goalie
Member
LMAO, we have to have another minnesota shoot asap. I am going to be punching paper with another THRer in about 8 hours, but a good old group shoot would be fun.
Registration: Does it Infringe Upon a Right?
- Thread starter USAFNoDAk
- Start date
- Status
LMAO, we have to have another minnesota shoot asap. I am going to be punching paper with another THRer in about 8 hours, but a good old group shoot would be fun.
jamz
Member
Human Rights and American Rights aside, let's not forget about the practical disadvantages of gun registration. Recall Canada's gun registration program. Supposed to cost what, Two million or so and now it's up to what- a BILLION dollars?
In addition to not wanting my basic human rights infringed, I sure don't want to have to pay for that infringement.
-James
In addition to not wanting my basic human rights infringed, I sure don't want to have to pay for that infringement.
-James
Pug Puppy
Member
It sets too much of dangerous precedent for my liking.
Remember: 1920-England began gun registration.
Now, most guns are illegal for private ownership.
NO! is my answer.
Remember: 1920-England began gun registration.
Now, most guns are illegal for private ownership.
NO! is my answer.
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
The Supreme Court will (or should) review any restriction placed on a fundamental Constitutional right (and perhaps a right reserved but not enumerated) by the standard of "strict scrutiny"
By this standard, the restriction has to, on balance, advance some overwhelming public good that cannot be met in any other way.
Voter registration requirements meet that standard. The public good there is advancement of the principle of one-man one-vote.
What overwhelming public good does registration of firearms produce? Can that public purpose be advanced in some other way?
For example: Does firearms registration:
Keep guns out of the hands of violent felons? No.
Keep guns out of the hands of mentally incompetent persons? No.
Aid in traacking guns used in crimes? Yes
Reduce the rate of violent crime committed with firearms? No.
Have a "chilling effect" on the free exercise of rights under the 2nd Amendment? Yes.
Create an impermissable classification of people? No
Overall, The drawbacks outweigh any public benefit, and gun registration schemes would likely be struck down by a Conservative (Strict Constructionist) Supreme Court.
By this standard, the restriction has to, on balance, advance some overwhelming public good that cannot be met in any other way.
Voter registration requirements meet that standard. The public good there is advancement of the principle of one-man one-vote.
What overwhelming public good does registration of firearms produce? Can that public purpose be advanced in some other way?
For example: Does firearms registration:
Keep guns out of the hands of violent felons? No.
Keep guns out of the hands of mentally incompetent persons? No.
Aid in traacking guns used in crimes? Yes
Reduce the rate of violent crime committed with firearms? No.
Have a "chilling effect" on the free exercise of rights under the 2nd Amendment? Yes.
Create an impermissable classification of people? No
Overall, The drawbacks outweigh any public benefit, and gun registration schemes would likely be struck down by a Conservative (Strict Constructionist) Supreme Court.
Graystar
Member
Why would they use strict scrutiny? Strict scrutiny is used only in issues of rights, and currently there is no recognized right to possess a firearm.
Treylis
Member
Law and case, please?
DevilDog
Member
Case: "Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218"
I am not going to dig up the particulars, but here is url found with a quick search.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0407/01/politics-198086.htm
RealGun
Member
You are referring to gun registration, not concealed carry licensing, or gun bans, et al.
Ruling out registration is a form of prior restraint on the government, when only arguing that they might misuse the information. To me, registration forces a background check when purchasing or otherwise acquiring a firearm. It makes it more difficult for a criminal to have a gun. When used for any other purpose or claimed intent, I think it is inappropriate. I don't have a better idea than to establish official check points. In theory, an honest citizen should have no objection to a legitimate effort to reduce crime. Rather than rant about wanting to place prior restraint on government, we should focus on abuses of discretion or any clouding or distortion of the claimed intent of gun registration. If there is no evidence that it is beneficial, then drop it. If so concerned about it becoming a gun confiscation list, then form and participate in militias, so that confiscation intent or actual attempts will meet with united local resistance. This is more likely to keep it a cold war, not a death of a thousand cuts.
Voter registration, when "shall" register, is merely validating eligibility. Declaring party affiliation is necessary for controlling fairness in primary elections.
The two concepts share the word 'registration' but not much else. The stated purpose of registration is quite different.
That's my current take on it anyway.
ctdonath
Member
someone brought up the point that voting is a right, yet 48 states require you to register to vote.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.
The right to vote is not.
Actually, subsequent legislation written by the Founding Fathers aludes to their acceptance of registration - but not as a requirement for possession. The Militia Act Of 1792 states "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia" and "every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock ...". Note, however, that such registration of gun owners is not designed to prevent anyone from owning guns, but instead practically compels them (18-45 year old males at minimum) to be armed, so they may be "called up" as the Constitution permits and the 2nd Amendment alludes to.
Of course, the underlying premise is that all those people are armed, and capable of revolting.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.
The right to vote is not.
Actually, subsequent legislation written by the Founding Fathers aludes to their acceptance of registration - but not as a requirement for possession. The Militia Act Of 1792 states "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia" and "every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock ...". Note, however, that such registration of gun owners is not designed to prevent anyone from owning guns, but instead practically compels them (18-45 year old males at minimum) to be armed, so they may be "called up" as the Constitution permits and the 2nd Amendment alludes to.
Of course, the underlying premise is that all those people are armed, and capable of revolting.
Graystar
Member
That's right. It’s in the Constitution itself, and was strengthened by the 15th Amendment.
"For a brief period, the Supreme Court held in 1968 (Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85) that felons were exempt from federal and state laws regarding registration because it violated their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. In other words, only people who were not criminals could be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm or found to be in possession of an unregistered firearm. However, in 1971, (U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601) the Court held that due to changes in the National Firearms Act of 1968 the law no longer violated the 5th Amendment rights of felons. "
(http://guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html)
How did the FBI found those people who had .380 Makarov barrels? When you buy gun parts you don't fill out out any forms. If the agents didn't have a warrent the owner can tell them to bug off. Don't lie to them but do tell them to bug off if they don't have a warrent.
I'm assuming that these people brought thier barrels online and not from a gun shop or gun show. Can you give us a link?
-Bill
Realgun wrote:
I agree. The purpose of gun registration is not to verify eligibility, it's to keep track of guns and who owns them. The govt. could infringe upon a right by refusing to go through the process of registering firearms. Then any firearm which was brought into possession after the govt. refused to register any more guns, would be "illegal" and then that would violate the Second amendment which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I can see a city or state govt. doing this. They say they are going to start registering firearms. Once they get to 100K (or some other arbitrary number) they say, we have too many firearms in our city or state. This is affecting the general welfare of our citizens, thus we will not allow any more firearms to be registered.
Voting on the other hand is merely a means to cut down on voter fraud, and make elections fair and legal. That is different. I appreciate all of the responses. There are some well thought out replies.
As I mentioned in the my original message, this came up during a debate with some people who were willing to accept registration of firearms, even though they were gun owners. That's scary in and of itself. I countered that the govt. could easily abuse that, and that licensing or registering a right makes that right a priviledge, rather than a right, because you now are under a govt. umbrella, which must remain open to exercise the right. That is not an inalienable right anymore. One of the people I was debating, then brought up the voting issue. I got caught off gaurd, and didn't have a real good answer to that. Now I have several.
I agree. The purpose of gun registration is not to verify eligibility, it's to keep track of guns and who owns them. The govt. could infringe upon a right by refusing to go through the process of registering firearms. Then any firearm which was brought into possession after the govt. refused to register any more guns, would be "illegal" and then that would violate the Second amendment which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I can see a city or state govt. doing this. They say they are going to start registering firearms. Once they get to 100K (or some other arbitrary number) they say, we have too many firearms in our city or state. This is affecting the general welfare of our citizens, thus we will not allow any more firearms to be registered.
Voting on the other hand is merely a means to cut down on voter fraud, and make elections fair and legal. That is different. I appreciate all of the responses. There are some well thought out replies.
As I mentioned in the my original message, this came up during a debate with some people who were willing to accept registration of firearms, even though they were gun owners. That's scary in and of itself. I countered that the govt. could easily abuse that, and that licensing or registering a right makes that right a priviledge, rather than a right, because you now are under a govt. umbrella, which must remain open to exercise the right. That is not an inalienable right anymore. One of the people I was debating, then brought up the voting issue. I got caught off gaurd, and didn't have a real good answer to that. Now I have several.
James Bondrock
Member
This is as good a case against gun registration as I have ever read. (Caution: occasional salty language, and a small factual error.)
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/gunthing.php?id=P874
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/gunthing.php?id=P874
Aguila Blanca
Member
How does registration do this?
In most cases of gun crimes, the bad guy takes the gun with him when he departs the scene. Registration is no good if the witnesses and victim can only report "He had a gun."
In a great many cases where a gun is recovered (I suspect most, but have no statistics to back this up) if a gun is recovered it is subsequently found to nave been stolen. Again, registration of rightful ownership is useless if the gun has been stolen from the rightful owner.
Registration does not in and of itself infringe upon a right. However, what someone chooses to do with said registration, or whom they allow or disallow to register might infringe upon a right.
If a government chooses to use a registry to infringe upon a right, I believe it could be construed as a sign that the said government has fallen to tyrany, and that it may be time for armed revolution. This doesn't just apply to gun ownership, but speech, voting, religion, etc... If the government chooses to use a registration scheme to control the peoples participation in a constitutionally protected right, then they are choosing to betaying their oaths to protect that document and the freedoms that it guarantees. This is high treason for any government official, and they should be brought to justice as quickly as possible.
If a government chooses to use a registry to infringe upon a right, I believe it could be construed as a sign that the said government has fallen to tyrany, and that it may be time for armed revolution. This doesn't just apply to gun ownership, but speech, voting, religion, etc... If the government chooses to use a registration scheme to control the peoples participation in a constitutionally protected right, then they are choosing to betaying their oaths to protect that document and the freedoms that it guarantees. This is high treason for any government official, and they should be brought to justice as quickly as possible.
TamThompson
Member
I view gun owner registration as an invasion of my privacy and an attack upon my 4th Amendment rights.
I see it as different from voting registration in that voting registration is done to prevent ballot-box stuffing--one person, one vote. Guns are different: you can have as many as you want.
For those who have no problems with auto, etc., registration, because 'some liberal isn't waiting to grab them'--two words: asset forfeiture. They CAN seize those under the flimsiest of excuses if they decide you're in any way connected with drugs or money laundering, or other offenses.
It is none of the government's business what I own, or, really, who I am. They work for me, not the other way around.
Think about how it goes where you work; you don't know your bosses home address, and social security and such, but he/she darn sure knows yours. The government works for me, so I have a right to know where they are, but they have no such right to know all about me. They like to act like it's the other way around and treat us like serfs, but that's not right.
I'm very protective of privacy, since I view it as coming under attack for all of us.
I see it as different from voting registration in that voting registration is done to prevent ballot-box stuffing--one person, one vote. Guns are different: you can have as many as you want.
For those who have no problems with auto, etc., registration, because 'some liberal isn't waiting to grab them'--two words: asset forfeiture. They CAN seize those under the flimsiest of excuses if they decide you're in any way connected with drugs or money laundering, or other offenses.
It is none of the government's business what I own, or, really, who I am. They work for me, not the other way around.
Think about how it goes where you work; you don't know your bosses home address, and social security and such, but he/she darn sure knows yours. The government works for me, so I have a right to know where they are, but they have no such right to know all about me. They like to act like it's the other way around and treat us like serfs, but that's not right.
I'm very protective of privacy, since I view it as coming under attack for all of us.
- Status