CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Click to expand...

Can be? That is speculation. That it is a benefit is speculation as well. Show us the statistics of crimes solved or convictions gained because the police could trace a registered gun. That is, convictions not stemming from possession in and of itself. Compare that to the total number of registered firearms. Then we can assess what compelling interest the government might have in registering guns for aid in solving crimes.

JSH1 said:

The time to fight was before the ban.

Click to expand...

Really?

Henry David Thoreau said:

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

Click to expand...

What Hank said.

JSH1 said:

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person. Politicians don't need a registry to ban a weapon.

To use the example above. What are the Canadians that did not register their Sig and decide to keep it actually going to do with that gun. They can't use it public.

Click to expand...

Has it done any good? Solved any crimes? Prevented any crimes?

Why should we allow the government to make us outlaws?

Why do you think the State should be restricting people's Rights?

JSH1 said:

There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point. I think CT's assault weapon ban is stupid and will be ineffective. The time to fight was before the ban. The citizens of CT can also fight this in court and at the ballot box. There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns. The law passed.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.


You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.

Click to expand...

So, once the law is passed, we stop fighting it?

Seriously?

Voltaire always had the right thing to say in these situations:

"Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them."

Which leads to:

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

But then he smartly and sardonically tempers his idealism with pragmatism:

"I am very fond of truth, but not at all of martyrdom."

PavePusher:
Why should we allow the government to make us outlaws?

Why do you think the State should be restricting people's Rights?

Click to expand...

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

So, once the law is passed, we stop fighting it?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

JSH1 said:

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

Well there are actually two "best ways", one is at the ballot box, and as almost 70% of CT voted and supports Obama, pretty much a none issue here.

The second is through the courts, this takes time and money. Now is the Time for the citizens of CT to start making large $donations$ or sit back and except what they have. Cuz as you say an overwhelming majority supports this law.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens

Click to expand...

I don't care if every other person wants to oppress me I'm still not going to let them do it. We have the constitution to protect the minority from the majority.

JSH1 said:

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the people of NY in regards to the SAFE Act. Or better yet, you should better understand how the NY Govt ram-roded their own agenda down peoples throat.

Let me explain:
The NY Safe Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, and no time for citizens to fight against it.

The New York State Constitution gives governors the ability to get a law passed as soon as enough legislators say yes (and before anyone else can oppose it) in 'emergency' cases.

After Sandy Hook, they called an emergency session and the SAFE Act was literally passed in the middle of the night.

Keep in mind, the New York Public Interest Research Group, pulled together a list of the 415 times a “message of necessity” has been used to pass something the state deemed an “emergency.”


Now take a look at this map to see how many NYS counties support it and how many don't.

http://scopeny.org/Counties_oppose_NYSAFE.html

JSH1 said:

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

.

Click to expand...

Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples.

Ive never heard the police say "as soon as we find the gun, will be able to catch the bad guy because we'll know who bought it"

Ive also never heard the police say "Dang it, we found a gun, but because we don't have a reqistry, its making it more difficult to find the shooter.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard a news story that said the police found the gun used in a murder and are looking for the owner?

And in reality, tracing a gun back to a buyer doesn't prove who pulled the trigger. That's why its never the spot light of an investigation.


Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.


I'll go a head and say that IF you can cite an example of the police catching the shooter by using a registry, there will be 2 examples of how a registry was used to confiscate guns.

JSH1 said:

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.



I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

Click to expand...

This is just another example of local voters flexing their muscle and legislators playing to the voters. The supreme court is also stepping aside to make it possible for states to decide how they want to regulate firearms. No dictators behind the curtains that I can see, just a bunch of voters who want more gov't. I think that mindset is more common in the New England states than the rest of the country. Now that CT has pushed this through I can see more "AW" restrictions coming for more folks in the NE. It's just the way it goes. If you disagree with it be sure to vote. If it doesn't go your way it might be time to think about moving or just comply and get used to it. You may have just become a minority in your own neighborhood without protected minority status.

So CT49; you don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't it say somewhere in there " shall not be infringed upon"? And, who's Law's do you think are the "superior" Law's to have to follow concerning the Bill of Rights; local, state, or Federal?
Seem's to me that you can't argue it both ways at the same time.

JSH1 said:

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.



I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

Click to expand...

Athens was all about majority opinion too...people were executed at the whim of the people. Check out the story of Alcibiades or Pericles's son.

Read Federalist Paper number 10...freedoms are meant to be protected from majority rule in our system.

Sometimes resistance is the only way to save liberty. The framers of our government knew that.

Tell that to the people of NY in regards to the SAFE Act. Or better yet, you should better understand how the NY Govt ram-roded their own agenda down peoples throat.

Let me explain:
The NY Safe Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, and no time for citizens to fight against it.

The New York State Constitution gives governors the ability to get a law passed as soon as enough legislators say yes (and before anyone else can oppose it) in 'emergency' cases.

After Sandy Hook, they called an emergency session and the SAFE Act was literally passed in the middle of the night.

Click to expand...

All done by duly elected representatives that will face their representatives come reelection. If the people don't like how the CT assault weapons bill was passed they can remove the politicians involved. (See Colorado as an example)

Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples....

Click to expand...

Tracing guns found a crime scenes is standard procedure for law enforcement. The ATF did more than 300,000 gun traces last year. Because there is no database they are required to search paper records manually. If there was no value to tracing guns found at a crime scene, the police would not bother to do so. Tracing a gun to a person can generate leads or a deadend.

Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do have to prove who was driving. However, they still run the plate and see who the car is registered to. Again it generates leads and the most likely suspect is the owner.

Ive never heard the police say "as soon as we find the gun, will be able to catch the bad guy because we'll know who bought it"

Ive also never heard the police say "Dang it, we found a gun, but because we don't have a reqistry, its making it more difficult to find the shooter.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard a news story that said the police found the gun used in a murder and are looking for the owner?

And in reality, tracing a gun back to a buyer doesn't prove who pulled the trigger. That's why its never the spot light of an investigation.

Click to expand...

Quote:

Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples....

Tracing guns found a crime scenes is standard procedure for law enforcement. The ATF did more than 300,000 gun traces last year. Because there is no database they are required to search paper records manually. If there was no value to tracing guns found at a crime scene, the police would not bother to do so. Tracing a gun to a person can generate leads or a deadend.


Quote:
Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.

Yes, they do have to prove who was driving. However, they still run the plate and see who the car is registered to. Again it generates leads and the most likely suspect is the owner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

+1. Danez71, to pretend tracking a firearm has no value is absurd. And have this belief simply because the media doesn't report it is even more absurd. Goofy logic does nothing to support the cause.

JSH1 said:

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

The will of the majority may trump the will of the minority, and the desires of the majority may trump the desires of theminority, but neither ever trumps the rights of anyone. That principal is at the heart of the Constitution. The Courts have modifiend that somewhat by recognizing that rights may be restricted if there is a compelling need to do something and no other way to do it. And even then it must be done by the least restrictive means.

I'm still waiting for stats showing the effectiveness of registration in solving crime. Not possible usefulness, effectiveness.

coyotehitman said:

+1. Danez71, to pretend tracking a firearm has no value is absurd. And have this belief simply because the media doesn't report it is even more absurd. Goofy logic does nothing to support the cause.

Click to expand...

Not needing to worry about warrants and questioning suspects without allowing them an attourney would help them too...sometimes freedom makes it harder to enforce laws. I choose freedom

IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

But when there is disagreement about RKBA, and a vocally significant segment beliefs mere possession of arms should itself be a crime, then UBC and registration become their tools for fighting that "should be" crime and allows them to chip away at the right.

The acceptance of the right to keep and bear arms is not so general at this time that we can afford to ignore any threats to its existance and meekly accept the implementation of the tools most useful to those seeking to restrict and eliminate the right just because those tools might have other uses.

I'm still waiting for stats showing the effectiveness of registration in solving crime. Not possible usefulness, effectiveness.

Click to expand...

Earlier you said:

...effectuating confiscation is a registry's only useful purpose.

Click to expand...

I pointed out a useful purpose for a registry. I'm not going to scour the internet looking for studies showing the statistical effectivity of gun traces. You can search out your own. The fact that the ATF continues to trace guns despite the artificial barriers imposed is proof enough to me that traces have value to law enforcement.

The registry in CT has another useful purpose. It allows grandfathering of existing guns. Without a registry, law enforcement has no way of knowing if a gun was purchased before or after the ban. The CT registry creates a list that will be the ultimate test. If the gun is on the list it is legal, if not it is illegal. The same as the machine gun registry but on a state level.

EDIT:

IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

Click to expand...

There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.

JSH1 said:

Earlier you said:



I pointed out a useful purpose for a registry. I'm not going to scour the internet looking for studies showing the statistical effectivity of gun traces. You can search out your own. The fact that the ATF continues to trace guns despite the artificial barriers imposed is proof enough to me that traces have value to law enforcement.

The registry in CT has another useful purpose. It allows grandfathering of existing guns. Without a registry, law enforcement has no way of knowing if a gun was purchased before or after the ban. The CT registry creates a list that will be the ultimate test. If the gun is on the list it is legal, if not it is illegal. The same as the machine gun registry but on a state level.

EDIT:

There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.

Click to expand...

What I also said (and will try to say perhaps more clearly) is the effectiveness of that useful purpose needs to be sufficient enough to be the most effective way of meeting a compelling need of government to justify restricting or infringing on a protected right. The fact that a use might exist or even does exist, does not rise to that level. Especially when the tool in question can be even more effectively used to restrict the right than for any other purpose.

History provides evidence that registration effectively facilitates confiscation. I am asking for evidence that it is even more effective in securing convictions for crimes other than those related to firearms possession.

JSH1 said:

There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.

Click to expand...

It would appear as if we are on equal ground. You wrote earlier, "Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation. "

You have no problem with the registration of firearms (and probably no problem with universal background checks) because of speculation, with no current proof, that it might possibly help law enforcement at some time in the future, or at some time in future somehow prevent a criminal act (although I, personally don't see how...)

We are against registration and universal background checks for equal reasons - speculation that someday the government will use the recorded information as a means of disarming the American citizen in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

However, past history indicates that the confiscation of firearms from the citizen is a far more likely scenario to occur than using a registry of lawful firearm owners as a means to solve or prevent crime.

IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, …

Click to expand...

Ah, but there is no such “overwhelming acceptance,” and isn’t likely to be. Further, if this acceptance changed in the future any registration database would still be in place, and could be exploited.

… then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

Click to expand...

But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

It’s like requiring teetotalers who never drink alcohol to take a pledge not to do so, in an effort to combat DWI (Driving Under The Influence).

HOOfan_1 said:

Not needing to worry about warrants and questioning suspects without allowing them an attourney would help them too...sometimes freedom makes it harder to enforce laws. I choose freedom

Click to expand...

And most of the big court decisions regarding 4th amendment rights have come from criminals who were prosecuted by the government overstepping the limits set forth in the 4th amendment. The question is (deferring here to Frank Ettin) when will the SCOTUS determine at what point the government has overstepped the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

Old Fuff said:

Ah, but there is no such “overwhelming acceptance,” and isn’t likely to be. Further, if this acceptance changed in the future any registration database would still be in place, and could be exploited.



But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

It’s like requiring teetotalers who never drink alcohol to take a pledge not to do so, in an effort to combat DWI (Driving Under The Influence).

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is what I said. Thanks for the confirmation and support.

And you are correct that even if general acceptance existed, it could disappear in the future. Since it does not exist, the future is now and any possible use for a registry other than to facilitate confiscation is just speculative.

But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

Click to expand...

You would think prohibited people are smart enough not to buy from a gun store with a background check yet they do and they are denied. I don't know of any study that determines how many people that are denied at the gun store go on to purchase a gun through other means.

The thing about guns is that all start out legal and then somehow find their way into the hands of prohibited people. UBC with registration would be a useful tool to track that path.

The question is (deferring here to Frank Ettin) when will the SCOTUS determine at what point the government has overstepped the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

They did so in Heller regarding the "keep" part of "keep and bear". They have yet to grant cert in a case involving "bear" outside of the home. The current split in the circuits created by Peruta may open a door.