Many of us knew this would happen. Our government has realized that fighting the 2nd Amendment directly is likely a losing proposition. Because of that, they have decided that doing whatever they can to make it hard to impossible to obtain weapons and ammo is the next best thing. After all, if ammo is next to impossible to purchase, what good is a gun? By the same token, if parts of the government keep adding more restrictions to gun manufacturers, that also makes it difficult to obtain guns. In all of this, the 2nd Amendment is technically, left alone.
When I lived in California (for 25 years) prior to relocating to the United States of America (Georgia) a couple of years ago, the laws, rules, and regulations were asinine to say the least. California is the only state I know of that has what is called the "DOJ Approved Handgun" list. Only guns on that list can be legally purchased.
How does a gun not make the list? Several ways, but one of the easiest ways for a gun to not make the list is to fail the "drop test." This is where the gun manufacturers send a bunch of free guns (of the same model) to the "rocket scientists" in California. These "scientists" load the gun with live ammo and then drop the gun on the ground. They do this until they either get tired or the gun accidentally fires a round. If it goes off, scratch it. It doesn't make the list of approved handguns. If it doesn't go off accidentally, it's on its way. In many cases, it's just easier for the manufacturers to give up and not deal with it.
Essentially, any new gun models manufactured after May 17th must have microstamping in order to be sold by dealers in California to legal residents. This stems from a law that was passed in 2007 - AB1471 and takes effect now that the microstamping technology is "available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."
The microstamping places "a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired."
This is merely another means of tracking weapons and ammo in the "golden" state of California. Of course, this will mean nothing for criminals because if they steal or illegally purchase a weapon with this technology in it, it will never be traced back to them. Moreover, it is also very unlikely (as Calgunlaws indicates) that gun manufacturers will move to adopt this technology for new gun models solely for California when they cannot even keep up with the demand for guns in other states. If true, then this means that Californian law abiding gun owners will not be purchasing these new weapons. If manufacturers never begin using this microstamping technology, their guns will never get into California (to legal residents) and eventually, all the older models will sell out. Whoops. No more handguns being sold in California.
Both the NRA and NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) "are exploring all legal avenues for challenging this action in court, and a lawsuit is very likely.".
But not to be outdone, even though it appeared as though the Obama administration was not going to sign onto the UN Arms Trade Treaty, there is a strong likelihood that Obama will sign the treaty sooner than later (possibly by August). The majority in Congress are opposed to the treaty.
Again, for those who are not aware of how things work, even though Obama may sign the treaty, the senate would have to ratify it. There are probably not enough votes to ratify it and if not, then Obama's signature would be largely ceremonial.
Even though numerous individuals in Congress and from within the Obama administration state unequivocally that "Nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," (as stated recently by John Kerry), the truth is a bit different. It all depends upon meaning and nuance.
While this treaty does not directly touch the 2nd Amendment now, future amendments to the treaty could (and likely would) become the problem. There is nothing to keep the treaty from granting complete and total power to the UN over America's 2nd Amendment rights with future changes. The way the treaty is currently written, once a country becomes part of it (after our senate's ratification), then that senate is out of the picture for all future amendments related to the treaty. All changes and/or amendments would come from the voting members of the UN. The U.S. would have nothing more to do with it.
Beyond this, it calls for a national control list, which would open the door to a national database of guns and gun owners (except criminals, of course). This could eventually be used as California (and New York) is now using it - for gun confiscation. But that wouldn't happen, right? Our government would never take our guns, right?
Could an amendment be added to ban personal ownership of weapons? Of course and that's what basically happened in the UK. If so, would that become binding for all member countries? Yes. There is absolutely no reason for the US to be involved in any treaty with the UN. Doing so means giving up sovereignty. The UN should not have that kind of power. If you're read my book on the UN, then you know what the UN is all about.
The attacks on the right to keep and bear arms continue unabated. The federal government will not stop until it knows who has guns and then during a national emergency (when martial law needs to be put in place), government will illegally come and take guns (like they did illegally in New Orleans after Katrina).
One thing is very clear about this current administration and much of the government associated with it. The corruption appears to run deep. They are very willing to do things that are illegal first, then stonewall Congress after the fact. It doesn't bother them at all.
In spite of the IRS scandal and the rest, it was recently reported by Tim Brown that Washington DC police are now starting to harass Tea Party groups who have applied for permits to have a gathering in which peaceful protest would be done. The Constitution says nothing about having to obtain a permit for such a gathering. Peaceful protests are one of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
The government has no shame at all. They seem willing to do anything at all to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They act first and deal with repercussions later. It shouldn't be happening. It is because few in Congress and throughout the federal government abide by the rule of law created by the Constitution.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.