Gun Registration


PDA






Desperado
September 23, 2006, 07:12 PM
What is everyones thoughts on gun registration? I live in TX and its a non-registration state but I know some states are. My mom thinks its stupid to not register guns and of course Im not for it. What is everyone elses opinion on it? I could use some arguments in case it ever comes up in a debate;) .

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Axman
September 23, 2006, 07:22 PM
Guns don't have a rear bumpers to attach the license plate to!

SigfanUSAF
September 23, 2006, 07:57 PM
Federal Firearms Registration = To ease mass firearms roundups by federal agents and ensure all weapons were accounted for. I'd rather gnaw off my trigger finger.

Tommygunn
September 23, 2006, 08:17 PM
In California they passed the Roberti-Roos law to register assault weapons....NOW, they're banned.
In the 1960's, New Yuck City registered semiauto long guns, and the mayor who proposed this promised the list would NEVER be used for confiscation.
When Mayor Dinkins assumed the mayorship he made some of those guns illegal -- and guess what? That list was used to assure compliance! Well, a generation later, some of those people had moved -- and some of those newer tenants found themselves a Emergency Service Unit bash-the-dorr-in party thanks to Dinkins' laws!!

REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION!!!!!

Creeping Incrementalism
September 23, 2006, 09:21 PM
In California they passed the Roberti-Roos law to register assault weapons....NOW, they're banned.
Roberti-Roos was a ban. However, anyone who already owned the firearms listed was allowed to keep them if they registered.

Because criminals usually obtain their firearms off the books, registration only has two uses to the government (1) confiscation or harrassment of gun owners, and (2) to allow guns to be banned without taking them away from anyone who already owns one (which could get messy).

Registration is a mess in other ways. In California, there have been incidents where firearms were seized because L.E. mistakenly believed the firearm should have been registered, and of firearms that should have been registered, but were not because of mistakes. Then there are all the people who simply never heard of the ban and so never registered, or believed their 4473 was registration, which is not always the case.

HankB
September 23, 2006, 09:49 PM
The sole purpose of registration is to enable future confiscation from people other than criminals.

Beyond that, I have a problem with laws aimed so specifically, so precisely, so exclusively at people with no criminal background.

Exclusively? Exactly right . . . in the 1968 case Haynes vs. US, SCOTUS ruled that convicted felons are exempt from registration laws. Prosecuting someone for a registration violation is tantamount to saying the person has to register the gun. (Duh!) But felons are prohibited from having guns, so when you prosecute him for failing to register something he's prohibited from having in the first place, that's the same thing as saying he's being prosecuted for not incriminating himself . . . a clear 4th Amendment violation.

So felons (and by extension, other prohibited persons) can be prosecuted for illegal possession, but NOT for registration violations. That's something reserved ONLY for people with clean records.

Which IMHO is singularly odious. My mom thinks its stupid to not register guns . . . Ask her why she thinks a law that exempts rapists, murderers, rapists, etc., is such a good thing. :evil:

MartinBrody
September 23, 2006, 11:47 PM
What is everyones thoughts on gun registration?

Quite simply it doesn't take criminals off the streets and doesn't prevent crime. If someone is going to rape, rob, murder, they will do it with or without a gun. Registration is a political answer to a complex situation, and it's toll is heaviest on law abiding citizens, not criminals. Unfortunately it leads to confiscation because registration will not solve the problem it was intended to, so the politicians inevitably have to take it to the next step.

Third_Rail
September 23, 2006, 11:59 PM
Registering guns doesn't apply to criminals; not registering a gun in MA (where I used to live) is a criminal activity. Therefore, if someone didn't register a gun, then it no longer applied to them. :)

Librarian
September 24, 2006, 12:00 AM
What is everyones thoughts on gun registration? I live in TX and its a non-registration state but I know some states are. My mom thinks its stupid to not register guns and of course Im not for it. What is everyone elses opinion on it? I could use some arguments in case it ever comes up in a debate .Aside from the (IMO correct) concerns about 'slippery slope', the question is "what good would it do?"

Suppose we have perfect registration. That is, every firearm is in a database someplace, and every theft is reported, every permanent move from one address to another is reported - "authorities" can look up firearms by address, or firearms by person, or firearms by auto registration/license.

I, Joe Librarian, have a legally registered pistol. I go to visit my brother, Bill Librarian, who has none and never has had any. There's a domestic disturbance in Bill's front yard, and the police are called.

Can the police reasonably presume that, since Bill has no firearms registered, no firearms are going to be involved? Obviously not - I may have mine, the people fighting in the front yard may have them, some random passerby may have one.

Similarly, suppose Bill's automobile is pulled over for a traffic violation. Can the police rely on the no-gun return on Bill's vehicle? Again, obviously not - there's no way to know who is actually in the vehicle, and whether or not those people are armed.

Even in a perfect system, LEO can't rely on the database to ensure their safety; they must always enter a situation prepared to deal with armed people.

If the police get no safety benefit, why bother?

Sometimes the argument is made that 'we register cars, why not guns?', and there are lots of sly responses that are accurate. But I always go for the efficacy aspect:

We have well over 50 years of experience licencing drivers, with state-by-state variations in the training and knowledge required for licensing, and registering vehicles, again with state-by-state variations in inspections and other aspects of registration.

All these licensed drivers, with hardly ever any ill intent, driving their registered vehicles, which are assuredly not designed for killing anything, have an appalling accidental death toll.

Why on earth would anyone look at all that evidence and conclude that guns would be different?

Actually, they are different - accidental firearms deaths are almost non-existent, with our unlicensed owners and unregistered guns.

Geronimo45
September 24, 2006, 12:04 AM
Register a gun - it would work, if the BG carried his gun around openly with it's number clearly visible, so you could read the number while he was doing a holdup at the local shop & rob.
Why doesn't it work? Ask any holdup victim if they remember the serial number off the BGs gun. Probably not. The gun is hidden until they're ready to use it.
Why does registration work on a car? Because a car can't be stuck down your pants in preparation to a crime.

Leif Runenritzer
September 24, 2006, 12:13 AM
If they know you have guns, they can take them. Some might wonder what use secret guns would be if they are illegal. But there will be times and places where laws don't matter, and you might find yourself there, glad to be armed and safe. You might have to live through riots, natural disasters, and the chaos that goes with them. Or, sooner or later, the gun ban might be lifted, and wouldn't it be sad if you gave yours up for destruction.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 24, 2006, 12:14 AM
Me registering my guns is telling the government that required that registration where the gun fight will be.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

Axman
September 24, 2006, 01:01 AM
Ask any holdup victim if they remember the serial number off the BGs gun

Not to mention that the serial numbers are generally altered or obliterated.

Deanimator
September 24, 2006, 09:19 AM
If anybody thinks that registration is no big deal, I invite them to tell me what I'd need to do in order to LEGALLY move to Chicago with my handguns.

I've found that in EVERY instance, anti-gunners either LIE or don't answer AT ALL.

Molon Labe
September 24, 2006, 09:26 AM
What is everyones thoughts on gun registration?Thoughts? Anyone who "registers" their guns does not deserve to own them.

DBabsJr
September 24, 2006, 09:34 AM
Aside from the (IMO correct) concerns about 'slippery slope', the question is "what good would it do?"

Would it, combined with the requirement to report firearm thefts, help track down straw purchasers? Are straw purchasers even a problem?

Thoughts? Anyone who "registers" their guns does not deserve to own them.

That would certainly suck for us in NJ. Registration is not really an option here.

jeepmor
September 24, 2006, 10:20 AM
It is a list that will be used, and was in the case of Katrina (imo) to round up the guns from the citizens. Our national guardsman were confiscating our guns from law abiding citizens who needed them to protect their lives and property.

They have a list, they have an agenda for that list. When it comes about, not exactly sure, but they have a list. Hopefully we see it coming and will band together in a timely manner.

Buy as many guns off the radar as you can would be my advice. I have a friend so paranoid about this that he flat out refuses to buy any guns over the counter simply because thinks the government is coming for them, and sooner than later.

Just wait and see what the democrats do if they end up in power again. Hillary's name is already on a proposed semi-auto ban for guns nationwide. Do these politicians even recognize the documents that this country is based on even exist? Not many libtard democrats near as I can tell.



jeepmor

Molon Labe
September 24, 2006, 10:37 AM
Registration is not really an option here.I disagree. But I'll leave it at that.

It is a list that will be used, and was in the case of Katrina (imo) to round up the guns from the citizens.Did that really happen? Do you have a cite?

Big Gay Al
September 24, 2006, 10:52 AM
Thoughts? Anyone who "registers" their guns does not deserve to own them.
Registration, or "Safety Inspection" was started back in the 1920's as a Racist measure. It was a way to control who, or should I say, which color could or could not buy handguns.

Unlike some jurisdictions that register firearms, Michigan does not have us update the address info. When I move, there's no notification requirement. And of course, the racist reason is gone.

Problem is, if I don't have my handguns "safety inspected" then I find myself in the same predicament as Angel Shamaya did a few months ago.

For Michigan, hunting is a big industry. While I don't like the safety inspection thing, I doubt it will lead to confiscation here. And I'm hoping we can get the state to drop it soon. (A good possibility.)

WeedWhacker
September 24, 2006, 11:02 AM
I'm torn - any other right (at least, the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights) which required registration would leave people ... well, do you have your Free Speech Card? How about your Right to Travel papers? Your Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure documents?

On the other hand, I do wish to live peaceably within the law (the supreme of which being the Constitution, of course)... is it worth the cost of watering the tree of liberty yet? Most folks, including myself, think "no". There's still hope to save the system.

tellner
September 24, 2006, 11:25 AM
There are already "Right to Travel Papers". You can't get on a plane without them, and it's spreading out to trains and buses.

There are not exactly "Speech Papers", but the FCC has thoroughly politicized the broadcast license process.

There are not "Trial by Jury Papers" or "Freedom From Torture Papers", but we now have laws saying that they are at the whim of the Executive and may not be checked, balanced or reviewed by anyone else.

We do not have "Freedom of Home and Personal Effect Papers", but those freedoms have been eroded almost to nothing.

Try to assemble large groups without a permit, and try getting a permit if you are politically unreliable and you will find that we do indeed have "Freedom to Assemble Papers".

Try getting to any venue where George W. Bush is speaking - and yes, he is the very first one to require this, no Clinton didn't do it - and you have to be vetted for personal support of him and his policies. At a large number of events you have to sign a statement of loyalty and be a good Party Member, comrade. So yes, we do have "Freedom to Petition for Redress Papers".

We had papers that prevented arbitrary arrest and detention and required the government to show cause before it took away your rights. They were called "Writs of Habeas Corpus" and "Search Warrants". Now they have been deemed unecessary impediments to the power of the Unitary Executive and are being eliminated.

orangelo
September 24, 2006, 12:10 PM
Registration is the first step to a complete ban. Look at places like Washington DC and Chicago. First they require all handguns to be registered. Then they effectively ban them by refusing to register new ones.

Look at NFA machineguns. They were the most highly regulated firearms you could get in the US. They had to be registered. The owners had to be registered or licensed. The ATF had to approve every single transfer. There was a tax to be paid on both manufacture and transfers. The owner had to submit photograph and finger prints to the FBI for a background check that could have taken 6months - 1+ years. Registered MGs have only been used in 1 recorded crime in over 70 years.

So in 1986 what do the demorats do? They pass a law that stopped registration of MGs. Even though they were never used in crimes and legal MG owners were subjected to every piece of 'common sense gun control' in the book. So MGs weren't outright banned, but they had to be registered. Registration was banned.

That's like the Republican congress passing a law that says no blue state may register voters. Voting isn't banned in those states, but too bad no one is registered to vote. (doesn't sound like such a bad idea)

AirForceShooter
September 24, 2006, 12:17 PM
When I die all my guns will go to my Granddaughter.
she lives in another State and she'll get them off the books.

AFS

Baba Louie
September 24, 2006, 02:16 PM
Anyone who "registers" their guns does not deserve to own them.Ouch :rolleyes:
C.C. Ord. 12.04.210 It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, give away, or permanently pass on to another person of any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed unless the Transferor first registers, or causes the weapon to be registered to the new owner.

That's the law in Clark County Nevada (Las Vegas and surrounding cities) and has been since passed in 1965 (Democratic County Commission, typically).
I moved here in '78. It hasn't stopped crime, but should the police feel the need to come to my door, their computer and/or dispatcher will alert them of "Weapons" in the residence. Well, "Weapons Owner", since I may have sold or traded all of my handguns off to someone outside of Clark County.

With all due respect to those who think otherwise, I do deserve to own them, registration required or not. I am no criminal. I may not like registering them, but I prefer to ride with the law, than against it.

txcoyote
September 24, 2006, 02:26 PM
>I live in TX and its a non-registration state...

Hmmm, really? So while you're standing in line at the Texas gun store waiting for them to call in all that information you filled out on the purchase form, you think that all disappears after you are handed the weapon? Texas may be a "no registration" state, but you've just been "registered" for that purchase. At least that's what my FFL sales folks have lead me to believe while I'm standing there waiting for my clearance from the Feds.... "it's so they can track the weapon purchase". May not be any real deals at gun shows any more, but at least you can still buy from individuals without the "paperwork".

Desperado
September 24, 2006, 04:18 PM
Yeah, I know. What I meant is Texas doesnt require registration. I had to fill the paper and he has to give it to the feds. I know the feds know, but the state doesnt require registration.

Big Gay Al
September 24, 2006, 04:22 PM
Actually, they don't give the paper to the feds, they do pass on certain information, not including the serial number. And the form 4473 stays on file, which ATF can ask to see under certain circumstances. (Real or imagined.)

david_the_greek
September 24, 2006, 04:30 PM
now if we've learned anything from the movi..... I mean documentary Red Dawn, its that our enemies can use the forms and registration we fill out to come confiscate/harm those of us with weapons. all joking aside (hhhmmm doesn't actually feel like that was a joke), it seems like time has shown registration to be an ineffective way to curb violence but an easy way to get people to give away their freedoms. oh but Tellner I do believe those are refreshing words to come out of someone elses mouth. usually I just mumble them to myself since conservatives and liberals alike tell me to shut the heck up.

Desperado
September 24, 2006, 05:01 PM
I actually didnt know that. So it stays on file there unless the feds request it?

ConstitutionCowboy
September 24, 2006, 05:54 PM
So it stays on file there unless the feds request it?

Yes, but upon the store going out of business, or a change of hands to a new FFL'ed person, those forms all get forwarded to the BATFE. I'm not certain what they do with those forms once they are in their hands, but they will eventually get those 4473's.

Woody

Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. That is where the infringements upon our right began. Look what those infringements are today... B.E.Wood

ProguninTN
September 24, 2006, 06:18 PM
Registration = Confiscation

See CA's Roberti-Roos Law. NY's Sullivan Law. Also see Nazi Germany.

aka108
September 24, 2006, 08:45 PM
In most areas you may sell you firearm to another person with no paper work required. If you bought the gun from a FFL dealer, there's a 4473 with your name on it. Should that gun wind up in some criminal involvement, you are going to get a visit. In a private sale it's best for you to record information from the driver license of the purchaser and keep it in your personal records. CYA is what it's about.

island
September 24, 2006, 10:47 PM
Canada sure can't serve as a shining example - but we do make a good "horrible warning".

Registration = future confiscation list. We KNOW this, we don't just suspect it - it's been done up here. Don't let it happen down there.

Oh, and it only cost 2 Billion bucks - and includes registration for at least one hair dryer and soldering iron....

progunner1957
September 24, 2006, 11:47 PM
Yes, but upon the store going out of business, or a change of hands to a new FFL'ed person, those forms all get forwarded to the BATFE. I'm not certain what they do with those forms once they are in their hands, but they will eventually get those 4473's.
A friend of mine was an FFL holder and ran a gun shop for years. According to him, there's an unmarked warehouse in TX, protected by a triple layer of 10 foot high fences, topped with concertina wire and patrolled by M-16 toting "security consultants."

Inside this warehouse are all the form 4473's that the BATFE has collected up over the years. Data entry people are entering the info. from the 4473's into a data base, 24/7/365.

This guy is not a tin-foil hat wearing wild-eyed hillbilly. He is a rational, educated man. Make what you will of what he says, but I would be more surprised if this were not taking place that if it were.

For those of you that think registration is no big deal, it serves but one purpose: To expedite future confiscation. History has proved this again and again.

History cannot be denied.

AJAX22
September 25, 2006, 12:01 AM
I had heard of the BATFE wharehouse for the 4473 forms, however It was my understanding that they were prevented by law from entering the data from the forms into any sort of database and creating a master list.

However they might be able to create an 'indexing' program which whould have the same effect.

Some of the old skool FFL's used to have a going out of buisness 'accidental bonfire' back before there was a law which actually punished them signifigantly for record keeping inconsistancies.

All this is stuff I've heard from different FFL's over the years, so take it with a grain of salt.

It is my understanding however that while the federal government is prohibited from creating a masterlist of firearms ownership, there is no such provision for preventing government from doing it at the state level.

progunner1957
September 25, 2006, 12:23 AM
I had heard of the BATFE wharehouse for the 4473 forms, however It was my understanding that they were prevented by law from entering the data from the forms into any sort of database and creating a master list.
Do you really think the BATFE would hesitate in breaking one more law, considering all the laws they have already broken??

Not a freaking chance!

WolfMansDad
September 25, 2006, 12:33 AM
I hate registration, but California requires all handguns to be registered. It's either registration or break the law. Long guns only require a 4473, and if you think that's not registration too, you are deluded. Do you really think the federal government will just throw that information away?

The NRA is our best bet on this one. Join them, and participate in their lobbying efforts to restrict or eliminate registration. Given the choice between fighting registration in court or breaking the law, all of us benefit when one of us chooses to fight in court, or in the voting booth.

JCF
September 25, 2006, 11:31 AM
You know... I'm a very strong proponent of responsible social initiatives toward promoting public safety. I will admit that I am somewhat liberal in most of my political views. I have spent the last 13 years engaged in child welfare and criminal justice / law enforcement-related professional work. I have never shot anyone, and I very, very sincerely doubt (and hope anyway) that I will ever be presented with the need to do so. I do not in any way meet the negative stereotype that many anti-gunners have of a gun-owner, despite the fact that I own many. I believe that there are many very well-meaning and reasonable anti-gun activists, and that there are plenty of pro-gunners that do the movement a great deal of harm through their militant and aggressive expressions. Nonetheless, I enjoy shooting, and my firearms, immensely.

I do not however (as much as this will undoubtedly offend some readers), consider the right to unrestricted firearm ownership as more important the safety and welfare of others. I come from a country where registration and restricted ownership is simply a fact of life; where gun laws exist, ostensibly, to ensure the safety of the community. As a result of my beliefs, and my background, I have struggled with the idea of gun registration for many years. The fact of the matter is, not only would I would embrace registration, I would turn in my firearms tomorrow if I felt for a moment that doing so would make the world a better or safer place.

All that said however, despite trying hard, and despite a very vested interest in the matter, I have personally never found one iota of validity in the assertion that gun registration is necessary, or even beneficial, to the promotion of public safety. Anti-gun activists suggest, to use a gross oversimplification, that a gradual criminalization of gun ownership will ultimately lead to a safer and less violent society. It isn't hard to understand why they would believe this, as it makes perfect sense prima facie. However, very few social phenomena (violence, oppression, racism, etc) are explainable or controllable in simple and unilateral terms. Social dysfunction of any sort is usually the result of a broad array of socio-cultural factors and influences. Violence in America is certainly no different. The argument in favor of gun registration is, IMHO, specious, and based more in emotion that reason. It certainly doesn't bear out empirically. Gun laws fail for exactly the same reason that wholesale criminalization of drugs, prostitution, etc. has failed; it addresses the RESULT of dysfunction, rather than the cause of it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!