One compliments the other. If We KNOW who has them, then we know WHO should be storing them. If the gun turns up somewhere else, unreported, then we have a name and address to look into.
Then folks should be talking about BOTH of these requirements at the same time.
Many of us are. Not everyone in favor of control is a strident gun grabber.
People are less likely to use firearms in crimes when they know the firearms are linked to them. It’s pretty obvious, really. Will it prevent all criminal shootings? Will all guns be registered? Of course not. Over time, however, it will reduce the number of illegal firearms.
How often does a criminal leave the gun at the scene of the crime? Pretty rare I would imagine.
Post 37 -
President Ronald Reagan issued EO 12424 in 1983 which granted “International Organization” status upon INTERPOL, but specifically excluded the immunities granted under Section 2(c), 2(d), Sections 3,4,5, and 6.
(Section 2(c) being the section that pertains to “search and seizure”.)
I’m not sure what you consider “US facilities”?
According to an EO, I see that in 1983, it’s specifically mentioned that INTERPOL did NOT have an immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws.
I also see that in 2009, INTERPOL was granted immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws by Presidential Executive Order.
How do you figure that? Do you have any proof of your assumptions?
John Avlon’s column on CNN today states some areas that would be subject to executive order and that would be amenable to groups like the NRA.
FYI, I started this thread to search for possibilities in response to links my wife keeps sending me about Obama using executive orders from various loony websites that she keeps reading. I was unaware of any unilateral action he could take that would ban guns. No one can point to anything except for that clause in the NFA which I am not sure he has the power to reinterpret.
BTW, the blood of children is not on my hands. I have never shot a child (or anyone else for that matter).
Well now, here’s a “reasonable” reaction to potential executive orders from the CEO of a weapons and tactical training company in Tennessee:
As noted in earlier posts, he’s wrong regarding Obama’s ability to ban assault rifles or to do much about guns at all via executive order (I trust you’re as shocked as I am).
The only reason people don’t laugh at and dismissing ridiculous clowns like Yeager and Adam Jones is that they’re armed to the teeth and easily riled. Makes you understand how common pro-gun cliches like “an armed society is a polite society” are really Orwellian threats.
You’re arguing with the wrong person. As far as I can tell, if a cop is in a business on non-official business, there is no reason that the shop owner could not ask them to leave just the same as anyone else.
Who is Adam Jones?
Oops, brain fart there–make that Alex Jones.
“US facilities” are “facilities in the US”. I’m not sure how else you would interpret that phrase. Until 2004, Interpol had no physical office located in the US. Thus, there was no reason to exempt them from anything; it would be like exempting Martians from US search and seizure laws. As of 2004, Interpol created a UN liason office at the UN HQ in New York, which made it necessary to exempt them like every other NGO with a physical presence in the US that might be searched. The EO was simply updated to reflect that.
Reagan issued the original INTERPOL EO in 1983. What US facilities did INTERPOL have or need in 1983?
INTERPOL records could be searched and seized IF a U.S. court ordered it. The physical “facilities” or “buildings” rented, borrowed, or owned by INTERPOL wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered into in a courtroom. INTERPOL records and files existed in 1983.
I am starting think you are being deliberately dense. Do you know what jurisdiction is?
Wow…
You know, this is getting ridiclous…The Dixie Chick say ONE comment that could be interpreted as anti Bush and they get Tarred and Feathered and have whole CD’S dedicated to hating them…but it’s okay for CEO’S and Nutjobs to OPENLY threaten civil war and call The President a Dictator (among other things)…and they get routiunely cheered and network shows…
Man screw the Tea Party…I want My Country Back, you know the one where The President is respected (whoever it is) and guys like the one you posted weren’t CEO’S, They were locked in padded cells…
This coming from a soon to be registered firearm owner…
You think that guy isn’t being vilified? I hate him, or at least I wish he would stay off my side. Also, I know you know that CEO is just his title by default. It’s not like he’s head of Exxon or anything. I don’t even think he’s anything but a blowhard.
Rob
Jurisdiction is the official authority to make legal decisions and judgments.
Let me cover the same ground again. In 1983 Reagan issued an EO that allowed INTERPOL to operate within the U.S. and specifically denied to INTERPOL any immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws.
You point out that in 2004, Interpol created a UN liason office at the UN HQ in New York.
For 26 years, INTERPOL did not have immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws.
In 2009, Obama issued an EO that granted INTERPOL immunity from U.S. search and seizure laws.
For the 3 years since Obama’s INTERPOL EO, INTERPOL has been immune from U.S. search and seizure laws. It’s up to INTERPOL to decide if they want to share any of their information/data with anyone who asks, including U.S. courts.
So I destroy your argument and you shift the goalposts?
I’m sorry, I thought we were arguing in good faith.
The art of politics.
Any infringement of the second amendment does not have the juice to make it through the house and senate. Too many memories of mid term massacres after the last time, but Obama has the dubious distinction of being the guy in the seat at the moment and must do something.
That means a token ban on something, and more on the mental health side of the argument. So he gets to wave his bloody shirt at congress, telling them, he did his part, now step up your game.
I can see Obama wanting to do something by executive fiat, but have been talked out of it by cooler heads after those kids were killed. Infringement has traction at the moment, but it has a short window of opertunity. That means its going to be smoke and mirrors by all concerned, each blaming the other that they were the ones that killed anything remotely concerning infringement.
Declan