Registration: Does it Infringe Upon a Right?

[Third_Rail]

Register and such JUST to keep track of thefts/etc., NEVER for confiscation or such, is NOT an infringement. Sadly, registration will never be like that.

 

[tyme]

USAFNoDAk, there may be contradictory cases, and therefore you may be right.

However, there is a case that says the opposite. Jim March cited it in another thread a couple years ago involving (I think) a grain license. A court determined that a government license did not cause the licensee to lose any rights.

 

[ctdonath]

If I cross the border from NY to MA with my CCW piece, I face 5 years in jail for me/it not being suitably registered. Is that enough "infringement" for anyone?

 

[whistlepig]

Registration, by itself, poses no 2A infringement. It is the implementation details, combined with the legitimate fear of confiscation, which causes people to argue against it. Certainly, it's possible to create an infringing registration requirement, such as imposing fees for the process, and/or denying possession without registration.

But it's also easy to imagine a non-infringing registration process. Suppose the registration paperwork is completed after the fact of purchase, and costs the citizen only the time and postage to fill out the form and mail it in, and carries with it no prohibitions on who may purchase arms, or of what type may be owned. Would that infringe?

Let's go even further, and imagine a registration process designed to ensure that the [unorganized] militia was properly armed. Suppose that this hypothetical law were similar to early colonial and state militia laws, requiring citizens meeting certain standards (e.g. similar to those in the Title 10 definition for the unorganized militia) to own personal arms meeting certain criteria of interoperability, for example being able to accept a cartridge and magazine which is standard issue? The registration requirement in this example would have as its purposes helping to make the militia "well regulated" (in the sense of Barnett, quoted earlier), and also to give the state an indication of the strength of the milita (so they can estimate, for example, how much materiel to keep on hand for provisioning). The law would make no prohibition on owning any other type of weapon. Would that infringe?

I'm not really arguing against what others have already said, except to say that the answer seems highly dependent upon the overal social/political context, and the intent of the law.

Again, imagining a non-infringing registration process to start with, I can even deal with ctdonath's objection:

My vacations usually happen on 2-3 weeks notice, far too little time to "register" if I haven't already done so in that state. Ergo, I am officially forbidden to exercise RKBA during a period when I especially need to do so (tourist = target) - isn't that infringement?

If the culture of law enforcement were such that a presumption of innocence prevailed WRT possesion of arms, then this might be a non-issue as well. If "privileges and immunities" (which phrase I dislike using, in respect to RTKBA) were universally respected, then a vaild registration in your jurisdiction of residence would disallow another jurisdiction from prosecuting you for possesion.

Yeah, I know, this doesn't describe the world we live in. But in principle, I think that registration, by itself, isn't an infringement.

 

[DevilDog]

Well, if registration is not an infringement...

Very recently, a law that Clinton singed into effect was struck down by the courts for violating the 1st amendment. This law would require internet porn sites to get age verification via a credit card number (or some other means) before a surfer could enter the site.

The private citizen would not be providing any information to the government, only to a private business. Yet, the court still ruled that was too much of an infringement.

If that violates the 1st, then aboslutely, positively, any government firearm registration is a violation of the 2nd.

edited to add: If the 2nd was treated like the 1st, I would own a quad 50 right now.

 

[boofus]

What about non-government registration. Like the warranty service agreements? You fill out a card with the serial number and dealer you purchased the gun from and all your info. Would that be an infringement too?

You won't get the lifetime of free service if you opt to not 'register' with the manufacturer, so most gun owners will gleefully fill out the card and send it in.

Couldn't a tyrannical govt seize the warranty records from gun companies and use those to confiscate too? Why aren't gun owners up in arms over having to register for repair work?

 

[Michigander]

Register and such JUST to keep track of thefts/etc., NEVER for confiscation or such, is NOT an infringement. Sadly, registration will never be like that.

Regardless of whether or not confiscation would ever happen and/or is the intention of registration, it IS INFRINGEMENT.

Take for example: for me to purchase a handgun, "legally", I have to receive permission from my local police department. then I've only 10 days to purchase said firearm (assuming the king's men approve of me purchasing a handgun). Then, once purchased, I have 10 more days to take it back to the police department for a "safety inspection" where they just so happen to write down the serial number of the handgun.

listen closely: THIS IS INFRINGEMENT!!!! Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or one of them, IMHO!

Note: this does not even cover what I have to do to obtain the king's permission in order to actually carry said handgun! Sheesh!

 

[Michigander]

However, there is a case that says the opposite. Jim March cited it in another thread a couple years ago involving (I think) a grain license. A court determined that a government license did not cause the licensee to lose any rights.

The Constitution does not say that "...the people's right to keep and grow grain shall not be infringed."

 

[Michigander]

I find it terribly saddening that we here at THR cannot even agree that registration is an infringement.

Sometimes I gain hope visiting here, sometimes I lose some.

 

[DevilDog]

I think it is a mistake to talk about the Bill of Rights without understanding the motivation behind them. That motivation provides an illustration of why those amendments exist explicitly, why they were written down.

The 1st amendment was not written down because it was a good idea, it wasn't written down because the British government was oppressing artists or pornographers. It was made explicit because once the colonies started to get frisky, the British started to control the media. Control of the media is a necessary first step to oppress a population.

The 2nd amendment was not written down again because it was just a good idea. Again, the British started to confiscat guns and powder to keep the upity colonists from doing anything. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that ANYTHING that provides the government the means to confiscate your firearms a violation of the 2nd amendment? It does to me.

 

[whistlepig]

listen closely: THIS IS INFRINGEMENT!!!! Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or one of them, IMHO!

I'm eager to have my ignorance dispelled then.

Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that ANYTHING that provides the government the means to confiscate your firearms a violation of the 2nd amendment? It does to me.

Of the means I can think of which enable confiscation, registration is of lower import than, for example, an armed police force. If they know where the guns are, but haven't any force or power to back up their attempts at confiscation, then does it matter if they know? OTOH, if they don't know who has guns, but are well-armed themselves, they can still go house-to-house searching for guns.

And yes, I know that the various law-enforcement tools which would enable confiscation also serve other purposes. But as I've stated above, so too could registration.

 

[Michigander]

Of the means I can think of which enable confiscation, registration is of lower import than, for example, an armed police force. If they know where the guns are, but haven't any force or power to back up their attempts at confiscation, then does it matter if they know? OTOH, if they don't know who has guns, but are well-armed themselves, they can still go house-to-house searching for guns.

Don't we have a "standing army" that would be capable of confiscating people's arms?

 

[whistlepig]

Don't we have a "standing army" that would be capable of confiscating people's arms?

Yup. Suspension of posse commitatus would be required, of course.

So, I suppose that having an armed military also provides to the government the means to confiscate personal arms. I wouldn't argue that it's a 2A violation either.

 

[Michigander]

Yup. Suspension of posse commitatus would be required, of course.

Not like it hasn't happened a few times already.

So, I suppose that having an armed military also provides to the government the means to confiscate personal arms. I wouldn't argue that it's a 2A violation either.

When you wrote, "Of the means I can think of which enable confiscation, registration is of lower import than, for example, an armed police force," you made it sound as though there was no armed police force available. I'm saying there is.

 

[whistlepig]

When you wrote, "Of the means I can think of which enable confiscation, registration is of lower import than, for example, an armed police force," you made it sound as though there was no armed police force available. I'm saying there is.

Yes, of course. The point of my hypothetical scenario about a powerless poiice force was just to respond to devildog that there are other "means" of enabling confiscation, which are both of more significance, and not anything we'd construe as a 2A violation.

 

[DevilDog]

Whether or not the police are armed has not impact on whether or not they can confiscate, as long as I am armed, right? Yea, that is kind of a silly statement, but to equate registration to an empowered police for is not an argument I would buy.

Lets get real - we are a country and a society based on individual rights, but not on to the extent that we make sure the government never even has the means to do something wrong. If we did, we would have no order.

Information is powerful. As long as the government does not have a databased with all registered gun owners in it, then I have deniability. They must perform an illegal search to determine if I have firearms. Jimney Cricket! I can't believe this thread even exists!!!

Considering we are having this debate on THR, it is no wonder the AWB got passed. So many people accuse the NRA of being too compromising, but they are nowhere near as compromising as what I have seen in this thread.

 

[whistlepig]

Gee, how nice. I'm not only ignorant, but now compromising as well. But if you prefer an echo chamber to serious debate, you're welcome to it.

 

[Wildalaska]

Considering we are having this debate on THR, it is no wonder the AWB got passed. So many people accuse the NRA of being too compromising, but they are nowhere near as compromising as what I have seen in this thread.

Hey but thats the way our system works and has worked for 200 plus years, neh?...compromise...compromise within a constituinal framework that tries to keep things from one extreme or the other.;.

On one side the extremes say too much...on the other side the extrmemes say too little and in the vast middle, the vast reasonable majority say..."just right"

And using the Federal AWB as an example of "unconstituional" is really not the best example. NJs is better, and youi wont find many here who would claim that it is constituional.


WildgladtoseethrisnowbecomingtheplaceforreasonablegunownersAlaska

 

[Feanaro]

Registration is an infringement because if I do NOT register, I will not be "allowed" to excersize my rights. To exaggerate this, imagine having to jump through a ring of fire to own a firearm. They confiscate it and throw you in jail if you don't jump through it. My right is hindered/impeded/etc by registration if I don't do what the government wants.

 

[ProGlock]

Registration is most certainly an infringement due to some of the arguments made previously. If the government maintains the database, they know who has it and can confiscate it. The govt just needs to get their hands off all firearms and only then can they truly be uninfringed.

How about if the govt registers every citizen? Oh ????...they already do with Social Security and they force you to participate in it. Just look at our economy today and all the freaking business who want your number. Try to get credit without it.

Does this not piss anyone off that we're already screwed to an extent?

 

[Michigander]

I once wrote:

"The phrase "...shall not be INFRINGED" is what is written. We have already succumbed to INFRINGEMENT. Amendment II is already dead and has been for a long time now. A shame, but true nonetheless. If we really believed in Amendment II, we would have already done something about it."

Amendment II goes beyond the inalienable right to self-defense with arms! That was apparently a given when the BoR was written. Amendment II goes further: it specifically states that our right to keep and bear arms is not to be hindered, restricted, or interfered with.

Why don't we all see that? Just because the SCOTUS, or SC of some state, or some other court decided that some infringement is reasonable and necessary?

Is there any way Amendment II could have been more clearly written?

Yet we all walk around as though we still have our rights as guaranteed by Amendment II. We still have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is a right that is greatly infringed. Therefore, Amendment II is violated.

 

[HankB]

Registration is a regulation aimed specifically, precisely, and EXCLUSIVELY at persons who have no criminal history.

Years ago, a guy was tried and convicted for possession of an UNREGISTERED firearm - IIRC a sawed-off shotgun - subject to Federal registration since 1934. He was tried and convicted.

Upon appeal, he said that putting him on trial for a REGISTRATION violation was the same thing as saying the law required him to register his sawed-off shotgun. Thing is, he was already a convicted felon, prohibited from having ANY gun. So a law that required him to register something he was prohibited from having was, in effect, a law that required him to incriminate himself.

SCOTUS agreed, and in Haynes vs. US, 1968 overturned his conviction.

So you can ONLY be prosecuted for a REGISTRATION violation if you are not a criminal . . . in effect, registration laws impose additional restrictions (and penalties for noncompliance) on persons who have no criminal history, in effect punishing good behavior.

How can this NOT be infringement of a right?

 

[Harve Curry]

Does Gun Registration Infringe on a Right?:

Yes, of course it is an infringement. Even todays dictionaries would define "infringed" infringe, or infringement in a gun owners favor.

 

[corncob]

I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head:

In other words, government can require that I "register" my pistol, ie give them notice that I possess it. They cannot enforce that requirement without violating my constitutional right(s).

Registration is fine--technically no infringement at all. The problems arise when a citizen refuses to register. The government is not allowed to confiscate the man's guns, per the Second Amendment, so what do they do? Do they throw him in prison for refusing to comply with the compulsory registration? I don't see any legal problem with this, but it sure opens up a can of worms.

For instance, could the government inact a similar law requiring the submission of a form every time a citizen utters a curse word in public? They can't force you not to say it, per the First Amendment, but they could certainly throw you in prison for not complying with the duely-enacted law of the land (submission of the form).

This all assumes, of course, that the elected things have chosen to pass these laws, which, I suppose, they very well (legally) could. This brings us to one of my personal favorites, Artical 6:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...."

The citizens get the final say, not the legislature, not the courts, not the press. We get to decide what the law of the land is. The Founders put together quite an elegant system. It makes you wonder why we don't use it anymore.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The citizens get the final say, not the legislature, not the courts, not the press. We get to decide what the law of the land is. The Founders put together quite an elegant system. It makes you wonder why we don't use it anymore.

Intentionally or not, you have just touched on the concept of jury nullification. That's the legal theory which says the jury is to be the trier of both the facts and of the law. And if the jury decides that they think the law is bad -- even if the defendant did break said law -- then the jury can return a verdict of Not Guilty.

This was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers and I believe some of them wrote eloquently on the subject. However, while the SCOTUS has affirmed that jury nullification does exist and is valid, they also ruled that judges and prosecutors do not have to explain to the jury that they are triers of the law as well as of the facts. They based this dubious finding on the premise that we are all supposed to know this already, and that therefore the judge should not have to tell us. This does not address, however, those judges who outright lie and say the opposite -- i.e. that the jury is to consider only the facts, and that they MUST accept the law as explained to them by the judge. That is a blatant lie, but judges are never called on it.