[Daniel T]

Assume that the Supreme Court finds that the 2nd Amendment absolutely confirms the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. However, in the Supreme Court's opinion, "reasonable" limitations can be put upon the 2nd, just like there are on the 1st Amendment.

Would you then comply with laws requiring your guns to be registered for crime prevention purposes (tracing thefts, illegal uses, etc.)? After all, there can't be a confiscation, as the USSC has declared that the 2nd applies to individuals.

[jsalcedo]

Reasonable limitations could be taken all the way to only being able to own one gun locked in the gun club safe.

The 2nd is all or nothing.

[Daniel T]

Why? Is only the 2nd Amendment all or nothing, or do you think all of the Amendments are? There are reasonable limits on other Amendments right now, why is the 2nd any different?

[tiberius]

.Why? Is only the 2nd Amendment all or nothing, or do you think all of the Amendments are? There are reasonable limits on other Amendments right now, why is the 2nd any different?

The "shall not be infringed" clause is unique to the 2nd.

However, don't count on the court ruling that there can be NO gun laws - not gonna happen.

[Daniel T]

The "shall not be infringed" clause is unique to the 2nd.

True, but registration alone won't "infringe" on your ability to own whatever arms you want.

As a side note, I am not advocating registration. Just hypothizing as a devil's advocate.

[Molon Labe]

Demise: I wasn’t aware there was a limit on freedom of speech.

Some people will claim “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is a limit on freedom of speech. But you are allowed to yell "fire" if there’s a fire! Speech is only “limited” when it is being used as a medium to conduct unlawful activities. Slander and libel are two other examples.

The point I’m trying to make is that there have always been laws against using firearms as tools for conducting unlawful activities. Examples include murder, holding a gun to the head of a rape victim, robbing a bank, etc. But it is unreasonable (and unconstitutional, and immoral, and wrong, and…) to pass firearms laws forbiding activities that do not result in unlawful conduct. Examples include concealed carry and a ban on "scary looking assault weapons."

You also asked if I would “comply with laws requiring your guns to be registered for crime prevention purposes (tracing thefts, illegal uses, etc.).”

No. I do not follow immoral or unconstitutional laws. Period. We are grateful to only Almightily God for the gift of freedom. And because freedom is a gift from God, following an immoral or unconstitutional law would be treasonous to Him.

[Kaylee]

After all, there can't be a confiscation, as the USSC has declared that the 2nd applies to individuals.

The nature of your question implies two things are true:

1. That once decided, a Supreme Court decision is final and will never change.

2. Politicians will obey the Consitution and USSC in the laws they pass, and/or keep their word.



Both are demonstrably untrue.
Hence... no. :D

-K

[Daniel T]

Porn and political contributions are two examples of limitations on the 1st Amendment.

[Brian Dale]

What guns? No guns here; sorry. These aren't the Americans you're looking for.

Dfn. "oxymoron" = the phrase "reasonable limitations" on something that "shall not be infringed."

Edited to add - Full disclosure: I'm a chicken. I follow ALL of the laws. I just don't go places where the laws result in my feeling unsafe. For example, I'd love to visit Chicago for the food and the museums, but I ain't going.

[Daniel T]

The nature of your question implies two things are true:

1. That once decided, a Supreme Court decision is final and will never change.

2. Politicians will obey the Consitution and USSC in the laws they pass, and/or keep their word.


1. SC rulings can be changed, but it doesn't happen very often, and certainly not on a whim. However, this is still a good point.

2. If politicians pass laws that are counter to SC rulings, they will be overturned. Just like now.

Dfn. "oxymoron" = the phrase "reasonable limitations" on something that "shall not be infringed."

Can you show exactly how simple registration is an infringement on ownership? Registration doesn't stop you from owning a gun, it just lets the government know you have it.

[Molon Labe]

Porn and political contributions are two examples of limitations on the 1st Amendment.
Porn is lawful unless it is used in conjunction with an unlawful activity (kiddle porn, for example).

“But Molon, you’re wrong. Even soft porn is illegal in Cincinnati.”

You are correct. And the law in Cincinnati is wrong. I am not arguing that all laws are moral and constitutional; many are not.

And it’s a bit of a stretch to define a “political contribution” as your right to freedom of speech.

[OF]

There are reasonable limits on other Amendments right nowDoesn't make it right.Can you show exactly how simple registration is an infringement on ownership? Registration doesn't stop you from owning a gun, it just lets the government know you have it.The Constitution does not authorize the gov't (empower the gov't agents) to register people who have committed no crime. Registration is the key to confiscation. Without a registry of who owns what and where those people are, the gov't is unable to begin a program of confiscation (when, not if, it finally gets the will to). Refusing registration is the last peaceful avenue of resistance. Once you are registered, the next meaningful decision you will make is whether or not to kill those who come to take your guns.

Don't be forced to that choice. Do not register yourself or your guns. Ever.

- Gabe

[Brian Dale]

Can you show exactly how simple registration is an infringement on ownership? Registration doesn't stop you from owning a gun, it just lets the government know you have it. From logic alone, nope. So in theory, there would be nothing to worry about.

In practice, by contrast, what do these places have in common?

1. Great Britain
2. Canada
3. Australia
4. Germany, 1938
5. Uganda
6. Cambodia
7. China
8. South Africa
9. California

Plenty more, but even one example would be reason enough for caution, IMNSHO.

{Edited to add: but I think that Gabe said it better as I was typing.}

[Gordon Fink]

Gun registration actually violates the Fourth Amendment more than it does the Second. The government has no business knowing what we own—not that it has ever let that fact stop it before.…

~G. Fink

[Molon Labe]

Can you show exactly how simple registration is an infringement on ownership?
Registration is akin to asking permission. You do not need to ask permission from anyone before practicing an inalienable right.

Never forget that the government did not give you your rights. Therefore, you never, ever need to seek the government’s permission before practicing a right...

[keederdag]

In your proposed situation, "The People" would not be constrained to own just firearms. Rocket launchers would be fair game too right? How would anyone propose to deal with this? I thought that the basis of 2A was to keep us as well armed as a future and possible tyranical Gov. This means M-1 tanks, F-16's, and stinger missles. If the Supremes agree that 2A is an induvidual right, that is not to be infringed, it should open this door as well. Then what? A little devils advocating here as well!:)

[tiberius]

In your proposed situation, "The People" would not be constrained to own just firearms. Rocket launchers would be fair game too right? How would anyone propose to deal with this? I thought that the basis of 2A was to keep us as well armed as a future and possible tyranical Gov. This means M-1 tanks, F-16's, and stinger missles. If the Supremes agree that 2A is an induvidual right, that is not to be infringed, it should open this door as well. Then what? A little devils advocating here as well!

What (to you) exactly is wrong with this situation? Its not like many could afford it anyway.


Just a reminder, Today is Soilent Green day!

Oh yeah, I thought Tusesday was Soylent Green day. :)

[2dogs]

Not to worry- now that the CDC has determined that gun laws are ineffectual, they will all be repealed. Let's see now ....................hhmmmmm...........where to start?:rolleyes:

[Futo Inu]

Absolutely not.

The exceptions can (and will) swallow the rule, IF the "rational basis" test is adopted (i.e. reasonable restrictions). Legislatures can and will, without a doubt, restrict firearms to the point of a total ban (except for that one single shot .22 per family, stored in the safe at the gun range, accessible once per month per approved, licensed family member for target shooting). And, if you study the Supreme Court tests for striking laws - ok, lookit - it's real simple - quick primer in SCOTUS law - any law challenged on const. grounds is looked at through one of three tests:

1. "Rational Basis": The overwhelming, vast majority of laws are looked at with this test - the SCOTUS asks the question "Did the legislature have a rational basis for passing the law?" If they did, then the law stands. As a practical matter, laws judged uder the rational basis test are always - got that? - *ALWAYS* upheld, even if there's not one scintilla of evidence that the legislature properly looked at the social science. If "reasonable restrictions" can be put on the RKBA, then this implies a rational basis test, in which case anything goes, and you know what that means with Chumpie Chuckie, et al in the Congress. The SCOTUS will never strike a law examined under rational basis (or at least they haven't yet, save possibly ONCE in history - extraordinarly rare, in any event - just wouldn't happen with a gun "control" law).

2. "Intermediate Scrutiny": Laws that discriminate against semi-protected classes will be looked at with some scrutiny over and above the simple question of "was there any rational basis for the law?". The law will be struck down as unconst., however, only if there is not deemed to be a demonstrable nexus between the law and it's contribution in accomplishing an IMPORTANT governmental interest (which you can then argue till you're blue about what's important and what's not, and to what extent). Laws that discriminate based on gender (against women, or men), and laws that discriminate against the mentally retarded have been struck down at times because the test applied was this intermediate level of scrutiny, and the test was not passed.

3. "Strict Scrutiny": This is the hardest test to pass, and similarly to the rational basis, it means as a practical matter a foregone outcome in the vast majority of cases (that being that the law IS stricken down as unconst.). Laws that discriminate against protected minorities and/or which violate FUNDAMENTAL rights get strict scrutiny applied. Examples are laws that discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, or laws that violate freedom of speech, press, the right to vote, etc.

Now, the test chosen by the SCOTUS and the lower courts is FOR ALL THE MARBLES folks - the test determined to apply is just almost the only important thing (once the individual right is established, as it most likely will be). But if the courts recognize an individual right, yet still choose to somehow apply a rational basis test, then it's an utterly meaningless right, since courts always uphold rational basis tested laws. If the SCOTUS ultimately does this, then they'll be going against every ingrained precedent in SCOTUS history, because they know, as does everyone familiar with the law, that saying there's a right is absolutely bare lip service if you're going to apply the rational basis test anyway. Now, the RKBA is CLEARLY a fundamental right, if you view the history. And therefore, strict scrutiny is CLEARLY the only test that applies, and therefore most any and all law restricting the rights to keep and bear arms *should* be stricken. To apply rational basis or even intermediate scrutiny, as apparently the 5th Circuit did in Emerson, is pure hogwash.

If rational basis is ultimately chosen by the SCOTUS (or, of course, if NO individual right is found), then it's time to go to war, folks - because it will be all downhill from there. The correct test is, of course, strict scrutiny. Now, the only thing slightly interesting from a lawyer's point of view, although frustrating and scary as a gun owner, is whether or not the SCOTUS might actually adopt a form of the very-seldom-used INTERMEDIATE scrutiny for gun rights. Then at least there would be SOME real protection, but since there's such a real scarcity of caselaw on intermediate scrutiny rights, that it's hard to say how much real protection in the long run RKBA might have under intermediate scrutiny. This would be wrong, because it would be saying, in essence, that the RKBA is a lesser right than that of the right to speech or to vote, but on a par with the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of your gender. Some laws would probably fail, but I'd imagine most (60-70% + ) would be upheld, notably the entire federal licensing scheme of 34, I'd imagine, as well as all or most of 68. But at least under intermediate scrutiny, the court will LISTEN TO and take into account the social science data (for example, in the case of the RKBA, the court would allow and entertain data at the appellate level, that assault weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes) - so at least we could get a foot in the door, and argue and appeal cases all the time with intermediate scrutiny. If rational basis is chosen (reasonable restrictions), then it's time to batton down the hatches and get ready for a rough bloody ride, IMO.

And BTW, yes, of course there is a real possibility that the SCOTUS will look at the RKBA and any given law and say "OK, strict scrutiny applies, BUT this law doesn't 'infringe', it merely does 'X' " (registration, puts a tax on, etc.), and as pointed out, they may be right about that! In truth, registration probably does NOT, unfortunately, infringe the right (in theory and therefore in the eyes of the SCOTUS). However, HOWEVER, since you know and I know, as does everyone who's ever studied history, that registration will probably eventually lead to confiscation, as a practical matter, recognized right or not, I for one, for my own selfish interests will not obey a registration law, even if I agree that it IS constitutional.

OTOH, laws that ban certain types of firearms, such as the 94 ban, are so clearly an unconst. violation of the 2A, that's there's no possible way the SCOTUS could find strict scrutiny, yet still find that the law is somehow OK (without the painful, unprecedented twists and turns, and production of ideas from the justices' nether-regions, as found in the Griswold and Roe cases - which mind you is indeed possible of course, but not too likely unless a few more Ginsburg/Breyers replace OConnor and Rehnquist - then all bets are off). So any finding by the court of either of the following two things should make you decide that being a non-gun-registering criminal is the probably the safer thing to be, for your and your family's safety, in the long run: (a) rational basis test is the proper test, or (b) strict scrutiny is the test, but the 94 ban, or its progeny,if any, is still somehow upheld. :scrutiny:

Another important thing to note about the so-called "intermediate scrutiny" - since the SCOTUS doesn't come right out and say "this is an intermediate scrutiny test situation", the lower courts won't ever KNOW that a right is to be viewed with an intermediate level of scrutiny, unless and until the SCOTUS actually strikes some law, if precedent is any indication. You see, since the SCOTUS opinions hem and haw around so much (of necessity to get other judtices to sign off with the majority), they wouldn't say "this is an intermediate scrutiny case" in all likelihood. Rather, they would go through many pages of convoluted reasoning about reasonable restrictions, but then ultimately either UPHOLD or STRIKE the law in question. Well, since their reasoning is typically so convoluted, the lower courts take 90% of their instruction from the OUTCOME of the SCOTUS case, not close attention the reasoning/dicta. Therefore, if a gun law is UHPELD (i.e. not unconst.), AND some lip service is given to the dreaded word "reasonable", then you can almost bet that lower courts will subsequently decide that "looks like the SCOTUS went with rational basis", which is bad, bad news, because then, even if some of the justices meant that they thought an intermediate scrutiny test was appropriate, but never came out and said it in the majority or a concurring opinion, then all laws will be upheld in the lower courts (for decades? centuries?) once again until they decide the grant cert again the next time all the stars line up, and then finally inform the world that "ya know, even though we struck that law before, we didn't really mean rational basis, we meant intermediate scrutiny, and this law here, banning all handguns, doesn't look like it can stand, so we're gonna strike it". Then and only then - when a law is actually struck - do you typically find out that something more than rational basis might apply -which could be a few decades or more off. Hell, just look at US v. Miller - the court in that case clearly recognized an individual right as applying to any firearm which is useful to a military or paramilitary group, but since the bonehead didn't show up for oral arguments, he couldn't get a remand, and therefore his conviction has been upheld, and the opinion of Miller has slowly morphed over the years due to wrong interpretation upon wrong interpretation, to the point that at least 2 federal circuit courts have actually declared that there is no individual right! So don't hold your breath on a scenario where say, the Silveria court says "hey, this Cali law is kinda restrictive, true, but we're gonna uphold it because we're gonna apply intermediate scrutiny and the law is clearly tied to an important governmental interest, but don't try anything further than this, you gun-restricting states", followed by many lower court decisions saying "well you heard the SCOTUS; they drew a line in the sand", and have a bunch of laws passing the line subsequently get stricken - it ain't gonna happen til they actually grant cert and actually find that a law has already crossed the line - the SCOTUS can always be counted on to NEVER decide one iota more than it actually has to in order to dispose of the case at hand (especially if they can chunk it on standing grounds). Now, suppose a gun case like Silvera makes it up, and suppose the law is upheld, without ever saying explicitly in the majority opinion which test is used, but at the same time, some justices in a dissenting opinion or concurring opinion talk about how they believe strict or intermediate scrutiny is proper. This is better than nothing for future attempts at getting cert granted etc., but it's NOT law - NOT precedent if it's not in the majority opinion, so likely the lower courts would look at it in simple terms, espec with all the Clinton appointees - "hey, that law in Silvera was upheld - looks like rational basis to us". :banghead: So, bottom line, we've got to, got to, GOT TO, win one! That's why I tend to agree with those that say that we need to select our first big test case so utterly carefully, and boneheads ought not appeal marginal cases like Silvera. No, we can't wait forever, but we need a WIN under our belt, folks. In truth, I'm a cynic, and I actually believe the the SCOTUS wants to grant cert in Silvera so they can uphold the law, whereas they knew there was no rational way for them to uphold the Lautenberg law in Emerson without looking really really stupid by parting with established precedent, so they didn't want to grant cert in Emerson. After all, Emerson was the most beautiful case you could imagine, IMO, from a legal standpoint - his gun could be easily shown to be useful to a military group, per Miller precedent, since it was identical to an M9, and it was federal law, so there was no additional necessity of jumping through an incorporation doctrine hoop to find unconstitutionality. Silvera is a long shot, IMO. :( I'm a cynic because one supposed "conservative"; supposed friend of the RKBA, Scalia, has actually been quoted as saying something like "in truth, few people will care if the 2nd amendment fades into oblivion, but...." (very rough paraphrase there). [What the HELL is he thinking? What kind of sheltered, blissninny life must he have led to think this way? Grrr.] With "friends" like this, you can imagine how Kennedy, Breyer, Stephens, Ginsburg feel about the RKBA. Not sure about O'Connor and Renhquist. Thomas usually does whatever Scalia does - he's usually a yes-man, for better or worse, and you see how Scalia feels about the 2A. :rolleyes: So it's not a good situation unless shrub can appoint some good peeps to the court. And since O'Connor is going to retire, and she has actually seemed to always at least try follow precedent, and since shrub doesn't seem to truly care about RKBA, I'd be willing to bet that any shrub replacement to either O'Connor or Rehnquist are going to be worse on RKBA than O'Connor and Rehnquist themselves!! Egad, man! So, really, our only hope is that Silvera or some other case gets a positive outcome BEFORE these two retire, OR that somehow shrub is able to squeak an RKBA supporter (or closet RKBA supporter) past the evenly-partisan-divided Senate before his term(s) is(are) out. Failing one of these two things, I am very afraid for the future of the USA. (unless something really weird happens like Breyer or Ginsberg retiring early or dying young for some reason).

Keeder, as to the extent of the right (assuming all goes well on the individual right, incorporation, and strict scrutiny fronts), then I would imagine that the SCOTUS, right or wrong, for better or worse, would find a limit on the right, based on some incarnation of a definition of a "small arms", as implied by the word "arms" in the 2A (but maybe not), whatever THAT turns out to be - gets into very gray area - 20mm? 50 cal limit? Up to Cannons of any size with non-explosive rounds? Includes explosive rounds, too? What? In any event, it woud take buku Scotus cases to actually figure it out, since they'll never decide anything more than exactly what is right in front of them (the arm in question in the case, be it Silvera or whomever). If they court by some miracle finds arms to include pretty much any arm up to tanks and jetfighters, then they would still probably uphold very strict licensing schemes as not being "infringing" all the way down to full-auto small arms. Althought *I* personally don't agree, I think that a realistic outcome is that the federal licensing scheme that exists today on small arms of the full-auto variety (34 act) would be found to be not violative. I don't agree, because it seems to me that when the licensing/import scheme is so restrictive as to make the cost astronomical, it's a de facto ban on a fundamental right, which should be stricken just as poll taxes were stricken in the 50s/60s - the taxes put monetary costs on a fundamental right, which discrimated against the poor, who were disproportionately black, and were therefore stricken (and course poll taxes were in fact designed to keep black people from voting in large numbers). Seems to me that if a poll tax of a relatively small amount violatives the fundamental right to vote, then a taxing an licensing scheme that makes a full-auto, clearly protected weapon, cost 10 times as much as the exact same gun to LEOs, then it's clearly violative of my fundamental RKBA. That's me - I just don't think the SCOTUS would agree, unfortunately. I do think there's a possibility that they will recognize full auto arms as protected in theory, and certainly "assualt weapons" banned in the 94 ban as being protected. I would think that arms means small arms, up to say 50 cal guns, give or take, but it's certainly possible that the FF meant all military arms - after all, as pointed out, people back then owned cannons with no restrictions (but I point out in response that, this DOESN'T necessarily mean that the 2A protected them, then or now, it only means that there were no laws against them). The key of course, is what the FFs meant by "arms". I think that, more likely than not, they meant "small arms" which in turn can be defined in a number of ways, but one workable starting point might be any arm which can be carried and deployed by an individual soldier, as opposed to a crew. Since Jesse the Governor can hump a GE mini-gun, I guess it would include that - 50 cal shoulder rifles as well and SAWS, but perhaps not tripod mounted Ma Dueces or 20mms....It gets problematic, however, because an F16 only needs one person to deploy/use it. :) - As opposed to an M1, which needs a crew of four. In any event, arms includes more than firearms - it includes edged and contact weapons of course. Seems to me though, that, among arms which ARE firearms, I coulnd't disagree with a SCOTUS definition that limited protected "small arms" to those which use a kinetic round (as opposed to exploding), and which use expanding gases to propel the kinetic round (as opposed to rocket propulsion like missiles bazookas, rocket powered mortars, etc.). This seems reasonable to me, as what the FFs might have meant when they said "arms" - what the soldier of the day could have used, and by analogy, what an average grunt humps today. Certainly they envisioned kinetic rounds powered by expanding gases (muskets obviously fit this definition). Well, M249s are the same thing under this broad definition. Most mortars, though "carryable" and deployable by one person, and though they use expanding gases to propel the round, they alsouse an exploding round, so they may or may not be protected. Did the FFs envision exploding rounds? No probably not. But, does that NECESSARILY mean that they meant to limit "arms" to only those arms which they could envision? Not not necessarily! Therefore mortars aren't necessarily out - it's a fuzzy area. But, if *I* were in front of the SCOTUS and a blissninny like Ginsburg scowled at me and said "where do you draw the line, counselor?", I'd would have to (for expediency's sake, in the hope of getting any right at all) say "your honor, arms in the 2A means small arms, which is limited to any gun capable of being carried and used by a single soldier or rank-and-file militiaman, up to and including full-auto, which fires a round designed to do damage based on kinetic energy only, and propelled by expanding gases down a barrel/bore". I would do this because even though that question would probably have nothing to do with the case at bar (Emerson's M92 or Silvera's [AR15?]), so it would be dicta if anything, assuming it even made it to the opinion, and because saying "your honor, it's not complicated - gimme my M1 Abrams beeyatch" is gonna cause them to wet their pants, throw a conniption in the majority opinion, and uphold the gun law at bar due to fear of opening the proverbial pandora's box. One could then in LATER cases try to expand, expand.... Remember, most people whose lives lead them to the SCOTUS have probably led pretty sheltered lives, and therefore probably don't realize the all-important utility in weapons' ability to protect the republic. And just because they read precedent in the form of opinions doesn't mean they necessarily study HISTORY and what you can learn from it. We can only hope that they have clerks who have studied history and/or understand the value in guns, or that that actually read and understand the briefs in chief and appellate briefs submitted to them (don't hold your breath)

Wow - working on a record length post here. ;)

[jsalcedo]

Here is a simple answer on how Registration could affect gun ownership.

The cops catch you with an unregistered gun.
Through neglect, ignorance, fear or lapse you forgot to register a gun
or the proof was lost or destroyed.

What is the penalty? Loss of 2nd amendment rights.

[Oleg Volk]

I don't remember what guns I have. What's the enforcement mechanism to make me remember in order to register them? Once you have the enforcement set up, it is downhill to a shooting war sooner or later.

[Daniel T]

Futo, that was a fantastic post.

See, the reason I ask this question is because a individual right ruling by the USSC is a double-edged sword, for all the reasons that Futo laid out.

We, as a group, cannot start celebrating and thinking that it's over with if the court rules for us. We still have to be eternally vigilant, becasue the antis will never stop.

[OF]

We still have to be eternally vigilant, becasue the antis will never stop.Now there's a statement I can agree with. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do a little celebrating if we got a favorable SC decision, though. How could you resist?

- Gabe

[Futo Inu]

"What's the enforcement mechanism to make me remember in order to register them?"

As you know, the enforcement mechanism works as follows:

1. Legislature passes law making it crime to not register all guns.
2. LEOAs are instructed to implement the law, by arresting and prosecuting those who don't comply.
3. LEOA sends notice to everyone in community to comply with law by such and such date. (this step is optional).
4. LEOA believes that Oleg has guns he hasn't registered, since a cop, or friend or spouse of a cop, or someone who works at the police dept., or younameit, who is also a neighbor of Oleg's, has seen Oleg toting guns and guncase-looking apparatuses in and out of house. A quick check shows that he's not on file.
5. LEOA warns Oleg that he needs to register his guns, as the date has come and gone, and he's in violation of the law if he still has them.
6. Oleg states to LEOA that he has none; he sold some; lost some; or that he doesn't remember, or can't find them; have a nice day. Or, Oleg remains silent.
7. LEOA, based on probable casue, on tip of same neighbor/informant, who viewed guns in Oleg's hand in last 6 months, obtaines a search warrant from a magistrate - after all, most magistrates believe citizens are lying and cops are telling the truth when cops say "we think that more likely than not, he DIDN'T sell that gun in last 6 months." Warrant granted.
8. LEOA executes search warrant (with any luck, without shooting and killing Oleg in process of serving it). Finds guns. Now, Oleg is guilty of 20 crimes. Not registering guns - 15 guns - one count each. And 5 counts of obstruction of justice - lying to police on several occasions when he said he didn't have any guns. Looking at a possibility of 40 years (example), if they run consecutively. And with federal sentencing guidelines, there's no discretion to knock it down.
9. Oleg and a many, many others similarly situated across the country, get out on bail, and a few LEOs and politicians start to come up missing.
10. In light of 9, fed gov't passes laws doing several things: making no-knock, and/or warrantless searches available in ALL gun registration searches, and make jail terms very very long and bail impossible to get in gun registration cases, and making sure all transfers require a paperwork trail - that way, 20 years down the road, gun owners can't say "I sold them all" without papers to prove it.

More civilians and LEOs die - its a downward spiral. As Oleg says, downhill to shooting war from there. Bottom line - we must win in the courts, AND prevent registration from passing the Congress - BOTH - or it's gonna get bloody. This is why we must give til it hurts to GOA (and NRA if you like). For the sake of gun owners, LEOs, the republic, and even to protect the blissninnies, even though they don't even realize it.

Demise, that's right, we can't ever rest on our laurels. If rational basis is the test adopted, then we have no rights as a practical matter. Which means we win ONLY to the extent we win in the legislatures. Which would make the GOA/NRA/SAF/JPFO even more important then than they are now, which is incredibly important. Gun laws are never repealed - the best you can hope for is to stop new ones, or get old ones struck by courts. And you know how far the latter has gotten us.

[Molon Labe]

Originally posted by jsalcedo
Here is a simple answer on how Registration could affect gun ownership.

The cops catch you with an unregistered gun.
Through neglect, ignorance, fear or lapse you forgot to register a gun
or the proof was lost or destroyed.

What is the penalty? Loss of 2nd amendment rights.

Also never forget this: Anti-gun laws are enforced at gunpoint.

Rather paradoxical, is it not?

[telewinz]

Don't underestimate the joy of being a law abiding citizen, it is quite possible you will enjoy that feeling much more than that hidden stash of illegal weapons. The fear of being a prisoner may seem much more relevant than the fear of being a "slave". Once you decide to violate the law be aware of the price, both hidden and otherwise. During the 60's and 70's the LEO's went after thousands of draft dodgers, I don't recall them backing off just because of a few riots and civil distrubances. Be careful that you are not underestimating their resolve. That knock on the door could come next week or years later, at home or at work. Seems to me that you are trading an intangible fear for a tangible one.

[OF]

Missed opportunity to do what? Register yourself as a gun owner?

- Gabe

[Sam Adams]

Demise said:

Can you show exactly how simple registration is an infringement on ownership? Registration doesn't stop you from owning a gun, it just lets the government know you have it.

How would you feel about a law that made you register every bible or other religious article that you bought? How about the government requiring all churches, etc. to provide lists of members, as well as lists of contributors? How about a law that required you to give the government a copy of the key to every door in your house, along with alarm codes. How about a law requiring full access to all of your computer files, including the keys to any encryption algorithm? All of these laws would provide some rational basis for their enactment, most being some variation of "its for the children" or "its for your own good."

In each and every one of these cases, the law wouldn't be an "infringement on ownership" or (in the case of going to church, etc.) an "infringement on free assembly or freedom of religion." However, what you are dealing with is having a chilling effect on the exercise of a fundamental right. Think about the effect on your voting rights if an election official was standing in the voting booth with you - just to make sure you know how to work the machine, of course, so that we don't get any more repeats of Floriduh. Hell, most people wouldn't even bother to vote under those circumstances - i.e. the right to vote would have been infringed.

I know that you are playing :evil: 's advocate, but all too many people say the same crap and mean it - look at all of the gorons that say "Well, if you have to register cars, why not guns?" All of these folks have GOT to understand that regulation or taxation of any right is an infringement thereon, no matter what it is called or what the reasons for doing so are, not by outlawing it, but by making it difficult to exercise that right.

I've got a real, historical example of the chilling effect on a fundamental freedom caused by registration: several Soviet Bloc countries (notably Rumania) required the registration of all typewriters and copying machines. Not only was ownership registered, impressions of typewriter keys were taken and invisible identification marks were put on every copy produced. Were these things banned? Nope, but if you wanted to exercise the fundamental freedom to publish or copy an anti-government article, your knowledge of the fact that the government would quickly track you down tended to persuade the folks of those countries not to do so.

Futo Ino

Isn't there a 1942 or 1943 USSC case that originated in Pennsylvania which said that any tax on an instrumentality used to exercise a fundamental right was unconstitutional? IIRC, it had to do with taxes on bibles or something similar. It would seem to me that this case would be ample precedent to overturn all of the taxes and fees imposed on guns, ammo, concealed carry permits, etc.

[Sam Adams]

Don't underestimate the joy of being a law abiding citizen, it is quite possible you will enjoy that feeling much more than that hidden stash of illegal weapons.

Ah, Telewinz is up to his old tricks, defending the right of the government to do any damned thing it pleases, and us uppity subjects had damned well better obey the laws, or else!

Tell you what Telewinz, there are so many laws and regulations on the books that I'd bet you money that you can't even step out of your house, let alone go through a normal working day, without violating at least one. When the US Code alone takes up an entire wall, and the regulations fill several aisles of a library - not to mention all of the state and local crap - it is literally impossible to obey all laws. This is especially true because most laws and regulations are so poorly written and intentionally obtuse that even experienced attorneys who specialize in these things disagree about what they mean, let alone the average John or Jane Doe. What do you think that the libraries full of court cases are about? Those tens of thousands of volumes aren't full of traffic citations and jaywalking tickets, they're full of (mostly) learned judges deciding *** the law in question really means - and many of those are overturned by more senior judges, so even JUDGES don't know the law. So no one is or can possibly be a law-abiding citizen, no matter what they think. Don't you ever wonder if there's something wrong with that?

Maybe you should think about why there are so many laws. Here's the best explanation that I've ever seen. It is taken from a fictional novel written several decades ago, but neither human nature nor the nature of power has changed one iota since then:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged


In answer to Telewinz' quote, all I have to say is "In for a penny, in for a dollar." If statists like you insist that I'm a law-breaker for owning something now that I used to own quite legally (like, for instance, a few dozen 20-round magazines that I owned in NJ, carrying a penalty of 5 years in prison EACH), or that my grandfather owned quite legally and handed down to me quite legally (like a machine gun - which I DON'T own) - well, then so be it. If you'd see me (and a few tens of millions of others) imprisoned and deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights because of a minor violation, why shouldn't I really violate the law and at least enjoy doing it? If the penalty is the same for owning a single-shot Derringer as full-auto Uzi, why shouldn't I get the latter? Do you see where your slavish devotion to "the Law," no matter what it contains, leads to?


I surmise that you'd have been a good Loyalist about 227 years ago.

[jsalcedo]

I surmise that you'd have been a good Loyalist about 227 years ago.

ouch

:uhoh:

[Daniel T]

Sam, you make an extremely good argument. So good, in fact, that I'm gonna steal most of it and use it other places. :)

[Sam Adams]

It was meant to be an ouch. I have no patience for those that worship the State. I'm a "Law and Order" type, whereas they are just "Order" types. Order without Law is merely a new name for tyranny.

Oh, and the Law, whatever it is, must be both moral and comprehensible to the average person. If it isn't both, it deserves to be used as toilet paper.

[edited by Sam Adams to add the last paragraph]

[Sam Adams]

Steal away!

[keederdag]

What was the original question again?:D

[tyme]

I don't have a problem with registration... IF
1) It's free
2) The government will not attempt to do anything illegal or unethical with that registration information. There aren't many legit uses of gun registration I can think of, but if the government's only going to use it to help return stolen guns, etc., I don't have a problem with it.

The problem is that
1) The government always charges money for registration stuff like that
2) The government never obeys strict meanings of laws. Once they have such a list it will be abused.

Even if the jedi council were in charge of laws (the council would certainly refuse that duty), there would be mistakes and misuses of information and lists of citizens owning dangerous objects, just not in the patently evil ways they're misused today.

I hope, for their sake, that the justices uphold the second amendment and apply strict scrutiny to 2nd amendment restrictions. This would require striking down the CA law. Anything less, and unfortunately I think there will be real trouble.

[hammer4nc]

With regard to Futo Inu's scenario, I'd offer this comment: somewhere between arrest and sentencing, won't there be a jury trial? Seems like a slight oversight, eh? My hypothetical scenario would have fully informed juries refusing to find defendants guilty; and grand juries no-billing cases brought before them, involving unregistered gun charges.

And its not just wishful thinking. I hate to bring this up again, but in the Ruby Ridge case, Randy Weaver was facing the death penalty for murder; he ended up with a minor "failure to appear" conviction, time served. Subsequently, .gov settled a civil case for $millions, because they wanted to sweep it under the rug. Likewise, in the Waco case, the defendants were looking at murder; but were only convicted on lesser charges. Had not Judge Walter Smith revised the charges after the jury was dismissed, these folks would be walking free today. Didn't the jury send a letter of protest to Judge Smith over this action?

Jury decisions are a powerful safety valve in the system. One that the knee-jerk loyalists conveniently ignore.

[telewinz]

Sam Adams

"It was meant to be an ouch. I have no patience for those that worship the State. I'm a "Law and Order" type, whereas they are just "Order" types. Order without Law is merely a new name for tyranny."

I work with alot of people who share your opinion of law abiding citizens. I suspect you are in fact a law abiding citizen or else you would not be so confident in your views. I believe you lack "seasoning".

BTW: The people I work with are called inmates, they have a very secure retirement plan.:rolleyes:

[keederdag]

:what: :D :D :D :D LOL...LOL....

[Molon Labe]

Tyme said:
I don't have a problem with registration... IF It's free…

How could it ever be free? Wouldn’t computers and other equipment need to be purchased using tax payers’ money? Wouldn’t wages need to be paid using tax payers’ money?

[Standing Wolf]

Would you then comply with laws requiring your guns to be registered for crime prevention purposes (tracing thefts, illegal uses, etc.)? After all, there can't be a confiscation, as the USSC has declared that the 2nd applies to individuals.

Supreme Court rulings change on an irregular and frequent basis. Today's guarantee is next week's sheet of worthless paper. There not only could be firearms confiscation in the United States, but it's already been done in a number of states.

If I'd wanted my guns stolen, I'd have left them in the front yard.

[Sam Adams]

I said: "It was meant to be an ouch. I have no patience for those that worship the State. I'm a "Law and Order" type, whereas they are just "Order" types. Order without Law is merely a new name for tyranny."

To which you replied: "I work with alot of people who share your opinion of law abiding citizens. I suspect you are in fact a law abiding citizen or else you would not be so confident in your views. I believe you lack "seasoning".

BTW: The people I work with are called inmates, they have a very secure retirement plan."

In case you didn't get the drift of my comment (and you obviously didn't), it is this: Any dime store tyrant can promise and deliver Order. However, if said tyrant has to obey the Law (by which I mean some objectively moral standard, not the "laws" forced down a society's gullet at gun point), then there will not be so much Order. Order alone is merely tyranny - Mussolini made the trains run on time, and the Mongol Khans made sure (for a time) that there were no murders by road side brigands, but I hardly regret not having lived in such a society.

As for your "guests'" opinions of law-abiding citizens, I not only don't care, but I fail to see the relevance to my comments. So what if they want Law and Order, instead of just Order? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

As for your profession: while I'm not criticizing you for taking it up, and while it is a very important job in the scheme of things, folks with similar credentials are not exactly well-known for their vigorous defense of Constitutional rights. Dealing with the scum of society all day, every day, tends to color your perception of all of society. Well, tell you what, about 98% of citizens are quite moral and obey as many laws as they can. There's no problem with them owning guns, and some 20,000 gun laws didn't prevent most of the people that you deal with daily from getting them - remember, they DON'T care about the law. Laws only deter the law-abiding, not those with whom you deal. We are supposed to live in a free society, one where you are free to do as you wish so long as you don't directly harm another. You and your fellow travelers, however, clearly want to limit everyone's liberties because it MIGHT prevent some crimes, or make it easier to solve them. That kind of solution might be very utilitarian and efficient (kind of like tyrannies tend to be in this regard), but it delivers a tremendous body-blow to the cause of Liberty.

Conclusion: stop being a government parrot. Wake up, and read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc. Maybe you'll learn something besides "if its written in a book by our lawmakers, it is right."

[Graystar]

However, in the Supreme Court's opinion, "reasonable" limitations can be put upon the 2nd, just like there are on the 1st Amendment. What "reasonable" limitations have been placed on the 1st Amendment?? As far as I know, there are no limitations on free expression.

There ARE limitations on knowingly making false statements and on "fighting words." But these types of speech are not considered free expression, so these laws don't constitute limitations on the 1st Amendment.

[geekWithA.45]

The shifting line in the sand.....reasonable restriction on fundamental rights,

1A, 2A, etc.


In the past, the widely held view (and the correct one in my opinion) was that restrictions on fundamental rights had to be as narrow as possible, and be applied only when excercise of the right resulted in immediate, unjust harm to another.

Hence, the inability to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, (immediate damage) to publish lies, (unjust damage), to strike an innocent (immediate, unjust damage) and so on.

If we apply the same standard to 2A, you'll find that reasonable restrictions basically means you can't point a gun at someone who hasn't attacked you, which pretty much rules out all of the actually illegal, initiation of force type issues that surround firearms.

This thread presuposses that registration somehow falls into that category, and it just doesn't work.

Registration of firearms, that is, the creation of a list of gunowners, and what guns they own, achieves ONLY ONE THING: the existence of a list of gunowners and what they own.

The problem with it is that there is not _one_ legitimate use for such a list.

(I don't consider its use in solving crimes after the fact as legitimate,either. Basically, all it does is throw people willy nilly unto the suspect list, for no reason other than owning an item like the perpetrators. Furthermore, it's generally a misuse of time and money, like the Great .223 Hunt of 2002 associated with the DC sniper)


Or to put it another way, such a list is EXACTLY as legitimate as a list of printing presses (printers, typewriters, etc) and their owners.

[geekWithA.45]

Sam Adams:

n't there a 1942 or 1943 USSC case that originated in Pennsylvania which said that any tax on an instrumentality used to exercise a fundamental right was unconstitutional? IIRC, it had to do with taxes on bibles or something similar. It would seem to me that this case would be ample precedent to overturn all of the taxes and fees imposed on guns, ammo, concealed carry permits, etc.

I've been thinking along this line myself.

Similiarly, "poll taxes" and "literacy tests" for voters have also been shot down.

I haven't heard of this line of legal reasoning being used, has anyone? It could be important.

Very important.

[Ian]

Did the FFs envision exploding rounds? No probably not. One quick nitpick, Futo. You bet they knew of exploding rounds. Exploding cannon shot had been around for quite a while before our revolution, and it's even referenced in classic Americana - "And the bombs bursting in air...".

[Boats]

Just a few observations:

. . .shall not be infringed. is not all that unique in the BoR.

Congress shall make no law. . . is pretty equivalent, and yet we see laws against "terroristic threatening," "illegal campaign contributions, (too many in a specified period, or too large, or from the "wrong" people), solicitation, parade and demonstration permits, so on and so forth.

The trump card that allows infringement of the 1A that will allow infringement of the 2A even if it is ruled an individual right and incorporated via the 14A to the states is classically called police powers. When a branch of the government can find no other way to constitutionally abridge a freedom, this "power" of the state is invoked. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. . . . is a famous expression of such sentiment.

Intermediate scrutiny is a narrow analysis used in certain cases, usually discrimination cases involving race or gender, it is unlikely to be used in any successful 2A ruling. To be precedent consistent, the 2A would have to be ruled a fundamental freedom, along with the rest of those in the BoR, and laws attempting to abridge that freedom be subject to strict scrutiny.

However, even strict scrutiny, as it has developed, would allow wiggle room for the feds and the states to pretty much keep the 2A "in check." A compelling state interest in abridging the freedom is all that is required in the manner calculated to least burden the right. Again, police powers and appeals to the benefits of a "well-ordered society" will be used to defend those laws already in place as not very onerous to the citizen. Those hoping for an invalidation the NFA or the GCA would probably be sorely disappointed, while items like the '86 machine gun ban and the '89 importation ban would probably fall. Background checks, i.e., prior restraint, would probably be upheld as long as no comprehensive registration scheme other than the NFA for autos, DDs and AOWs were employed.

Keep and Bear Arms can be construed as a self-limiting provision of the 2A. One may keep a warship, but one may not bear it. Same with crew served weapons, nukes, F-16's and other extreme examples. It would perhaps be the analysis that if it can't be bourne by an individual, it can't be kept. Where this would get interesting is in a fight over the NFA being an improper exercise of the Congressional taxing power, as there are cases that invalidated the taxation of presses. However, knowing that the Justices are elites, they will probably find another way to keep the NFA, or roadmap a replacement that would meet scrutiny.

In short, a positive 2A SCOTUS ruling is not going to be a panacea in the fight over the 2A, just a breather until it comes under attack from the usual suspects, as it has ever been. A negative decision would make for a more interesting event from a sociological viewpoint.

A possibly kosher argument for weapons registration would begin with Congressional authoirty to regulate the militia, both organized and not. How could the government know the capabilities of the unorganized militia without taking stock? Muster laws used to be used to just that purpose. With confiscation allegedly off the table, I tend to think registration under the right scheme would be permissible as a legitimate state exercise with historical precedent, not that I agree with that sentiment in the least.

[Chris Rhines]

Historically, the USG does not have a very good reputation when it comes to keeping promises, behaving ethically, etc. In short, if you trust the government, any agency of the government to keep its word, you're pulling down your pants and bending over.

And so no, I wouldn't register my guns, now or ever. I'll take the uncertain joy of freedom over the transitory comfort of submitting to the Man.

- Chris

[AZRickD]

This assumes: Politicians will obey the Consitution and USSC in the laws they pass, and/or keep their word.
In 1995 in US v Lopez, the USSC declared that the "Federal Gunfree School Zone Act" was an unconstitutional use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Chastened (not), in 1996, Congress passed and Clinton signed "The Federal Gunfree School Zone Act."

Hmmmm.
Would you then comply with laws requiring your guns to be registered for crime prevention purposes (tracing thefts, illegal uses, etc.)?
Where are the laws requring registering of reporters (outside of Chicago), 5-day waiting periods so that Government Fact Checkers could make sure no falsehoods were transmitted? How about a $200 tax on each magazine subscription?

Allow me to quote Justice Harlin's analysis in dissent of the meaning of the 14th Amendment from Poe v Ullman (1961).
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints..."

Poe v Ullman ruled that an old Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of those devices was not a violation of the Constitution. The Court chose to dismiss the case because it involved the threatened and not actual application of the Connecticut law. Since the statute had been on the state's books for over three-quarters of a century without ever having been enforced, the Court found no sense of "immediacy which is an indispensable condition of constitutional adjudication."

A few years later was Griswald v Connecticut 1965, which essentially reversed Poe v Ullman .

Rick

[tyme]

AZRickD, to be fair, the 1996 law did add something like "in or affecting interstate commerce" to the relevant sections. :)
Has anyone been prosecuted under the new law?

The trial court now has to find that the gun's possession in a school zone was in or affecting interstate commerce, and I would think that the same logic the SCOTUS used to reject the claim in Lopez can be used as grounds for appeal.