Constitutionality of mapping

[Scorpiusdeus]

After reading all the replies it seems to me that while many of us may not like the idea, we have not yet found it to be unconstitutional.

Is that accurate at this point?

 

[hugh damright]

The constitution says nothing about the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I always thought that is what the 9th amendment was about, a liberty catch all.

I believe that such a construction turns the 9th Amendment against itself. The 9th was intended to guard against construing the USBOR to give the federal government jurisdiction over "rights". It was not intended to make the central government "protector of all rights", such as a right to privacy. In my view, the 9th and 10th Amendments both mean that the US Constitution was not intended to empower the central government to have jurisdiction over such matters.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Way off Mapping topic, but..

Jeff,

Do you truly believe that FREEDOM and political LIBERTY exists because the Government hasn't gotten around to outlawing it...yet?

Are you such a statist that you believe the Opposite of what our Declaration of Independence says?

They could under the guise of organizing, arming and training the militia ... require you to provide them with your inventory of weapons and ammunition that are available for militia use and keep them appraised of where it is stored so it can be accessed in case they needed to call out the militia. How else do you know who to call up?

They would call forth the Militia which would assemble bearing arms supplied by themselves. Read the Miller case again. Read the Federalist papers where our founders spoke about the whole body of the people being armed and constitute a force greater than any standing army.

Free Men possess arms, Jeff. Get used to the Idea! They possess arms because they are free men. This is what defines them as free men. Being Free Men they need NO PERMISSION. They have a duty and responsibility to be capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and by extension, their community and state to which they have familial and emotional bonds. No statute need be written to underscore this RIGHT. It is inherent and self evident. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence again.

"...truths to be self evident...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

This is the opposite of a permission extended to you by the Government.

"...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their Just Powers by consent..." Shucks by-golly! Lookee-thar! Governments are instituted so as to secure the rights of free men...???? Rights which must therefor pre-exist the institution of any government?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

WOW! so what our founding documents say, is that we have God-given Rights. We have Rights which pre-exist the institution of any government? We also have a right to alter or abolish said government when and if it becomes tyranical? Wow! What a concept.

Inalienable rights? Rights which cannot be made alien from us? Wow! What a concept!

I've said this many times here, and people just don't get it: The militia is not a check on the government, the militia is a means for the government to stay in power. The people don't call out the militia, an official of the government, either the governor of a state or the president calls out the militia.

Jeff old buddy, you keep saying it because YOU don't get it. When good men, brave men, stood up against the Lawful Authority on the 19th of April in the year 1775, they id did so IN VIOLATION of current statute law. They did so in absolute DEFIANCE. The Lawful Authority at the time, marched out to Lexington that morning to accomplish something. They weren't out for a morning stroll and found a group of "militia nuts" playing soldier.

The Lawful Authority was coming to confiscate weapons!

The assembled Militia had NO PRIOR APPROVAL from the Governor of the colony to assemble and drill that morning. They had NO APPROVAL from the Lawful Authority to exist at all. What they did have is a God-given RIGHT to defend themselves, their homes, and their neighbors, from a usurpation of power, by the LAWFUL AUTHORITY, which usurpation went against their Common Law RIGHTS! Rights, which were acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence to be God-given and inalienable.

“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~ James Madison

“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” ~ Tench Coxe

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~ Noah Webster

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee

I do not need, and any reasonable man does not need, a Supreme court case in order to understand these principles. I understand that you personally are a member of the State Power Structure and therefor you will not argue in favor of limiting the State's, and thence your own, power.

The Supreme Court already decided in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, that the government had the right to outlaw private military organizations.

Not at all. What the Court did was uphold a law which permitted the state to regulate armed bodies of men parading in public. It did not address the issue of unorganized militia drilling and training on private land. I suggest you read David Kopel's comments on the case... http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Presser-versus-Illinois.htm

Say you could have an M4A1 or an M240, keep it an ammunition in your house. However you would only be permitted to get it out of it's government approved safe annually for an inspection and only be permitted to fire it on Unorganized Militia Muster Day which they might conveniently forget to fund...ever.

What you have just described is permission to possess. That is the Opposite of a right.

George Washington said, and I am paraphrasing here, that every tool of the soldier is the birthright of an American.

If we have rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, then we need no Prior Permission in order to exercise them.


The second amendment says plainly, "...the right of the people..."

Funny thing is, it uses the same language in other amendments, namely the First and the Fourth.

Imagine if you will a Bill of Permissions...

I. Congress shall make any law expedient respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or determining when the freedom of speech, or of the press might be exercised; or the permission of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of perceived or supposed grievances.

II. A well regulated standing army, being necessary to the security and continuity of the governing power, the permission of the people to keep, in public arsenals, and bear upon command only, arms, shall be determined by Congress or by the Executive Branch, respectively.

III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Congress shall have the power to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation.

IV. The Permission of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall be prescribed by Congress, and warrants shall issue upon probable cause, supported by information, and generally describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V. Any person may be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, upon a presentment of information or indictment of a grand jury, which Grand Jury shall be assembled by and operate at the pleasure of the prosecutor or Magistrate, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; Any person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, be deprived of life, liberty, or property, by due process of law. Private property shall be taken for public use, with just compensation, by any act of Congress or State Legislature.

VI. In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy a speedy public or Non-public trial by jury of district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and shall be informed at the beginning of trial, the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the approved witnesses against him; to have compulsory testimony, and to have the assistance of Government Approved counsel for his defense. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Congress from abridging this section when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the Permission of trial by jury shall be considered, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court except as prescribed by Congress.

VIII. Bail shall be required, And fines imposed, and punishments inflicted, in a manner prescribed by Congress.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Permissions, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others Extended by Congress to the people.

X. The powers not delegated the states by the Constitution are reserved to Congress.

Is this the Amerika we want to live in? Or do We, The People, have certain inalienable RIGHTS...rights which are endowed upon us by our Creator...which we may exercise at our discretion?

 

[ilbob]

you are mostly preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone here will defend the almost continuous violation of our rights that we now endure.

but there are some practical considerations, and one of them is that if you get too uppity about exercising your rights, guys with guns will knock on (or maybe knock down) your door at 3 am and take you away to an unpleasant place.

 

[Tommygunn]

I don't know if "mapping" would be constitutional or not, but I will say one thing about it;

Anyone who thinks that the government, in today's world, would use this for the purpose of "calling forth the militia" in an emergency and not for a registration and eventual confiscation of firearms is living in a fantasyland.

 

[mattjmcd]

Would the question of the constitutionality (or even the "morality"- for lack of a better word) of the the mapping process be altered if the protected class did not drill down to individual level?

Sticking with the gun mapping model, how would this question be answered:

What if the "map" simply depicted areas of higher firearms concentration in a community as opposed to specific locations/residences where people owned firearms? Suppose too that this hypothetical "map" featured little if any actual personal information on the individuals in the protected class? Is that unconstitutional?

I see the argument behind the fear of such mapping as it applies to 2A, because one can argue that the only reason for such a map is the eventual confiscation of firearms. But if there were other legitimate reasons for mapping, and other uses (less unsavory uses) for the data, would that change your answer? Again, assuming that individualized data is not even part of the equation.

 

[BullfrogKen]

ProficientRifleman,

Calling Jeff a statist is just scurrilous. I know Jeff, he's as ardent a defender of freedom as anyone here.


If you don't like his argument, fine. Don't attack him personally for it.


Jeff isn't advocating anything. Don't put words in his mouth to suggest he is. He's stating exactly the type of rulings and decisions we've seen some out of the court systems over the past couple hundred years could permit such mapping. We might not like it, but that's reality.


Thanks for the history lesson. I would suggest that you take some time to go find out exactly who was empowered to call out the militia, though.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

BullfrogKen

Calling Jeff a statist is just scurrilous. I know Jeff, he's as ardent a defender of freedom as anyone here.

I asked a question. I did not call him a statist. I asked him if he is one. The way I perceived his argument made perfect sense if coming from a person with a statist point of view.

Coming from a "personal rights" point of view, his statements are refutable.

I did not intend the word statist to be pejorative, but in asking the question, descriptive.

 

[Jeff White]

Do you truly believe that FREEDOM and political LIBERTY exists because the Government hasn't gotten around to outlawing it...yet?

Exactly. Our government will ultimately do what the public wants, and when the public values other things besides freedom and liberty, the government will happily outlaw it. We don't have statesmen in office. We have men, and as men they are subject to the same faults as other men. Ultimately we, the people will outlaw freedom and liberty as we are convinced that it is necessary to maintain our comfortable lifestyles.

Are you such a statist that you believe the Opposite of what our Declaration of Independence says?

When did I say I believed it was right? I am just commenting on what is happening. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence must have been statists by your definition, because they passed the Sedition Act a few years later. Government naturally wants to perpetuate itself. Those same patriots who put their lives, their fortunes and their families on the line to break away from Great Britain, passed a law that was as restrictive as anything King George passed in order to stifle dissent against the government they created. http://www.constitution.org/rf/sedition_1798.htm

They would call forth the Militia which would assemble bearing arms supplied by themselves. Read the Miller case again. Read the Federalist papers where our founders spoke about the whole body of the people being armed and constitute a force greater than any standing army.

Go back and re-read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Then read the Militia Act of 1792, the Militia Act of 1862 and the Militia Act of 1903. The LAW clearly doesn't reflect what some of the founding fathers wrote in the oped pieces that were the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers. Those same founding fathers who wrote in the Federalist papers about the whole body of the people being armed and constituting a force greater then the standing army, put the armed body of the people and consequently how they could use those arms squarely under control of the government when they gave the president the power to call the militia into federal service and command it and when they gave congress the power to:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Free Men possess arms, Jeff. Get used to the Idea! They possess arms because they are free men. This is what defines them as free men. Being Free Men they need NO PERMISSION. They have a duty and responsibility to be capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and by extension, their community and state to which they have familial and emotional bonds. No statute need be written to underscore this RIGHT. It is inherent and self evident. Again, I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence again.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The constitution and the laws passed since say something quite different. We began passing gun control laws not long after the civil war. To date, not one of them has been overturned on Second Amendment grounds. No court has acknowledged this right you claim we have. It sounds great in a speech, oped piece or on an internet forum to spout off about this self evident right, but that is not remotely connected to the legal and political reality we live in. If you're such a free man and you actually believe that your rights are totally unfettered, then why don't you just complete a 1919A4 semi auto kit into a real machine gun then claim that your right as a free man to bear arms allows this and see how long this defense keeps you out of prison.

I don't disagree with you, but I prefer to live in the real world, not some fantasy world that isn't politically feasible at this time.

eff old buddy, you keep saying it because YOU don't get it. When good men, brave men, stood up against the Lawful Authority on the 19th of April in the year 1775, they id did so IN VIOLATION of current statute law. They did so in absolute DEFIANCE. The Lawful Authority at the time, marched out to Lexington that morning to accomplish something. They weren't out for a morning stroll and found a group of "militia nuts" playing soldier.

The militia in the United States is created in the Constitution as an arm of the government. Only a governor or the president may call up the militia. Last I checked, the governors and the president were part of the government. The militia of the United States is not and never was intended to be a check on government power. It was and is part of government power. The Whiskey Rebellion was put down with militia troops.

BTW it took a real army, professional soldiers, formed in Philadelphia in 1775 as the Continental Army to win the revolution. The militia nuts who played at soldiering were for the most part combat ineffective.

It did not address the issue of unorganized militia drilling and training on private land. I suggest you read David Kopel's comments on the case... http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Pre...s-Illinois.htm

Funny but Kopel didn't address that issue in his column. But strangely the USSC did in Presser:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=116&invol=252

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

It seems to me that the court said very plainly that your rights as a citizen did not allow you to be a member of a military organization, drill or parade unless authorized. Currently 28 states have laws prohibiting private military organization and/or unauthorized military training. There are also federal laws, including provisions of the Patriot Act that place restrictions on private military activity.

I do not need, and any reasonable man does not need, a Supreme court case in order to understand these principles. I understand that you personally are a member of the State Power Structure and therefor you will not argue in favor of limiting the State's, and thence your own, power.

How many people are in prison now because they didn't need a Supreme Court decision to understand their rights? Try to be just a little bit real here. There are laws that limit those rights. It doesn't matter if you, me or King George's ghost thinks they are right, they are the law. And until they are invalidated by a court decision, they remain the law. And there will be consequences for violating them. Is it right? No! Is it fair? No! But it's reality.

Could congress pass gun control laws based on their power to regulate the militia from Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution? Yes? Wold those laws pass constitutional muster in the Supreme Court? Given the current view of the Second Amendment and the current body of case law on Second Amendment issues, yes I believe they would.

I challenge you to look through all 7K plus of my posts and find where I ever advocated that.

The ideals of freedom this country was founded on lived from 1787 when the constitution was ratified until 1798 when many of the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence, wrote the Constitution, wrote the Federalist Papers and published them in the media of the day to persuade the people to ratify the Constitution, wrote, passed and enforced the Sedition Act. The reality is that we had a 12 year run of freedom the way the founders intended, and when that freedom threatened the very government the founders created, those same men, gleefully used force to take it from the people.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

Calling Jeff a statist is just scurrilous. I know Jeff, he's as ardent a defender of freedom as anyone here.

I don't know him except through his posts, but I have never seen anything he wrote that makes him out to be anything but a defender of freedom. Just because he tells you something you don't like, does not mean he is defending that practice. He is just telling you the way it really is. There is no utopia we live in, only the real world. We can make it better or worse, maybe, but we have to live in the reality zone.

Some of what he writes makes me annoyed and angry, but not at him.

 

[BullfrogKen]

ProficientRifleman said: I did not call him a statist. I asked him if he is one.

Yes, you did.

ProficientRifleman said: Are you such a statist that you believe . . . .

I understand that you personally are a member of the State Power Structure and therefor you will not argue in favor of limiting the State's, and thence your own, power.

You're attacking Jeff, not his argument.



Cut it out.

 

[Liko81]

How is this any different from the current situation? When you buy a firearm from a retailer in Texas (and most states), you are required to register it. That registration form includes your address, which MUST match the address on your DL and which MUST be current. They now have a list of gun owners and where they live. That's not difficult to map out, no visits required. The only difference is the police now can quickly find out, given a current map, whether they're going to a house or apartment where a gun is likely to be kept when they answer a domestic disturbance, burglary or similar call. I think that's vital information for a police officer to have.

 

[Dallas239]

How is this different from many other government databases?

Assuming that we are talking about the gov't compiling a list/map/database/whatever, and as a requirement of purchase, or to avoid prosecution requred registration:

1. In some places it is prohibited by statute today.
2. It may be prohibited by the Constitution.

Nobody knows whether 2. is true or not. Any answer is a guess or an opinion. But we can make some analogies.

A national registry of printing presses would likely be unconstitutional. Even if everyone was allowed to have them. A requirement of government permission to buy a printing press (or say a tax) would likely be unconstitutional. A requirement to notify the gov't of your choice of church and keep them informed when you change churches would be unconstitutional. But as of right now we can't say this applies equally since firearms, because the SCOTUS has never said that firearms ownership is a fundamental right. Someday soon, we might be able to say that. If that happens, then the gov't might not be able to enforce laws that have the intent or effect of deterring firearm ownership, even if they don't directly try to ban it unless there's a really, really, really, good reason.

But if we're not willing to assume for the sake of discussion that gun ownership is a fundamental right, then the whole discussion is moot. Under the interpetation of the 2A in most federal jurisdictions courts (save DC and 5th Circuit) today a map would clearly be permissible, since outright gun bans have been upheld.

 

[Dallas239]

How is this any different from the current situation? When you buy a firearm from a retailer in Texas (and most states), you are required to register it.

While that may be true somewhere, it ain't in Texas.

 

[glummer]

Yes it is

Show me the part of the Bill of Rights that forbids the government to have a map. I don't think there is any constitutional issue here.

How is this different from many other government databases?

So are you saying it is impossible for any government map, or database, to be unconstitutional?
I disagree; maps are made for reasons, and the reasons could render the map unconstitutional.
How about a map of the homes and meeting places of NAACP organizers, maintained at the behest of the KKK?
My personal opinion (and, one hopes, SCOTUS’ soon-to-be opinion) is that government actions involving gun ownership should be examined with strict scrutiny, and I cannot easily see a constitutionally acceptable reason for such a map; therefore it would be a priori unconstitutional.

 

[ilbob]

So are you saying it is impossible for any government map, or database, to be unconstitutional?
I disagree; maps are made for reasons, and the reasons could render the map unconstitutional.
How about a map of the homes and meeting places of NAACP organizers, maintained at the behest of the KKK?
My personal opinion (and, one hopes, SCOTUS’ soon-to-be opinion) is that government actions involving gun ownership should be examined with strict scrutiny, and I cannot easily see a constitutionally acceptable reason for such a map; therefore it would be a priori unconstitutional.

I think strict scrutiny is the way to go. But the 4th amendment is one of strict scrutiny and the courts have upheld the practice of detaining hundreds or thousands of motorists at roadside checkpoints in the hopes of catching a very few doing something wrong.

They also have upheld the barbaric practice of allowing cops to draw blood involuntarily from people in their custody for the purposes of blood alcohol testing.

One would think the 5th amendment would protect you from being forced to give evidence against yourself, yet the courts see no problem with license suspensions and jail terms for people who refuse to take blood alcohol tests.

You might think you have a right to a jury trial in a criminal case. The courts have ruled you have no such right if the maximum sentence that can be imposed does not exceed 6 months. despite the 6th amendment that says (in part):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

The courts have not been the friend of liberty the last 80 years or so.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Dallas239 said: A national registry of printing presses would likely be unconstitutional. Even if everyone was allowed to have them. A requirement of government permission to buy a printing press (or say a tax) would likely be unconstitutional.

Are you sure?


I can't go out and start my own radio station and broadcast over the airwaves without a license. I can't start my own broadcast television network without a license. Unless things have changed since I last knew about them, even ham radio operators have to be licensed to broadcast on certain frequencies.


In the United States I can't contract to manufacture or purchase a high quality printing press capable of reproducing US currency without the government knowing I have it, even if I have no intentions to print money on it.


If I want to run a non-profit, or a church, I have to provide the names of its officers, where they live, how much they're compensated, and apply to qualify for non-profit status. Lobbying firms must be registered with the government.



It's easy to take a soapbox stance and hearken back to principles and concepts of liberty. Where the rubber meets the road, it becomes grey, and government does in fact regulate things that the Constitution says, "Congress shall not . . . "

 

[ilbob]

BFK has it. As best I can tell, the only time the courts have ever ruled that Americans actually do have any right to privacy was Roe v. Wade. Everything else they have agreed that government can pretty much do as it pleases.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

One could argue the "Right to Privacy" angle

One could also argue that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to own guns and hence there would be nothing private about gun ownership.

 

[illspirit]

Question: Would the map be published for public use? Or would it be some sort of quasi-classified internal document?

If it was made publicly available, it might be open to a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Arbitrarily picking some group of people and mapping them out would facilitate further discrimination of the targeted group by neighbors, employers, and such. In a sense, this would be no different than making them wear a scarlet letter or arm band. This is pretty much the kind of thing the equal protection clause was meant to prevent, no?

 

[BullfrogKen]

illspirit said: Arbitrarily picking some group of people and mapping them out would facilitate further discrimination of the targeted group by neighbors, employers, and such.

You mean like say . . . registries of those convicted of sex offences?


If the government finds things it deems more important to the "public good", then it will rule over a fundamental right.


Anyone remember what happened when the Clinton Administration passed laws to prohibit anyone with even misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing a gun? Hundreds of police officers with 15, 20 years on the job had to retire for pleading guilty, or agreeing to accept a lesson conviction for scuffles they got into at home years prior. Many of them did it specifically so they wouldn't have to fight a lengthy court battle, and risk losing their job. The arguement was made that the law was unconstitutional. "No ex-post facto" laws . . .

The arguement was rejected.

 

[illspirit]

You mean like say . . . registries of those convicted of sex offences?

Yea, precisely like that. I didn't say it would be foolproof, just that it would be open to a challenge. If it weren't for the fact that terms like sex offender and domestic violence are so emotionally charged that most people's brains switch off, an equal protection and/or ex post facto defense might have worked.

'Tis a whole lot easier for a judge to go along with a "public good" argument when most of said public is shrieking "think of the children" or what have you. If the outrage over newspapers releasing lists of CCWs is any indication, I would think that the voices angry over a map of gun owners would dwarf the astroturf gun ban groups.

Yes, judges could always ignore this, but, again, I didn't say it would be foolproof.

 

[Dallas239]

Dallas239 said: A national registry of printing presses would likely be unconstitutional. Even if everyone was allowed to have them. A requirement of government permission to buy a printing press (or say a tax) would likely be unconstitutional.

Are you sure?

I'm very confortable with my conclusion that such requirements would likely be found unconstitutional.

I can't go out and start my own radio station and broadcast over the airwaves without a license. I can't start my own broadcast television network without a license. Unless things have changed since I last knew about them, even ham radio operators have to be licensed to broadcast on certain frequencies.

And this has been challenged on first amendment grounds, but because radio spectrum is "scarce", regulation has been determined to be in the public interest.

In the United States I can't contract to manufacture or purchase a high quality printing press capable of reproducing US currency without the government knowing I have it, even if I have no intentions to print money on it.

If you can tell me which law you are referring to, I could give a more informed answer. Digital color copiers and modern desktop PCs are capable of counterfeiting the old designs. The gov't might be able to ban possesion of tools must likely used for crime (and they do), but I think they would not be succesful in banning PC's because they could be used for crime.

If I want to run a non-profit, or a church, I have to provide the names of its officers, where they live, how much they're compensated, and apply to qualify for non-profit status. Lobbying firms must be registered with the government.

Sure, if you want a tax benefit from the government, you are required to prove that you are entitled to it. If I want to get credit for my kids as dependants, I have to put their names and SSNs on my 1040. But there is no requirement that a church be a 501(c)(3) organization (many are not). Nor is there a requirement to register churches or religious affiliation. I'm confident that any such requirement would result in a bunch of litigation.

It's easy to take a soapbox stance and hearken back to principles and concepts of liberty. Where the rubber meets the road, it becomes grey, and government does in fact regulate things that the Constitution says, "Congress shall not . . . "

Of course even the enumerated rights in the BoR are not "absolute". Did I imply differently? Some things are gray, but there are also some things that are clear.

I'm not a Supreme Court justice or constitutional scholar, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Dallas239 said:

BullfrogKen said: In the United States I can't contract to manufacture or purchase a high quality printing press capable of reproducing US currency without the government knowing I have it, even if I have no intentions to print money on it.

If you can tell me which law you are referring to, I could give a more informed answer.

I can't give you a law citation. I really am not interested enough about it to have or keep the law citation handy.

I can tell you what I know about manufacturing printing presses from a Controller at Koenig & Bauer AG (KBA) in York. We went to college together studying accounting. KBA is the oldest and largest manufacturer of printing presses in the world. They have a plant in York, PA which is one of the few places on the planet that has the technology and skill to make a press capable of printing currency.

When they get a contract to make one, the Secret Service knows about it. They know who ordered it and where its being shipped. We've talked about how they get visits from field agents from time to time. If you want one, and you have the money to pay to have one built, you can get one. But the Secret Service is going to know you have it. Whether you call it a permit, registration, export/import regulations, or whatever. You're not going to have a press of that quality without the Secret Service knowing about it.



If we have to register people in the US with an SSN, I can't see how registering guns is such a stretch for the government to mandate. The Postal Service keeps maps of people. If say, the city of Philadelphia decided to put known gun owners on a map for 911 dispatchers to reference, I can't see the US Constitution preventing it. And that was the original question.

 

[Shureshot]

A map in and of itself may not be unconstitutional, but what possible reason would the government have for needing one, except for future confiscation?

A case could be made that it would jeopardize National Security, because if an enemy were to invade and get a copy of the map, they would have the location of all militia members, their families and weapons.

Why do they feel they need a map of gun owners houses? Wouldn't a map of convicted pediaphiles, or sex-offenders be more useful? How about a map of known drug dealers and users?

Why gun owners, if not for future confiscation?

Enquiring minds want to know.........

Semper Fi!