Quantcast

Why Not Registering Your Guns is a Mistake

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BSA1, Sep 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 45_auto

    45_auto Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,168
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana
    Someone's getting what they want in California. Just because it's not what you want doesn't make it wrong.

    Then you would know exactly what it feels like to be in a minority. No different than what NFA enthusiasts have been going through for the last 27 years or so. If it bothers you enough, you'll immigrate to another country which you believe is better. Happens all the time all over the world.
     
  2. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,452
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Once you register, you have registered, even if the courts come out and strike down registration, you have already registered.

    To expand on that thought further as I recall NCIS 4473 checks are required to be deleted by the FBI (I think) after 30 days.

    BUT...

    Is there anything that says before the information is deleted that it can't be shared with other agencies or that other agencies can't access the information on their own

    AND...

    I have been told by many computer gee-whiz computer nerds that information stored on computers is never totally deleted (and thus recovered)

    WELL...

    Actually it can be but as I understand the process it requires a very involved process which I will leave the reader to decide if our friends in the Government are really inclined to do so.
     
  3. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,700
    Location:
    Virginia
    Pretty easy to argue that it makes it unconstitutional


    A lot of people get the change they want without leaving as well...and they don't always go through their current legal system either. Happens all the time all over the world....
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,440
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    The question of constitutionality will be up to the courts.

    Does it really? You might want to ask, for example, the folks in Egypt about whether they got the change they wanted.
     
  5. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,700
    Location:
    Virginia
    I was replying to what I perceived as a glib response "if you don't like it, you can leave" with an equally glib response.

    I was not advocating following Egypt's lead.

    I'd say right now, both (just leave or open rebellion) are horrible solutions. Going through the political and legal channels, while the best solutions...are obviously not ideal either.
     
  6. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    Well when does it? Im getting my fill of this way of thinking. A violation of rights is wrong when it occurs. Maybe not legally so until the courts rightly adjudicate the issue, but it was WRONG when it occurred nonetheless. Lets stop worrying so much about calling a spade a spade, shall we?

    If today I own items legally, that i have a guaranteed right to posses, and tomorrow someone outside of my home signs a piece of paper outlawing my possession of that item, an injustice has occurred. Whether the courts rule that way or not. I will have been wronged.

    Let us not forget that the REVOLUTIONARY WAR was EXTREMELY unpopular. Thank God our founders thought that RIGHTS trump the majority.
     
  7. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    A court decision in our favor is always something I'd celebrate, but there also is no guarantee that a court will rule in our favor.
    One Supreme Court justice could have changed the outcome of Heller.
    One judge - one person who could start out having a bad day, spilled coffee, screaming kids, traffic, a terrible hangover - our freedom can hinge on that one thing.
    Just one more dissenting voice and you'd have had a different opinion. Instead of a bunch of pro-RKBA cases spreading around the country, you'd have new restrictions and all we could do about it is wring our hands and cry.
    And you'd have precedent, which is pretty hard to reverse.
    No offense, but the courts are no sure thing.

    Neither is any form of protest (legal or illegal).
    But laws can be repealed.
    Get enough people demonstrating how bad a law is and enough representatives and senators on board and you can change anything.
    And a bogged down, useless, counterproductive system that does nothing but costs money is an easier thing to target than a system that's running like clockwork.

    I'm not arguing that the courts shouldn't be used. They are capable of creating the binding decisions you speak of and a "good" decision is even better than repealing a bad law.
    But you can't rely on them exclusively. And you have to take into account that bad court rulings are just as binding as good ones.
     
  8. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    What elevates actions to the level of "civil disobedience?" Is it the public, open nature? The strategic nature? The martyric nature?

    How about if we substitute "conscientious refusal" for "civil disobedience?" Is conscientious refusal "just violating the law?"

    History (Australia, UK, Roberti-Roos) shows that low compliance with registration keeps guns in the hands of citizens, and it also shows what happens when citizens are disarmed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  9. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,779
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    THAT is the whole point of carrying the battle to the courts. You win in the courts and you have leverage. If you choose to battle elsewhere and ignore the battlefields involving the courts, then you WILL LOSE. The courts are an inherent part of the checks and balances in our system.

    Interestingly, the fact that our government is so geographically large and diverse means that it's also very difficult for the regional laws in one area to sweep the nation entirely. Which means that places like the state of California and the cities of Chicago and NYC have a much more difficult time imposing THEIR wishes on the rest of the nation. So we have breathing room to regroup and forge our own battle plans.


    No, I won't. Why? Take a good look at the world around us. On the matter of gun ownership, what country in the world allows citizens the right of personal firearms ownership on par with the United States that ALSO has all the other rights (and privileges) that we currently enjoy?

    Dang few.

    And, of those dang few, how many would allow me, as an immigrant to their country, to legally own a firearm and engage in shooting sports and hunting activities on par with what I'm used to? Switzerland? Israel? Think again.

    No, thank you...I'll stay in the country of my birth and work towards the freedoms we're supposed to have.


    Of course they're no sure thing. But they're a POWERFUL thing that was set in place by the Founding Fathers for us to use as a means to check the rest of the government. Just as the other two branches are in place to do the same thing.

    And no offense taken.

    :)
     
  10. Ashcons

    Ashcons Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Subtropics
    Seems to be historical precedence against your argument that government won't use a registration for confiscation. Anyway...guns, what guns?

    Seems like Cali has been pretty successful in exporting its population and politics to OR, CO, and WA.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  11. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    Our founders never expected the court to wield this amount of power. The notion that this entire country would sit with baited breath for pronouncements from the on-high robed elites every summer would have the founders spinning in their graves. They expected, as should we, that our elected officials and regulating bodies operate within the intent of the law.

    They do not do this today. The executive steamrolls congress, the courts write legislation, the people sit back in uninformed placidity, and the regulators regulate without regard to any of the above. Our system is only as secure as the character of the people in whom it has been entrusted. That trust has been misplaced, giving us one hell of a mess.
     
  12. powder

    powder member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    Location:
    Midwest
  13. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,779
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Perhaps. But there are 50 states in the Union, which means OR, CO, and WA aren't the only ones by far. Take a look at the history of gun rights since as early as the 1970's to present and see what the trend has been.

    :cool:
     
  14. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Our founders never expected the court to wield this amount of power."

    Precisely. The courts were intended to settle those few and far between issues that are incapable of being resolved by the normal channels of governance described in the Constitution while simultaneously being so important they cannot be ignored (reintegrating rebellious states into the nation probably falls under that. Declaring a victor as impartially as possible during an electoral schism where neither side concedes after much recounting and acrimony, the SCOTUS is probably the best option there is. Imposing wheat production regulations on a random farmer, probably not so much ;))

    But, as you so saliently stated, the courts have amassed powers that congress and the executive have "punted" over the years. A legislative issue too controversial or unpopular? Let the courts decide it. Issue has too many complicated implications and involved parties to sort out an Us v. Them easily? Let the courts throw the chips where they may.

    And now we have enforcement agents deciding which laws to enforce and how (ceding of court authority), executives commanding massive and unassailable budgets (ceding of congressional authority), congresses passing laws simply to see if they'll stick (ceding of court authority), court rulings that change the meaning of recently passed legislation instead of affirming or denying it (ceding of congressional authority), and secret courts and rulings (ceding of court authority/legitimacy)

    "What elevates actions to the level of "civil disobedience?" Is it the public, open nature? The strategic nature? The martyric nature?"
    The advocacy. I'm pretty sure every burnt draft card "counted" more in the public's eye than every brat who fled to Canada ;). Effective advocacy involves strategy, publicity, and if necessary, sacrifice. Mere non-compliance is lawlessness, which, while a selling point for demonstrating a law's pointlessness, doesn't accomplish anything in and of itself to get the law repealed. Lot's of laws requiring ducks to wear pants remain on the books because no one advocated to have them repealed, even though there is no enforcement. Remember that gun laws historically were/are aggressively enforced against blacks, and the modern restrictions felt by pale faces like me here in Texas are a relatively new occurrence. Leaving bad, unenforced laws on the books can only harm you in the end, and only advocacy can accomplish their repeal.

    TCB
     
  15. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    OK, that makes sense. So what about conscientious refusal? I'm curious what folks think, hypothetically, about choosing not to obey a law such as required gun registration on principle. It's been shown to undermine such laws, and one who so chooses accepts the possibility of legal consequences. I fail to see how that is "just violating the law" any more than civil disobedience is "just violating the law."
     
  16. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,452
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Many Draft dodgers paid a stiff price for their actions.
     
  17. Schwing

    Schwing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    Layton Utah
    And others (Bill Clinton) became president of the USA.
     
  18. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    As I noted above, if one were to make the principled choice, hypothetically speaking, to refuse to register his guns, he had better recognize that he is subject to the consequences.

    I'm not advocating that anyone break the law, but I think we can agree that civil disobedience can be ethically justified. Ergo, not all lawbreaking is necessarily bad. I'm interested in where the line is.

    In light of the generally positive outcome in Canada with their long gun registry, which was costly and ineffective (duh), not least because of low compliance (so the political argument goes). Do we condemn our brothers to the north that did not comply? Can we argue with the results?
     
  19. Schwing

    Schwing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    Layton Utah
    I am gearing up to do some 44 myself. I just got off of titanreloading.com and they have presses and dies in stock... brass and primers pending.

    sorry guys, wrong thread... this one needs some levity anyway:)
     
  20. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,462
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    What an interesting read. Thank you BSA1 for bringing this discussion up. I found it thought-provoking to say the least. I don't necessarily agree with its delivery but definitely a good discussion. I think many have missed the point that BSA1 is really trying to make. He is phishing for ideas on how he can help counteract the anti's current moves on the chessboard. I have a pretty good idea on what the next moves are and have even come up with some things that I think we should do as pro gun people to counteract anything they may put in place. However, I am not going to post any of that here and give anyone with prying eyes any idea as to any strategy as I know for a fact this board, along with others, are monitored.

    He is right in the fact that any kind of clear disobedience would only fuel the fire and make us look even worse than they have portrayed us already. It would just play into their hands. They have been at this for years and have been carefully putting pawns in places of power to further their agenda while many of us have been asleep. Its going to be a hard fight and take some very calculated moves to turn back the tide in our direction. The problem is, like he eluded to, is that everything is monitored these days so it is difficult to organize and make moves without being put on the list. If we cannot win back some very important roles in gov then its checkmate. At that point in time it will come down to the individual to make a choice as to whether he thinks said laws that are passed are just. Its definitely a personal decision and not an easy one at that, but need i remind you that our forefathers that helped to create this great nation were criminals. They made the hard choice and thankfully so. Otherwise, this great nation of ours may very well have never existed. The good news is that even backed into a corner not all is lost. 5 out of 10,000 people acting as Rosa Parks did back in the day would make us all look like crazy loons in today's society. However, if 6,000 people out of 10,000 people stood together then would no longer be considered crazy loons. Its all a matter of application. However, as stated earlier, one thing the anti's have done a very good job of is making it very difficult to organize such a display and anyone willing to do so would do so at your own risk.

    The biggest problem we face is our own system of legislation. I am not saying its a bad system but it definitely has its flaws. When one group gains too many important seats then the whole point of the checks and balances can lean too far to one side making it difficult if not impossible for the opposing side to ever recover. It also makes it ridiculously easy to add and hide corruption, such as voter fraud, which can just further increase your power and numbers. Once you gain the upper hand of the political system and win over the media as well as control all forms of information then you can pretty much do whatever you want. Many believe we are already at this point now which is why the second amendment is ever more important. Its also probably why they want it gone. Its the only resistance that we really have until somehow we gain the upper hand in the political realm again, if that is even possible. The question to ask is, once all of this is said and done, who exactly holds the power and for what purpose? At this point I leave you with post #96 of this thread with a quote from Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I think she said it best and I can only hope we can keep people with her ideals...

    “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

    I could not have possibly said this any better myself. So, if you think registration is a good thing then by all means go ahead or if you want to be a patriot and stand up for something you may or may not believe in then go ahead. Again, its a personal decision but remember you may only get to make that decision once. So, make it a good one. 6,000 out of 10,000 is not a bad number to be in. Later.

    P.S. For what its worth I believe in the individual's right to decide what is right and wrong, not necessarily the laws sent forth by someone who think's they know what is good and bad for the people they are over. Just because they were elected does not always make them right. I also do not believe that you can have blanket laws that will apply to things universally. It is impossible as every circumstance is different and when laws can be written to overwrite previously written laws it becomes and impossible equation. What point does something serve if you have no absolutes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
  21. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,462
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    Not a bad strategy but what do you do when the courts keep putting off a ruling on a particular case?
     
  22. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Or... you might just look like a larger group of crazy loons.
    The kind of large-scale, public civil disobedience that worked in the '60's worked because people saw normal people being victimized on the news, attacked by police with guard dogs, knocked down with fire hoses, and jailed... all just because they were the wrong color. It began working when the press got hold of it, but it also took some northern volunteers getting involved and a few deaths, and even the death of JFK (and the need to do something to honor his life), to really push civil rights reform through and make it law.
    The cost was incredibly high. I don't think those strategies could work with the RKBA movement, partly because we specifically train ourselves to not be victims. When I see one of my friends carrying an AR and wearing a chest rig with 8 30 round magazines, he does not look like a victim in the making.
    I'm glad for that, but someone before pointed out that the same type of tactics won't work and that's probably right.

    So we need some other civil disobedience tactics.
    Not to replace our other avenues of protecting the RKBA, but to augment them.
     
  23. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,779
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)

    You do the best you can with the realization that you can't win them all and you plan accordingly.

    Lots of people here like to bring up lost cases or cases being strung out indefinately, usually with the twist that it's either the end of the world or a precursor to the end of the world. It's not.

    If you think things are going badly because of such things, then I invite you to take a look at the progress that's been made in this country in the last 40 to 50 years. Maybe we haven't won every battle, be we darn sure ain't losing the war.

    This isn't to say we can relax and give up being vigilent. We cannot, because that's the price we pay for these things.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,440
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Do you know the real story of Rosa Parks. I suspect not. But it's a good illustration of how effective civil disobedience works.

    1. Rosa Parks had a long history of being actively involved in the organized Civil Rights Movement:

    2. At the time of her arrest Mrs. Parks was an adviser to the NAACP.

    3. On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. One was Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old girl who was arrested some nine months earlier. E. D. Nixon decided that Claudette would be a poor "poster-child" for a protest because she was unmarried and pregnant.

    4. The night of Mrs. Parks' arrest, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.

    5. Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).

    6. A well orchestrated, well organized, non-violent, multilayered program reflecting good planning and political acumen leading to a successful conclusion.
     
  25. RugerBob

    RugerBob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    721
    Location:
    southern maine
    Things may be different if the govt could be trusted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice