to cover break gun rights news with a new and improved format for the “Grassroots News Minute” video!

Chuck Schumer pushes for more gun control of good citizens and Issa Subpoenas the ATF.

To view the current video in its new format, please click above:

Read More on these topics:

• Chairman Issa Subpoenas ATF for ‘Project Gunrunner’ Documents
• Schumer Threatens Filibuster Over Concealed Carry Reciprocity
• Schumer Bill Includes Steps Toward Federal Gun Registration

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- Recently, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who in the early 1990s was the House sponsor of the Brady Act and the federal “assault weapons” and “large” magazine ban of 1994-2004, and the ill-fated, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink “Brady II” bill — introduced S. 436, the multi-faceted “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.”

Its simplistic and misleading title aside, this bill dispels any doubt about the goal gun control supporters have had in mind ever since they began harping about “closing the gun show loophole” more than a decade ago.

Schumer’s “fix” bypasses the question of gun shows altogether. In fact, the term “gun show” appears nowhere in his bill. S. 436 proposes that virtually all private transfers, regardless of location, be subject to National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks. The exceptions would be extremely narrow; in many cases, even lending someone a firearm would be subject to federal regulation.

Near-universal NICS checks for firearms transfers, if coupled with allowing the FBI to retain records on approved firearm-related NICS checks, as proposed by the Brady Campaign, would achieve near-universal federal firearm transfer registration. That, in turn, would move gun control supporters one step closer to their goal of registering all firearms and firearm owners.

In fact, Schumer’s bill would put information on private transfers more directly into the hands of the federal government than is currently done for dealer sales. S. 436 would require any dealer who handles a transfer between non-dealers to record information identifying the firearm and its transferor and transferee. That’s the same kind of recordkeeping required for dealer sales currently.

However, S. 436 would also require the dealer to notify the U.S. Attorney General of the transfer, presumably in the interest of expanding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ dubiously-useful firearm tracing empire. Though the notices would not identify the transferor and transferee, it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to envision subsequent calls for the notices to identify them too.

With its usual level of candor, the Brady Campaign still pretends that it believes federal law should be changed merely to prevent “strangers” from buying guns at “gun shows” from people who are not dealers. Begin at 5:30 in this Megyn Kelly interview of Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke. (Ms. Kelly’s interview with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is at the beginning of the video.)

S. 436 is not just about “gun checks”
Most gun owners agree that the current background check process can be improved — primarily by improving the accuracy of the records it uses, both to ensure that gun sales to dangerous people are blocked and to ensure that qualified, law-abiding Americans can buy firearms without needless delays or denials.

Yet, although Sen. Schumer touts his bill primarily as one to change the background check process, it would also greatly increase the number of people who are prohibited from possessing any firearm, with little regard for every American’s right to due process before being stripped of a fundamental civil right.

For example, few would question the need to prevent gun possession by a person who suffers from mental illness that makes him a threat to the community. But S. 436 would also prohibit the possession of firearms by any individual required to receive mental health services, regardless of whether the person poses a danger to himself or to others or is able to manage his own affairs.

Likewise, few would dispute that more than one recent mass murder might have been prevented through earlier intervention by those who had spotted warning signs. Normally, law enforcement and mental health officials have the power to initiate a mental health evaluation when a person’s behavior causes concern, but S. 436 would go considerably further by requiring institutions of higher learning that receive federal funds to establish “mental health assessment teams” and a process by which the teams can refer students to state or local mental health authorities for mandatory evaluation.

In another provision so severe that even Brady Center president Paul Helmke says he has “concerns” about it, S. 436 would redefine the term “unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Few would argue against the existing ban on gun possession or purchasing by habitual users of illegal drugs, but S. 436 would allow an “inference” that a person is an unlawful drug user or addict if the person has been convicted or arrested (regardless of outcome) for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years; has been arrested (again, regardless of outcome) for possessing drug paraphernalia within the past five years; has had a drug test indicating illegal drug use within the past five years; or has admitted (to anyone, apparently) using or possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the past five years.

In practical terms, this means that if a person was arrested four years ago for possessing drugs, but the charges were dropped (maybe because the police made a mistake and the person didn’t possess any drugs at all), S. 436 would still allow an “inference” that the person is an “unlawful user” — requiring agencies to report the arrest record to NICS, and even creating a threat of prosecution. As the Brady Center’s Helmke puts it, “[There is] the whole innocent-until-proven guilty concept coming into play here.”

This provision would mark a drastic change from the law as it stands today. Currently, the courts and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives interpret the Gun Control Act’s drug-related prohibition to require current or recent use. To prove that, BATFE regulations require a pattern of convictions or arrests, especially within the most recent 12 months. This narrower definition reflects what most people understand: that a single indiscretion does not always reflect a predisposition to destructive behavior, and that a person can break a pattern of destructive behavior and turn his back on drugs permanently. Schumer’s proposal would hardly be the first time gun control supporters have staked out a position based upon an ideological assumption. Instead, it’s yet another attempt to deprive people of a constitutional right without due process of law.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

When buying Bullets? What about the shell, primer and powder?

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Columbus, OH --(Ammoland.com)- A bill introduced this week in New York would require sportsmen and gun owners to register their firearms when purchasing “bullets.”

Senate Bill 4152, introduced by Senator Malcolm A. Smith, would require sportsmen and gun owners to provide their full name, date of birth, and address as well as the make, model, caliber and serial number of their firearm on an “application” prior to purchasing “bullets.”

The bill uses the generic term “bullets” in place of a more accurate description of the types of ammunition it seeks to restrict. It is unclear what types of ammunition would be classified as “bullets” under this bill.

Furthermore, the “application” requirement seems to set up a dangerous scenario where you would be required to register a firearm owned by someone else under your own name if you simply borrowed the firearm for a hunting trip or day at the range and needed to buy “bullets.”

“The proponents may term this an application to purchase ammo, but gun owners know full well that this is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to force gun registration upon law-abiding New Yorkers,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA director of state services.

“This bill starts out bad and just gets worse as it goes along. New York sportsmen and gun owners alike should contact their state senators today in opposition to this measure.”

The bill would also ban anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing “bullets” and would require that purchasers show two forms of identification. Additionally, the bill requires that the copies of the “application” to be submitted to all law enforcement agencies across the state. Not only is this unnecessary, it puts gun owner’s private information at risk of being lost or stolen.

Take Action! New York sportsmen are encouraged to contact their state senator’s today in opposition to Senate Bill 4152. To find your state senator’s contact information, please visit the USSA Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.

About:
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. Visit www.ussportsmen.org.

AmmoLand Gun News

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today released the following statement critical of a proposed “emergency rule” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.

The proposed rule was included in a recent Federal Register and specifically calls for firearm retailers to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.

Congressman, Denny Rehberg

“While we’ve managed to stop gun control efforts in Congress, the Obama Administration wants to circumvent the legislative process altogether in order to force its anti-gun policies on the American people.

Beyond the economic burden of more paperwork for gun dealers, this rule is predicated on the incorrect assumption that buying multiple guns is a questionable activity that warrants a red flag for government attention.

This is the exact mindset that proponents of the Second Amendment feared when an anti-gun Chicago politician moved into the White House. I’ll keep fighting to make sure the federal government respects all of our Constitutional rights.” Says Congressman, Denny Rehberg.

Firearms Registration Map

OpenCarry.org

Maine - -(AmmoLand.com)-USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- There’s a myth in the mainstream media and entertainment industry that guns are required to be “registered” in the United States, either by the federal government, or the states.

In fact, the opposite is true. Outside of 4 cities (DC, Chicago, Omaha, and Clark County, NV), and 3 states (California, Michigan and Hawaii), gun registration is essentially unknown in America.

In fact only DC, Chicago, and Hawaii register garden variety long guns at all.

See map above and at http://www.opencarry.org/register.html

OpenCarry.org’s gun registration map clearly demonstrates that when it comes to gun ownership, the United States is a big sea of gun freedom with just a few rocky shoals of registration. And with the notable exceptions of New York and the cities of DC & Chicago, these shoals are fairly easy for gun owners to safely navigate.

A couple of notes:

1. Machine gun and other unusual weapon (e.g., flame thrower) collectors must register their weapons with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and sometimes a state agency if state law requires. Only 9 states and DC ban machine gun ownership, see map at http://www.opencarry.org/machinegun.html
2. 3 states (California, Connecticut, and New Jersey) require registration of so-called “assault weapons” which are merely otherwise normal firearms which have been deemed to be cosmetically scary looking by these 3 states because of features like pistol grips and bayonet lugs (they are not machine guns, see note 1 above).
3. In 2008 the Michigan House voted to repeal pistol registration but the Senate changed the bill to merely repeal the associated police “safety inspection requirement.”
   4. Only New York and the cities of DC & Chicago fail to offer a registration grace period for visitors and new residents.
4. Canada is widely expected to repeal their national long gun registration scheme this year.

About:
OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia gun-rights activists John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk and has served to ignite the “Open Carry Movement” that is sweeping the country. In addition to being an invaluable legal resource for gun owners, the site has quickly grown to be a social networking portal for thousands of American gun owners. Visit: www.OpenCarry.org

Iowa Gun Owners

Iowa – -(AmmoLand.com)-Besides promoting and working to pass the REAL Right-to-Carry bill in the upcoming session, Iowa Gun Owners is also working on repealing Iowa’s permit-to-purchase laws as well.

The permit-to-purchase law requires you to seek approval from the government, in the form of a government issued card, before you can purchase a handgun for self-defense. The criteria for this permit are similar to the criteria for a permit-to-carry: you can not be a felon, can not be addicted to drugs or alcohol, you can’t have a history of acts of violence, etc. Should you be approved for the permit, it is good for a period of one year.

While many assume that obtaining a permit-to-purchase is normal and just a part of doing business, you should know that 36 other states DO NOT have this tyrannical requirement.

That’s right – Iowa is one of only a handful of states that require people to get a permit to purchase handguns for self-defense. Delaware, Maryland, and New Hampshire are just some of the states that do NOT require law abiding citizens to get this type of permit.

The argument most commonly offered in defense of this permit goes something like this: this permit is needed to ensure that criminals and the mentally deranged don’t have access to firearms. Gun control advocates usually toss in examples of a school or church shooting at this point to silence opposition. This argument is so emotionally charged that sometimes even gun owners accept this at face value.

However, federal law already prohibits felons, fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, those addicted to narcotics, and those considered mentally deranged from owning firearms. There is no need for additional state language.

More to the point, as everyone already knows, criminals and the mentally deranged don’t buy weapons from a gun dealer or at a gun show anyway. They steal them or buy them from other criminals. In fact, a Justice Department study concluded that over 90% of criminals who use handguns in the commission of their crimes obtained the gun from some source other than a licensed dealer.1

So this argument is obviously wrong.

But worse than that, this argument gets innocent people killed. Sensational? Hardly. By requiring law abiding citizens to go through all the hassle and expense of obtaining a permit to buy a weapon for self-defense, the government ensures that many people just won’t go through the headache. How many elderly people or young single women (the kind of people who most need to be able to defend themselves) find this process intimidating? Many, I know, because I talk to them often. So these people, who want to have the means of self-defense, are being denied this option due to bureaucratic red tape.

And again, don’t forget that 36 other states don’t require a permit to purchase. The crime rates in those states are not higher than states that do require this permit – in many cases the crime rates in those states are lower! If this permit could somehow ensure public safety than all those states without a permit to purchase should have drastically higher levels of violent crime.

In fact, the opposite is true. California, Washington D.C., and Illinois all have permits-to-purchase amongst other anti-gun regulations. But according to the FBI’s ‘Uniform Crime Reports’, released in September of 2008 and based on 2007 data, Los Angeles had over 380 homicides, Washington D.C. had over 155 homicides and Chicago had over 440 homicides!

Clearly these permits are not stopping crime at all.

So if a permit to purchase does nothing to reduce crime what does it accomplish? In a word: registration. (The information below comes from Gun Owners of America located at www.gunowners.org.)

In 1994 the Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states’ background check programs. This attempt at registration was subsequently defeated in the courts.2

In 1996, computer software distributed by the Justice Department allowed police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers. This software — known as FIST — also kept information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc.3

In 1998, despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyer’s names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”4

Of course, we can use a mid-western example as well. The government in Illinois has gone so far down this road of regulation that our friends in Illinois now can’t even own a handgun or long gun without first obtaining a government issued firearms owner identification (FOID) card!

That’s right, to even own a hunting shotgun in Illinois you must first be approved by the state. As bad as that is, it gets worse. You see, in Illinois, to even buy a single round of ammunition you need to possess a FOID card – otherwise a dealer can not sell ammunition to you. Further, if you move into the state already owning weapons, you have a limited amount of time before those guns too must be registered with the government.

Of course, we’ve not even mentioned the idea of concealed carry in Illinois, which is totally prohibited.

And again, as mentioned above, despite all these onerous gun laws Chicago had over 440 homicides in 2007! This does not count rape, aggravated assault, robberies and other types of violent crime.

Just think how many of those innocent victims would have been able to defend themselves had they been carrying weapons for self-defense.

This is what will happen in Iowa if we don’t start to fight back. If the state of Iowa can tell you when you are eligible to buy guns, carry guns, and shoot guns (all areas that they currently regulate) then it’s a short hop to the kind of total registration that gun owners in Illinois deal with.

So this session, as Iowa Gun Owners begins to promote a bill repealing the permit to purchase law in Iowa, we hope that you will do your part. Email and call your elected officials, come down to the capitol on an Iowa Gun Owners lobby day, donate to Iowa Gun Owners via our website, and tell your family and friends about us.

The time to act is now. Our rights are under attack.

Footnotes:

1. Department of Justice, “Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” p. 36.
2. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Grant Manager’s Memorandum, Pt. 1: Project Summary (September 30, 1994), Project Number: 94-DD-CX-0166.
   
3. Copy of “FIST” (Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking) software at GOA headquarters, Springfield, VA. See also Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s News (Oct./Nov. 1996). The default in the “FIST” computer software is for the police officials to indefinitely retain the information on gun owners-despite the fact that the Brady law only allows officials to retain this data for 20 days.
   
4. FBI’s Final Rule printed in the Federal Register (October 30, 1998) at 58311. After the FBI submitted its proposed regulations on June 4, 1998, Gun Owners of America submitted written comments (in September of 1988) to challenge the FBI’s regulations.

Aaron Dorr is the Executive Director of Iowa Gun Owners, a non-profit organization in Iowa dedicated to overturning Iowa’s abusive laws when it comes to the purchasing, carrying, and using firearms for self-defense. He can be contacted at director@iowagunowners.org.

About:
Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) was formed in January of 2009 to combat the oppressive gun laws in the State of Iowa. IGO does not believe that you, as a law abiding citizen, should have to beg permission from the government to be able to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we are working so hard to get a Vermont/Alaska style carry law passed in Iowa. In these states, unless you are a convicted felon or otherwise barred from possessing weapons, you don’t need a permit to carry a gun for self-defense! Join us now!

BATFE

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)-We at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership recently received the document that is copied below for your convenience.

We would respectfully ask the BATFE to either validate these assertions or refute them in detail.

Our organization has had a long and disconcerting experience with the agency you now head. We would suggest that you might seek to bring a refreshing era of candor and honesty…and, if possible, a substantial dose of legality… to the BATFE. You can certainly start by examining the following carefully compiled expose in detail, and then tell Americans if you are truly planning a national gun registry.

(JPFO’s open letter continues below)

For nearly 20 years, contrary to the Intent of Congress and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926(a), BATF has been quietly building a massive Firearms Registration System for Firearms, Firearm Owners and Firearm Transactions.

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, signed into law in 1986, specifically forbids registration of firearms records at 18 U.S.C. 926(a):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

When a firearms dealer, importer or manufacturer dies or otherwise goes out of business, all the Acquisition/Disposition records (the “Bound Book”) kept by the business must be delivered to the BATF Out-of-Business Center. Currently (according to the 2010 BATF Budget Submission), over 1.2 million records per month are being received by the BATF Out-Of-Business Center.

Most recently, on August 25, 2008, BATF implemented Ruling 2008-2, allowing Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders to keep the Acquisition/Disposition “Bound Book” on a computer. However, when the FFL goes out of business, he must provide a computer file (digital file) and file layout to the ATF Out-of-Business Records Center - in addition to a printout of the “bound A/D book”. Since BATF kindly allows dealers to also record antique firearms in the A/D book, these records are also being turned in to BATF.

Obviously, BATF intends to make use of those digital records. The digital file includes the Name and Address of every Buyer and every Seller for each gun, as well as the Name, Make, Model, Caliber and Serial of each firearm. In fact, each set of Out-of-Business digital records is precisely a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

BATF has not revealed what they are doing with these files.

In 1992, BATF began creating a computerized “index” (based solely on firearm serial number) to the microfilm Out-of-Business records, called the “CARS” system (Computer Assisted Retrieval System), as reported in a 1995 letter to Tanya K. Metaksa of the NRA. Since there are so many duplicate serial numbers, this system must have been woefully inadequate for tracing.

By 2004, BATF aknowledged the existance of an automated Microfilm Retrieval System (MRS) containing information on 380 million firearms with an additional 1 million firearms added per month. This system had been enlarged to contain not only firearm serial number, but manufacturers and importers as well.

More recently (since at least 2005), ATF has been converting microfilmed dealer out-of-business records to “digital images” of the records. It is not clear whether this is a digitized “picture” file, or an actual digital record of the acquisition/disposition. However, regardless of the method of storage, and whether access to the detail record is automated or manual, this system is precisely, in fact, a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

From the 2005 Appropriations Bill:

” Conversion of Records. The conferees recognize the need for ATF to complete the conversion of tens of thousands of existing Federal firearms dealer out-of-business records from film to digital images at the ATF National Tracing Center. Once the out-of-business records are fully converted, search time for these records will be reduced significantly. The conference agreement includes $4,200,000 for the ATF to hire additional contract personnel to continue the conversion and integration of records.”

However, this same Appropriations Bill also states:

“Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees:”

Similar provisions have been contained in every annual Appropriations Bill between 2005 and 2010.

The Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains firearm tracing information from all traces performed since 1989. The data includes Multiple Sales reports (ATF F 3310.4 with names and addresses), all guns that were “suspected” as being used for criminal purposes, as well as the detail results from all traces (which would certainly include Name and address of all known sellers and purchasers). Suspect guns include, for example, individuals purchasing large quantities of firearms (collectors?) and dealers with “improper” record keeping. Once a gun is traced, even in error, the data is kept in the trace file.

Whether all these records are being combined into a huge data base is unknown. Regardless, each of these are a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

Implications of this registration system are huge. These records can easily be sorted to report on all buyers of .223 and 5.56mm rifles – or all buyers of .50 BMG rifles.

BATF is so proud of their Firearms Tracing System [FTS], they offer on-line access to the records by another system (eTrace) on the internet – world-wide! BATF offered world access to the eTrace System in a United Nations Marking and Tracing Workshop held in Nairobi, Kenya in December, 2007, Lomé, Togo in April, 2008, Rio de Janeiro in June, 2008, and other locations. In 2007, BATF reported some 10,000 individuals representing over 1620 law enforcement agencies around the world (now over 2,000 agencies) had access to our firearms data. Now, information on your guns (and you!) is directly available to 10 foreign governments (including strong cooperation with governments having known corruption issues, such as Mexico and Columbia), and trace requests have been received from 58 foreign governments (some with terrorist connections).

As BATF has been placing increasing importance on their tracing function, they have been creating more firearms registration records. We need to question their statutory authority for automating the tracing process. Originally, the tracing process was intended to be handled by phone calls to the manufacturer or importer, followed by calls to the distributer, and finally to the dealer. By increasingly computerizing this process, BATF has created a massive system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

The question is, is it the BATAF’s ultimate goal to have a tracing system and a registration system of every firearm and every firearm owner in the United States?

There you have it, Acting Director Melson. This seems to us at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to be a methodical and carefully researched presentation, but perhaps you can prove us wrong.

The reason we at JPFO are making this an open letter, which will be widely disseminated on the Internet, is because BATFE has a sordid history unlike nearly any other Federal agency. The BATFE brought America Ruby Ridge and Waco.

More recently, people now under your leadership blatantly framed David Olofson with light primer ammunition to get his lawful rifle to fire like a machine gun. You, being a forensics expert, should understand more than anybody how patently unlawful and dishonest this testing procedure was, and continues to be.

But these travesties, no matter how grave, are truly overshadowed by the ominous plans outlined above. Perhaps you might wonder why concerned, freedom loving Americans would be suspicious of a Federal government that knew where to find every privately owned firearm…and do so with lightning speed and efficiency via a computerized database. And why would you want to share this data with foreign powers?

Are we being “hysterical”? Are we being “paranoid”? Frankly, I don’t think so.

So, Mr. Melson, what is your detailed response to our inquiry?

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

About:
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles.

Visit www.JPFO.org

National Rifle Association

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.

Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.

And then there’s Garen Wintemute, of the University of California (Davis), who in September released another of his “studies” in favor of gun control. His new piece is called “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching.”

“Gun shows” are just the hook, however. While repeating gun control supporters’ mantra about the need to run instant background checks on people who buy guns from private parties at gun shows, Wintemute admits important factors that undercut his goal.

First, he notes that straw purchases—the very purpose of which is to thwart the background checks he pretends to be concerned about—”are a major source of crime guns.” Second, he admits that “The proportion of all gun sales nationwide that occurs at gun shows is relatively small” and that “most sales at gun shows involve licensed retailers,” who are already required to perform background checks.

As you probably have already deduced, Wintemute has his sights on something more than just requiring background checks on all gun sales at shows. Eventually getting to the bottom line, he concludes that

“Regulating private party sales just at gun shows will not end the problems associated with these anonymous and undocumented transactions. Most of them occur elsewhere already. … It would be preferable to regulate private party gun sales generally.”

That’s the law in California, where private sales are prohibited, transfers of firearms are delayed by a 10-day waiting period, and sales are permanently recorded by the government.

If you think you’ve heard it before, you’re right. In 1976, the Brady Campaign, then named National Council to Control Handguns, advocated delaying handgun sales and registering handguns, before banning the possession of handguns altogether. Let’s hope Wintemute is as successful today as the Brady Campaign was a generation ago.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military