Gun Registration for Militia Service

[cuchulainn]

The Parker decision contains an interesting opinion -- that gun registration for purposes of the government knowing what guns are available for military service does not violate the Second Amendment.

That raises an interesting hypothetical. Suppose SCOTUS reviews Parker and makes a clear ruling that the 2nd. protects an individual right and further makes clear that governments (including state and local via 14th incorporation) cannot ban or otherwise hinder citizens (excepting children, certain convicted criminals and those adjudicated mentally unstable) from keeping and bearing arms.

Suppose further, that other federal and state court build on that ruling to create a pro-RKBA atmosphere akin to our current First Amendment protections.

Would you then accept registration of guns for militia service purposes?

In such a pro-RKBA atmosphere, it would be much harder to argue -- as we rightfully argue now -- that registration is simply a precursor to confiscation. Rather, the situation would be more akin to the current de facto registration of most media outlets. They're companies, and as such are registered with federal, state and local governments for tax purposes -- but no one fears that this registration will be used a tool to target the free press.

I think -- think, mind you -- that I just might – might, mind you -- be willing to accept registration under in a pro-RKBA atmosphere. I'm not certain, though. I’d have a lot of residual distrust left over.

But what do you think? Would you then accept registration of guns for militia service purposes?

 

[tbtrout]

While the whole concept of registration brings horrible thoughts to my brain, I think it is ok to assume we are already registered as owners. The exact number of guns is not known, except for signature lines, unless recent purchases through NICS or ammo orders with a credit card for someone who has hand me downs without papers. All of the hoops we jump through in NJ to just to purchase a handgun, we are on file with our state and municipalities.

I voted no on registration just on principle, although I know it is too late.

 

[swabjocky]

There is only one purpose for registration and that's to ease confiscation.

 

[shield20]

I would register 1 gun with my local militia officer - the M4 they sell me and or assign me to keep, and bear if necessary. They want to also give me or sell me an M9 - OK that too. They had better put a provision back in the statute that allows for our use as a militia also - or all this aggravation & expense of registration is otherwise meaningless.

Any other ones are mine privately and of no concern to anyone else.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

I see your point, but I have a problem.
This is the same problem (although on a different scale) that is the mountain before us.
This concept is predicated on the idea that the government has the right to do whatever is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. I think most everyone in Washington would agree with that.
But in reality, the government does NOT have the right to do ANYTHING that is not expressly allowed (or outlined) in the Constitution. Therefore, I cannot say I would support granting the government more power that they should not have. Although it sure is an interesting question.

 

[cuchulainn]

Dr. Dickie: But in reality, the government does NOT have the right to do ANYTHING that is not expressly allowed in the Constitution.

Congress has the power -- Article I, Section 8 -- "To provide for calling forth the militia..." and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia..."

Certainly, one could argue that having lists of available men and available arms is part of "provide for."

shield20: I would register 1 gun with my local militia officer - the M4 they sell me and or assign me to keep, and bear if necessary ... Any other ones are mine privately and of no concern to anyone else.

Valid point.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

I'd only support it if said guns could be new production full auto.

 

[cuchulainn]

CannibalCrowley: I'd only support it if said guns could be new production full auto.

Another valid point.

 

[LawBot5000]

No, it's a stupid and unnecessary measure.

Knowing where the guns are is irrelevant because guns arent called to militia duty. People are called and they are expected to bring their own guns. One of the main benefits of having a militia is that the state doesnt have to expend any logistical resources equipping the infantry.

A better approach is to register people eligible for the militia and if they show up without firearms to militia duty, you sanction them in some way. Oh but we already register militia members through the selective service system. The problem is that no one ever musters the militia.

Gun registration doesnt ensure that militia members are armed, it only ensures that when confiscation happens, the government doesnt miss any of your firearms. They want to ensure they dont confiscate 10 guns and miss the 5 you buried in your backyard, not ensure you have at least one gun.

 

[cuchulainn]

LawBot5000

Yes, there in part would lie my residual distrust. But I'd still be on the fence if we were protected by a hyper-strong RKBA atmosphere supported at the SCOTUS level. If gun banning and confiscation were, well, "banned" (as it should be), then I'd have a much harder time fearing it rationally.

 

[shield20]

As Law mentioned, it was the people who were registered, NOT their weapons. A1 S8 'in action' is very easy to see as the Miltia Act of 1792 was passed by the 2nd congress.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


But since having a well-armed militia is only part of the reason for protecting the RKBA, anything beyond a person's involvement in the militia is private and NOT subject to ANY restrictions unless that right is mis-used - to be punished individually via due process, just like every other right we are endowed with.

These days, to expect the militia to be effective if ever called out, its members (i.e. US!) MUST have access to the same or better weapons as those we can be expected to be facing - that was a given in 1776, in 1792, and its a given now. IF someone wants to enact a GUN registration scheme based in error on the true intent of the militia clauses, they can have my name and be QUITE guaranteed I will have (at least one of) those types of arms.

 

[30 cal slob]

kinda moot.

weapons suitable for "militia" duty ... NFA toys... are already registered with the ATFE.

and if you filled out a form 4473 lately, that's pretty much "registration" as far as i'm concerned.

many state, county and local governments impose further record-keeping above and beyond federal requirements.

 

[cuchulainn]

A question for the historians among us:

Back when the states actually used the militia -- did they keep lists of who owned what guns, cannons, ships, etc.?

 

[geronimotwo]

Congress has the power -- Article I, Section 8 -- "To provide for calling forth the militia..." and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia..."

if they buy me the gun, i would be happy to register it.

 

[cuchulainn]

geronimotwo: if they buy me the gun, i would be happy to register it.

What if the way that they "provide for ... arming" is to mandate that you buy your own. Would you be willing to register it, and only it?

 

[kludge]

Didn't vote.

If your the Quartermaster and you "provide" a weapon to a militia member, you have to know who has it, so in that case, no problem.

If I buy it, no way. That fits under "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

But I would also be happy just to have 922(o) repealed as a starting point.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Registration Is Not How It Works

The government does not need to know what you have, you need to know what is needed and then go out and get it.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[jazurell]

Ah yes, registration. Let's look at a few places in recent history where registration worked well. Germany, all guns were registered and then confiscated. People had no way to defend againt Hitler. Poland, the Solidarity movement. Same thing. All guns were registered and then confiscated. Now that's just the thing I want to be happening her.:banghead:

 

[shield20]

Found a pretty good article on this subject re: California registration/confiscation:

...
Many people oppose registration because it precedes confiscation. Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough to register their SKS’s are now discovering. However, that is a practical reason to oppose registration, not a legal reason. And while avoiding confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to oppose registration, neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a law because of what might happen or what has happened in other cases will not stand up in court. But there is a reason not to register or turn in any firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.
...
Registration is more than an infringement
The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question-Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the right versus privilege issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment’s intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen’s firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen’s ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry’s right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government’s grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements-such as registration-before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.


{Applying these concepts to California’s edict}
The argument against registration of, and restrictions on, military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths that reach the same conclusions:

1. If the supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form can not revoke this, or any other, right. If the right to keep and bear arms can not be revoked (and it can not be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders’ writings and in the Second Amendment itself, can not be revoked. If the right to keep and bear militia arms can not be revoked (and it can not be) then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), then any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

2. If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders’ writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly exists. If that is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, because all are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), any restrictive legislation based on the militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional. If that is the case (and it is), then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this right.

Again, the same situation prevails with all the personal rights in the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate requiring registration-either of oneself or of things directly associated with a right-can be a prerequisite or condition of exercising a right, nor can it affect that right in any way. If it does, then the right has been unconstitutionally declared a state-controlled privilege.

Summary
As we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to register any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols, revolvers, carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns, self-defense guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder guns, scoped guns, .50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber guns, .223 caliber guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used, as individual military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred to by the Second Amendment’s militia clause.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a77cc9a2b2c.htm

 

[geekWithA.45]

In the colonial era, the government was literally more interested in who _didn't_ have guns than in who did, because this had an impact on how to provision the common armory so they could sign guns out to the needy.

My take on it is that gun registration isn't de-facto unconstitutional, but the stated reason for registration, "knowing who is properly equipped for militia service" is really a stretch that we are quite right to be suspicious of.

After 150 years of federal and state neglect, it doesn't strike me as credible that they'd suddenly be interested in genuinely reviving the militia _system_. The general militia, such that it is, has been entirely kept alive by the likes of us, not so much that we're members of scary 90's style "militias", but in that we know what the rights and responsibilities of citizens actually are, and take them seriously.

The reality is that both as a matter of history and as a matter of practicality, gun registration is far more useful a tool to promote confiscation of arms than anything else.

 

[El Tejon]

The Supreme Court has held that registration for the First Amendment is unconstitutional. The Court has held that there is no hierarchy of rights.

If registration for the First Amendment is illegal, gun registration is equally as illegal.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Second Amendment Speaks Loudy For The First.

The RKBA shall not be infringed. If you can't hear that - as I've spoken it in an unabridged fashion per the First Amendment - the Second Amendment lets me say it with a bang!

Got that?

Good!

Woody

How many times must people get bit on the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[cuchulainn]

geekWithA.45: After 150 years of federal and state neglect, it doesn't strike me as credible that they'd suddenly be interested in genuinely reviving the militia _system_.

Very good point -- and I'd share your suspicions, given the current atmosphere.

But like I said at the beginning, I'm talking about a hypothetical situation in which the RKBA has been boltered by SCOTUS and other decisions, meaning that even if some bureaucrat wanted to use the registration lists to confiscate guns, he couldn't legally.

El Tejon: The Supreme Court has held that registration for the First Amendment is unconstitutional.

And yet, nearly every newspaper, magazine, radio station and TV station in the USA is registered with the federal and state governments and often their local governments – but for purposes other than the First Amendment: taxes

Similarly, you wouldn't be registering your guns "for the Second Amendment." You'd be registering them for purposes of Article I, Section 8 and the related provisions in the states' constitutions.

shield20: To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question.

Companies -- including the one I own -- regularly register communication devices (such as computers, telephones, fax machines, printers, etc.) with their local governments for property tax purposes.

Yes -- in the USA, right now -- we register "communication devices" with the government. Nonetheless, I'm not afraid that the government will use my business property tax registry to confiscate my computer, etc.

That's because the First Amendment is protected to a sacrosant level.

Yeah, I'd be distrustful of a gun registry, given the last 100+ years of gun-grabber history. But -- in the hypothetical scenario I'm talking about, with the Second Amendment protected to the same sacrosant level as is the First Amendment -- I'd have a hard time making a rational argument against such registration.

 

[MD_Willington]

I would register 1 gun with my local militia officer - the M4 they sell me and or assign me to keep, and bear if necessary. They want to also give me or sell me an M9

Like the Swiss do?

It would be best if the ".gov" provided 1 standard issue rifle and 1 standard issue sidearm for every able bodied person living in the household.

Those would be the only firearms I'd be inclined to register.

If you think of Federal taxes you've paid and the unit replacement cost of each firearm, the firearms should be provided to you to keep forever since your paid taxes have already purchased said firearms.

 

[jlbraun]

I would submit that if the government lends me (to keep at home as part of my militia service) a full-auto M16A2, 500 rounds of 5.56mm emergency ammo, 2 M9s, 500 rounds of 9mm, a LAW, 3 rounds of HEAT ammunition, and a radio, then of course they have a right to know who has it. My personal weapons, however, are no business of the government's.