Firearm Registration
- Thread starter tyeo098
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There are quite a few reasons why you get your prints checked by the FBI (various permits, licenses, clearances, etc.) and that's all it is -- a check to see if you match up as a known felon. The FBI, I believe, is not compiling lists of who has been checked and why. If they were, we wouldn't have to go through the process so many times.
Gouranga
Member
Sure we would, I would never underestimate the power of government agencies to do things as inefficient as possible.
If they are keeping them, they would be doing it on the down low. Was it not a federal building that was storing images from their security scanner (the ones that see through clothes) on a system they said was not capable of storing images? I have little to no faith that they do not have my fingerprints stored at least in a Db that the FBI can crosscheck if they wanted to. It ticks me off but on the other hand, I do not plan on breaking any laws that they would need them.
I imagine when the recording is easier, they will require DNA samples for a CCW and keep that on file. Sooner or later the whole theme from Gattica will play out in the interest of keeping us safe.
<yeah I know I am sounding like a tin hat but given how far we have come already, I got to wonder if sometimes the tin hats dont get some right>
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Though I won't pretend to know exactly how things are working behind the scenes, I do know that when you purchase a gun you only need to provide a driver's license and answer some ridiculous questions. In fact, if a complete background check is really done for every gun sold, why do they even bother asking stupid questions like: are you an alien, have you beaten your wife, are you a felon... they would already know the answers, no? Why don't they collect fingerprints when you buy a gun? Why are there "straw purchaser" signs in all the gun shops (at least the ones I've been to)? If they were that good at keeping track, they wouldn't need the warning. It would be a heck of a lot tougher to make a "straw purchase" to get a permit.
Now, to get a permit, you need to give your prints, and they're sent to the FBI for a thorough check (whatever that means exactly), then they're sent back to the gun board of the state of residence for examination.
Also, in Michigan at least, if you have a permit, and a cop runs your car's plates or your driver's license, a red flag pops up saying you're a permit holder. However, if you've purchased a gun it does not show up when your license/plates are run.
Again, I'm not for gun registration, I just don't see it as a bigger deal than a permit. Coincidentally I know a guy who has many legally owned/registered guns, but he absolutely won't get a permit to carry in spite of the fact that he does. He's way more bothered by the permit than the registration.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
They ask the questions because they can snag a surprising number of persons who are dumb enough to answer "yes" when they shouldn't. And, because lying on that form is a federal crime so they've got extra charges they can enforce if you get caught.
The NICS check is not a registration, but a verification that your name/identity does not show up on the federal list of "prohibited persons."
The NICS check is also not a "complete" background check. There are MANY levels of background checking that could be done. The NICS check is just the most basic form.
Is a permit more intrusive than a gun registrations? Depends on what the permitting process requires. Is it awesome that most states require one to carry concealed? No. Would it be a darned site worse if the state and or federal government had a LIST of how many of what kinds of guns you own and could do an inventory at will?
OH YEAH!
The NICS check is not a registration, but a verification that your name/identity does not show up on the federal list of "prohibited persons."
The NICS check is also not a "complete" background check. There are MANY levels of background checking that could be done. The NICS check is just the most basic form.
That's required to get a permit in your state, and some others. Rather than simply taking your photo ID for positive identification, the FBI will check your prints to make sure you're not a wanted felon posing as someone else with a fake ID. STILL not a federal registration. In my state no fingerprints are required and the background check is not much more thorough than the NICS check. In other states the process is even less intrusive. In three states, no permit or license is required at all.
Yes. In your state. Not sure what the point is there.
Well, there's lots of folks who do things for very odd or misinformed reasons. Sounds like your friend is one of them.
Is a permit more intrusive than a gun registrations? Depends on what the permitting process requires. Is it awesome that most states require one to carry concealed? No. Would it be a darned site worse if the state and or federal government had a LIST of how many of what kinds of guns you own and could do an inventory at will?
OH YEAH!
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Assuming this list that my state keeps of gun registrations is even complete (and I have serious doubts), what would happen if they wanted to take them away? Go door-to-door with the list picking up guns? I think a fairly high percentage would simply claim they were stolen or lost.
By the way, who said earlier that car registration was for taxation purposes? When was the last time you had to register your toaster after you bought it from Wal-Mart? Registration for cars is the same as it is for guns; a way to keep track.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And the teeth to it would be, if you can't provide that gun, or a proof of its disposal to another lawful owner, you go to jail. (We keep seeing calls for legislation that would make it a criminal offense NOT to report a lost or stolen gun within some set period of time.
)Of course. Confiscation "what if" discussions are always full of the worst and best possible case theories. Who knows how such a thing might even come about.
However, we sure don't want it to happen, and don't want that kind of tab-keeping done on us and our weapons. It happens in some places to one degree or another, but that doesn't make it a good thing, nor "acceptable." Just have to keep fighting. Things seem to look brighter all the time these days.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Very true, and to my great surprise. At a time when this country in general is suffering from big-governmentitis, firearm restrictions have actually become more relaxed (and logical). There's a long way to go, but at least there's movement in the right direction.
Tell that to the people of New Orleans, LA that had their guns taken away forcefully by cops going door to door, then left to rust in a vault. That episode was one of the worst insults to the Second Amendment in US history, and it happened in the South!!
By the way, I personally believe all that should be required to get a carry permit should be 1 instant background check and 1 visit to the police range to establish competency. It should also have a longer shelf life than an MRE, or maybe no expiration.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
What they did was completely wrong and has since been found to be illegal. But the question in this context is: does Louisiana have a registry, and did they use that registry when they went door to door? My understanding is that they do not, which proves Sam's point that we need to keep fighting beyond just a registry.
As to the point that we register cars, well, to own a car, it does not need to be registered, in most states. You only need to register it if you are going to drive it on the road. Further more, vehicle registration is one of these very socialist concepts that we seem to just accept now because it's been happening for so long, but ask yourself this, why should I have to register my vehicle? Is it for my own good (no, because in that case, it would be optional) or for the 'good' of the society?
Now, why should I have to register my gun? Is it for my good or the 'good' of the society?
Now, if you do things for the 'good' of the society, who gets to decide what is good and what is bad? What happens when the decision makers decide that cars or guns are bad for society instead of good? Basically, registration is a mechanism that gives the group control over each individual's private property, and hence private ownership and use thereof. If someone has control over something of yours, do you really then own it? No, you get to use it until they exercise their control over it - thus, that object really isn't yours.
This comes back to the very basic notion of what freedom really is. To be free, you must be 100% free, because anything else is not freedom. When you are free to own something, that means you have 100% control over it (and 100% responsibility for it and its use). Anything else is not true freedom, but we have come to accept that because we do not know what true freedom is any longer.
Okay, enough of a rant on political philosophy, but to truly understand why things like registration are inherently evil (in that they oppose our natural rights as humans) you have to understand what it really means to have a right to life, liberty, and property (this is the one that counts in this argument).
Now, why should I have to register my gun? Is it for my good or the 'good' of the society?
Now, if you do things for the 'good' of the society, who gets to decide what is good and what is bad? What happens when the decision makers decide that cars or guns are bad for society instead of good? Basically, registration is a mechanism that gives the group control over each individual's private property, and hence private ownership and use thereof. If someone has control over something of yours, do you really then own it? No, you get to use it until they exercise their control over it - thus, that object really isn't yours.
This comes back to the very basic notion of what freedom really is. To be free, you must be 100% free, because anything else is not freedom. When you are free to own something, that means you have 100% control over it (and 100% responsibility for it and its use). Anything else is not true freedom, but we have come to accept that because we do not know what true freedom is any longer.
Okay, enough of a rant on political philosophy, but to truly understand why things like registration are inherently evil (in that they oppose our natural rights as humans) you have to understand what it really means to have a right to life, liberty, and property (this is the one that counts in this argument).
an_drew308
Member
QUOTE Coincidentally I know a guy who has many legally owned/registered guns, but he absolutely won't get a permit to carry in spite of the fact that he does. He's way more bothered by the permit than the registration.
So, what do y'all think about concealed carrying without a permit? Because I've heard people say that they do this, too. Good idea or bad?
So, what do y'all think about concealed carrying without a permit? Because I've heard people say that they do this, too. Good idea or bad?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Considering that the vast majority of us will interact with law enforcement officers with much greater frequency than we will meet violent criminals, I'd say your priorities would be askew.
Follow the law. As I posted elsewhere today, breaking the law and hoping you don't get caught is not a form of protest (i.e.: civil disobedience), its just breaking the law.
The penalties are usually quite harsh. They generally involve loss of all firearms rights, forever.
Doing this requires a mindset shift, from being one of the good guys performing a just and lawful act, to that of a criminal who must, above all other factors, avoid discovery.
It stifles your freedom to act correctly in lawful instances. For example, in a no-shots-fired armed confrontation, you would be unable to report the encounter to the police as you should for fear of disclosing your illegally carried weapon.
It would negatively color any situation where you did have to use your weapon to defend yourself.
It makes every instance of "printing" or any errant gust of wind a potentially life-destroying event.
Look, obtaining a permit or license to carry a firearm is an infringement, in my humble opinion, but accepting it for now -- and working to change it as a law-abiding citizen -- is far better than life as a criminal.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Bad idea. Unless you're Ted Nugent. But seriously, things have been improving for gun owners over the years. I think the best thing any one of us could do to continue that trend is to play by the rules, and do what we can to change the minds of those around us. Maybe if we don't act like outlaws, we won't be treated like outlaws.
In the future that may change, but breaking the law at this point would be counterproductive.
Gouranga
Member
As others have said, we are not criminals. It is tough to play the "law abiding citizen" card when working towards better respect for the 2A when you are not a law abiding citizen.
Calibre44
Member
Got it on one! ... all of our guns have to be registered so when they banned our handguns: they knew exactly where to come and get them from. Gun control always starts with registration ... be warned and learn from our mistakes.
Sam1911 said:
Is there any "proof" or independent verification that what they are required to do regarding not compiling (i.e. purging) actually gets done?
I thought I read somewhere a year or so ago that one .gov got their knuckles rapped for doing such gun record compilation, but perhaps I am mistaken.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't know. Perhaps it depends on how paranoid you feel about whether the gov't conspires to do things it isn't allowed to do -- or how incompetent you believe the bureacracy to be.
I did see an information sheet from a while back explaining that they wanted to increase the time they were allowed to keep those records (from ? to 90 days) to better track internal problems/mistakes/unauthorized uses. So that would indicate that they are following the rules, at least well enough that they find them inconvienient.
I did see an information sheet from a while back explaining that they wanted to increase the time they were allowed to keep those records (from ? to 90 days) to better track internal problems/mistakes/unauthorized uses. So that would indicate that they are following the rules, at least well enough that they find them inconvienient.
22-rimfire
Member
If the state decided they wanted you to pay an annual fee for you to own your TV, toaster, or whatever, they could do it just like you do with cars. Emissions tests? How about electrical efficiency or some government agency deciding that four person home should use no more than "X" amount of electricity a month, day or year and you would pay a penalty for use above a certain amount? Sounds ridiculous, I know.
All that has to happen is that the supreme court decides that firearm ownership is not a right, but a privilege. The a political entity decides it is not legal to own a firearm or to put so many restrictions on ownership that it makes ownership so difficult and expensive to essentially eliminate private ownership execept for those that are of significant financial means or know the politicians.
I would guess that at least half of all firearms would be voluntarily turned in by Americans if a law was enacted that forbid the ownership or poessession of firearms. For the other half... do you really want the government knowing who owns what.
Consider electric generation in the US as an example. More than half of all electric power generation is done from coal fired power plants that emit varying amounts of "pollution". The Cap and Trade bill would have effectively eliminated use of coal as a viable power source within a relatively short time. The same thourgh registration and eventual taxation could be done with a gun registry. One proposal in PA for example, would have required you to pay an annual fee just to own a firearm. What about the person who has 100 guns? Even a minimal fee of $10 per year would result in an additional $1000 billl per year just to own his collection. Is this right? A firearm registry could easily facilitate this kind of thing in a tax strapped state or one that wanted to eliminate private firearm ownership. This bill did not pass, but under the right circumstances, it could pass, but most likely not in PA. But to think that an elected represenative of the people actually submitted such a bill for consideration is important.
So many people just ignore legislation with the belief being... oh, they'll never do that...
I generally think it is a terrible idea; not just a bad idea. 75% of the reason I got a carry permit was so that I could carry my handgun loaded in my vehicle. I didn't have to think about whether a handgun in my vehicle is loaded any more. (If it was there, it was loaded.) If I chose not to get the permit and I looked crossways at an officer or he/she was having a bad day at a routine traffic stop, they would search my vehicle and discover an illegally carried handgun and I would loose my gun rights for the rest of my life. It could happen so quickly. That is not to mention all the attorney and court costs and loss of income it would cause.
A friend had his vehicle searched for drugs... He doesn't use drugs. But it is entirely possible that one of his friends had a joint on him and it fell somewhere hidden in his car and if found he would be screwed. Add a loaded firearm and he's really screwed. He can't afford the cost of the training and the carry permit fee. So, he doesn't have a permit. So it is a very smart thing to do if you ever want to carry outside your home to have a carry permit.
This is true if you choose to carry a loaded firearm in most states without a permit. Yes, I know there are open carry laws and so forth. It simply is not worth the risk to not have a carry permit.
Last edited:
an_drew308
Member
Sam1911, along with you others. I do agree. There is no reason to take the chance of carrying without the permit. Too much risk involved, and as said earlier, we ARE law abiding citizens. Thanks for your well spoken opinions.
Prince Yamato
Member
I, until rather recently, used to not have an issue with registration, but the more I began to think about it, the stronger I realized it was more than a pain in the neck; it was an infringement. I didn't realize the rounds people had to make in states like NY to bear arms until my brother-in-law applied for his pistol permit (he's a resident upstate). I knew about registration and a wait, but it took him six months to get a revolver. On top of that, he had to list 3 or 4 references. I have a huge issue with who knows what I have, especially when they aren't beholden to keeping that issue confidential. I guess I wasn't really thinking about what happened to the registration forms once they were completed.
Registration does nothing to stop crime. It brings in money for the state and can be an agent of future confiscation. That's it. The current federal law for Title 1 weapons is about is strict as you can go and still make a dent in crime. Anything more is just a waste of time and money- and a definite infringement.
Registration does nothing to stop crime. It brings in money for the state and can be an agent of future confiscation. That's it. The current federal law for Title 1 weapons is about is strict as you can go and still make a dent in crime. Anything more is just a waste of time and money- and a definite infringement.
CTPhil
Member
Comparing car registration with gun registration is apples and oranges. Car owners use a system of publicly owned and maintained roads and need to have a more or less uniform set of rules to make a potentially very dangerous situation as orderly as possible. Driving a car is quite different than carrying or owning a gun, you are actively using the car in public the whole time you're driving, just carrying a weapon isn't use, just possession.
Carry permits and gun registration are also two completely different things, the original premise of the thread was national registration. Permits to carry vary widely and many places vary widely even between towns. A permit also is an attempt to ensure competency, gun registration doesn't have that goal.
Carry permits and gun registration are also two completely different things, the original premise of the thread was national registration. Permits to carry vary widely and many places vary widely even between towns. A permit also is an attempt to ensure competency, gun registration doesn't have that goal.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
And how does registering your car play into that? I walk on public sidewalks without registered shoes, and ride my bike on public roads without a registered bike. I just don't see why a car must be registered to drive on public roads. When you break the rules driving a car, you get the ticket, not the car.
CTPhil
Member
Largely it's about safety. What if everyone decided to start driving homemade cars? I don't want to be going down the road to find someone coming at me with a car that has beer kegs for wheels.
- Status
