PDA

View Full Version : Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration


Paladin
08-21-2009, 7:56 PM
The below from the NRA-ILA's website: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12810

Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.

Read About It: CBS News

Posted: 8/20/2009

*****
The below is the linked original article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml


August 19, 2009 7:44 PM
Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.

The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.

Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.

"There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.

What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."

The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.

I haven't been able to find the full text of Section 62-260 online (update: I've found it and attached it below), The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.

Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."

There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).

David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)

I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."

Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.

But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.

jjperl
08-21-2009, 8:00 PM
heh... they can try.

HondaMasterTech
08-21-2009, 8:02 PM
Wow.

pnkssbtz
08-21-2009, 8:03 PM
So, are they going to force people to register on a list any time they exercise their first, 4th or 5th amendment rights? And how can you label something a "right" and in the same breath demand your right to be registered before you can exercise it?



We need to start holding judges and politicians accountable to the oaths they swore.

pnkssbtz
08-21-2009, 8:22 PM
Some quotes from my quote file:

"Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered (one does not usually lead to the other) it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." - Daniel D. Polsby, Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 73, Number 3, Fall 1997

"When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million). The point to remember is that these governments were the idols of America's leftists. Part of the reason for these and other tyrannical successes was because the people were first disarmed." - Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, in a commentary for the April 2001 issue of America's First Freedom.

lioneaglegriffin
08-21-2009, 8:31 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_p2dHWwchk9E/R2av7QX5W6I/AAAAAAAAAY4/JTCMYJeh2NE/s400/dora+swiper.gif

Swiper no Swiping, Swiper no Swiping!

*snap* oh man!

only if it were that easy in real life....

Hopi
08-21-2009, 8:35 PM
So, are they going to force people to register on a list any time they exercise their first, 4th or 5th amendment rights? And how can you label something a "right" and in the same breath demand your right to be registered before you can exercise it?



We need to start holding judges and politicians accountable to the oaths they swore.

I wonder what the courts considers the meat of a compelling state interest in this case? Do they have the luxury of avoiding the obligation to engage a compelling interest argument without incorporation?

Soldier415
08-21-2009, 8:48 PM
This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

pnkssbtz
08-21-2009, 8:52 PM
I wonder what the courts considers the meat of a compelling state interest in this case? Do they have the luxury of avoiding the obligation to engage a compelling interest argument without incorporation?You've exceeded my legal knowledge. :chris:

Could you please expand on the "Compelling Interest" part so that I may understand better?

Hopi
08-21-2009, 9:03 PM
You've exceeded my legal knowledge. :chris:

Could you please expand on the "Compelling Interest" part so that I may understand better?

The compelling interest test is applied under strict scrutiny when a fundamental right is involved. The test determines whether the state has a compelling interest that will allow a law to restrict or regulate a fundamental right, and the scrutiny ensures that the restrictions are as minimally invasive as possible to achieve the interest.

MY question is, without incorporation and 14th am. protection against the states, does the 2nd still not fall under strict scrutiny?

Librarian
08-21-2009, 9:12 PM
The compelling interest test is applied under strict scrutiny when a fundamental right is involved. The test determines whether the state has a compelling interest that will allow a law to restrict or regulate a fundamental right, and the scrutiny ensures that the restrictions are as minimally invasive as possible to achieve the interest.

MY question is, without incorporation and 14th am. protection against the states, does the 2nd still not fall under strict scrutiny?

Maybe, but probably won't go there. At the Hastings symposium in February, the general feeling was that strict scrutiny wouldn't be the requirement, because, for example, it would require review of things like felons rights to guns for self defense, and that would be, ah, unpopular among judges and other LEO. Calvin Massey's Second Amendment Decision Rules (not yet available) would be the article likely to be helpful - but it's still just informed-by-training speculation.

Diabolus
08-21-2009, 9:23 PM
So, are they going to force people to register on a list any time they exercise their first, 4th or 5th amendment rights? And how can you label something a "right" and in the same breath demand your right to be registered before you can exercise it?



We need to start holding judges and politicians accountable to the oaths they swore.

+1 :mad:

nat
08-21-2009, 9:28 PM
Nice, the judges were appointed by Ford, Bush and Clinton. Asshats.

SickofSoCal
08-21-2009, 9:38 PM
A: Why have they been after registration for so long?


Q: Because you have to have registration before confiscation .


Do you realize that they have been after a registration scheme in this country for decades and decades and decades and decades?

I salute all you Patriots before me who have stopped this nightmare from ever taking place. We cannot let this happen.

lioneaglegriffin
08-21-2009, 9:52 PM
A: Why have they been after registration for so long?


Q: Because you have to have registration before confiscation .


Do you realize that they have been after a registration scheme in this country for decades and decades and decades and decades?

I salute all you Patriots before me who have stopped this nightmare from ever taking place. We cannot let this happen.

just think of the land locked states where tragic boating accidents don't happen. :chris:

gregorylucas
08-21-2009, 10:21 PM
I'm curious to see how SCOTUS will view these requirements in light of Chicago. I hope they will knock down registration at best, at worst I hope they will view it as a one time thing (at gun purchase like it already is).

Greg

hoffmang
08-21-2009, 10:47 PM
I'm curious to see how SCOTUS will view these requirements in light of Chicago. I hope they will knock down registration at best, at worst I hope they will view it as a one time thing (at gun purchase like it already is).


McDonald contains a complaint about re-registration. Re-registration is likely unconstitutional, but, as you can see here (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/21/taking_liberties/entry5258192.shtml), lots of the right people aren't sure that registration is unconstitutional.

-Gene

Hopi
08-21-2009, 10:57 PM
McDonald contains a complaint about re-registration. Re-registration is likely unconstitutional, but, as you can see here (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/21/taking_liberties/entry5258192.shtml), lots of the right people aren't sure that registration is unconstitutional.

-Gene

Assuming strict scrutiny, is it a plausible compelling interest argument that the gov has the need for registration in order to ensure effective maintenance of a standing militia under the modified Miller test?

Librarian
08-21-2009, 10:59 PM
Assuming strict scrutiny, is it a plausible compelling interest argument that the gov has the need for registration in order to ensure effective maintenance of a standing militia under the modified Miller test?

Only if the .gov starts issuing weapons.... :43:

hoffmang
08-21-2009, 11:00 PM
Assuming strict scrutiny, is it a plausible compelling interest argument that the gov has the need for registration in order to ensure effective maintenance of a standing militia under the modified Miller test?

Yes, however there is an argument against still buried in there.

-Gene

bwiese
08-21-2009, 11:05 PM
McDonald contains a complaint about re-registration. Re-registration is likely unconstitutional, but, as you can see here (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/21/taking_liberties/entry5258192.shtml), lots of the right people aren't sure that registration is unconstitutional.

Yup.

As we progress, registration may not be that harmful as long as a full RKBA exists. If you can't take someone's guns away, then the registration becomes "noise".

While that's not good, it's not terrible. Especially for many/most Californians.

With 300 million guns in the US, pretty soon LEO MDT (mobile data terminal) displays indicating "owns guns" will be the rule and not the exception. Familiarity will breed contempt and the gunowner's status will become ordinary and unremarkable and just another datapoint like brown hair or blue eyes.

I own a sh*tload of guns. Many of them were bought thru FFLs in CA with full 4473/DROS paper trail (even long guns have paper back at the dealer that could be traced) plus a bunch of reg'd AWs. I do have firearms from the 1980s that were legally acquired unpapered or received from my dad - but even some of those had paper on them. So don't think that we're in some sort of 'pure bliss' state before any such national scheme would come in place.

Let's worry about registration less than getting full RKBA: even if all your guns were legally unpapered, I'd say 60+% of "True Gunnies Like Us" are already identifiable as firearm owners thru credit card records, subscription records for Shotgun News or Guns & Ammo, order patterns from Cheaper-Than-Dirt, etc.

Hopi
08-21-2009, 11:05 PM
Yes, however there is an argument against still buried in there.

-Gene

That the gov itself would need to provide for, organize, facilitate, and maintain that militia to validate the argument?

hoffmang
08-21-2009, 11:10 PM
That the gov itself would need to provide for, organize, facilitate, and maintain that militia to validate the argument?

That's the argument. However, the 1792 Militia act gives the other side a far more plausible argument than usual that they need to know where the guns are...

-Gene

wildhawker
08-21-2009, 11:13 PM
Would registerable 'militia' arms likley go to all arms ever considered (in any varation of or with any potential for) service use or only those arms in contemporaneous use by the US armed forces at the time of registration?

IOW, if compelled registration is there to ensure we, as citizens, are properly accounted for (including our personally-owned militia weapons) and ready to be called up, woundn't it also be logical that the same interest would substantiate our need for acccess to modern militia weapons capable of performing to the demands of the modern battlefield?

Hopi
08-21-2009, 11:20 PM
That's the argument. However, the 1792 Militia act gives the other side a far more plausible argument than usual that they need to know where the guns are...

-Gene

Would that not then only apply to weapons intended for use in militia capacity, i.e. the mentioned '1 rifle' in the 1792 act? How would they apply registration to personally owned weapons under strict scrutiny? That would seem to be a broader scope than a 'narrowly tailored' restriction to meet the compelling interest test.

hoffmang
08-21-2009, 11:33 PM
Would that not then only apply to weapons intended for use in militia capacity, i.e. the mentioned '1 rifle' in the 1792 act? How would they apply registration to personally owned weapons under strict scrutiny? That would seem to be a broader scope than a 'narrowly tailored' restriction to meet the compelling interest test.

As I said, it's an argument. I don't know that it's a winning argument...

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
08-22-2009, 12:09 AM
Even if we were to see the development of some sort of National Registration, wouldn't States with their own RKBA and/or militia laws trump a Federal effort? This question becomes all the more interesting considering the recent trend of States exerting their 10th Amendment powers.

Of course, this may not bode well for CA, but it'd be nice to know National Registration wouldn't come easy. And this is not even factoring in the political implications...

SickofSoCal
08-22-2009, 12:16 AM
The Founders were so wise in that they gave the States the powers they needed to act as a buffer against Federal usurpation.

hoffmang
08-22-2009, 12:23 AM
Even if we were to see the development of some sort of National Registration, wouldn't States with their own RKBA and/or militia laws trump a Federal effort? This question becomes all the more interesting considering the recent trend of States exerting their 10th Amendment powers.


It remains a very open question that probably resolves that the Federal is supreme. However, the politics on this at the Federal level are much better than at the state.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
08-22-2009, 1:19 AM
I doubt they'll want to do anything to validate a modern militia. Doing so might make an argument for any AWB very difficult.

nooner
08-22-2009, 3:05 AM
You've got to be kidding me. They're going to turn a lot of law abiding citizens into criminals with this BS. Why are they so afraid of honest, tax paying, law abiding American citizens?

Roadrunner
08-22-2009, 5:41 AM
That's the argument. However, the 1792 Militia act gives the other side a far more plausible argument than usual that they need to know where the guns are...

-Gene

Just wondering, if the 1792 Militia Act covers weapons useful for Militia (Military) service, wouldn't that make NFA unconstitutional since a modern military rifle is FA?

B Strong
08-22-2009, 5:50 AM
heh... they can try.

They would be well advised to study this:

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

Goes into some detail concerning the failure of registration schemes, and the general non-compliance that results.

yellowfin
08-22-2009, 5:51 AM
You've got to be kidding me. They're going to turn a lot of law abiding citizens into criminals with this BS. Why are they so afraid of honest, tax paying, law abiding American citizens?They don't like citizens, they like slaves.

gregorylucas
08-22-2009, 8:20 AM
Yup.

As we progress, registration may not be that harmful as long as a full RKBA exists. If you can't take someone's guns away, then the registration becomes "noise".

While that's not good, it's not terrible. Especially for many/most Californians.

With 300 million guns in the US, pretty soon LEO MDT (mobile data terminal) displays indicating "owns guns" will be the rule and not the exception. Familiarity will breed contempt and the gunowner's status will become ordinary and unremarkable and just another datapoint like brown hair or blue eyes.

Let's worry about registration less than getting full RKBA: even if all your guns were legally unpapered, I'd say 60+% of "True Gunnies Like Us" are already identifiable as firearm owners thru credit card records, subscription records for Shotgun News or Guns & Ammo, order patterns from Cheaper-Than-Dirt, etc.


These are very good points Bill I didn't think about the whole idea of desensitization. I would like to believe that LEO's will treat gun ownership as just another attribute of the individual but I'm not holding my breath that the officer wouldn't be on heightened alert if he/she knew someone had guns. I don't say this to be rude to the LEO's out there I'm just stating that it's just natural to be a little on edge (or treat someone differently) when you are after someone and you know that they have a gun.

Greg

gregorylucas
08-22-2009, 8:29 AM
McDonald contains a complaint about re-registration. Re-registration is likely unconstitutional, but, as you can see here (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/21/taking_liberties/entry5258192.shtml), lots of the right people aren't sure that registration is unconstitutional.

-Gene

If it was a one-time registration then I would not see an obstacle to that, given the text of Heller and other cases. Kind of like California's handgun registration at the time of purchase.

My deeper fear about registration is an overzealous government....

Greg

hoffmang
08-22-2009, 8:36 AM
Just wondering, if the 1792 Militia Act covers weapons useful for Militia (Military) service, wouldn't that make NFA unconstitutional since a modern military rifle is FA?

That's not what Scalia said after Bush's Solicitor General tried to torpedo Heller by bringing up FA in the first place. Scalia's basic argument was that NFA weapons are dangerous and unusual. Yes I know its a circular argument, but for now we can have a real right to the rest of the arms or no right to arms at all.

-Gene

Roadrunner
08-22-2009, 9:01 AM
That's not what Scalia said after Bush's Solicitor General tried to torpedo Heller by bringing up FA in the first place. Scalia's basic argument was that NFA weapons are dangerous and unusual. Yes I know its a circular argument, but for now we can have a real right to the rest of the arms or no right to arms at all.

-Gene

But did Scalia say that registration for the purposes of maintaining the Militia was within the scope of the second amendment? Excuse my ignorance, but it seems that registration and the militia go hand in hand with each other if I understand the experts. So if the legislators are not going to maintain the militia, then registration is unreasonable. And if they do maintain a militia for the purposes of registering firearms, then so called "NFA" weapons, having a useful purpose in the militia should be accessible without tax stamp for the purposes of military readiness of the militia. Personally, if I were active duty and required to carry a rifle, I don't think I'd want to be restricted to semi-auto, or bolt and lever action only. As for them being unusual, how many police departments, and how many military personnel, including National Guard have these weapons.

I understand that NFA is out of reach at the moment, my concern is more about registration?

hoffmang
08-22-2009, 9:28 AM
So if the legislators are not going to maintain the militia, then registration is unreasonable.

As I said above, that's the argument. However I'm not inclined to believe its a strong argument for us.

-Gene

Roadrunner
08-22-2009, 9:45 AM
As I said above, that's the argument. However I'm not inclined to believe its a strong argument for us.

-Gene

Damn, and I thought I had this all wrapped up. :oops:

Sinestr
08-22-2009, 9:58 AM
I'm slightly appalled with some of the uncertainty here with gun registration. History shows there is NO GOOD outcome of gun registration. Although many things have become common place in our society, I don't think registration makes the RKBA more unremarkable or ordinary. Our movement here in CA is a perfect example of not capitulating to unjust laws.

CALI-gula
08-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Their ruling is too extreme and won't last. But unfortunately it's a temporary ding that needs fixing, and is sure to rally the anti-2nd Amendment crowd for a while... giving them false hope.:p

.

snobord99
08-22-2009, 10:14 AM
I'm pretty sure that registration will be held constitutional by the SCOTUS. The distinction from Heller (regulation vs. ban) made by the 7th is sound. As much of a right as the 2A is, regulation of our rights have been allowed by the SCOTUS for...ever.

For example, 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, but time, place and manner restrictions are perfectly constitutional if the restriction meets the requirements. I really doubt that a properly worded registration requirement will be found to be unconstitutional if the registration is a one time thing. I'm not as sure how it would play out if re-registration were required.

CALI-gula
08-22-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm pretty sure that registration will be held constitutional by the SCOTUS. The distinction from Heller (regulation vs. ban) made by the 7th is sound. As much of a right as the 2A is, regulation of our rights have been allowed by the SCOTUS for...ever.

For example, 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, but time, place and manner restrictions are perfectly constitutional if the restriction meets the requirements. I really doubt that a properly worded registration requirement will be found to be unconstitutional if the registration is a one time thing. I'm not as sure how it would play out if re-registration were required.

As regards not putting others in harm's way - say, causing a stampede in a crowded theater by false alarm, or threatening someone while brandishing a firearm or threatening the President of the United States with measurable motive, but THAT is the distinction.

Merely owning a gun does not put anyone in harm's way. There are laws against what you may do with that firearm, say robbing a bank or shooting at cars on the highway, but mere ownership within the law does not warrant going against the 2nd Amendment.

The control of ownership of Machine Guns is still bothersome, however it is the antithesis to what I am saying; and confounding. :mad:

.

cousinkix1953
08-22-2009, 10:26 AM
The last time that I looked, a criminal can not be required to register his guns; because that violates his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Perhaps these mush headeds in Chicago didn't bother to read an old Earl Warren SCOTUS decision handed down decades ago...

snobord99
08-22-2009, 10:42 AM
As regards not putting others in harm's way - say, causing a stampede in a crowded theater by false alarm, or threatening someone while brandishing a firearm or threatening the President of the United States with measurable motive, but THAT is the distinction.

Merely owning a gun does not put anyone in harm's way. There are laws against what you may do with that firearm, say robbing a bank or shooting at cars on the highway, but mere ownership within the law does not warrant going against the 2nd Amendment.

The control of ownership of Machine Guns is still bothersome, however it is the antithesis to what I am saying; and confounding. :mad:

.

That's not the time, place and manner restriction I'm talking about. I'm talking about things like requiring a permit, saying you can't demonstrate or speak at a certain location at certain times of the day, or saying you can't broadcast certain things on TV until a particular time of the night (just a few examples, there are more).

I thought about the examples you pointed out but excluded them since those aren't restrictions, they are simply unprotected speech (in other words, an outright ban on those forms of speech based on their content).

There are valid "time, place and manner" restrictions on the 1st Amendment right to free speech. "Time, place and manner" is actually a legal term of art that refers to certain types of restrictions on free speech that has been found to be constitutional. It's not super long and complicated, but I don't feel like explaining it right now ;). I could, but it's probably something you can look up pretty easily via google for a decent background.

snobord99
08-22-2009, 10:45 AM
The last time that I looked, a criminal can not be required to register his guns; because that violates his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Perhaps these mush headeds in Chicago didn't bother to read an old Earl Warren SCOTUS decision handed down decades ago...

Hmm, does that case actually exist? If so, can you point it out? I'd be interested in reading that one. Based on my knowledge of criminal procedure, I have a hard time believing that a modern court will find gun registration from anyone to be violative of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

hoffmang
08-22-2009, 10:54 AM
Remember that adult bookstores have content based speech registration requirements.

Also note that no one here thinks registration is good as a policy matter. In the policy arena, registration used to be a drive to confiscation. Now that that's off the table it may also undermine a lot of the demand for registration in the first place.

-Gene

rabagley
08-22-2009, 11:36 AM
I'm slightly appalled with some of the uncertainty here with gun registration. History shows there is NO GOOD outcome of gun registration. Although many things have become common place in our society, I don't think registration makes the RKBA more unremarkable or ordinary. Our movement here in CA is a perfect example of not capitulating to unjust laws.

Actually, Norway has had 100% compulsory gun registration since the end of WWII. They also allow a much larger variety of personal firearms than the US (no pre-1986 restriction on FA so pretty much anything goes). Gun ownership rates are comparable or slightly higher than in the US.

The Norwegian government has never made a move towards confiscation, nor do the various political parties (all of which are socialist) seem likely to make it a campaign issue to reduce the number of firearms in the country. It's a political non-issue.

I suspect but do not know that it has something to do with the partisan resistance to German occupation in WWII. Bolt action guns in partisan hands were what the Norwegians used to harass Germans, and learning from the Swiss example, the country became sympathetic to the idea of a gun and ammo under every bed as a means of preventing future occupation.

nooner
08-22-2009, 12:18 PM
As for requiring a permit for speech being the equivalent to registration of firearms; that's complete non-sense. The permit-ting of speech is when two rights overlap. And don't give me this adult bookstore baloney, that's a rationalization and bastardization to begin with. The government shouldn't be regulating most of the stuff it does now anyway, just because it does doesn't make it right or just. It may make it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

Actually, Norway has had 100% compulsory gun registration since the end of WWII. They also allow a much larger variety of personal firearms than the US (no pre-1986 restriction on FA so pretty much anything goes). Gun ownership rates are comparable or slightly higher than in the US.

The Norwegian government has never made a move towards confiscation, nor do the various political parties (all of which are socialist) seem likely to make it a campaign issue to reduce the number of firearms in the country. It's a political non-issue.

I suspect but do not know that it has something to do with the partisan resistance to German occupation in WWII. Bolt action guns in partisan hands were what the Norwegians used to harass Germans, and learning from the Swiss example, the country became sympathetic to the idea of a gun and ammo under every bed as a means of preventing future occupation.

That only shows that for now their guns haven't been confiscated. I can't speak for anyone else but I've watched people in our government try to take my guns away for over 25 years. They get registration and we will be disarmed. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen. It will only be a matter of time once it happens.

snobord99
08-22-2009, 1:30 PM
As for requiring a permit for speech being the equivalent to registration of firearms; that's complete non-sense. The permit-ting of speech is when two rights overlap. And don't give me this adult bookstore baloney, that's a rationalization and bastardization to begin with. The government shouldn't be regulating most of the stuff it does now anyway, just because it does doesn't make it right or just. It may make it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not claiming whether it's right or wrong. All I'm saying is what I think is likely to happen in the SCOTUS on this issue.

Sounds like we have us here an libertarian! ;)

That only shows that for now their guns haven't been confiscated. I can't speak for anyone else but I've watched people in our government try to take my guns away for over 25 years. They get registration and we will be disarmed. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen. It will only be a matter of time once it happens.

Yea. I'm a fairly new gun owner so I won't say much for myself, but as far as I know, there's NEVER been a single incident of ANY attempt to confiscate my father's guns in the 15+ years he's owned them. I highly doubt ANYONE's even thought of doing that. I personally have no fear that they're going to come and confiscate my gun so long as I stay on the correct side of the law (which I do and plan to continue doing).

Fjold
08-22-2009, 1:44 PM
Think of all the damage that "Hate speech" does, registration of computers, typewriters and printing presses are next.

rabagley
08-22-2009, 2:29 PM
That only shows that for now their guns haven't been confiscated.

Actually, my point in mentioning it was to show that registration is not necessarily a prelude to confiscation. The Norwegians have gone 64 years with registration but without even a move towards confiscation. I would agree, however, that the US political situation and the Norwegian political situation are substantially different. Here in the US, we can't point to any recent event in which widespread civilian ownership of guns has been beneficial.

I can't speak for anyone else but I've watched people in our government try to take my guns away for over 25 years. They get registration and we will be disarmed. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen. It will only be a matter of time once it happens.

If disarmament is specifically disallowed by SCOTUS (by incorporating the 2nd via Nordyke along with a few other decisions), then registration is less likely to be quickly followed by confiscation. Not to say that it can't happen, but the hurdles that the gun grabbers have to cross will be higher.

GuyW
08-22-2009, 3:25 PM
As much of a right as the 2A is, regulation of our rights have been allowed by the SCOTUS for...ever.


I accept that as a statement of "fact", but its not a justification for the continuing violations of the Constitution by a high-level group of government bureacrats....

How did that text go?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.......The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world....

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution...."


.

Scarecrow Repair
08-22-2009, 4:03 PM
Here in the US, we can't point to any recent event in which widespread civilian ownership of guns has been beneficial.

Deacons for Defense, 1964-1969, deep south starting in Louisiana.

LA Watt riots.

GuyW
08-22-2009, 4:06 PM
Corrupt Tennesee County Sheriff run out of town by GIs (1946).....can't remember the exact name...

Ditch
08-22-2009, 5:38 PM
Sorry!...my guns miss fired so much. I smashed them all with a hammer and recycled them in the metal dumpster at work....That's what I did, and tore up all the DROS paper work so not to be ever duplicated for anything.

:chris: Prove me wrong? I have NO guns!

Ditch
08-22-2009, 5:46 PM
If it was a one-time registration then I would not see an obstacle to that, given the text of Heller and other cases. Kind of like California's handgun registration at the time of purchase.

My deeper fear about registration is an overzealous government....

Greg

(California's handgun registration at the time of purchase)

When you buy a gun in California you are NOT registering the gun its DROS and that's it!.....sure than can find out who the owner is through DROS but there is a difference.

GuyW
08-22-2009, 5:54 PM
(California's handgun registration at the time of purchase)

When you buy a gun in California you are NOT registering the gun its DROS and that's it!.....sure than can find out who the owner is through DROS but there is a difference.

Yes, handguns are registered in CA, not long guns tho....
.

Ditch
08-22-2009, 6:01 PM
Yes, handguns are registered in CA, not long guns tho....
.

How is that?

truthseeker
08-22-2009, 6:09 PM
Here in the US, we can't point to any recent event in which widespread civilian ownership of guns has been beneficial.



ARE YOU HIGH?

Everyday CIVILIAN lives are saved because of CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP!

ke6guj
08-22-2009, 6:14 PM
How is that?every time a handgun is transfered through a dealer, the handgun is automatically registered to the new owner. Also, if you import an handgun when moving into the state, import a C&R handgun if a C&R FFL, or do an intrafamily transfer, you are required to report that tranfer/importation.

And normally, no long guns are registered in CA, except for stuff like Registered Assault Weapons and .50BMG rifles.

gregorylucas
08-22-2009, 6:47 PM
(California's handgun registration at the time of purchase)

When you buy a gun in California you are NOT registering the gun its DROS and that's it!.....sure than can find out who the owner is through DROS but there is a difference.

I have been told by several FFL's that once your DROS a handgun in California it goes into a database that can be accessed by government and LEO's. I don't see any reason to doubt these folks being as they have to input the serial number of the firearm upon starting the background check.

I was also told by a friend who is an LEO that he can access handgun data from his laptop in his squad car to see if you are the "registered" owner of the firearm in your possession. He told me it was punishable by a misdemeanor and he is VERY pro-gun (we are VERY good friends) so I doubt he would be blowing smoke up my hoo-ha.

Greg

ke6guj
08-22-2009, 6:58 PM
I have been told by several FFL's that once your DROS a handgun in California it goes into a database that can be accessed by government and LEO's. I don't see any reason to doubt these folks being as they have to input the serial number of the firearm upon starting the background check.correct. Tht is why each handgun must be DROSed separately, but you could DROS 99 long guns all at once, if you wished.

I was also told by a friend who is an LEO that he can access handgun data from his laptop in his squad car to see if you are the "registered" owner of the firearm in your possession. He told me it was punishable by a misdemeanor and he is VERY pro-gun (we are VERY good friends) so I doubt he would be blowing smoke up my hoo-ha.

Gregcorrect in that he can access the AFS database and see who the "registered" owner is, but there is no requirement that a handgun you possess be registered in your name. Loans of handguns are legal, and many handguns were last privately transfered/imported before the requirement that they do PPT DROS at a dealer. Now, if you are caught illegally CCW'ing, it is a felony, instead of a wobbler, if the handgun is not registered to you.

Ask your friend for the actual PC that makes it a crime to possess a handgun tht is not registered to you.

gregorylucas
08-22-2009, 7:09 PM
Ask your friend for the actual PC that makes it a crime to possess a handgun tht is not registered to you.

I'm sorry I was incorrect, he stated that he would have to prove that the gun was not yours either via loan otherwise... legally difficult if not impossible.

Greg

rabagley
08-22-2009, 7:42 PM
ARE YOU HIGH?

Please untwist your panties.

Perhaps I could have been clearer and repeated my statements about the unambiguously positive reputation that guns in Norwegian civilian hands have due to their role in the underground and resistance against Nazi's during WWII. My statement was that, as a country, we lack a similar recent event in our history. The Revolutionary War was simply too long ago.

But that would have been redundant and I assumed that you already understood what I was talking about, so I didn't mention that again. Over and over. Ad infinitum.

Everyday CIVILIAN lives are saved because of CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP!

The self-defense benefit of guns in private hands is highly disputed. I agree with you that the statistics used by the anti's are nonsense and balderdash, but the beneficial value of private guns for self-defense is not generally accepted in our culture.

Meplat
08-22-2009, 8:08 PM
A. Did you see "Red Dawn"?

B. Do you think an invading intitey would respect a prohabition on confiscation?

C. Do you not realize the Obama administration is an invading intitey?




Yup.

As we progress, registration may not be that harmful as long as a full RKBA exists. If you can't take someone's guns away, then the registration becomes "noise".

While that's not good, it's not terrible. Especially for many/most Californians.

With 300 million guns in the US, pretty soon LEO MDT (mobile data terminal) displays indicating "owns guns" will be the rule and not the exception. Familiarity will breed contempt and the gunowner's status will become ordinary and unremarkable and just another datapoint like brown hair or blue eyes.

I own a sh*tload of guns. Many of them were bought thru FFLs in CA with full 4473/DROS paper trail (even long guns have paper back at the dealer that could be traced) plus a bunch of reg'd AWs. I do have firearms from the 1980s that were legally acquired unpapered or received from my dad - but even some of those had paper on them. So don't think that we're in some sort of 'pure bliss' state before any such national scheme would come in place.

Let's worry about registration less than getting full RKBA: even if all your guns were legally unpapered, I'd say 60+% of "True Gunnies Like Us" are already identifiable as firearm owners thru credit card records, subscription records for Shotgun News or Guns & Ammo, order patterns from Cheaper-Than-Dirt, etc.

1859sharps
08-22-2009, 8:17 PM
All legally purchased firearms have a pretty good change of being traced to the first owner post 1968 per the 4473. In California we have the DROS system that now registers handguns. Then as others have mentioned there are other means such as credit card receipts, organization memberships, and magazine subscriptions that can all be used to build at the least a suspected gun owner database. The odds of being a legal law abiding gun owner and being able to have a gun in anonymity are frankly slim to none these days.

While I, like most of you, would love to own my firearms in complete anonymity, the reality is even without a formal and centralized registration scheme this isn't possible.

In reality I don't think we are going to be able to turn back the clock in this one. I agree that best move at this point is to strengthen our rights to own a gun through court cases that back the 2nd as a fundamental right just like speech making it impossible to confiscate without a supreme court case allowing it. If we do this, then maybe we can say "well, Ok, we will register but we want full auto back". Or we will register, but we want unlicensed canceled carry in our home states and across state lines, and oh one other thing, leave our semi-autos and magazine capacity alone".

which isn't to say, I think we should "cave" on the registration question. we should fight it as long as we can. And hopefully avoid it. Even better get is included in other 2nd amendment protections as non constitutional. Which I personally believe it is.

But, it might make an interesting bargaining chip if other protections fall into place and are rock solid to the point a rouge law enforcement agency can not use a central registration list to confiscate legally owned and used arms.

Meplat
08-22-2009, 8:31 PM
If they do that they will meet with overwhelming resistance, they are too smart for that. It will come in imperceptable incriments.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not claiming whether it's right or wrong. All I'm saying is what I think is likely to happen in the SCOTUS on this issue.

Sounds like we have us here an libertarian! ;)



Yea. I'm a fairly new gun owner so I won't say much for myself, but as far as I know, there's NEVER been a single incident of ANY attempt to confiscate my father's guns in the 15+ years he's owned them. I highly doubt ANYONE's even thought of doing that. I personally have no fear that they're going to come and confiscate my gun so long as I stay on the correct side of the law (which I do and plan to continue doing).

rabagley
08-22-2009, 8:34 PM
In reality I don't think we are going to be able to turn back the clock in this one. I agree that best move at this point is to strengthen our rights to own a gun through court cases that back the 2nd as a fundamental right just like speech making it impossible to confiscate without a supreme court case allowing it. If we do this, then maybe we can say "well, Ok, we will register but we want full auto back". Or we will register, but we want unlicensed canceled carry in our home states and across state lines, and oh one other thing, leave our semi-autos and magazine capacity alone".

which isn't to say, I think we should "cave" on the registration question. we should fight it as long as we can. And hopefully avoid it. Even better get is included in other 2nd amendment protections as non constitutional. Which I personally believe it is.

QFT.

Meplat
08-22-2009, 8:36 PM
What color is the sun in your world?:rolleyes:

(California's handgun registration at the time of purchase)

When you buy a gun in California you are NOT registering the gun its DROS and that's it!.....sure than can find out who the owner is through DROS but there is a difference.

falawful
08-22-2009, 9:07 PM
Why not register all Muslims or whatever religion someone is not comfortable with?

Why not register all journalists? 10 day waiting period to check their records/backgrounds make sure article is truthful, etc...

Currently a FEDERAL registration of guns or gun owners is illegal.

Given a long enough time horizon, registration only leads to one thing.

Registration is unacceptable, anyone who alludes to the contrary is somewhat naive.

Edit: FOPA would suggest that registrations by political subdivisions of .gov are not kosher as well(?)...

snobord99
08-23-2009, 4:12 AM
I accept that as a statement of "fact", but its not a justification for the continuing violations of the Constitution by a high-level group of government bureacrats....

How did that text go?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.......The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world....

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution...."


.

And I was only using that as a statement of fact, not as one of justification.

That said, I personally don't believe that my rights are currently being infringed upon in such a serious manner as to warrant a comparison to what the Founding Fathers experienced in, say, 1775.

If the argument is that our rights are infringed upon more so than they should be, I have not problem with that whatsoever; however, if the argument is that the current state of our nation is somehow close to the conditions suffered by the Founding Fathers, well, to be frank, I find that argument to be simply laughable and am certain the Founding Fathers would too. In fact, I actually believe such an argument is counterproductive to the 2A cause. Why? It's simply not a reasonable assertion and suggesting it simply makes the pro-2A people making that argument seem unreasonable. Such a suggestion is rather similar to the town hall meeting with Barney Frank a few days ago. Comparing that plan of being a Nazi plan, to a homosexual Jew no less, is simply unreasonable. I don't care how you feel about the plan, pro or con, certain comparisons just don't work.

*Disclaimer: I'm not defending or opposing the plan. I'm merely making statements regarding what I believe to be sound and unsound reasoning.

deleted by PC police
08-23-2009, 6:09 AM
They can pry my serial numbers from my cold dead hands.

hoffmang
08-23-2009, 8:25 AM
Currently a FEDERAL registration of guns or gun owners is illegal.


So I guess the Selective Service is unconstitutional? I suggest you read the Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) to understand where people are coming from on this.

States and the Federal government made lists of guns and gunowners at the time of the founding. They considered the 2A to be protection against seizure. But also remember that those same founders disarmed those who remained loyal to the crown...

-Gene

falawful
08-23-2009, 11:06 AM
Sorry Gene, 'arms' back then didn't generally have S/N's! No GCA68...:rolleyes:

Furthermore the 1792 Militia Act (and by extension the Selective Service stuff) defined our DUTY as citizens, as PEOPLE. I believe the act requires members of the militia (of whatever class) to provide their OWN arms. Now if the .gov wants to furnish me with proper arms, I'd feel that it's well and proper to register the government's property as being in my possession, but that's the only reasonable extent to that type of registration. Secondly at the time of founding, when Tories were run outta town, there was no 2nd Amendment. That time frame would have been during the Articles of Confederation or whatever. Registering citizens such that they are accountable to their duty as such is not the same thing as registering their private property of the type that they have an enumerated right to own.

Now, what I was referring to in terms of FIREARMS (or 'arms') registration is this:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the
enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may
require that records required to be maintained under this
chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be
recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed,
or controlled by the United States or any State or any
political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of
registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms
transactions or dispositions be established."

This would seem to make the pistol, DROS (the way it's actually used), and AW registration schemes in CA illegal, no?

Roadrunner
08-23-2009, 11:07 AM
So I guess the Selective Service is unconstitutional? I suggest you read the Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) to understand where people are coming from on this.

States and the Federal government made lists of guns and gunowners at the time of the founding. They considered the 2A to be protection against seizure. But also remember that those same founders disarmed those who remained loyal to the crown...

-Gene

I just read the militia act, and now I don't even know why this thread exists. Apparently, the government can register all firearms at their leisure, and they can call up the militia to put down an "insurgency" against laws imposed by government. If members of the militia refuse to cooperate, the offenders can be imprisoned. And I don't know of any impending Indian uprisings. So, what's the point?

7x57
08-23-2009, 1:36 PM
As we progress, registration may not be that harmful as long as a full RKBA exists. If you can't take someone's guns away, then the registration becomes "noise".

...

I'd say 60+% of "True Gunnies Like Us" are already identifiable as firearm owners thru credit card records, subscription records for Shotgun News or Guns & Ammo, order patterns from Cheaper-Than-Dirt, etc.

Oh, no doubt most of us are identifiable. I think that's basically the price of being involved in fighting for the RKBA--you're basically self-identifying in principle, no matter what the mechanism is. In that sense, we're all de-facto registered gun owners, especially in places like CA.

On the other hand, I don't think that makes registration trivial. For one thing, I'm sure the founders thought they were protecting the RKBA for as long as the 2A was not amended away. They said as much--and they were wrong. The same could be said, with somewhat less force perhaps, of England. Hermeneutical slight-of-hand and context games can make any text meaningless. It's still valuable to try for a tradition against registration to throw up another obstacle for a future day when the protection of a full RKBA is again (assuming we do win for the current age) denied. One thing our history is shown is that every obstacle is useful, and defense in depth is the best strategy.

On the gripping hand, winning the RKBA is surely the greater priority, if we have to choose. For one thing, passing on a robust gun culture with real legal protection gives our children and grandchildren the chance to eliminate registration schemes legislatively even if the courts rule them Constitutional.

7x57

7x57
08-23-2009, 1:42 PM
That's the argument. However, the 1792 Militia act gives the other side a far more plausible argument than usual that they need to know where the guns are...


I realize we're talking about law and politics so logic is more or less irrelevant... :chris:

But in reality all a militia argument shows is that the government needs to know where the *duty* weapons are. My belief is that a weapon you own to fulfill your militia duty probably doesn't have any of the normal 2A rights and privileges--after all, if you were ordered to purchase it no right was exercised.

I'd say the government has the power to require whatever weapon it wants under the militia clauses, and can regulate as it chooses so long as it doesn't transgress another fundamental right (for example, I'd say home inspections are unconstitutional, but not under the 2A--but they could demand my appearance at the local National Guard armory with service rifle and ammunition for inspection and I'd have no choice but to comply). But, separately, private citizens have the right to purchase what they wish for whatever reasons seem good to them, and *those* weapons are fully protected by the 2A. So the government can register, track, and inspect the (imaginary) weapon that fulfills my duty--but hasn't any right to ask if I have anything else, whether of the same type or another.

But, again, logic has nothing to do with the issue, does it?

7x57

Gray Peterson
08-23-2009, 4:45 PM
This is a somewhat elementary discussion. If registration is OK under the 2nd amendment, I can see future cases where registration cannot cost the individual anything. If the government assumes the full costs of registration and can't charge fees, there's a significant financial disincentive to do so. If California's DROS program could not charge ANY fees to the dealers or individuals buying guns, I predict the law would get changed to put it back to federal standard, which charges 0 for NICS.

7x57
08-23-2009, 5:46 PM
This is a somewhat elementary discussion. If registration is OK under the 2nd amendment, I can see future cases where registration cannot cost the individual anything. If the government assumes the full costs of registration and can't charge fees, there's a significant financial disincentive to do so.

If deemed Constitutional, that's a rather good way to attack the whole idea. Perhaps even, one day, at the federal level.

7x57

htjyang
08-23-2009, 6:18 PM
This is a somewhat elementary discussion. If registration is OK under the 2nd amendment, I can see future cases where registration cannot cost the individual anything. If the government assumes the full costs of registration and can't charge fees, there's a significant financial disincentive to do so. If California's DROS program could not charge ANY fees to the dealers or individuals buying guns, I predict the law would get changed to put it back to federal standard, which charges 0 for NICS.

I agree. To analogize it with voter registration, the state can't charge money for voter registration and one only needs to re-register in the event of change of address.

falawful
08-24-2009, 5:32 PM
Wasn't there a federal case where a felon in possession was charged for not registering? Basically, they couldn't charge him with it as he had to admit to a crime to register lawfully, thus forcing him to incriminate himself.

This would seem to make registration laws lack some teeth...

The other thing I remember was a congressional finding during the early 80's that found registration was an infringement on 2A (from memory though)

snobord99
08-24-2009, 7:22 PM
Wasn't there a federal case where a felon in possession was charged for not registering? Basically, they couldn't charge him with it as he had to admit to a crime to register lawfully, thus forcing him to incriminate himself.

This would seem to make registration laws lack some teeth...

The other thing I remember was a congressional finding during the early 80's that found registration was an infringement on 2A (from memory though)

I'd be fairly surprised if the court held that requiring registration from the felon violates the 5th considering the fact that a voice sample used for comparison doesn't even automatically qualify as a 5th violation.

I'd love to see that case if someone could figure out what case it is.

ipser
08-24-2009, 8:06 PM
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

snobord99
08-24-2009, 8:49 PM
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

Awesome, thanks!

razorx
08-24-2009, 8:51 PM
Don Kilmer, the California attorney suing over concealed carry. "Based on the Second Amendment, registration can only be linked to militia service, such that you would be required for example to register militia-style weapons," Kilmer says. "You may be required to let the government know you have an AR-15, but you may not need to let them know that you have an over-under shotgun that you use for sporting clays and duck hunting. Of what good is a 12-gauge over-under going to be for the militia?"

This is a flawed view on registration issue. The south had a rather flexible view on what constituted a duty weapon for the "militia", anything that shot was used so "differentiation" here just opens the door for required registration of all weapons. Fundamentally, just because a weapon could be used for militia purposes does not make it THE militia weapon. We should never concede that point. At best identify a weapon, any firearm really, and register that as the militia's duty weapon. Registration is now complete and in fact, only the firearm make/model is relevant to that end, serial number is not.

I doubt registration can be stopped, however, it can be defined in such a way as to be a meaningless concept. Similar to what DC did with the Heller decision, they can't ban handguns per se, but now they can apply many (and diverse) regulations to still effect the same goal.

Define registration to be applicable for a completely useless purpose or one predicated on some other "act" that will never happen. I could see an argument where registration is constitutional for when a local entity (community/city/county/state, not federal) decides to formalize organization and structure of a militia. At that point, if someone volunteers to be part of that militia organization then required registration of duty weapon would not be unconstitutional.

This is just a simplistic example, but throw the problem back on definition of a militia focused toward local communities and then only to weapon that the volunteer has offered up for militia use. In a way, this approach could relegate the whole registration issue to one of non-relevance in a practical sense.

There are problems with what I just described, but my point is that the right people should decide now which bucket of irrelevancy that registration can fall into and let the anti-gun crowd win the meaningless victory.

Canning quotes like the one above would be a good start.

snobord99
08-24-2009, 8:54 PM
Wasn't there a federal case where a felon in possession was charged for not registering? Basically, they couldn't charge him with it as he had to admit to a crime to register lawfully, thus forcing him to incriminate himself.

This would seem to make registration laws lack some teeth...

The other thing I remember was a congressional finding during the early 80's that found registration was an infringement on 2A (from memory though)

After reading the opinion and then reading the article link posted by ipser ^^^, the article's author is essentially right.

The case doesn't make registration laws lack teeth...at least not with law abiding citizens, only non-law abiding citizens. Which, as that author pointed out, doesn't make the laws lose teeth. Makes them less logical? Yes. Makes them less valid? Not if you're law abiding. :rolleyes:

cbn620
08-24-2009, 8:58 PM
Nice, the judges were appointed by Ford, Bush and Clinton. Asshats.

Bush and Ford also gave us two of the dissenting votes in D.C. v Heller.

I can tell you I will never vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

falawful
08-24-2009, 9:01 PM
Right, I forgot how twisted and stupid the whole registration thing is.

Regarding registration of militia weapons, I think it is utterly ridiculous. They registered CITIZENS for militia duty (as we still do), not the arms!

Registration is in NO WAY any sort of acceptable compromise!

ipser
08-25-2009, 11:45 AM
Right, I forgot how twisted and stupid the whole registration thing is.
Those who support gun registration are either stupid or evil (or both). Now it's certainly possible for a stupid or evil law to be constitutional but I'm hoping that in view of Heller, justices will look askance at any such law where fundamental rights are concerned.

And, btw, I think everyone here is relying too much on the precedence of militia laws. They quite obviously had an entirely different purpose. And if strict scrutiny is applied, purpose is what matters most.

nat
08-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Bush and Ford also gave us two of the dissenting votes in D.C. v Heller.

I can tell you I will never vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

I would definitely never vote republican and won't vote democrat in the upcoming elections.

I suppose the exception is Jerry brown for governor, he seems to be the most pro-gun candidate out of all of them. Our 3rd party governor choices are usually abismal.

1923mack
08-25-2009, 2:57 PM
While registration will be costly, expensive and idiotic, from my listening to the oral arguments for the Heller case, I think it would be upheld by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS for those that like to use abbreviations, of which I am not one).

Flopper
08-25-2009, 3:36 PM
Bush and Ford also gave us two of the dissenting votes in D.C. v Heller.

I can tell you I will never vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

You are conveniently forgetting that in the period immediately preceding his confirmation, Souter completely misrepresented himself as an originalist.

pnkssbtz
08-25-2009, 3:45 PM
DC currently allows registration of handguns, but their restrictions to your application to register your handguns effectively infringes upon your RKBA.

You can't have firearms that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Must be on the CA safe handgun list.


If there is ever registration, it can't ever be used to restrict or confiscate.

HotRails
08-25-2009, 4:28 PM
Is there the possibility that in some point in the future said database would become sufficient PC for searching homes of citizens in the vicinity of a recently commited crime who owned firearms of similar calibre as those used in that crime? Such a condition would create such a liability that would highly discourage firearm ownership.

Shotgun Man
08-25-2009, 5:45 PM
Is there the possibility that in some point in the future said database would become sufficient PC for searching homes of citizens in the vicinity of a recently commited crime who owned firearms of similar calibre as those used in that crime? Such a condition would create such a liability that would highly discourage firearm ownership.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it has actually happened.

I seem to recall a calgunner posted here that the police came to him because he owned a handgun in the same caliber as a crime gun.

snobord99
08-25-2009, 5:54 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it has actually happened.

I seem to recall a calgunner posted here that the police came to him because he owned a handgun in the same caliber as a crime gun.

I can see police questioning him, but if the ONLY thing there is is x caliber used in crime and you own one of that caliber and you're in the area, any court that says that's sufficient PC for a search will have their holding overturned.

Shotgun Man
08-25-2009, 6:01 PM
I can see police questioning him, but if the ONLY thing there is is x caliber used in crime and you own one of that caliber and you're in the area, any court that says that's sufficient PC for a search will have their holding overturned.

Yeah, but I don't want the cops interrupting my supper with questions about my firearms.

snobord99
08-25-2009, 6:09 PM
Yeah, but I don't want the cops interrupting my supper with questions about my firearms.

I never said it was a good thing. I'm just talking legal standards.

yellowfin
08-25-2009, 7:10 PM
And by a reasonable legal standard, that would be an unreasonable search. We seriously need to get rid of qualified immunity.

HotRails
08-25-2009, 7:19 PM
I can see police questioning him, but if the ONLY thing there is is x caliber used in crime and you own one of that caliber and you're in the area, any court that says that's sufficient PC for a search will have their holding overturned.

I bet people in 1950 never thought anything like the GCA would come to pass... :( Who knows what reasonable standards will be years down the road, thats why I say at least no bad precedence on our watch ;)

hoffmang
08-25-2009, 7:21 PM
Must be on the CA safe handgun list.


We fixed that already. It needs to be post 1985 and not on any list in North America. As such, most every handgun can be registered in DC.

-Gene

1859sharps
08-25-2009, 7:47 PM
Those who support gun registration are either stupid or evil (or both). .......

Stupid, evil...no. Naive is a better word, at least for the average person on the "street".

simplistically put, they equate gun registration, licensing and mandatory training to be along the same lines as a car. Lots of people don't believe its a right to own a gun, but have no problem with you doing so if you don't mind getting a license, training and register your guns. After all we live in a free country and you should be able to own a gun for hunting or target shooting. Besides we do this for cars, they are dangerous too, but no one is talking about taking your car away.....

it's false sense of safety/security believing that licensing, registration or even mandatory training will reduce the use of a gun in crimes and criminal violence. And that is all a lot of people who support registration and licensing etc want, sense of safety/security.

You don't have to agree, but treating someone who isn't politically motivated that "believes" this as stupid or evil will make it hard to get them to listen to another point of view.

postal
08-25-2009, 8:21 PM
Any cop or judge will tell you driving is a "priviledge" not a *RIGHT*.

Licensing/registration/training etc are perfectly allowable because its a priviledge.

snobord99
08-25-2009, 8:46 PM
And by a reasonable legal standard, that would be an unreasonable search. We seriously need to get rid of qualified immunity.

But if all they did was ask questions at the front door, under the legal standard, that's not a search. I'm not sure that it's a search under even everyday standards.

1859sharps
08-25-2009, 9:12 PM
Any cop or judge will tell you driving is a "priviledge" not a *RIGHT*.

Licensing/registration/training etc are perfectly allowable because its a priviledge.

but you first have to understand that the 2nd gives you a right as an individual before you can understand that the car analogy is flawed.