Article against Registration

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the relevant portion important to using this argument.

Very little thought is necessary to render as a sick joke the oft-repeated claim that police benefit from knowing who has guns and who hasn’t. A registry tells authorities which law-abiding citizens have weapons and which don’t — which at best is useless information, and at worst is yet another case of government’s failing to do anything about the criminal and so going after the rest of us instead. The reductio ad absurdum of this tendency has been well documented by the historian Clayton Cramer. “The U.S. Supreme Court,” Cramer writes,

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren’t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren’t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds “a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.” This conceit has been upheld elsewhere, too. I have no great objection to this principle, but it does highlight the absurdity of an approach that would see constitutionally protected individual liberties being strictly guarded in the case of criminals but restricted when it comes to the law-abiding. Practically speaking, the Haynes decision legally exempts from any future registry the very people whose behavior is used to justify its necessity. Surely, if we are going to become so strict about the Constitution, then the Second and Fourth Amendments should share in the bounty?
Click to expand...

Referring to Haynes vs. U.S. as demonstrating that a criminal is protected from Registration by the 5th preventing self incrimination in our letters can be useful.

Since the claim is that Registration isn't actually on the table we need to point out that Registration has to be in the plans since Universal Background Checks serve no purpose without Registration being implemented in the future. Registration won't even have much impact on crime since criminals are protected from incriminating themselves AND because, being criminals, they won't follow the law anyway since they don't follow it where Registration already is required. If that's the case then Registration doesn't serve the stated purpose and Universal Background Checks don't serve the stated purpose. Universal Background Checks are either pointless politicing or a step to get Registration later.
 
Last edited:
According to Wikipedia,

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).
Click to expand...
 
Ah, that's what I've been trying to remember: United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

It's the "why" to "Why don't they just arrest everybody who gets denied on a background check?"

The "non owners" (as opposed to the pure "anti's") out there see no burden in UBC as they understand it as a simple thing--you are legal and get to buy; or you are not, and are immediately carted off in durance vile.
 
CapnMac said:
Ah, that's what I've been trying to remember: United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

It's the "why" to "Why don't they just arrest everybody who gets denied on a background check?"

The "non owners" (as opposed to the pure "anti's") out there see no burden in UBC as they understand it as a simple thing--you are legal and get to buy; or you are not, and are immediately carted off in durance vile.
Click to expand...

18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

You see a weapon you just have to add to your collection at a gun and knife show so you buy it from "You have no idea what his name is".. a few years later the conservation officer stops you to check your hunting license, since there has been a rash of firearms burglaries in the area lately, he also checks the serial number of that gun your carrying against the stolen weapons database, and lo and behold, that gun was stolen 20 years ago so now not only have you lost the gun, your also up on a felony firearms charge and you lose your right to gun ownership, if convicted its a forever thing.

The possibility of purchasing a stolen weapon at the local gun show alone should make the responsible gun owner want to be able to check and see whether that gun they are about to purchase is stolen. You can't, all you can do is take the word from "whats his name"

As long as radical gun owners screams, drown out the voices of the responsible gun owners, more anti-gun laws will be written.
 
lo and behold, that gun was stolen 20 years ago so now not only have you lost the gun, your also up on a felony firearms charge and you lose your right to gun ownership, if convicted its a forever thing.
Click to expand...

This does not happen. You loose the gun and that's the end of it.
 
[Sen] Coburn bluntly affirmed that any background-check bill emanating from the Senate “absolutely will not” contain any provision for “record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners.” The inclusion of such a scheme, he declared, would “kill this bill” — and any others to boot.
Click to expand...

But that's not how it will happen, Tom, and you know it. UBC will prove useless without registration. FTF transactions will keep on happening, under the table, unless a seller is required to declare that he no longer owns the gun, which would again only have teeth if he had to declare ownership in the first place.

UBC will lead to registration, whether in the UBC bill or a follow-on bill. Logically, it has to. UBC w/o registration is the logical equivalent of speed limits without the means to measure speed.

Please, don't buy into this UBC ≠ registration argument. It's a massive ruse.
 
AlbertH said:
18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

You see a weapon you just have to add to your collection at a gun and knife show so you buy it from "You have no idea what his name is".. a few years later the conservation officer stops you to check your hunting license, since there has been a rash of firearms burglaries in the area lately, he also checks the serial number of that gun your carrying against the stolen weapons database, and lo and behold, that gun was stolen 20 years ago so now not only have you lost the gun, your also up on a felony firearms charge and you lose your right to gun ownership, if convicted its a forever thing.

The possibility of purchasing a stolen weapon at the local gun show alone should make the responsible gun owner want to be able to check and see whether that gun they are about to purchase is stolen. You can't, all you can do is take the word from "whats his name"

As long as radical gun owners screams, drown out the voices of the responsible gun owners, more anti-gun laws will be written.
Click to expand...
really dude? The burden of proof is with the state. How about doing some actual research into actual cases instead of making up scenarios that never happen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as radical gun owners screams, drown out the voices of the responsible gun owners, more anti-gun laws will be written.
Click to expand...

"Radical" and "Responsible" are judgment indicators. You're on the side of the gun banners; just admit it and peddle this crap on some anti-gun blog where they'll accept it without thinking.
 
AlbertH said:
18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

You see a weapon you just have to add to your collection at a gun and knife show so you buy it from "You have no idea what his name is".. a few years later the conservation officer stops you to check your hunting license, since there has been a rash of firearms burglaries in the area lately, he also checks the serial number of that gun your carrying against the stolen weapons database, and lo and behold, that gun was stolen 20 years ago so now not only have you lost the gun, your also up on a felony firearms charge and you lose your right to gun ownership, if convicted its a forever thing.

The possibility of purchasing a stolen weapon at the local gun show alone should make the responsible gun owner want to be able to check and see whether that gun they are about to purchase is stolen. You can't, all you can do is take the word from "whats his name"

As long as radical gun owners screams, drown out the voices of the responsible gun owners, more anti-gun laws will be written.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't matter if you bought a gun, painting, car or a TV. The government must prove you KNEW it was stolen. Then the crime is called "knowingly receiving stolen goods". Emphasis on the governments burden to prove you knew it was stolen. If the woman at the garage sale tells you the painting is stolen, it's a crime. If not, you can assume neither of you are criminals. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The point of UBCs/gun registration is make everyone subject to criminal conditions and penalties, limiting our rights, as if we are already felons. Registration = Guilty until proven innocent.
 
AlbertH - everyone has the option to do a transfer through a local gunshop if they want to be on the safe side. Yes you generally pay, but you would pay twice as much if the FFL knew you had no other choice than to do a transfer through him.
And even with a transfer I don't believe the serial number is checked so you still run the risk of it being stolen and losing it.
 
Just for the sake of clarity on the "stolen gun" issue:

  1. Yes, the State would need to prove that you knew or should have known the gun was stolen in order to convict you of receiving stolen property.

  2. But, you can't acquire ownership of stolen property. It continues to belong to the person it was stolen from.

  3. So if you're found in possession of a gun reported stolen, the gun will be taken from you, and you will not get your money back (unless you can find the guy you bought it from and get the money back from him).
 
As long as radical gun owners screams, drown out the voices of the responsible gun owners, more anti-gun laws will be written.
Click to expand...
"Responsible" gun owners = those in favor of:
  • registration
  • "assault weapon" bans
  • magazine bans
  • confiscation
No sale.

NO, I REFUSE.
 
bondsalo said:
As things stand, the Firearm Owners Protection Act mandates the federal government to destroy within 24 hours any information that it gathers during background checks; all who are jealous of their liberty must ensure that this remains law.
Click to expand...
Without some penalty - fine, prison, whatever - imposed on the federal employees that are covered by this if they DON'T destroy the information, it's a largely meaningless law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top