Why Not Registering Your Guns is a Mistake

"Fifth Americans respect Government authority"

How can we not respect them, when they have to power to imprison us??

That's a whole lot of words for what could have been summed up as,

"If you don't register your guns, the government will come get you."

A lot of people would argue,

"If you DO register your guns, the government will come get you."

The point is that when registration becomes mandatory, either could happen.

Why Registering Your Guns is a Mistake

Registering your guns IS a mistake....
Because....
In the 1960s New York City instigated a registration system, promising those who complained it was only for "law and order purposes" and that the lists would never be used for confiscation.....
-- then --
When Mayor Dinkins became mayor a generation later he had some classes of weapons banned and guess what? He used those quarter century old registration lists to assure compliance. In one case I know of a family living in an apartment that was once owned by a registered gun owner who'd moved years prior was eating breakfast one morning when the NYPD'S Emergency Service Unit ("SWAT"} busted their door in and rushed in bearing submachineguns and wearing black ninja outfits and demaded the guns.
Of course they had none --As I said the owners of the guns were gone.
To Montana.

Two decades ago California passed the Roberti-Roos gun laws, registering so-called "assault weapons" of certain types. Later those people received notification that those guns were now banned and must be turned in or removed from the state.

If the above is what kind of country you like to live in, then you and I are shockingly different people. Good luck and may the chains of oppresion lie softly on your shoulders.

There are a litany of unsubstantiated assumptions in your post OP ("I think..."), and I feel like we are getting queried for some research paper, but all those aside:

Registration at the state level has already been used as a means to confiscate weapons in California.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns

So in fact, without REGISTRATION, these officials would not have known what weapons these individuals had, and would not have been able to proceed with confiscation as they did. Registration allows them to effectively utilize their resources, because they know exactly WHO has WHAT weapons they shouldn't have, and WHERE they are located. Without registration, they would have no way to narrow their search parameters.

Now, if you want to encourage firearms registration because it is required to comply with the laws in respective states, that's fine. However, you are saying that registration has nothing to do with confiscation, and that is blatantly false.

Americans respect LAWFUL government authority. When the government oversteps, that's when problems arise. I took an oath to the Constitution (not the President, not the Chain of Command) to do what I do, to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This means that there is a difference between a lawful and unlawful order. There will be times when the status quo will need to be questioned and challenged, in a thoughtful and professional manner. The citizens of this country aren't a bunch of blind lemmings that will follow any authority figure off a proverbial cliff if that's what the law says.

Sorry BSA1, you are mistaken.

The anti's are not sufficiently Machiavellian to proceed as you suppose.
They persue the registration agenda for two reasons:
First, general hassle.
Second, when (not if) certain arms are banned those who have registered will be too fearful to disobey.

If you disagree, consider the now defunct Canadian gun registration scheme that met with massive resistance even from the mild mannered Canadians.

I don't think the OP is making a "case for registration." I believe he's making a case similar to one I recently attempted to make regarding refraining from carrying a concealed firearm without a required license/permit to do so. While I wasn't telling anyone specifically what to do, I was pointing out that that compliance with that kind of licensing requirement contributes to statistical evidence of a growing lawfully-armed population, which helps our political cause, and that getting caught in violation (especially if it's a felony in one's state) not only can result in all the usual perks of being a felon, but it also counts against our political cause as being a so-called "gun crime."

In further review of this thread, I see that the OP has confirmed my perception of his intent. Apparently, that perception is hard to come by.

Your Fifth premise is wrong. Americans, historically, do not trust the central government. We believe that a government that fears our guns is to be feared.
I have a Seventh premise for you;
Civil disobedience is a time honored form of protest in the US.
Premise 8;
Gang control, not gun control.

OP, you stated that the intent of registration is not to later confiscate firearms......can I ask you, what IS the intent of registration laws?? I just don't see any reason to have a registration list other than to control the items and/or people on that list. And because I don't think anybody here in their right mind actually thinks that crooks voluntarily register their guns, I don't see the crime control element here.....

Other than taking away guns from prohibited people I just don't see it. If someone is a prohibited person and they have a registered firearm, that means that they registered it voluntarily which leads one to believe that this person is not even aware that they in fact ARE prohibited.

Also, with the RAMPANT mistakes and false info plagueing the registration lists here in CA, expect a LOT of innocent people wrongly getting their rights trampled all over.

Americans respect Government authority

Click to expand...

In part, yes. I would amend that by saying that Americans respect legitimate government authority. However, as more and stricter government regulation burdens the American person and strips away his and her long-held and cherished freedoms, the tide is shifting. People are realizing that it is time we held government accountable to its constitutional limitations rather than trusting it to do what elected or appointed officials, often with questionable motivations, claim is best for us.

A[n] often repeated and commonly held belief among many gun owners is the reason the Government wants you to register your guns is so they know what you own when they show up at your door to take them.

Click to expand...

It does not matter why we think registration is being or could be required--it only matters that the Constitution does not call for any sort of registration of firearms and in fact forbids infringement on RKBA. Slippery slope argument aside, registration is an infringement because it burdens the gun owner with administrative and fiduciary requirements.

Further, registration is a violation of the 4th Amendment in that it negates a person's privacy. Forcing an American citizen to disclose what he or she has is, in effect, a search. Whether I have a gun is nobody's business but my own and that of whomever with whom I choose to share such information.

...most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, agree in principle that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, all the gang bangers and other people who obtained firearms illegally or plan to use them to commit crimes are sure to comply with registration requirements.

Wake up, BSA1, and recognize that government is out of control. Even if at this moment it has insufficient authority and resources to come for your guns, all it takes is a bit of 11th-hour legislation or behind-the-scenes bureaucratic regulation to change that while we're not looking. Until recently the IRS lacked the authority and resources to coerce Americans into purchasing what will quite likely amount to worthless health care insurance policies--but it has both now. Did you see that coming?

I find it difficult to trust a government which creates a Patriot Act, an NDAA, a "no fly" list, a TSA, a phony CPI, a degraded currency and various absolutely ineffective gun control laws.

Since the history of every government which has had registration of firearms has been followed by confiscation of them, I am totally against their registration.

But it's up to the voters, as was just shown in Colorado.

I live in Virginia. I couldn't register a gun if I wanted to.

there is de facto registration of all firearms purchased through dealers, and has been since 1968.

OP,

My state has laws prohibiting the registration of firearms. Do you believe that registration should be done at the federal government level?

I disagree with the OP.

Tommygunn- This is incorrect: "Two decades ago California passed the Roberti-Roos gun laws, registering so-called "assault weapons" of certain types. Later those people received notification that those guns were now banned and must be turned in or removed from the state."

This is the law according to wiki (and my dad has an old Colt AR sporter he registered with the DOJ):
It is illegal to sell a firearm that the state has defined as an "assault weapon", and which has been listed in the DOJ roster of prohibited firearms, which includes many military look-alike semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber BMG rifles.[28] DOJ rostered firearms may be legally possessed if already registered with the state prior to January 2005.

As academic Adam Winkler pointed out in an article in the liberal magazine The New Republic (aka TNR and very pro gun control), the original National Firearms Act was intended to register and tax ALL firearms, but ended up registering and taxing only machineguns, silencers, short barrel shotguns or rifles (SBS or SBR), and odd-ball concealable firearms (any other weapons AOW), so-called "gangster weapons". The NRA successfully testified to exempt ordinary rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers.

In 1968, Sen Joseph Tydings introduced a bill to federally register and tax all firearms not included in the NFA; the NRA testfied against it as an "educational association", the bill lost, and Tydings asked the FBI investigate whether the NRA should register as a lobby. The FBI "bufile" shows that the NRA cut short the investigation by registering as a lobby and forming a real lobbying arm, which later became the NRA-ILA. Wayne LaPierre is the unintentional godchild of Sen. Tydings .

Anyway, later, the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act undid some of the onerus parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act; the Democrat Hughes Amendment was slipped, last minute, no debate, questionable voing procedure (like the NY SAFE Act and the Colorado bans that led to the recent recall elections). Hughes Amendment FROZE the NFA registry on machineguns even though criminal use of federally registered machineguns was virtually zero. That to me illustrates the danger of registration. The US Supreme Court once warned that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The anti-gunners have demonstrated the power to register is the power to defacto ban.

Crime control through registration of guns?

Why did New Zealand abandon a national long gun registry in 1983?

Why did Canada abandon a national long gun registry a couple of years ago after seventeen years and $2.6 billion dollars?

New Zealand and Canada decided the benefits of registering rifles and shotguns was little, but the expenses were huge, and those funds spendt on better policing would have had more impact on crime.

One of the things the Canadian registry was supposed to do was to give police serving warrants a heads up on whether the person whose residence they were approaching had a gun. People likely to resist police did not register their guns. Registered owners were unlikely to resist police. So police were not really warned about the danger of approaching a bad guy, but were put on red alert approaching a registered owner, actually decreasing public safety. The officer safety, public safety claim was theoretical and contradicted by reality, like most gun control claims.

Colin Greenwood's assessment of the additional restrictions on shotguns introduced in Britain in 1988: "It might be possible to conclude that the law has an immediate effect on the law abiding, but that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law."

The US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics asked a sample of state inmates where they got their guns:
13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show
39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other
39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market
(On friends and family, the NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey of gun using felons noted "friends" supplying guns to felons were often fellow criminals, as would be many family of felons.)

Simply put, the likelihood of a criminal complying with a registration law (or universal background check for that matter) is low.

Fortunately for New Zealand and Canada, the reaction to "This ain't working" was "Get rid of it".

Unfortunately for America, the reaction to "This ain't working" is "We didn't go far enough so we need more of what doesn't work". Like freezing registries or increasing registration taxes to a prohibitory level.

Routine vehicle searches? Good lord man, what part of Bulgaria do you live in?

Firstly, in my state it is a CRIMINAL ACT to maintain firearms registration lists..........subject to heavy monetary and other penaltys. Secondarily, you really need to read history........Americans have ALWAYS been distrustful of government in ANY form.....and that is precisely why we have, unlike the British, a written constitution and a clearly defined bill of rights...........all you really have to do is read the words of the founders......try starting with Thomas Paynes "Common Sense".

with several posters not reading my comments carefully enough

Click to expand...

You mean the part where you say "when required by law"?

No law anywhere in the US can circumvent the Constitution. "Shall not be infringed" and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" apply to all parties to the Constitution including the States because they ratified the Bill of Rights.

States that have a registry are in violation of 2A and 4A, so "when required by law" is no justification at all. If I lived in a state where it was required I'd be standing at my legislator's desk and making plans to move.

When laws are enacted all Americans are expected to obey them. In the case of gun owners this has included recent bans on magazine capacity, certain types of guns altogether and registering others.

The Government and Anti-gunners know that they simply do not have the resources to go the homes of registered gun owners to collect their guns.

In addition kicking in doors is dangerous and result in bad publicity.

Click to expand...

Err, you familiar with what they are doing in CA, going door to door with local agencies, using a $24 million federal grant?

APPs (Armed Prohibited Persons) are being lied to about the LE agencies' on site P.C., THEN they take the guns and you have to prove you are innocent of their alleged P.C..

If past practice ensues, even if you ARE legally holding those firearms, it will be a LOOONNNGGG time before you get them back.

If I follow your logic/reasoning a step further, I should be calling in the Serial #s of any prospective firearm I am about to purchase to local L.E......?

When our government supplies arms to our enemy of the last 12 years and wants to take away our God given right to bear arms through registration and taxation of ammo,and the restriction of supply of ammo ,why should I obey these so called laws ?
Because you think I should .
Why don't we arm the gangs of Chicago to stop all of the gun violence in Chicago?
I think that would work .......ah ....NO !!!

Nevermind.