Registration Doesn't Lead to Confiscation?

[dalriaden]

Registration = Confiscation = ? A historical view

Haven't read all 5 pages yet, but just posting this:

United Nations imposed gun control after civil war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. Although the town of Srebrenica was a UN-designated "safe area," in July of 1995 more than 7,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb forces as the UN forces in the town proved unable or unwilling to help its Muslim population.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.


David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, writing in the Notre Dame Law Review (Volume 81, Number 4), note that that national gun-control statutes7 for the Darfur victims effectively prevent self defense.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp

Which made me wonder, who are our "undesirables"?

At one point gun confiscation in this country was unthinkable, yet we saw it occur quite openly in 1991 in New York City, enabled solely due to a registration scheme put into place in 1967 when Mayor John V. Lindsay signed a long gun registration law which was later used as a confiscation list.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

And we all remember gun confiscation in New Orleans post katrina.

Sorry if any of its a dupe.

[creekside]

There are ways of storing the data to prevent that (e.g., cryptographically encrypting everything using the serial number as the key, and only storing a cryptographically hashed form of the serial number for the purpose of lookups), but I very much doubt the ATF database has been constructed in that way. Governments like to keep their options open, so they will pretend to adhere to the law, and actually adhere to it only to the minimum degree necessary.

Nailed it on the head. Thank you.

1) Voluntary. 2) Non-government. EFF and CalGuns have a lot more in common to work on than some might think.

[creekside]

For the record, and for those who might not go back and read what I actually posted, I strongly disapprove of the registration of long arms. I'm deeply disappointed in Jerry Brown for signing it.

What I said about handgun registration was exactly this:

I reluctantly concede that the state has a compelling interest in the registration of handguns. They are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot.

This is exactly the same justification as for the registration of motor vehicles. Neither carried handguns nor vehicles are kept in safes.

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "Second, none of my handguns have been involved in a crime. Not one. I would venture to say 99% or more of all of the handguns I have ever sold have never been used in a crime and I have sold quite a few handguns."

99% of cars and motorcycles haven't been used in a crime and we register those. In fact we make them DISPLAY their license numbers so that the identity and privacy of the owner can be breached from a distance.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "That won't work. Only vehicles that are used on public roads need to be registered. Second, vehicles are not constitutionally guaranteed rights."

This narrow view of the Fourth Amendment is why all of us have to get groped before we fly and have no privacy in our vehicles. Do you also support (e) checks on the same logic?

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "Not sure where you are getting your theories. You stated that vehicles are registered so firearms being registered is no big deal. I countered that and said vehicles are not entirely registered. Now you think I am supporting registration? You make no sense."

The last time I looked at the 2nd Amendment, it read: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You seem to think that "keeping" arms is the only act protected by the 2A, and that therefore the Government has no right to know what you keep in your gun safe. Many of us are concerned with our rights not only in our home, but wherever we may choose to go. This is "bearing" arms.

As for the 4th Amendment, it reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Anyone who operates a motor vehicle does not have 4th Amendment rights in this state in so doing -- especially if that vehicle contains anything that might be a gun case. Any 'papers and effects' carried in a vehicle are open to essentially arbitrary search. This is the (e) check to which I refer. Anyone who boards a commercial aircraft is not only not secure in 'person' but is subjected to freedom gropes and other abuse.

Where people bear arms in public, in the same way that they drive cars in public -- i.e. in the course of their ordinary lives, casually, as in those states where people can either get a shall-issue License to Carry or the handful where they don't need one, a handgun registration system makes some sense. The LTC firearm is not always carried in a safe, or in a car trunk. Things happen.

As for my statement that the use of long guns in crime is rare, please see "Weapon Use and Violent Crime" [PDF] based on National Crime & Victimization Survey data from 1993-2001.

"Of the average 847,000 violent victimizations committed with firearms, about 7 out of 8 were committed with handguns."

That means that about 1 out of 8, or 12.5%, were committed with long arms.

I cited Uniform Crimes Reporting (UCR) data for weapon use in homicides because this data is considered highly reliable. Why? Let me quote the experts who wrote "Homicide Trends in the United States" also at BJS:

"Homicide is of interest not only because of its severity but also because it is a fairly reliable barometer of all violent crime. At a national level, no other crime is measured as accurately and precisely."

In 2005, 8,478 homicides were committed with handguns and 2,868 with long arms. This is out of 16,692 homicides total in 2005.

A little over 1 in 6, or 17.2% of homicides in 2005 were committed with long arms.

1 in 6 murders and 1 in 8 violent crimes means in my opinion that long arms are 'rarely' used in crime.

I agree that long arms are kept in the home for the protection of liberty.

I add however that handguns are carried for the protection of the individual.

I am now curious -- and do not have time to research this today -- how many states require that the license number of the handgun be recorded either to open carry or to concealed carry that handgun?

It's moot in California as we cannot purchase a handgun without the SN being recorded.