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

Gun Registration

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Desperado, Sep 23, 2006.

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

    Desperado Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    89
    What is everyones thoughts on gun registration? I live in TX and its a non-registration state but I know some states are. My mom thinks its stupid to not register guns and of course Im not for it. What is everyone elses opinion on it? I could use some arguments in case it ever comes up in a debate;) .
     
  2. Axman

    Axman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Golden Valley, AZ
    Guns don't have a rear bumpers to attach the license plate to!
     
  3. SigfanUSAF

    SigfanUSAF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Federal Firearms Registration = To ease mass firearms roundups by federal agents and ensure all weapons were accounted for. I'd rather gnaw off my trigger finger.
     
  4. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,654
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    In California they passed the Roberti-Roos law to register assault weapons....NOW, they're banned.
    In the 1960's, New Yuck City registered semiauto long guns, and the mayor who proposed this promised the list would NEVER be used for confiscation.
    When Mayor Dinkins assumed the mayorship he made some of those guns illegal -- and guess what? That list was used to assure compliance! Well, a generation later, some of those people had moved -- and some of those newer tenants found themselves a Emergency Service Unit bash-the-dorr-in party thanks to Dinkins' laws!!

    REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION!!!!!
     
  5. Creeping Incrementalism

    Creeping Incrementalism Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    S.F. Bay Area
    Roberti-Roos was a ban. However, anyone who already owned the firearms listed was allowed to keep them if they registered.

    Because criminals usually obtain their firearms off the books, registration only has two uses to the government (1) confiscation or harrassment of gun owners, and (2) to allow guns to be banned without taking them away from anyone who already owns one (which could get messy).

    Registration is a mess in other ways. In California, there have been incidents where firearms were seized because L.E. mistakenly believed the firearm should have been registered, and of firearms that should have been registered, but were not because of mistakes. Then there are all the people who simply never heard of the ban and so never registered, or believed their 4473 was registration, which is not always the case.
     
  6. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,230
    Location:
    Central Texas
    The sole purpose of registration is to enable future confiscation from people other than criminals.

    Beyond that, I have a problem with laws aimed so specifically, so precisely, so exclusively at people with no criminal background.

    Exclusively? Exactly right . . . in the 1968 case Haynes vs. US, SCOTUS ruled that convicted felons are exempt from registration laws. Prosecuting someone for a registration violation is tantamount to saying the person has to register the gun. (Duh!) But felons are prohibited from having guns, so when you prosecute him for failing to register something he's prohibited from having in the first place, that's the same thing as saying he's being prosecuted for not incriminating himself . . . a clear 4th Amendment violation.

    So felons (and by extension, other prohibited persons) can be prosecuted for illegal possession, but NOT for registration violations. That's something reserved ONLY for people with clean records.

    Which IMHO is singularly odious.
    Ask her why she thinks a law that exempts rapists, murderers, rapists, etc., is such a good thing. :evil:
     
  7. MartinBrody

    MartinBrody Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    334
    Location:
    PA
    Quite simply it doesn't take criminals off the streets and doesn't prevent crime. If someone is going to rape, rob, murder, they will do it with or without a gun. Registration is a political answer to a complex situation, and it's toll is heaviest on law abiding citizens, not criminals. Unfortunately it leads to confiscation because registration will not solve the problem it was intended to, so the politicians inevitably have to take it to the next step.
     
  8. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Registering guns doesn't apply to criminals; not registering a gun in MA (where I used to live) is a criminal activity. Therefore, if someone didn't register a gun, then it no longer applied to them. :)
     
  9. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Aside from the (IMO correct) concerns about 'slippery slope', the question is "what good would it do?"

    Suppose we have perfect registration. That is, every firearm is in a database someplace, and every theft is reported, every permanent move from one address to another is reported - "authorities" can look up firearms by address, or firearms by person, or firearms by auto registration/license.

    I, Joe Librarian, have a legally registered pistol. I go to visit my brother, Bill Librarian, who has none and never has had any. There's a domestic disturbance in Bill's front yard, and the police are called.

    Can the police reasonably presume that, since Bill has no firearms registered, no firearms are going to be involved? Obviously not - I may have mine, the people fighting in the front yard may have them, some random passerby may have one.

    Similarly, suppose Bill's automobile is pulled over for a traffic violation. Can the police rely on the no-gun return on Bill's vehicle? Again, obviously not - there's no way to know who is actually in the vehicle, and whether or not those people are armed.

    Even in a perfect system, LEO can't rely on the database to ensure their safety; they must always enter a situation prepared to deal with armed people.

    If the police get no safety benefit, why bother?

    Sometimes the argument is made that 'we register cars, why not guns?', and there are lots of sly responses that are accurate. But I always go for the efficacy aspect:

    We have well over 50 years of experience licencing drivers, with state-by-state variations in the training and knowledge required for licensing, and registering vehicles, again with state-by-state variations in inspections and other aspects of registration.

    All these licensed drivers, with hardly ever any ill intent, driving their registered vehicles, which are assuredly not designed for killing anything, have an appalling accidental death toll.

    Why on earth would anyone look at all that evidence and conclude that guns would be different?

    Actually, they are different - accidental firearms deaths are almost non-existent, with our unlicensed owners and unregistered guns.
     
  10. Geronimo45

    Geronimo45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,345
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Register a gun - it would work, if the BG carried his gun around openly with it's number clearly visible, so you could read the number while he was doing a holdup at the local shop & rob.
    Why doesn't it work? Ask any holdup victim if they remember the serial number off the BGs gun. Probably not. The gun is hidden until they're ready to use it.
    Why does registration work on a car? Because a car can't be stuck down your pants in preparation to a crime.
     
  11. Leif Runenritzer

    Leif Runenritzer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    If they know you have guns, they can take them. Some might wonder what use secret guns would be if they are illegal. But there will be times and places where laws don't matter, and you might find yourself there, glad to be armed and safe. You might have to live through riots, natural disasters, and the chaos that goes with them. Or, sooner or later, the gun ban might be lifted, and wouldn't it be sad if you gave yours up for destruction.
     
  12. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Register? For What Purpose?

    Me registering my guns is telling the government that required that registration where the gun fight will be.

    Woody

    "We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood
     
  13. Axman

    Axman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Golden Valley, AZ
    Not to mention that the serial numbers are generally altered or obliterated.
     
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,916
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    If anybody thinks that registration is no big deal, I invite them to tell me what I'd need to do in order to LEGALLY move to Chicago with my handguns.

    I've found that in EVERY instance, anti-gunners either LIE or don't answer AT ALL.
     
  15. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    Thoughts? Anyone who "registers" their guns does not deserve to own them.
     
  16. DBabsJr

    DBabsJr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    Southampton, NJ
    Would it, combined with the requirement to report firearm thefts, help track down straw purchasers? Are straw purchasers even a problem?

    That would certainly suck for us in NJ. Registration is not really an option here.
     
  17. jeepmor

    jeepmor Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,827
    Location:
    Stumptown
    It's a list of future outlaws

    It is a list that will be used, and was in the case of Katrina (imo) to round up the guns from the citizens. Our national guardsman were confiscating our guns from law abiding citizens who needed them to protect their lives and property.

    They have a list, they have an agenda for that list. When it comes about, not exactly sure, but they have a list. Hopefully we see it coming and will band together in a timely manner.

    Buy as many guns off the radar as you can would be my advice. I have a friend so paranoid about this that he flat out refuses to buy any guns over the counter simply because thinks the government is coming for them, and sooner than later.

    Just wait and see what the democrats do if they end up in power again. Hillary's name is already on a proposed semi-auto ban for guns nationwide. Do these politicians even recognize the documents that this country is based on even exist? Not many libtard democrats near as I can tell.



    jeepmor
     
  18. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    I disagree. But I'll leave it at that.

    Did that really happen? Do you have a cite?
     
  19. Big Gay Al

    Big Gay Al Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Mason, MI, USA
    Registration, or "Safety Inspection" was started back in the 1920's as a Racist measure. It was a way to control who, or should I say, which color could or could not buy handguns.

    Unlike some jurisdictions that register firearms, Michigan does not have us update the address info. When I move, there's no notification requirement. And of course, the racist reason is gone.

    Problem is, if I don't have my handguns "safety inspected" then I find myself in the same predicament as Angel Shamaya did a few months ago.

    For Michigan, hunting is a big industry. While I don't like the safety inspection thing, I doubt it will lead to confiscation here. And I'm hoping we can get the state to drop it soon. (A good possibility.)
     
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    795
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    I'm torn - any other right (at least, the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights) which required registration would leave people ... well, do you have your Free Speech Card? How about your Right to Travel papers? Your Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure documents?

    On the other hand, I do wish to live peaceably within the law (the supreme of which being the Constitution, of course)... is it worth the cost of watering the tree of liberty yet? Most folks, including myself, think "no". There's still hope to save the system.
     
  21. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    There are already "Right to Travel Papers". You can't get on a plane without them, and it's spreading out to trains and buses.

    There are not exactly "Speech Papers", but the FCC has thoroughly politicized the broadcast license process.

    There are not "Trial by Jury Papers" or "Freedom From Torture Papers", but we now have laws saying that they are at the whim of the Executive and may not be checked, balanced or reviewed by anyone else.

    We do not have "Freedom of Home and Personal Effect Papers", but those freedoms have been eroded almost to nothing.

    Try to assemble large groups without a permit, and try getting a permit if you are politically unreliable and you will find that we do indeed have "Freedom to Assemble Papers".

    Try getting to any venue where George W. Bush is speaking - and yes, he is the very first one to require this, no Clinton didn't do it - and you have to be vetted for personal support of him and his policies. At a large number of events you have to sign a statement of loyalty and be a good Party Member, comrade. So yes, we do have "Freedom to Petition for Redress Papers".

    We had papers that prevented arbitrary arrest and detention and required the government to show cause before it took away your rights. They were called "Writs of Habeas Corpus" and "Search Warrants". Now they have been deemed unecessary impediments to the power of the Unitary Executive and are being eliminated.
     
  22. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Texas
    Registration is the first step to a complete ban. Look at places like Washington DC and Chicago. First they require all handguns to be registered. Then they effectively ban them by refusing to register new ones.

    Look at NFA machineguns. They were the most highly regulated firearms you could get in the US. They had to be registered. The owners had to be registered or licensed. The ATF had to approve every single transfer. There was a tax to be paid on both manufacture and transfers. The owner had to submit photograph and finger prints to the FBI for a background check that could have taken 6months - 1+ years. Registered MGs have only been used in 1 recorded crime in over 70 years.

    So in 1986 what do the demorats do? They pass a law that stopped registration of MGs. Even though they were never used in crimes and legal MG owners were subjected to every piece of 'common sense gun control' in the book. So MGs weren't outright banned, but they had to be registered. Registration was banned.

    That's like the Republican congress passing a law that says no blue state may register voters. Voting isn't banned in those states, but too bad no one is registered to vote. (doesn't sound like such a bad idea)
     
  23. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,766
    Location:
    Central Florida
    When I die all my guns will go to my Granddaughter.
    she lives in another State and she'll get them off the books.

    AFS
     
  24. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,831
    Ouch :rolleyes:
    C.C. Ord. 12.04.210 It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, give away, or permanently pass on to another person of any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed unless the Transferor first registers, or causes the weapon to be registered to the new owner.

    That's the law in Clark County Nevada (Las Vegas and surrounding cities) and has been since passed in 1965 (Democratic County Commission, typically).
    I moved here in '78. It hasn't stopped crime, but should the police feel the need to come to my door, their computer and/or dispatcher will alert them of "Weapons" in the residence. Well, "Weapons Owner", since I may have sold or traded all of my handguns off to someone outside of Clark County.

    With all due respect to those who think otherwise, I do deserve to own them, registration required or not. I am no criminal. I may not like registering them, but I prefer to ride with the law, than against it.
     
  25. txcoyote

    txcoyote Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    non-registration huh?

    >I live in TX and its a non-registration state...

    Hmmm, really? So while you're standing in line at the Texas gun store waiting for them to call in all that information you filled out on the purchase form, you think that all disappears after you are handed the weapon? Texas may be a "no registration" state, but you've just been "registered" for that purchase. At least that's what my FFL sales folks have lead me to believe while I'm standing there waiting for my clearance from the Feds.... "it's so they can track the weapon purchase". May not be any real deals at gun shows any more, but at least you can still buy from individuals without the "paperwork".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page