How would gun registration help with crime?

[GreenStormCloud]

Lets us suppose that all guns were required to be registered. What good would be accomplished, and how would registration accomplish it?

We have already seen, here in the U.S. how in CA & in NY, registration lists were later used as confiscation lists.

[onehandle]

1. So the government... The Obama administration is going to come 'get our guns.'

Where have I heard that before?...

[spin]

18. No, but it could easily be a future Republican president ...

they talk like they support RKBA, but they have a record of hating gun ownership.

Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.

The modern generation of gun control laws began with the Reagan Administration, in 1986. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed in that year, expanding on the Gun Control Act of 1968. One provision of this law was to freeze the number of fully-automatic machineguns in circulation; machineguns manufactured since 1986 cannot be legally owned by civilians. (Machineguns manufactured before that date are legal to own, as they have been since 1934, with a special tax stamp and BATF approval of each transfer of ownership.) Since 1934 only one crime as been committed with a legally owned machinegun. (A Dayton, Ohio police officer used a submachine gun to kill an informant.) The primary effect of this law was to raise the price of existing machineguns to astronomical levels.

Several models of 'assault' shotgun were also banned from import in that year. (Do not assume, by the way, that domestic gun manufacturers are your friends. Yes, they want you to be able to buy guns. . . but their guns. Restrictions on imported firearms usually have at least the quiet support of domestic gun manufacturers, and sometimes more than that. They were very vocal in the 1960s, when cheap foreign imports were seriously undercutting their business.)

Three years later, the Administration of Bush the Elder banned from import 43 models of military-style semi-automatic rifles. The value of those rifles already in the country rose dramatically. This was not legislation, subject to Congressional debate and compromise; it was an Executive Order, straight from George H.W. Bush's pen. Which means that George W. Bush could do away with the import restrictions the same way, if he cared to do so.

The Reagan and Bush legislation and Executive Orders laid the groundwork for 1994, the big year for modern gun control legislation. That was the year of the Brady Act, with mandatory background checks for handgun buyers, an expansion of Bush's Executive Order import ban, and the Federal Violent Crime Control Act, better known as 'The Assault Rifle Ban.' This is the one that scared a lot of people.
http://www.mrbadexample.com/kerry.html

[gorfle]

33. Perhaps from his own web site?

Check http://www.change.gov under urban policy:

"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. "

Or perhaps from the Democratic Party Platform?

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

" We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

Bans are just as bad as confiscations, and the intent behind them is the same.

[PavePusher]

46. Your reading glasses must be quite strong.

I didn't see anything like that in the O.P.....

[proteus_lives]

85. Obama wouldn't but you joyously would.

Being one of the "control > rights" set.

[villager]

2. you must be quite sorrowful the SUV Car bomb in Times Square had a registration trail

...that allowed an investigation to proceed. Quite sorrowful indeed...

[paulsby]

12. there is no constitutional right to own a motor vehicle

and motor vehicles are only required to be registered IF they are driven on public roadways, which is also not a constitutionally protected activity

it's a poor analogy

there are a LOT of things the govt. could do to make crime solving ostensibly easier. that's how rights get whittled away

[villager]

14. and the constitution prohibits registration of lawfully owned guns... where?

:shrug:

[paulsby]

15. i didn't say it prohibited it

i said it was a poor analogy because one referred to a constitutionally protected issue and one didn;'t

as matters of BOTH policy *and* constitutional law, there are bright line distinctions between the two

a better analogy (at least pre internet) would be to registering guns and printing presses, since they both reference constitutionally protected activity, which is not the case with driving

[villager]

16. so we're in agreement that registration is o.k. then, yes?

You seem to be quibbling only over what analogy to use.

Thus, something we agree on outside "South Park" discussions! ;-)

[paulsby]

17. no, i don't think it's "ok"

that's as a matter of policy.

as to whether it's constitutionally permissible, that's another story.

assume arguendo it's constitutionally permissible, it doesn't therefore follow it's good policy

that's my point

[spin]

21. It's a useless "feel good" law ...

that will do nothing to reduce crime but could be used to confiscate firearms from honest citizens.

Criminals do NOT have to register firearms.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[villager]

23. so a stolen gun becomes as hard to track as a stolen car?

...which is to say, a lot easier to track than they are now...

[spin]

25. If so why is Canada trying to get rid of gun registration?

The fact remains that the long-gun registry has failed miserably on two counts.

First, it is a financial millstone. The registry has cost taxpayers at least $2 billion -- even though the Liberals assured Canadians there would be one-time start-up costs of only $2 million.

Second, as Hoeppner said, there's no compelling evidence that the registry has had any impact on gun-related crime. Criminals simply don't register guns.

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Long+registry/2959193/story.html#ixzz0mu2d1C9f

Of course, our government could come up with a far better system of gun registration than Canada. After all look how much better our healthcare program will be than the Canadian system. :sarcasm:

[villager]

27. Not so much "Canada" as the rightwing Tories...

...like the Tory who introduced it.

But, since you decided to change to the subject, it's not surprising you'd omit that...

[spin]

28. The right wing Torries supported by a majoity of gun owners .....

especially those who live in rural areas.

What do I base my contention on?

About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11192

By refusing to register their firearms, the citizens showed what they thought of the law. It also shows how futile the law would be if implemented in the United States. If Canadians don't comply, why would Americans?

I hope I won't insult you by pointing out that you failed to mention that less than 50% of the firearms were registered in 20 years.

[villager]

29. Many gun owners do tend to support rightwingers, yes...

Look how many people in this forum love the judicial "wisdom" of legal stalwarts Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas!

[spin]

32. So if only 50% of gun owners in our country registered ...

their firearms you probably would think that it was a great success.

And of course, it wouldn't reduce crime as criminals do not have to register their weapons. At the best you might find the original owner of the firearm who probably would tell you that it was stolen.

But you would have a good start on a list to enable confiscation. I fear that's your goal. I've shown you that gun registration doesn't work and you still want to see it happen. I don't consider you a fool so what else can I believe?

[villager]

45. so you're for the repeal of vehicle registration, yes?

n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

51. How long does a thief need to keep your car before it is his?

http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/wheaton_v_caldera.txt

"Can a party acquire title to stolen property sufficient to
defeat the rights of the registered owner? If so, can the same
government which mandates registration and which maintains the
central registry of such property acquire such title to stolen
property when it has actual knowledge of the registered owner?"


Short story, a legally registered 1904 Maxim gun is stolen from a New Jersey VFW Post during remodeling.

Years later, this exceedingly rare gun turns up in the museum at the West Point military Academy.

The gun is listed by serial number in the NFA registry as belonging to the Plaintiff.

The ATF argues the registry was never intended to return stolen property to its lawful owners.

Please re read that. A lawyer for the Federal government, argued in front of a Federal judge, the registry of NFA firearms WAS NEVER INTENDED to reunite owners with their stolen property.

The Federal Judge rules the owner of the stolen property has no standing to sue for the return of his property.

So, evidently, if the government has possession of stolen property long enough it gains title to it because it says so.

Or let's put it in simple English,and answer me this:

How long does something have to be stolen before the original owner has no claim the property?

How many times do firearms registries have to be abused by governments at all levels before they become suspect?

Are you still waiting on the money from that Nigerian widow woman who e-mailed you?

[villager]

52. so you're opposed to the registration of automobiles, too then, yes?

n/t

[Glassunion]

53. You're changing the subject to avoid his point. (nt)

[villager]

61. Interesting how a different Gungeonite has to reply, since no one can directly answer the question

...which was posed upthread, before the subject was changed to what the rightwing politicos in Canada were up to....

[Glassunion]

62. Which question in particular are you referring to? (nt)

[villager]

63. The one I posed a couple posts back (nt)

[Glassunion]

66. Again... What question in PARTICULAR are you referring to?

Plain language... You made several statements and posed several questions.

Which one?

[villager]

67. Auto registration: Are you opposed to it or not? (nt)

[Glassunion]

68. Posts 12, 15 and 54.

[villager]

69. Ah -- again with no direct answer. Which I'll take as an answer!

Since it's a "yes" or "no" question...

[Glassunion]

70. Ok...

No I do not think that guns should be registered.
Yes I think that cars should be registered.

Simple yes no answers, without explaination. Exactly what you asked for.

[one-eyed fat man]

72. car registration

You only have to register your car if you plan on using it on public highways. There are thousands of farm and ranch vehicles that were never titled and never registered with anyone, ever!

Will your version of "gun registration" allow me to carry my gun in public in all 50 states like my car registration lets me drive my car on all public highways all 50 states? No, I don't think that's what you're advocating. But if you support making every jurisdiction recognize my Kentucky CCW then perhaps I would reconsider.

The registration of cars is more about raising revenue for the DMV than it is about controlling cars or reuniting owners with their stolen property. And unless you were being monumentally obtuse, you knew that already.

So, YES, I do object to car registration if it is a subterfuge for the denial of rights. Just like I object to voter registration used as a means to KEEP 'certain' voters from voting.

The July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker magazine contained an interview with Nelson T. Shields, III (also known as "Pete" Shields) a founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which subsequently changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. On pages 57-58 of The New Yorker article, Mr. Shields was very forthright as to the ultimate agenda of his then-fledgling organization:

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

So my question to you is: "Were y'all lying then or are you lying now?"

[Glassunion]

76. Bra'fukin'vo...

Love the last line.

[jazzhound]

78. How'd that 7-10 year estimate work out for you Petey?

Thanks for Shields quote, OEFM. Had read it many times before, but I'd guess very few pro-controllers were aware of it.

[spin]

54. No, because there has been no history of car confiscation ...

in the U.S. or for that matter in other countries.

The car registration system proved worthwhile because it was not abused. Perhaps a gun registration program would also have benefits if everybody registered their firearms. But historically politicians can't resist confiscating firearms once they are registered and therefore people will avoid registering firearms.

Estimates are that less than 50% of the firearms in Canada have been registered in 20 years. The Canadian system proved expensive and accomplished very little. Sure the liberals in Canada are fighting to preserve it, but the bottom line is that it is a failure. Our war on drugs is also a failure, but politicians refuse to admit it, even though a rational approach of legalizing some drugs would make sense and reduce the profit motive for dealing illegal drugs.

Why not focus on passing laws that might have far more effect, such as a requirement for an NICS background check on all private sales. Or why not insist that our politicians focus on taking illegal firearms from criminals and sentencing those caught with illegal firearms to lengthy prison terms instead of allowing the criminals to plea bargain the charges away.

What's the bottom line? Are you interested in reducing violent crime and making our nation safer, or are you just interested in harassing honest people who are not part of the problem?

[GreenStormCloud]

37. How would that reduce crime?

At best that would only allow the gun to be traced to the last legal owner. He/She would then claim it was stolen and would be happy to get the gun back.

[PavePusher]

47. So, you'll be stepping out to register all your books and papers...

any minute now. Right?

[eqfan592]

64. I don't support registration of firearms for the same reason...

...I don't support the new illegal immigrant laws in Arizona. The ability to trample the rights of citizens such programs provide to government officials far outweighs any benefit that could be gained from them, especially when there are far more effective means of combating violent crime than simply targeting the tools some criminals decide to use when commissioning a crime. Talk of "gun registration" does nothing but distract from those more effective means (such as combating poverty and poor education).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 921 explicitly prohibits the creation of a firearm registry.

It's not in the costitution, but it is against the law. :shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Please try answering the question.

Your sarcastic comment is not an attempt at an answer. After the crime, the car was easily found. After a crime the gun is rarely found as guns are easily disposed of.

[hack89]

79. You must love warrantless wiretapping nt

[sui generis]

3. good thing nobody's come around to confiscate our registered vehicles

jeez dude.

You seem to push the panic button a lot. What registration accomplishes is it ties a firearm to an owner, and provides firearm provenance.

The odd thing about conservatives is they tend to find a single thing at fault with any system and want to use that as a reason to throw out the entire idea. If you're worried about confiscation (that is the "problem space" you described), then propose a solution for confiscation.

Fighting to remove registration laws is not the solution. Fighting to disallow confiscation laws would be smarter.

Anyway, I'm curious, what were the events and causes of these mass "confiscations" where liberal gun grabbers went door to door tossing people's houses and collecting their guns? I've got snopes on standby.

[X_Digger]

7. See CA's letter sent to owners who complied with the law on registration..

[damntexdem]

8. Oh, the guns in questions were assault weapons. Good, I hope they were all confiscated!

And anyone caught with an unregistered assault weapon should be sent to prison (yes, I know that the letter states that there is no authority to register them).

[spin]

19. Do you understand the difference between "assault weapons" and "assault rifles"?

An assault weapon is a semi-auto firearm while an assault rifle has the capacity of full auto or burst fire.

Many "assault rifles" cosmetically look like military assault rifles but they function the same as a traditional semi-auto rifle that your grandfather owns.


BAR safari


Guy Sagi, the Editor in Chief of Shooting Illustrated, has written about his experience hunting antelope with an AR-10.
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/forum/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=4&showentry=733

[slackmaster]

43. The problem is, the DoJ specifically said the rifles were NOT "assault weapons"

Before it said they were "assault weapons".

The owners of those rifles got screwed by the government.

[eqfan592]

65. Yep, because THOSE are the people we need to be afraid of...

..with their using their "assault weapons" in crimes all the time. Oh wait, I'm sorry, that only happens in your head.

[sui generis]

10. assault weapons, and not all assault weapons, incidentally.

There was a moratorium in those documents.

Oh the horror. Maybe I'd feel differently if it was all handguns, but this is a PARTIAL TRUTH.

A partial truth is not a whole truth, and certainly not enough of a truth to use as an argument for getting rid of gun registration altogether.

What exactly IS your agenda here?

[X_Digger]

11. Me? I was just answering your question..

Things like ^ that are why I get suspicious when someone starts talking 'registration'.

btw, have you seen that Canada is likely going to repeal it's long gun registry? Billion dollar boondoggle to register 7M (of an estimated 15M) guns.

[ZombieHorde]

4. We all know gun owners are enthusiastic shop lifters, all of them.

We also know gun registration usually takes about 20-30 minutes for each gun.

This is 20-30 minutes per gun they are not out stealing small items.

Ta da! Crime has been reduced.

[meegbear]

5. Registration lists were later used as confiscation lists?

Who said that happened, Mary Rosh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Yes, by the state of California, as illustrated by the documents in post #7

Darn those inconvenient truths, eh?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Not really a good example.

It's similar to the closing of the NFA registry, again, not a 'confiscation' matter per se. The confiscation of weapons that were registered past the pull date on that bill was a legislative mistake. People who registered their weapons prior to the original cut-off, are fine.

The person who extended the deadline had no legal authority to do so. So, welp, Train Wreck.

Its obnoxious, but hardly related to whether or not registration is workable. NFA weapons are all registered. The registry is closed, but no confiscation has taken place on fully automatic or select fire weapons held, and registered since 1934. Even though many have passed from generation to generation, or been sold to new owners that never had a NFA weapon prior to the closure of the registry.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. NFA Registry

In at least one case, the Federal government has refused to return a stolen 1904 Maxim gun to its registered owner. The gun in question was recovered by a police department in New Jersey which kept it for several years before 'donating' it to the US Military Academy at West Point.

The owner, after spotting the gun in the museum, and still possessing the original ATF Form 4 registering the gun to him BY SERIAL NUMBER, wanted to recover his rare machine gun. The New Jersey PD maintained they never checked the NFA Registry to see if the gun belonged to anyone, so they were under no obligation to return the gun. The ATF and Justice Department attorneys argued in Federal court that the registry was NEVER intended to reunite owners with their property. A Federal judge ruled that the owner had "no standing" to sue for the return of "his property." For all his efforts, the owner was left with a document that said the gun was "his", a court order telling him he had no right to ask for it back. If that's not confiscation, what would you call it?

In another instance, an NFA Branch firearms specialist was forced to admit on cross-examination that two NFA Branch examiners were recently transferred because they had been caught shredding NFA registration documents in order to avoid having to work on them.

Note that they were "transferred." Not disciplined. Not fired. Not prosecuted. Not destroyed in place. Transferred. Just who is the criminal in these cases?

http://www.atfabuse.com/atfabuse-1.html

[brendan120678]

6. Yep...registration won't prevent crime.

It'll only make it easier for the authorities to do their job after the crime has been committed.
But seriously, I doubt it'll do even that.
Which is why registration is basically worthless.

If you are not required to register shotguns and hunting rifles in NYS, why be forced to register pistols?

[AtheistCrusader]

58. It's not about combating 'Crime(TM)' in generic. It's about proliferation.

It is the best solution to straw purchases. Like it or not, there is no better solution.

[Glassunion]

71. How is it a better solution than currently tracing firearms purchasers through...

Form 4473?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Because there is no centralized reporting.

If you buy 10 firearms at 10 different FFL's and flip them all to the black market, and ONE is traced back to you in the span of say, 3 years, you could probably get away with 'I sold it to some guy, no I didn't know he was a felon, and I don't do this all the time, it was just a couple guns'.

The BATFE couldn't know, unless they went on a massive fishing expedition at all FFL's you might have purchased from, and compile it all.

Registration does away with that.

I expect give and take though, let's do registration, and with it, shitbarn 'one gun a month' and all the other silly limits we've tried to put in place to limit straw purchasers.

[Glassunion]

77. I do see your point, however I personally disagree.

One of the issues that I have is that we would open ourselves up to fishing expeditions on the part of law enforcement.

All it would take is one field supervisor with a dhs letter.

[X_Digger]

9. Criminals can't be locked up for failing to register, either.

A person with a disqualifying criminal record who registers a gun would be incriminating themselves- and the fifth amendment protects them from that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[spin]

20. So only honest people would register firearms ...

because they would not want to violate the law.

Yeah, that will reduce crime.

:argh:

[jody]

13. Registration is a prerequisite for confiscation. Both sides of the RKBA issue know that so why do

some people still preach "gun registration"?

[spin]

22. Those who oppose RKBA preach registration ...

because they think gun owners lack intelligence.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I support RKBA, and Registration.

Funny, the Swiss figured out how to make Registration work. Why can't we?

It's because when we stonewall these policies, they end up getting written into law by people hostile to private firearm ownership.


Be serious, if the government wanted to confiscate weapons, they could confiscate all 4477's, and know full well about at least half of my guns, and when they learn my father is deceased, they can pretty well guess where 1/4 of my remaining guns came from. We can't ALL have 'tragic canoeing accidents'.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. You've now had 25 replies to this thread and not ONE of them addresses the question you

pose. Some known gun control proponents here in the gungion have posted about registration not leading to confiscation but not a ONE has proclaimed what crime would be stooped or curtailed with a registration scheme. How very telling. . .

[villager]

30. Wrong as ever, Phil!

Guns used in crimes become trackable on a par with cars used in crimes...

As was posted earlier in this thread.

[Hoopla Phil]

31. How is this ANY better than what we currently have with forward trace???

It is not. Maybe that is why Canada is trashing their registration scheme.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I can think of a LOT of things the Canadians can't quite seem to get right.

Not a reflection of whether or not registration might work in the US. See Switzerland for an example of working registration.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. First you have to get the gun used in the crime.

That is actually somewhat rare as criminals tend to dispose of guns after they kill someone with them.So it rarely helps solve a crime.

[jazzhound]

41. Telling indeed.

They don't want to expose how little they know on the subject, and the fact that they can't be bothered to investigate.

You'll also notice that not a single member of the pro-control membership had anything to say on the "Here's your chance -- what gun control legislation would you implement" thread.

Much like the Republican Party on the healthcare issue, the pro-control members are big on talk (saying NO!) and short on solutions.

[gorfle]

34. Most firearm crimes are committed by people who would not register firearms.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Most people - over 90% - who commit murder with firearms have extensive prior criminal backgrounds. This is probably true for people who commit other crimes with firearms also.

So what a registration program would do is create an expense and inconvenience for something like 96% of firearm owners, while doing nothing to the 4% of firearm owners who commit crimes with their firearms.

No doubt this is why Canada is considering abandoning their registration program. No good purpose is served by tracking the habits of the vast majority of firearm owners who are law abiding!

People with past serious criminal histories - those people most likely to commit crimes using firearms - can't legally own firearms today. They certainly are not going to register their firearms.

All a registry would do is prevent strawman sales to people ineligible to own firearms, which is a good thing, but there are cheaper, easier, and more convenient ways to achieve that goal.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Guns do not appear out of thin air.

They must cross the 'grey or black market' boundary by being transferred by a straw purchaser, they must be hand-made, smuggled into the country, or they must be stolen from lawful owners.

Few criminals will do the arts and crafts way, registration will help with 2 of those methods.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. So far, no one has addressed the question.

Some have been rather insulting, or sarcastic, but all have ducked the question.

How would universal registration prevent crime, or aid in solving crime after the fact?

[jazzhound]

42. A lot of my liberal friends who I'm certain would favor registration

don't draw a distinction between registration and background checks ---- they believe that no registration = no background check.

I'm guessing that interviews with DU members who don't frequent the guns forum re. gun control knowledge would produce some rather "interesting" results.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I had a fairly lengthy thread on this issue at some point, but it has expired or been deleted someho

w.

The crime registration would greatly assist with eliminating, is the illegal proliferation of weapons to ineligible recipients. Now, records are paper, and held at the FFL. If some scum is driving around buying one gun at a time, and flipping it on the black market, the 4477 at a dealer may not reveal that the person is in the common habit of doing this. Making his or her 'I didn't know I was selling it to a felon' excuse much more plausible. Only if the person doing the flipping is buying all guns from one or two FFL's, will the BATFE discover it.

Registration will help us catch people who engage specifically in straw purchasing of weapons. Beyond that, it is not terribly useful. It may have secondary benefit if a person gets a restraining order, the police know exactly what to come get. But that's just an ancillary use.

[slackmaster]

44. There is no evidence that registration helps with crime

But there is plenty of evidence that registration lists can be misused and lead to confiscation of lawfully owned property without due compensation.

[Glassunion]

48. An essay I wrote a while back...

We are doctors, lawyers, professors, police officers, construction workers, engineers, small business owners, cashiers, ambulance drivers, etc…

We are from African, European, Asian, South American, Australian and Native American descent.

We are your neighbors, your teachers, your friends.


Yet, when we make the choice to exercise a Civil Right guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights, we are deemed criminal. We are in your eyes the root cause of all of the evil in this nation. We committed no crimes, we do not hate, and we wish only to protect the lives and liberties of ourselves, our loved ones and our friends. Yet, we are labeled evil; we are accused of crimes that will never take place. We are accused of thought processes that we do not have. You don’t even know us, yet there is seemingly no end to how often you will accuse and berate us.


You claim it is for our children, you claim it is for the common good, you claim it is reasonable. I just cannot see it. You ask us to register our arms, but we know it is but a step to remove them from us. For that you label us paranoid, call us names, and deem us to be unreasonable. We are not so advanced in this world’s society that there can never be an oppressive government. “Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”- Janet Reno, US Attorney General.


Sure it starts with registration. “What good does it do to ban some guns?  All guns should be banned.”  -Howard Metzanbaum, US Senator. Then later the truth comes out as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are slowly but surely fed into the paper shredder. “I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”- Prof. Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.


But these thoughts of ours you deem to be paranoid. Surely the government would stop there. Just cross good ole number 2 off and we will call it done. They won’t take away any other civil rights. You contradict yourself when you say we are a nation of good honest people. The exception to that statement of course is the gun owner. But our own elected leaders say that we are not a nation of good honest people… “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” And… “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” Both quotes from Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States. I guess that we can cross of good ole number 4 while we are at it.


It would surely stop there you say. We should burn some of our rights at the altar of safety. We should desire to be safe, not free. Our leaders will protect us from ourselves. If they don’t we will petition them, peaceably. However, our leaders might not see it that way… “You can't say you love your country and hate your government.” Again, good ole Bill Clinton.


Perhaps I am over reacting; perhaps my point of view is wrong? Maybe the individual has no right to defend themselves from harm. As you say, we are the harm, we are the wrong. Maybe we deserve no freedom, no liberty and no justice. They are just ancient words on an ancient piece of paper that stand for nothing but an ancient, unrealistic philosophy. “I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way… Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!” George W. Bush, Former President of the Unites States.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. And a good essay it was too. N/T

[Glassunion]

50. Thanks

[spin]

55. Great essay! (n/t)

[jazzhound]

56. Nice!

:thumbsup:

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I consider this a false premise.

That there are some dirtbags that would confiscate all guns, and that there are some dirtbags that would leverage firearms registration to accomplish it are undoubtable. Clearly we can cite examples of people willing to do either or both.


That does not prove that registration is inherently bad, nor does it prove that a majority, or even a motivated minority exists that could accomplish either.

In addition to the guns that were confiscated in California for registering after the initial closure of the registry, in the extension period, they ALSO banned all unregistered AW's. They could have banned them all outright, registered or not. Registration is not required for the pro-ban crowd to run amok. With the nature of FFL transfers now, it's barely even necessary.

[Glassunion]

81. Again... I do see your point, however I would have to disagree.

The theme of the essay was just one aspect of my point of view on firearms registration. There are several other issues that I have with it. But the main point, on top of the theme of the essay, I have a concern about governmental abuse of such a registry.

Now I am almost 100% positive that you do not feel that such a registry would be available to the public. I have read your posts, and you do not seem (to me) to lean in that direction at all.

On the issue of a governmental body abusing a registry is quite possible and in my eyes very realistic. How many lists does the government keep on the people of this country right now? We have our Social Security numbers, Motor Vehicle History, Tax History, Census Info, No Fly Lists, etc... Not to mention information from private companies that can be requested by the use of an NSL.

That last bit is what bothers me the most. How hard was it for an FBI agent, via the authority of the Patriot Act, to submit a request to the Census Dept for a list of the names and addresses of all Arab Americans? How hard is it for our government to keep tabs on peaceful organizations like Quakers, librarians and Veterans For Peace? Yes, librarians. Do you realize that there are over 50,000 NSLs served every year? Hopefully under our current administration we will be able to curtail some of these abuses, but as of now, there is nothing in the near future on USPA reform.

So let's say for the sake of argument that there was a national firearms registry with 100% compliance. Sure it may curtail some of the straw purchases, but for some reason criminals have ways of side-stepping the law. If a criminal is motivated enough they will get what they want.

On the other hand, you now have a giant list of about 80 million names that are now under the scrutiny of anyone with an NSL along with all of the other lists that are compiled by the government all in the name of safety. So on a whim, an agent can compile a list of PETA members (which they already have. See ACLU.org), and who own guns. Now you have a smaller list of people that may be deemed "persons of interest" by an investigative body.

In all honesty, do you think that such a registry would be used for preventing actual crime, or would it be used mainly as a fishing hole for an investigative body?

What happens when we have another G.W.B. in office? I'm not saying that they are comin' to take my guns. What I am saying is that 100% innocent people who have never harmed anyone, nor have any inclination to do so are now subjects of investigation or monitoring all in the name of safety. I feel that it is too great a sacrifice to allow such a registry. It pains me to know of all of the other lists and registries that are currently out there. But now we are getting into a Civil Rights discussion, and there are other forums to do that in.

Thank you for the cordial and thoughtful conversation on a topic we disagree on. You raise some very good points, some of which I can say that I do not have an answer for. I do hate that there are straw purchasers out there, and that they are the major source for illegal firearms used in crimes. I do not have have a solution that I can say that would eliminate the practice. But I will say that a registry would do more harm than good to the law abiding citizens of this country.

[one-eyed fat man]

84. 4473 database

If you thought gun registration was illegal in the U.S., you would be right. But the law does not prevent the ATF from requiring gun dealers to maintain comprehensive records on gun purchasers.

The ATF is able to retain access to extensive records on law-abiding gun purchasers through a provision in federal law that requires gun dealers to keep the completed ATF gun-purchase application forms indefinitely. The yellow ATF Form 4473 is familiar to everyone who has purchased a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer. It contains a great deal of personal information that links a specific individual to a specific gun purchase, right down to the gun model and serial number.

When an FFL goes out of business, he must send all his records and 4473's to the ATF’s National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV. where those records are diligently scanned into a database. The ATF does not deny that the Form 4473 database exists, nor is it apologetic about it. The ATF firmly believes that the Form 4473 database is not gun registration. The NTC receives an average of 1.3 million out-of-business records per month. Since 1968, ATF has received several hundred million such records.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html

If a database that links the sale of specific guns by serial number to specific individuals doesn't constitute gun registration, then I don't know what does.

[guardian]

80. Answer: it won't

n/t

[RoachJeep]

83. The bullet is what kills a person, not the gun

So unless you put serial numbers on ammunition that is readable after the crime and traceable back to a specific person, registering the gun will not help.

The reason the registration on a car helps with the solving of vehicular crimes is the registration is tied to a license plate number that witnesses can read from a distance.

The serial number on a gun cannot be read unless you're the person holding the gun or close enough to be shot by the gun.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of murders by firearm are solved more on the information coming from motive than the info from means.

Unsolved murders from firearms are unsolved due to no witnesses, not because the authorities can't figure out who owns the gun used.

According to the CDC there were 30,694 firearm related deaths in 2004
There are an average of 196,000 accidental deaths in hospitals due to mistakes made by hospital staff.

Dr's have to register and they kill over six times as many people every year. Lots of good that list of Dr's is doing.

[east texas lib]

86. It would do little or nothing to curb crime...

But it sure would make the consfication crowd salivate with anticipation, wouldn't it?