Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Article against Registration

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by J_McLeod, Feb 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J_McLeod

    J_McLeod Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,541
    Location:
    Homestead, FL
  2. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,966
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Here's the relevant portion important to using this argument.

    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: Mar 5, 2013
  3. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    According to Wikipedia,

     
  4. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,390
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    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.
     
  5. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     
  6. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,966
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    This does not happen. You loose the gun and that's the end of it.
     
  7. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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.
     
  8. blakeci

    blakeci Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Clayton, NC USA
    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: Mar 5, 2013
  9. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Kansas
    "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.
     
  10. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  11. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,380
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    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.
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,451
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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).
     
  13. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,700
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    "Responsible" gun owners = those in favor of:
    • registration
    • "assault weapon" bans
    • magazine bans
    • confiscation
    No sale.

    NO, I REFUSE.
     
  14. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,226
    Location:
    Central Texas
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page