What's the deal with registration?

[Standing Wolf]

I'll accept firearms registration the week after the leftist extremists agree to register every book and magazine issue they own and web site they visit.

 

[marshall3]

Gun registration is already in place...

Come on guys, let's get real. Gun registration is already a reality. For example:
1) Anytime you buy a gun you fill out paperwork, give them your thumbprint, and it all get's sent in to some central location. Do you believe they throw all that info away?
2) If you are a hunter, you have a hunting license. All that info is stored somewhere. They know you have at least a rifle.
3) If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you have given them your info, even what weapon you MIGHT be using.
It would be naive to believe that all this info is not stored somewhere, and could be compiled and used at some future date.
Gun registration is already a big reality.
Sorry!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is a link that goes into the U.S. system of registration in detail and discusses some shortcomings of centralized registration (what Australia, Canada, and UK have):

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

 

[Control Group]

Come on guys, let's get real. Gun registration is already a reality. For example:
1) Anytime you buy a gun you fill out paperwork, give them your thumbprint, and it all get's sent in to some central location. Do you believe they throw all that info away?
2) If you are a hunter, you have a hunting license. All that info is stored somewhere. They know you have at least a rifle.
3) If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you have given them your info, even what weapon you MIGHT be using.

The situation isn't quite as dire as that. For example, in WI, you don't get fingerprinted when you buy a gun. Your information is put on the 4473 and called in (obviously), so sure, that's stored centrally somewhere. But verbal transmission of information over the phone is a crappy way to achieve accuracy of any kind; that central database is guaranteed to be full of errors (which is a whole different, and potentially very annoying, problem, but it makes using it as registration impossible).

Not being a hunter, I can't speak to that process at all.

The CCW permit information is probably well-tracked everywhere it's collected (but don't forget Alaska and Vermont), but that's not registering your gun, that's registering you. Not that this isn't in itself offensive, of course, but you can have all the guns you want that aren't tracked there; just the one (or two, or fifteen) you use for carry is noted.

Besides, the whole information tracking process goes completely out the window as long as private party transfers are still legal. "We know you bought such-and-such a gun, where is it?" "Don't know, I sold it to some guy at a gun show three years ago. Middle-aged white guy, about six foot and two hundred pounds. Good luck."

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the information that is collected and stored, but most of this country does not have gun registration in any meaningful way. There's a lot of registration-like hassle that gun buyers are put through, but the actual demon of registration itself is pretty much absent.

The huge peril of registration, in my mind, is the threat of confiscation. If the guns are all registered, they know where to go when gun ownership becomes a crime. Currently, while all that information exists out there somewhere, collecting it to act upon is a literally insurmountable task (by "insurmountable," I mean that it would be just as much work to collect all the information through paper trails and inquiries as it would to collect the information by just searching for guns in houses).

 

[Art Eatman]

Registration costs money, either to the owner or to the government (taxpayers as an entire group). This is money that will not be spent on some other purpose, such as food or building a highway.

When money is spent, there is supposed to be some desirable result: In this instance, aiding in solving crimes involving firearms. There is no other justifiable purpose.

First question: Of all crimes involving firearms, how many times is the weapon left at the scene?

Second question: Of weapons found at crime scenes, how many had been used by the original purchaser of record?

Third question: If the perpetrator is caught at or near the scene with the firearm in possession, what difference does it make it it or is not registered to anybody, insofar as solving that crime?

It's a waste of time, money, paper and bandwidth.

Art

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Is it coming... or already here?

CASE ONE: Remember the infamous "Beltway Sniper" shootings in the Washington, D.C. area a few years ago? As soon as authorities determined that the 1st couple of shootings were all ballistically linked to a .223 rifle, the "search" was on. And, faster than you can say "screw the 2nd AND 4th Amendments", state and local cops began visiting MD and VA gunshops -- and then gun owners who'd purchased ANY .223 rifle in recent years.

Now, gosh, how'd that happen? And most "Help! Protect us at any cost!" Bliss-Ninnies and ALL the Media cheered the effort.

CASE TWO: Decades ago, I made the "mistake" of purchasing 3 handguns (including an "evil" .44 mag) within 2 weeks (all in accord with California's PC 15 day waiting period). Couple months later, my employer and neighbors received discreet visits from guys in cheap plaid sport-coats; I even caught one surveilling/following me... until I confronted him.

At its best, this DE FACTO Registration is a tool that undermines the Constitution and invites police abuse. At its worst, it is THE tool for facilitating ultimate Confiscation.

So, to those (anti-2A tyrants, politicians, and LEO "suits") who say Registration is No Big Deal, just For The Common Good, blah-blah, etcetera, I pose this question:

-->> Fine, then can we ALSO count on your support to pass a NEW Constitutional Amendment that clarifies/guarantees:
(1) that the 2A is not just about guns for "sport" but also for Self-Defense AND Resistance to gov't/political tyrrany and oppression, and
(2) that no local, state, or fed gov't authority shall EVER confiscate privately-owned firearms,and
(3) that the 4th Amendment shall never be suspended/abridged to enforce some martial law scenarios pursuant to firearms enforcement issues????

The resulting silence here always is -- and always will be -- deafening.

 

[JimLally]

If anyone thinks that mandatory gun registration will get rid of the criminals, just point them here:

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/fifth_amendment.htm

Take care.

Jim

 

[El Rojo]

If you tell them that registration leads to confiscation and they come back with the "isn't it worth it to catch criminals", simply tell them, "No, its not." Then tell them about freedom and liberty and the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about sports or hunting, it is about overthrowing a tyrannical government.

If you really want, offer to trade them registration for full automatics, assault weapons, maximum capactiy magazines. See what they say about that. I mean if registration isn't about confiscation, then they wouldn't care what we had because they would never make it illegal and never need to take them.

Heck, I would trade registration for being able to have whatever I want. If it is a true Second Amendment, it won't matter if they government tries to crack down on us, we would all rise up and they would have to assume everyone is going to take up arms. Keep in mind I am in the PRK, so I have lots to gain from such a scenario.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

And One More Thing...

In addition to the 3 elements of my previously proposed NEW Constitutional Amendment (in exchange for Registration), let's also stipulate this in that new amendment:

-->> That NO privately-owned firearms shall EVER be subject to any local, state, or federal TAXATION. Period.

Ya think we can get all these items included in such a Constitutional amendment?

 

[jefnvk]

1) Anytime you buy a gun you fill out paperwork, give them your thumbprint, and it all get's sent in to some central location. Do you believe they throw all that info away?
2) If you are a hunter, you have a hunting license. All that info is stored somewhere. They know you have at least a rifle.

Thumbprint?

As for the hunting license, lots of people use a bow for the only hunting they do, deer hunting. I know more people around here prefer the archery hunting. Same fro trappers. So while it would be a good indicator, it wouldn't be perfect.

 

[Ieyasu]

If anyone thinks that mandatory gun registration will get rid of the criminals, just point them here:

Too bad Clayton Cramer is wrong regarding self-incrimination and current gun registration laws (See the link Bartholomew Roberts posted.)

 

[lunaslide]

-->> Fine, then can we ALSO count on your support to pass a NEW Constitutional Amendment that clarifies/guarantees:
(1) that the 2A is not just about guns for "sport" but also for Self-Defense AND Resistance to gov't/political tyrrany and oppression, and
(2) that no local, state, or fed gov't authority shall EVER confiscate privately-owned firearms,and
(3) that the 4th Amendment shall never be suspended/abridged to enforce some martial law scenarios pursuant to firearms enforcement issues????
(4) That NO privately-owned firearms shall EVER be subject to any local, state, or federal TAXATION. Period.

You forgot to say "You first."

 

[Nio]

"They" already know who you are...

...and what you have. And everything else.

The only thing that keeps them from coming to take them away is that some of us are still willing to fight for our rights rather than roll over. As long as we keep loving liberty more than life, we will be safe.

Nio

***

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

-- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

 

[AZRickD]

You're dancin' around the issue. Brass tacks, guys...

Criminologists (even liberal ones) such as Peter Wright & James Rossi were unable to show if "gun control" laws (registration included) have reduced crime. In fact, in the early 1980s, Wright&Rossi who completing an analysis funded by the Carter administration (find gun control laws that work so we can pass more of them), ended their study with (close paraphrase), "We could find no gun control laws which reduced crime and we could think of none that would." This includes background checks, bans, registration, licensing, etc.

In 1967, under the Lindsay administration in New York City, semi-auto rifles were required to be registered. It took until about 1992 under Mayor Dinkins for the rifles to be considered unfit for private ownership. Police went door to door to confiscate them (one of the benefits of rent control is a population that tends to stay in one place).

Read about NYC here: http://nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=41

1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

--snip--

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."

As well, 15 years ago, California required registration of SKS rifles and said those with detachable mags were okay to own. A few years later, the AG changed his mind and stated that they were no longer legal to own and had to be turned in to State authorities.

See the pattern here?

Next issue: The "felons don't have to register due to 5th amendment concerns" is from Haynes v US, 1968...

Here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

n Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]

 

[Ieyasu]

Next issue: The "felons don't have to register due to 5th amendment concerns" is from Haynes v US, 1968...

Cramer is wrong...

As I noted above see Bart's link:
"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."

 

[DRZinn]

The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

Reminds me of how when California passed its AWB, many AR-15's and the like got "dropped overboard by accident" or stolen.

 

[AZRickD]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=601

Regarding Haynes v US and US v Freed, I can see how that might alleviate a federal obligation, but it doesn't release one from a state obligation.

The change of law and the decision in Freed are mighty clever, but don't wash in my view. Looks like the 5A threat still exists.

Rick

 

[Alex45ACP]

I can't find the link now, but last week I was looking for info on this and in Canada they registered handguns and the government promised it wouldn't lead to confiscation.

Less than a year (10 months) later, they started confiscating handguns.

This has happened over and over again in countries all over the world, even including parts of the USA.