PDA

View Full Version : Registration = Confiscation?


cfusionpm
01-06-2013, 12:03 PM
I never understood that leap in logic. My car is registered, and the only time anyone would ever come to get it is if I stopped payments and it was reposessed. I understand the fear of not wanting people to know what you have, but how does that translate to black helicopters and SWAT breaking your doors down to take your guns?

The only time I can think of this ever happening in this country was during Katrina, when they police were going door to door and taking them illegally (no database necessary). As far as I remember, it resulted in a huge lawsuit that made it an extra bad illegal no-no for police/gov't to do.

Yes, I bought it and its my property. But if I sell it to a felon who commits a crime, shouldn't I be responsible for that illegal transaction? If I just transfer the gun into his name, I'm free of any guilt, so long as he can legally own firearms (as confirmed by computer BG check). Otherwise, I get a knock at my door when they find my gun at a crime scene and have to explain how it got there.

Didn't we as a community complain about the lack of paper trail for the Fast and Furious guns? Well... that's basically what we're promoting when we say we don't want BG checks, serials, or paper trails of private purchases.

Just a thought from a clear minority perspective. I would have posted this in Off Topic, but I'm banned from there.

Trojan Bayonet
01-06-2013, 12:14 PM
Read up on world history and the precursors to mass genocides around the globe. Weapons registration was the foot in the door.

Why should individuals register with the government an implement that they clearly have a right to possess? Using that reasoning, we should register all personal communication devices with the government for our own "security".

cfusionpm
01-06-2013, 12:17 PM
No other nation in the world has the second amendment. For the rest of the world, firearms are a privilege, not a right. So what happens in other countries must be taken with that in mind.

Rickrock1
01-06-2013, 12:22 PM
We must Never forget History always repeats it's self and if we can avoid or devert it , We must by never forgetting. Not only here in our country but around the world.

SilverTauron
01-06-2013, 12:22 PM
Firearm registration is the worst thing which can happen to our rights. Lets set aside the confiscation aspect for a moment. The entire system of gun control which we see in Europe such as licenses, safe storage laws, limitations on the number of guns you can own, and yearly permit renewals is based on the government knowing who owns what guns.

Without a registration system, enforcing gun control laws becomes impossible.You can't tax what you don't know exists. In my mind its not about confiscation : rather,by vigorously opposing registration we cut off future infringements at the root. Without gun registration which ties owners to hardware, the antis are stymied.

paul0660
01-06-2013, 12:24 PM
5 paragraphs, 4 poor assumptions. Too many posts to be a troll, a solid Itrader rating, and not posted past zero dark thirty.

Baffling.

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 12:25 PM
cfusionpm
Holding up a copy of the Constitution is little protection against bullets. Yes, we have the second amendment but government action is not always based on legality. It isn't really a leap either more of a short cut.
AWB(registrations) > (someone still commits a crime) Ban more weapons > (someone still commits a crime) Registration is not enough(confiscation)

victor1echo
01-06-2013, 12:29 PM
What you write is all over the place, but registration leads to confiscation for sure. Study history. History will repeat itself--the trick is to fins out what part you are living through?

paul0660
01-06-2013, 12:29 PM
Post #3 responding to post #4 is weak.

This site is too slow to deal with for now.

Is Ben Cannon in charge?

Cnynrat
01-06-2013, 12:32 PM
Background checks do not have to equal registration, and don't even have to equal a paper trail. See the thread elsewhere in which someone suggested reworking the NICs system so that a prospective buyer logs into NICs and obtains a certificate valid for a given period of time that shows he's not a prohibited person. Show your certificate to a gun seller and you are GTG. No record of what gun was purchased, or even that a gun was purchased.

Sure, the TFH crowd might object that NICs could secretly maintain record that you obtained that certificate, but I think that's a worthwhile tradeoff to put some reasonable hurdles in the way of felons etc. buying guns.

As for out and out registration, I don't see the need. I don't think it serves any purpose with respect to preventing crime of any sort. And as others have already pointed out, it is an enabler of confiscation.

I know some of the powers that be here have a view that registration is not as objectionable as it was pre-Heller & McDonald. Their thought is that the with the individual RKBA established the risk of confiscation is at least severely reduced. I am not so optimistic that a future court, partially enabled by Obama's appointees who I believe perjured themselves to gain their SCOTUS appointments, might walk back the Heller & McDonald delusions to some extent. Until the full boundaries of the RKBA are acceptably and clearly established in the courts and ingrained in our culture as being socially acceptable for a generation or two beyond that I would continue to object to registration.

aermotor
01-06-2013, 12:45 PM
Comparing car registration to gun registration is the saddest, anti-2A thing I've heard on this forum. If you can't figure out the logic of your question "registration = confiscation" then you have little awareness of human history.

paul0660
01-06-2013, 12:45 PM
Background checks do not have to equal registration, and don't even have to equal a paper trail. See the thread elsewhere in which someone suggested reworking the NICs system so that a prospective buyer logs into NICs and obtains a certificate valid for a given period of time that shows he's not a prohibited person. Show your certificate to a gun seller and you are GTG. No record of what gun was purchased, or even that a gun was purchased.

Sure, the TFH crowd might object that but I think that's a worthwhile tradeoff to put some reasonable hurdles in the way of felons etc. buying guns.

As for out and out registration, I don't see the need. I don't think it serves any purpose with respect to preventing crime of any sort. And as others have already pointed out, it is an enabler of confiscation.

I know some of the powers that be here have a view that registration is not as objectionable as it was pre-Heller & McDonald. Their thought is that the with the individual RKBA established the risk of confiscation is at least severely reduced. I am not so optimistic that a future court, partially enabled by Obama's appointees who I believe perjured themselves to gain their SCOTUS appointments, might walk back the Heller & McDonald delusions to some extent. Until the full boundaries of the RKBA are acceptably and clearly established in the courts and ingrained in our culture as being socially acceptable for a generation or two beyond that I would continue to object to registration.

If all this amounts to We Are Screwed, I agree with you.


NICs could secretly maintain record that you obtained that certificate,

I worked for a very short time with very nice people who accessed NIC's daily. There was not a protocol for that stuff being redacted, nor a feeling it should be. They gots it, if they wants it.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 12:47 PM
Always, eventually.

The value and purpose of registration has been shown time and time again through out history and especially in the last few weeks.

It serves only one purpose.

aileron
01-06-2013, 12:50 PM
You only need think about this.

The NICS system only needs to hold the data of those who are barred access to firearms for criminal and mental reasons.

If we all could check the system to see if folks were barred access then its a good system to prevent folks who are not allowed from getting firearms legally. For everyone else if they don't come up, there is no record of what was sold or bought, just that the person can own one. It would work perfectly under that model. As long as the records are destroyed after thirty days or 10 days or whatever. They do wish for statistics.

Registration though, winds up throughout history, being used by corrupt government to round up the unsavory.

Librarian
01-06-2013, 1:21 PM
Automobile registration is a personal-property tax measure.

If you can come up with a use for registration of firearms that does not involve eventual confiscation, you'll be the first.

It isn't a matter of 'gee, I don't think this is too bad', it's a matter of 'what compelling government interest is served here?'

philobeddoe
01-06-2013, 1:26 PM
Registration is always confiscation. Confiscation is always eugenics and genocide.
Incrementalism is death by a thousand paper cuts, then it's up against the wall.

Die on your feet, or live on your knees.

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:28 PM
OP, who holds the title to your vehicle.

You don't.

All you have is a slip of paper saying you own it but the state actually has title to your car. That gives them the ability to take your property.

speleogist
01-06-2013, 1:32 PM
Gun registration has never been proven to have any effect on crime. Even Canada has considered ditching theirs. Maybe they already have, I don't recall.

TS77
01-06-2013, 1:34 PM
Anecdotal story:

Cousin's in-laws live in India, and own registered firearms. About 10 years ago, there was a lot of sectarian violence (official tolls ~900 dead, unofficial was thousands). The in-laws used their guns to scare away a mob of a few DOZEN people, without actually shooting anybody, apparently he intermittently fired about 100 rounds into the air through out the night.

Now whenever there's a chance of mob/sectarian violence (large riots and demonstrations), the police come by to his house and confiscate his guns until the demonstrations are over.

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:35 PM
Gun registration has never been proven to have any effect on crime. Even Canada has considered ditching theirs. Maybe they already have, I don't recall.

They did.

Quebec is the lone holdout and want the government to retain the records.

That is still being fought.

NorCalTommy
01-06-2013, 1:35 PM
Here's a current, real life example... How do you think those New Yorkers who were singled out last week feel? Do you truly believe a database like that would remain private and away from the prying eyes of those who would engage in malicious mischief?

Legasat
01-06-2013, 1:38 PM
If they can regulate semi-auto rifles, why not semi-auto handguns? How about caliber? They can say that a .44 or .357 is too powerful to own? How about shotguns? How about regulating the number of firearms one person can own? Then knifes, bow & arrow, hammers and baseball bats? It is a very slippery slope.

chris
01-06-2013, 1:38 PM
No other nation in the world has the second amendment. For the rest of the world, firearms are a privilege, not a right. So what happens in other countries must be taken with that in mind.

i don't care what other countries have. that is the problem here. we are trying to be just like them when this country clearly is not like them. we have freedoms that no other nation ever had at the time of this countrys' founding that is the basic premise of the United States. other countries are just jealous IMO and want us to have "privaleges" instead of rights. they want us to be a the whim of government not government at the whim of the governed.

so instead of emulating other nations emulate what makes this country unique today as it was in 1776.

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:42 PM
i don't care what other countries have. that is the problem here. we are trying to be just like them when this country clearly is not like them. we have freedoms that no other nation ever had at the time of this countrys' founding that is the basic premise of the United States. other countries are just jealous IMO and want us to have "privileges" instead of rights. they want us to be a the whim of government not government at the whim of the governed.

so instead of emulating other nations emulate what makes this country unique today as it was in 1776.

Absolutely.

Well written, sir!

dchang0
01-06-2013, 1:42 PM
Hey, we don't have to look very far back in history to see where gun registration was used right here in the United States of America to attack law-abiding gun owners for PURELY POLITICAL purposes. Less than two weeks ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

IF a private party like a newspaper corporation can willfully endanger the lives of peaceable, law-abiding gun owners to advance its political agenda, what makes you think the government itself wouldn't be perfectly willing to do so?

For some idea of how readily the gov't mobilized against the people, read this about the FBI's plans to post snipers on the Occupy Wall St movement's leaders:

http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-assassination-ows-sniper-227/

You can dig deeper and see the original redacted FBI docs.

And hey, it's pretty out in the open that Americans labeled "enemy combatants" can be killed without due process. Now, ordinarily that would be a good thing, but we're finding out that just about anybody can be labeled an enemy combatant after the drone strike, including accidentally-killed women and children and "men of fighting age" who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's a slippery slope, and we're already on it.

cfusionpm
01-06-2013, 1:43 PM
If you can come up with a use for registration of firearms that does not involve eventual confiscation, you'll be the first.
Use? Or example?

For uses, it's pretty simple. Gun found at crime scene, serial links it to so and so, who has not reported it stolen. That person (and known associates with probable cause) are now a suspects worth investigating.

As for examples... I can't think of any within the US. All of our handguns are registered with serial numbers. Has anyone here had theirs confiscated by means of showing up at their house with a name and serial number?

CityHunt3r
01-06-2013, 1:44 PM
well for the sake of argument....

if somone commits a crime with a firearm and the file arm is found... how do we know who it belongs to... same thing with the car situation.....

keep an open mind unfotunately the registration system can work for us or against us.
just my .02

kemasa
01-06-2013, 1:46 PM
With a few exceptions, there are few people who want to ban vehicles, but there are many who want to ban firearms.

I recall hearing about so-called a-salt weapon registration in NJ, then they banned them and knew what doors to knock on.

nothinghere2c
01-06-2013, 1:47 PM
there are plenty of ways to more intelligently chip away at firearms rights.
registration is merely the data collecting tool to fulfill that goal.

-have people register their weapons (make the public feel safer with no actual safety improvement)
-wait for next gun tragedy with registered weapon
-capitalize on next tragedy with "more needs to be done."
-carefully choose which weapons will get the LEAST resistance when making them illegal ("assault weapons" are used the least in crime, but the average hunter / pistol packing home defense Joe will be "ok" with it for "saving the children")
-wait for next tragedy
-capitalize

repeat

dchang0
01-06-2013, 1:47 PM
Has anyone here had theirs confiscated by means of showing up at their house with a name and serial number?

I recommend you get a copy of Taleb's "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable."

In it, there's a great analogy about the Thanksgiving turkey and the 1000 days leading up to Thanksgiving. During those 1000 days, the turkey's thinking "man, I've got it made. The farmer's feeding me, I'm getting nice and fat, and all I gotta do is sit back and enjoy life."

In short, just because it hasn't happened yet, IS NOT PROOF that it won't ever happen.

The title of the book was in response to a claim that "All swans must be white," until, in Australia, when the first all-black swans were discovered.

Every day that goes by without the gov't taking your guns is a white swan, until that day the black swan is found.

MaHoTex
01-06-2013, 1:51 PM
I never understood that leap in logic. My car is registered, and the only time anyone would ever come to get it is if I stopped payments and it was reposessed. I understand the fear of not wanting people to know what you have, but how does that translate to black helicopters and SWAT breaking your doors down to take your guns?

The only time I can think of this ever happening in this country was during Katrina, when they police were going door to door and taking them illegally (no database necessary). As far as I remember, it resulted in a huge lawsuit that made it an extra bad illegal no-no for police/gov't to do.

Yes, I bought it and its my property. But if I sell it to a felon who commits a crime, shouldn't I be responsible for that illegal transaction? If I just transfer the gun into his name, I'm free of any guilt, so long as he can legally own firearms (as confirmed by computer BG check). Otherwise, I get a knock at my door when they find my gun at a crime scene and have to explain how it got there.

Didn't we as a community complain about the lack of paper trail for the Fast and Furious guns? Well... that's basically what we're promoting when we say we don't want BG checks, serials, or paper trails of private purchases.

Just a thought from a clear minority perspective. I would have posted this in Off Topic, but I'm banned from there.

Yes. Look at the California AWB w/ registration. That ultimately leads to confiscation. If you have a RAW is Commiefornia, when you die it is gone.

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:56 PM
OP, There is precedent here.

Look up the November 1938 German Weapons Act.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm

You can imagine how that turned out....

LMTluvr
01-06-2013, 2:00 PM
Use? Or example?

For uses, it's pretty simple. Gun found at crime scene, serial links it to so and so, who has not reported it stolen. That person (and known associates with probable cause) are now a suspects worth investigating.

As for examples... I can't think of any within the US. All of our handguns are registered with serial numbers. Has anyone here had theirs confiscated by means of showing up at their house with a name and serial number?

Oh come on. Seriously?
You're debate hinges upon "they haven't done it yet so it will never happen"...That's pathetic.

mt4design
01-06-2013, 2:05 PM
Operational Security.

Look at what the leftist media is doing releasing private addresses of CCW holders.

How are we going to keep security against ALL enemies foreign and domestic if they would simply go to a computer and have access to every privately held firearm?

If my forefathers didn't have to; if they would rail against and fight against such Constitutionally illegal infringement; then it's wrong.

1859sharps
01-06-2013, 2:09 PM
history shows that registration ultimately at some point leads to confiscation.

despite the fact that at least "today" our risk of confiscation is low, why increase the risks by having formal registration. It wasn't that long ago our risks were MUCH higher from registration.

The idea that our government can't figure out who owns a gun without registration is laughable. it is vertically impossible to be "off grid" 100% any more.

We don't need registration.

frankm
01-06-2013, 2:17 PM
Use? Or example?

For uses, it's pretty simple. Gun found at crime scene, serial links it to so and so, who has not reported it stolen. That person (and known associates with probable cause) are now a suspects worth investigating.

As for examples... I can't think of any within the US. All of our handguns are registered with serial numbers. Has anyone here had theirs confiscated by means of showing up at their house with a name and serial number?

Dude, really?! How about it's none of their effin' business! How about we make people register before they can speak on public forums? You good with that?

wjc
01-06-2013, 2:19 PM
Operational Security.

Look at what the leftist media is doing releasing private addresses of CCW holders.

How are we going to keep security against ALL enemies foreign and domestic if they would simply go to a computer and have access to every privately held firearm?

If my forefathers didn't have to; if they would rail against and fight against such Constitutionally illegal infringement; then it's wrong.

They are utilizing Rule #12 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to demonize the opponent.


RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Bucc
01-06-2013, 2:28 PM
Look up what happened to the owners of SKS D rifles who were "allowed" to register them under the Cali AWB. To sum up; the ban went into law, we were given a certain period to register those evil black rifles, the period ended.
The Brady Campaign whined to include the SKS D, the DOJ listed them as restricted and since the registration period had already ended they gave an extension to register the D models, some followed the law.
Brady threatened to sue saying the original registration period had expired, the state said "OK" and sent letters to those who registered them that they had to be turned in because Sarah Brady cried.
Some people turned in their rifles. Those who did not, well, the state knows who they are and can be jerks about it whenever they feel like doing so.
So yes, registration has lead to confiscation in USA

Ieyasu
01-06-2013, 2:45 PM
I never understood that leap in logic.. . .
The only time I can think of this ever happening in this country was during Katrina, when they police were going door to door and taking them illegally (no database necessary).
Registration, in the US, has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
No other nation in the world has the second amendment.
I can tell you're not a gun rights activist. In case you need to be reminded the Supreme Court, only recently, held (unambiguously) that the Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right by a 5-4 margin. Do I need to elaborate on the significance of that slim margin?

MontClaire
01-06-2013, 2:50 PM
Oh you 're gonna scratch your head and wonder how you got there...when you'll walk down the dark hallway in the basement of CHK ( DHS ) it'd be too late.;)

IVC
01-06-2013, 3:01 PM
Without registration politicians cannot even start talking about adding AR-15-s to the NFA list or outright buyback programs. If they don't know who's got what, they are impotent.

rero360
01-06-2013, 3:01 PM
Hitler enacted firearms regulation after coming to power, followed by disarming and then exterminating the Jews and other undesirables in his nation. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Pol Pot enacted firearms regulation after coming to power, followed by the disarming and extermination of undesirables in Cambodia.

I know its happened numerous other times throughout history as well, Africa, China, Russia, and others as well, can't find the list at the moment, when I do I'll amend this post.

Ieyasu
01-06-2013, 3:22 PM
I know its happened numerous other times throughout history as well, Africa, China, Russia, and others as well, can't find the list at the moment, when I do I'll amend this post.
Please don't bother the OP already said:
No other nation in the world has the second amendment. For the rest of the world, firearms are a privilege, not a right. So what happens in other countries must be taken with that in mind.
I addressed that response, in a post above.

Connor P Price
01-06-2013, 3:35 PM
Use? Or example?

For uses, it's pretty simple. Gun found at crime scene, serial links it to so and so, who has not reported it stolen. That person (and known associates with probable cause) are now a suspects worth investigating.

As for examples... I can't think of any within the US. All of our handguns are registered with serial numbers. Has anyone here had theirs confiscated by means of showing up at their house with a name and serial number?

If that actually happened, you would have a point. Unfortunately for the gun control argument, that doesn't actually happen in amounts enough to be considered statistically relevant.

I have heard literally countless first hand stories from law enforcement officers regarding investigations of various crimes, including many murders involving guns. One thing that a person finds being surrounded by cops for ones entire life, most of them family members, is that real life cop stories are nothing like the movies or TV. The situation you described is only plausible in ones imagination because Law and Order, NYPD Blue, NCIS, etc. have planted these silly ideas in our minds.

In the real world there isn't DNA evidence everywhere, there aren't serial numbers registered to specific people on everything, and when a gun is found at a crime scene (very rare, most people take their guns with them), if it's registered to somebody you can be damn near certain they didn't do it. Criminals don't buy their guns at gun stores in California and register them, and they don't report them when they move them across state lines. They steal them, or buy them from other criminals who have more than likely stolen them previously. Others are imported to our country without paper trails along with drugs to be used by gangs who push those drugs.

The likelihood of finding a gun at a crime scene that is registered to the actual criminal who committed the crime is so incredibly minimal as to be nearly absurd to discuss. Crimes, and more specifically murders, are solved by detectives who know the way criminals work, they find known associates by turning criminals against each other, they use phone records at least ten thousand times more than any records involving firearms.

There is no legitimate crime preventing interest in registering firearms. Don't be fooled by TV and Movies, and don't be fooled by the bird brained politicians who don't know any more about guns or police work than what they saw on Law and Order the night before.

Connor P Price
01-06-2013, 3:41 PM
Hitler enacted firearms regulation after coming to power, followed by disarming and then exterminating the Jews and other undesirables in his nation. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Pol Pot enacted firearms regulation after coming to power, followed by the disarming and extermination of undesirables in Cambodia.

I know its happened numerous other times throughout history as well, Africa, China, Russia, and others as well, can't find the list at the moment, when I do I'll amend this post.

With the Hitler story, its important to note that he did not create the registration requirement. Registration came under the Weimar Republic, and was intended to help law enforcement according to them. The Weimar Republic never intended to confiscate guns using this program, but their foolish misguided attempt at crime prevention is what made it possible for the Third Reich to quell any chance of rebellion by disarming all dissenters.

Americans love to talk about how we are such a great nation that we would never fall for something like that. Germans thought the same thing under the Weimar Republic. Even if our current administration weren't ready to take everyone's guns, that doesn't mean we should make it easier for the next administration to do so. We haven't met that enemy yet.

rero360
01-06-2013, 3:43 PM
Didn't we as a community complain about the lack of paper trail for the Fast and Furious guns? Well... that's basically what we're promoting when we say we don't want BG checks, serials, or paper trails of private purchases.


No, the paper trail is there, in spades, the Justice Dept. has withheld all the important information and or redacted the sh*t out of it.

Also there is a huge difference between registration of lawfully owned personal firearms and the government giving/selling arms to drug cartels to be used to kill hundreds.

rexbo47
01-06-2013, 3:45 PM
Oh come on. Seriously?
You're debate hinges upon "they haven't done it yet so it will never happen"...That's pathetic.

Right!

And he fervently insisted that Obama would never attempt a firearms ban because he never did in his first term.

Moonshine
01-06-2013, 4:28 PM
Historically, every time guns have been registered they've been confiscated later. If we are forced to register federally they'll say because a pro-active ban just isn't working (and it won't) they need to take existing "Assault weapons" out of circulation. And keep in mind by the time this happens a Glock, semi-auto shotgun, or M1-Garand will be an "Assault Weapon with your photo and finger prints on file!

cfusionpm
01-06-2013, 4:30 PM
Registration, in the US, has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
That's news to me. I can't seem to find much about this online, and having spent the past 20 years here in CA, it's enough just to follow the laws here, much less other ridiculous states. Got anything more on this? That sounds like an unlawful overstep of authority that the lawsuits after Katrina should have addressed.

I can tell you're not a gun rights activist. In case you need to be reminded the Supreme Court, only recently, held (unambiguously) that the Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right by a 5-4 margin. Do I need to elaborate on the significance of that slim margin?
NRA and CRPA member here. And precedent is precedent. They'll overturn that about as quickly as they'll overturn Row v Wade. Without a significant contradicting case to do so with, they can't just go around around reversing previous decisions.

Right!

And he fervently insisted that Obama would never attempt a firearms ban because he never did in his first term.

It's Feinstein writing and pushing the ban, while Obama is saying that it's a complex issue that no single law would fix. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. I have never voted for, nor have ever supported our beloved Feinstein.

He may or may not sign something that came to his desk (remembering the huge backlash other Democrats took after Clinton signed the last one), but I doubt it would make it that far in the first place. Or do you not have faith in our do-nothing Congress, who have been the least productive Congress in more than 60 years?

cfusionpm
01-06-2013, 4:39 PM
There is no legitimate crime preventing interest in registering firearms. Don't be fooled by TV and Movies, and don't be fooled by the bird brained politicians who don't know any more about guns or police work than what they saw on Law and Order the night before.

I'm not influenced by movies and TV, but by having spent hours and hours sorting and filing thousands of DROS papers. The information is there, right on the paper. It's difficult to get to and a timely process that may or may not pan out. Look up serial from manufacturer, trace what FFL it went to from there, then hope FFL has it on file and that the person hasn't since sold it. If there were a database, you plug it in, a name comes up, and its something to work off of. The gun had to come from somewhere, right? It's not like it just poofed into existence. Someone somewhere had to buy it, steal it, whatever. If there is a loss of trail, someone in that chain can be found and traced from there. No, it's not a fool proof, guaranteed method of crime solving, but I can't see it as anything but a useful tool for guiding direction. Especially in cases of random killings with no witnesses.

upsdude
01-06-2013, 4:45 PM
so, let's say we have to register our guns. does that mean if someone is deliquent on their taxes, the irs could place a lien on said guns? i mean they do that on homes don't they? and they can already jack a portion of your paycheck via garnishment. i'm not trolling, just really curious about that.

vantec08
01-06-2013, 4:47 PM
Registration always preceeds confiscation. There is NO other reason for it.

Tarn_Helm
01-06-2013, 4:53 PM
No other nation in the world has the second amendment. For the rest of the world, firearms are a privilege, not a right. So what happens in other countries must be taken with that in mind.

(Emphasis above added by me.)

No offense, but you are engaged in wishful thinking and other common thinking errors:

"We are special because we are protected by our Bill of Rights, our Constitution."

This is simply not the case.

It is also an unacceptably weak peg on which to hang the basis of your freedom: the always embattled and contested right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Look, in the absence of outright, dictatorial take-over by force, what are the threats to RKBA?

ANSWER: Creeping, gradual, incremental, piecemeal diminutions of your right to keep and bear arms.

Once upon a time, you could, with certain exceptions of course, keep and bear arms any time anywhere in the U.S.A.

Restriction of the right to keep and bear arms only really began in earnest with the rise of socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century.

In a nutshell: Socialism demands a monopoly on the use of force--and the effective means thereto, i.e., privately owned firearms you can keep and carry. (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/3/cpr-26n2-1.pdf)

In exchange, socialist regimes promise to care for you "from cradle to grave." Don't take that on faith, read the Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/about) article hyperlinked above.

In effect, you are a hamster on a wheel running to pay the taxes that support a systematic top-down welfare state against which you could never revolt, if need be.

Thus, you are at the mercy of the morals of the people who run that welfare state.

Are you impressed with the superior moral fiber of the men and women who step forward to manage your life so far?

I'm not.

More examples abound of their moral inferiority to most of us.

I will not list (http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/) them here.

You can read newspapers and history books for yourself to verify what I am saying.

The real enemy--the real threats are creeping, gradual, incremental, piecemeal diminutions of your right to keep and bear arms.

Where does it start? How does it start? Why does it start?

Think about it.

Where?

Right under your own nose with municipal, county, and state restrictions that are always passed off as harmless to your rights but necessary for the "public good."

How?

Rarely with government actually taking anything away from you--at first.

How it starts is with something little, an irritating "formality," a "hoop" you have to jump through.

In CA, it is the DROS. The DROS is not true "registration." In other states (look it up yourself: Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc.), there are variant forms of true registration.

You literally need to register your gun the way we in CA register a car.

You literally need a gun ownership license the way we in CA must have a license to drive a car.

You literally need to re-register your gun annually the way we in CA must annually re-register a car.

You literally need to renew your gun ownership license the way we in CA need to renew a license to drive a car.

Now really think about this.

If the Second Amendment is really (and it is) designed to be a fail-safe mechanism to be used in the event of a worst-case scenario, i.e., one in which we the people must put up effective, sustained armed resistance to a violently tyrannical, dictatorial government in the future, then we should never, ever, allow the present government to establish and maintain mechanisms that could be used to systematically monitor, restrict, and/or curtail gun ownership in the future.

In other words, we must exercise forethought now, or else our rights will have become an afterthought by then.

Forethought is exactly what a socialist regime thinks we are incapable of exercising?

Why?

Because if the people could think, and plan, and provide for their own basic material needs, the people would not need the government to do this thinking, planning, and providing for them.

When we, in the present, object to firearm registration, regulation, and restriction that could happen in the future, we are mocked, called "paranoid," out of touch with reality, caricatured in the mainstream mass media for being real or wannabe "militia men," "preppers," and worst of all: "terrorists."

Media members collude with government in this character assassination campaign in order to maintain access to information from politicians for use in the "reporters'" shallow, clumsy stories that they pass off as "hard-hitting journalism."

In other words, the mainstream mass media members' conflict of interest turns them into willing co-conspirators in government efforts to mis-characterize us as "the kind of people whom the government should disarm, or at the very least regulate heavily and monitor closely."

Remember the story, "The Three Little Pigs?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olo923T2HQ4)

Olo923T2HQ4

We--the people who understand and seek to practice the Second Amendment--each one of us is like that one little pig who took the time, trouble, and expense upon himself to build "the house of bricks" that would save him from the day when "the big bad wolf" might come after all of the little pigs. And that one little pig who built his house of bricks, what does he do in the story? He saves their lazy bacon, all out of his own time, effort, and expense, which he poured out because of what might happen.

I say "might" because that day might never come.

And I hope to God it never does.

We the people--the ones alive today--absolutely must learn to understand these things, these facts of life--facts of political life that our Founding Fathers hard-wired into the Constitution for our benefit and protection.

These are hard-won facts about human nature and the nature of institutionalized power, gleaned from hours and hours of study of the languages of Greek and Latin so that they could, in turn, study the philosophy, history, and literature of all of Western Civilization--study that fortuitously and amazingly resulted in their ability to construct a constitution, a political system, with such deep philosophical, historical, and legal roots that too few people alive today even know how to appreciate and understand it--much less how to defend it or whom to defend it from.

All of that intellectual effort our Founders poured out and then used to create our polity is today gravely imperiled by intellectual laziness and moral cowardice of the profoundest kinds.

Tragically, many people today refuse to grow up and face these ugly facts of political life.

It is too depressing, too scary, and too emotionally painful for them to contemplate the hypothetical that the horrors of history could be perpetrated against them by their own government.

After all, most folks regard government in an almost parental way.

Who wants to imagine one's parents as being capable of atrocities "against their own children," as it were?

I certainly do not.

But however much we might unconsciously feel inclined to regard politicians as our parents, politicians are not our parents.

Politicians are really no more than strangers whom we have haphazardly elected to be our representatives, and to whom we have temporarily delegated limited power.

Politicians are not our superiors (intellectually), betters (morally), or our parents.

This unconscious and almost natural tendency of some people to think of our politicians as somehow worthy of the awe, respect, and obedience that one owes to his loving, responsible, morally competent parents--this tendency is the weak point, the Achilles heel, in our body politic's understanding of the right to keep and bear arms.

This unconscious tendency of some people--too many people in the U.S. today--renders them in the same situation as a frog in a pot of cold water that slowly gets boiled to death as the water gradually heats up.

Everyone today who urges us to accept firearm registration, regulation, and restriction is urging us to be like that doomed frog.

They are not throwing us into a pot of boiling water.

We would jump out.

They are coaxing us, whether realizing it fully and sometimes with best intentions, into becoming slow-cooked until our firearm rights are completely dead.

There is a certain group of folks in America (I refuse to call them "liberals" because of the insult this could imply to classical liberalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ)--not present-day "American Liberalism") who are fond of asking: Why can't we "be like France?"

Read the Cahiers de Doléances of 1789 and the debate over the arms proposal in the Declaration of Rights of 1789: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2088615

Because what I think is lacking from your perspective is really two things: 1) a strong, deep sense of the past and 2) strong, deep sense of the future--informed by what has happened in the past. (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.aspx?s=new+york+city+registration&st=&ps=)

Your thinking is trapped in the present. You are viewing the present between blinders, one that blocks out the past, the other, the future. And not just you--most folks who are not already convinced of my thesis.

You cannot prepare for the future unless and until you have learned from the past what could happen.

Do you wait to wear a seatbelt until that far-off, hypothetical day in the future when you actually do get into a collision?

No, you wear it every day, I'd wager.

That same level of unwavering vigilance is the best and only form of mindset and practice that can save us--and save generations yet-unborn--from a worst-case scenario that we could have prevented.

In light of everything I have said here, I have to turn your words back on you and urge you (and others thinking like you): "What happens--and what has happened--in other countries must be taken with that in mind".

Because contrary to what you have posted here, our government is still trying to tell us: "Remember, it is a Privilege, not a right to carry a concealed weapon."

See page 23 of this pdf (numbered as page "3" at the end of this pdf): http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/gen_pub_ccw_app.pdf

I don't hate the police. My brother is an LEO.

I don't hate the government. It is a necessary evil.

But I do not and cannot hand myself over to either of them, bound hand and foot, like some kind of unarmed or disarmed slave out of some erroneous impulse to lazily engage in an ultimately self-destructive act of false filial piety.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

Carry on.
:cool:

odysseus
01-06-2013, 4:56 PM
Historically the required recording of firearms to people has meant bad news for the people in many ways not only just confiscation. Now cfusionpm is saying this is moot, which I am not surprised by btw, however the glaring fact of the historical reality cannot be just pushed aside.

Now saying that, where in the 2nd Amendment is it revealed that you must have to register with a government office to be able to exercise said right? It's no where because the RKBA is an inalienable right inherent to just being a human being. Get it?

Do I need to register to practice a religion? (this exists in many autocratic and tyrannical countries).
Do I need to register to practice my ability to broadcast speech? (this exists in many autocratic and tyrannical countries).
Do I need to register my real property and locations I live in to be able to be "allowed" afforded protection under the 4th Amendment?

You see where this is going. In order to accept your discussion point, one must move away from a common denominator which is unacceptable to the Liberty we live under.

It is difficult for more and more people it seems to understand because they lack the knowledge and understanding and are more easily willing (due to social cultural dogma) to hand over Liberties to a collective bureaucracy for being told it is for the "common good" of society that this be controlled. That or they despise the freedom (or fear its realities) it acknowledges leaving to that civilized people should be able to live independently with the rule of law. Collectivists abhor that.

=Mike=
01-06-2013, 4:57 PM
I never understood that leap in logic. My car is registered, and the only time anyone would ever come to get it is if I stopped payments and it was reposessed.

For now.

Wait till they determine that there is a hole in the ozone layer, and it is enlarging, nasa try's, but cant patch it, they give it a name of global warming, global cooling, or climate change, and your car gets put on a to many emissions list, and is a "threat to the children". I bet they would create a program to check your cars emissions every to years to be safe.
For a small fee of course.
Who knows, maybe they will do something to the gas that will damage your car to get you to buy a new one more child friendly, like ban leaded fuel to make it burn hotter, or mix corn fuel, to make it burn even hotter.

It also stimulates the economy, ya know?

I understand the fear of not wanting people to know what you have, but how does that translate to black helicopters and SWAT breaking your doors down to take your guns?

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

The only time I can think of this ever happening in this country was during Katrina, when they police were going door to door and taking them illegally (no database necessary). As far as I remember, it resulted in a huge lawsuit that made it an extra bad illegal no-no for police/gov't to do.

Well I feel much better now knowing that it was established as "an extra bad illegal no-no for police/gov't to do". Oh, and that reminds me, did you hear? obama isnt going to take our guns!.

Yes, I bought it and its my property. But if I sell it to a felon who commits a crime, shouldn't I be responsible for that illegal transaction? If I just transfer the gun into his name, I'm free of any guilt, so long as he can legally own firearms (as confirmed by computer BG check). Otherwise, I get a knock at my door when they find my gun at a crime scene and have to explain how it got there.

Sound to me that you want a system where you give up some rights in order to sell without any accountability.

If there is no back ground check option, and you dont know the person, then dont sell it.
Guns would just become more expensive for the criminals, but still acquired by import or machinists.

Didn't we as a community complain about the lack of paper trail for the Fast and Furious guns? Well... that's basically what we're promoting when we say we don't want BG checks, serials, or paper trails of private purchases.

No. We expect our government to abide by the same laws they impose on us.
Not ignore warnings of straw purchases for political gain [as should be obvious now], and be held accountable.
If mexico doesn't want our guns, that's on them, as drugs unwanted here, are on us.

Just a thought from a clear minority perspective. I would have posted this in Off Topic, but I'm banned from there.

So....after you didnt think obama was going to come for our guns.
After NY gun-owner database being released on-line.
After a mental nut in a state that voted no to a bill that would have helped the mentally disabled, grabbed who knows what guns, in a very gun restrictive state, and did the unbelievable, you still think we should follow every other country in history that started with a gun registry, and regretted it.

Have you looked at the country to our north, and wondered what would happen here if you were wrong, like you were about obama and guns?

but I do enjoy things that are fabrications, and try my best to avoid things that are complete truth.

Why did I wast my time.

Ieyasu
01-06-2013, 5:16 PM
That's news to me. I can't seem to find much about this online, and having spent the past 20 years here in CA, it's enough just to follow the laws here, much less other ridiculous states. Got anything more on this? That sounds like an unlawful overstep of authority that the lawsuits after Katrina should have addressed.
Here's a link: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.aspx?s=new+york+city+registration&st=&ps=

(Katrina was a totally different situation from NYC.)

NRA and CRPA member here.
So far so good...
And precedent is precedent. They'll overturn that about as quickly as they'll overturn Row v Wade. Without a significant contradicting case to do so with, they can't just go around around reversing previous decisions.

This not so good... Heller will be a piece of cake to overturn once a lib judge replaces a conservative judge. Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 margin. ("Conservative" justices have not been a majority on the court. Today it's a 4-4 split).

It will be a trivial matter to find a case to bring before the Court. For example, there are many cities willing to pass a gun ban (again), once a Heller judge is replaced. The current Heller dissenting-4 are vehemently anti-2A. They will not hesitate for a second to overturn a precedent they consider in error.