Firearms registration in the US

[Wolverine]

Since we'd strayed a bit from the intended course of discussion in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17600), I thought it appropriate to create a new place for those interested in pursuing this topic.

I ask that we keep the discussion civil, and refrain from insults or other juvenile behavior that we've witnessed on other threads pertaining to firearms. Let's have a quality discussion without the nonsense, k? :)

Originally posted by Thanz
From a strictly legal perspective (not cost - what I propose would cost a ton of money) what is wrong with a system that requires registration and liscensing for firearms?

By doing so, you would be taking a constitutional right and turning it into a privilege.
How can you legally license civil rights?

The specific system I would advocate is a licence to individuals, who would be required to demonstrate proper safety in handling and storing guns in some sort of test (like a driving test) before being able to purchase a gun. The license would be firearm class specific, like a drivers licence is. Once someone has a license, they can buy a gun, which is registered in a manner similar to a car. Registration would involve the granting of some sort of part that makes the weapon operable, and this part of the gun is non-transferable. It is an individual part (like a licence plate for a car) and the person who buys a gun privately would have to prove they have the proper licence, and then register the gun to get the part.

As stated previously, driving is a privelege, while we have a right to keep and bear arms.

As noted by Guy Smith in his publication, Gun Facts (http://home.attbi.com/~guys/GunFacts32Screen.pdf):
You do not need a license to buy a car. You can buy as many as you want and drive themall you like on your own property, all without a license.

Cars are registered because they are (a) a source of tax revenue, (b) the object of fraud in some transactions, and (c) a high theft object. Thus we ask the government to track these.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear automobiles, and thus they are subject to greater regulation than guns.

There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns according to 1998 FBI statistics, and 207,754,000 automobiles according to 1998 Federal Highway Administration registrations). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council, despite cars having been registered and despite drivers having been licensed for almost 100 years.

In the scenario you mention, who would be responsible for removing/reinstalling "some sort of part" to make the weapon operable?
How would you ensure that nobody would be able to acquire the part separately, and make a gun fully functional without being registered?
How would you address the vast number of different firearm designs, makes, and models, which have different principles of operation?

As you mentioned earlier, this would cost a ton of money. Who would be responsible for picking up the tab? The government? Gun owners?

Additionally, what would be the goal of such a system?

Any accidents in the home that are due to the improper handling of the firearm would be the legal responsibility of the owner of the gun.

That's precisely the case now.
When I purchase a firearm, it's my responsibility to understand its safe operation, handling, use, etc.

I know that setting up this system would cost a bundle. But from a legal stndpoint, what is the problem with it? It does not deny someone their rights - it just regulates it.

Self-defense is an immediate issue. The waiting period in some states has caused many people that needed protection to fall victim to criminals. Requiring a license first will endanger more citizens.

Everyone has an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to defend him or herself, and no one needs a license to exercise this right. (Source.) (http://www.rkba.org/research/smith/GunControlBrochure4.pdf)

Firearms are already regulated extensively in the US, to the point that some citizens are essentially stripped of their constitutional right to keep and bear.

I don't want to get into scenarios outside of the United States; in my opinion, attempting to apply statistics or events across international borders does not bear in mind the political, cultural, and economic differences between the US and other nations (personally, I think attempts to do so represent flawed methodology). That being said...

In the US, I feel gun owners have a legitimate concern about firearms registration leading ultimately to confiscation. What has taken place in New York (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=41), for example, is the embodiment of what many fear happening in their location.

[Richard G]

Every firearms registration scheme enacted in history has led to total confiscation of those weapons.

The 2nd Amendment is not conditional upon registration, it is an unconditional right.

I will not register my weapons, nor will I surender my weapons, simply because some beurocrat says so. I am a free man, and the purpose of goverment is to serve me and my countrymen, not to enslave us, and put uneeded, burdensome yokes on our freedom.

[Skeptical Greg]

I would like for someone to explain to me, how the registration of anything, would reduce the likelihood, of said ' thing ', being used in the commission of a crime, by the person who registered it?

[corplinx]

This is really simple. Pretend we are talking about knives. Knives are the second most used killing weapon in the US.

So, why register them? Is it any business of the government if you own a knife? How will registration solve crimes? Most CNC made knives are so identical that "fingerprinting" the blade won't work?

So what does registration buy you except more government?

[Supercharts]

Before you can have wool you must have sheep.

[Incitatus]

When you buy a pistol you fill out a federal form. Every legally purchased pistol is effectively licensed.

[Lurker]

I submit that the US already restricts firearms sales so the 2nd Amendment is certainly not an absolute by any stretch of the imagination. So registering them may not offend the 2nd Amendment.

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is really simple. Pretend we are talking about knives. Knives are the second most used killing weapon in the US.


So Guns are number 3?:confused:



... Since the automobile is number 1..:D

[reprise]

I know that people from the US tend to talk as though "the right to bear arms" applies only to guns, but is that factually correct? Could the right to own items such as crossbows and swords also be afforded Constitutional protection?

[Richard G]

When you buy a pistol you fill out a federal form. Every legally purchased pistol is effectively licensed.

Wrong. You fill out a NICS form, for the FBI, to see if you are a convicted criminal. No information regarding the firearm is on this form, and by law, the form must be destroyed within 24 hours of the purchase.

A PRIVATE record is required by law to be kept by any firearms dealer. He keeps the record, not the goverment. The serial numbers of all weapons he has in inventory for sale must be kept in the "hard back book". And a seperate one is needed for his personal firearms. Names and addresss of buyers are logged when a sale is made. This is only available to the authorities through the use of a warrant, so unwarrented snooping on firearms owners does not happen without the approval of a judge.

I submit that the US already restricts firearms sales so the 2nd Amendment is certainly not an absolute by any stretch of the imagination. So registering them may not offend the 2nd Amendment.

Firearms laws and restrictions apply to those who are not allowed to own firearms. (criminals, mentaly disabled, etc.).

Registration would only affect those who are allowed to own weapons legaly. And get this: Criminals are protected under the 5th Amendment, and would not legaly be required to register their weapons. (Not that they would do it anyway)

Could the right to own items such as crossbows and swords also be afforded Constitutional protection?

Absolutely. Although you will be arrested in most cities and state for carrying a blade over 6 inches in length, and I don't think anyone wants to lug around a 6 foot longbow all day. Tacticly, they are useless against someone with a firearm though.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is really simple. Pretend we are talking about knives. Knives are the second most used killing weapon in the US.

So, why register them? Is it any business of the government if you own a knife? How will registration solve crimes? Most CNC made knives are so identical that "fingerprinting" the blade won't work?

So what does registration buy you except more government?

It is more than that. Knives and guns are "penetrating" weapons. Feminists don't have a problem with penetrating knives because they use them for working with food. It would drive feminists crazy if they had to register their knives, but feminists fear all other types of penetration. Plus, knives can slice, so feminists look the other way about them. If men put sharp edges on guns, maybe it would confuse feminists about them for a time.

Now, guns to feminists are a different story entirely. First, you must include the feminist fear of penetration because guns penetrate, so you know right there that guns are evil to the feminists. Then, guns can't be used for food the way feminists use them for food, and what makes them even more evil is that that guns penetrate animals to gather food. Since many feminists are aligned with organizations that believe animals have more rights than humans, it is natural for them to try and stop those with less rights (human males) from killing them with guns.

When the radical left thinks gun control they do not think about the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. No way. That is a big handicap for pro-gun people too, thinking that feminists and the radical left thinks about the US Constitution.

The radical left killed the Constitution in the 1960's and 1970's and beyond. Feminists don't even think about the US Constitution anymore because in their groupthink they are already trained that it is dead, "white guy" document that they can disobey at will and be rewarded for disobeying it. Remember, the gun control lobby wants to remake America into something new (something very bad), not empower the US Constitution.

JK

[Skeptical Greg]

:rolleyes:

[Lemastre]

Anything that can be used as a weapon is an arm; so I guess U.S. residents can constitutionally own howitzers, bazookas, 50mm cannon, etc., along with their pistols and rifles. I'm not sure how self-propelled weaponry, such as tanks and aircraft, would fit. Obviously, bows and arrows, lances, crossbows, etc. are not sufficiently lethal to be worthy of concern to most of those who have Amendment II tatooed on their chests.

On contemplating Amendment II, I can see where allowing the makers and sellers of arms to charge money for them, thereby depriving less affluent persons of the ability to possess all they might want, may in fact be unconstitutional infringement. Whether this is the case may depend on the "right" to possess something being considered synonymous with the ability to do so.

[Wolverine]

BTW, in the interest of citing the source ... here's the NICS Fact Sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top).

The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

[Wolverine]

:rolleyes: Gee, Jedi, thanks for abiding by my request in the opening post.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wolverine
:rolleyes: Gee, Jedi, thanks for abiding by my request in the opening post.

Hey, no problem friend. It is important to know who is actually going after the guns and the psychology behind it, right?

JK

[schplurg]

First of all, I'm pro-gun for the most part, though I'm not a gun enthusiast.

Just because owning a gun is a right, doesn't mean that right can't be taken away. For instance, ex-felons cannot own guns. Should they be allowed to own guns, since it's their "right" according to the Constitution?

As far as comparing automobiles to guns...I know the gun enthusiasts love to do this, but it doesn't hold water. Sure I can own a car without having a license and drive it on my own property (though it must still be registered). However, I can't kill my neighbor across the street while he's watching TV with my car (not easily), but with a gun, one accidental pulling of the trigger, from my own property, could. Cars are "safe" when they are sitting in your own garage, or being used on your own property, guns are not. Bullets can go through a wall in your house, through your neighbors wall, and into his head, or a child's head. Cars and guns are not comparable.

I just read an article in which someone is arguing against being licensed to "operate a gun".

Who determines the course content? When is it given? Only once a year, 400 miles away from your home, and there's only room for 10 people? Oh well, you're out of luck. Oh, you got in, but you can't pay the $4000 it costs for the course? Oh, well, you're poor, so you're out of luck. What about the questions on the test? Who determines those? How many can you get wrong? You mean you don't know how many grains of powder are in a Federal Hydra-shok .45ACP cartridge? You fail.
Whoever wrote that is obviously an idiot, but the arguements are familiar. How much does it cost to get an auto license...ten bucks? How easy is it to pass the test? Just look at all the "idiots" driving cars on the road and you'll have your answer. As I said, I am pro-gun, but the arguements that some of the pro-gun crowd use are ridiculous. And by the way, most states already require a person to have a special permit (license) to actually carry a gun, right? :p

I think the law states that every handgun purchased, as of now, must be registered. I'm not sure this is true for all guns or states. New laws probably don't need to be applied, but the existing ones need to be enforced. Having a gun registered may make it easier to track the original owner of a gun used in a crime. Consider the recent incident regarding Sean Penn's stolen car. He had two guns inside the car. He had a permit to carry a gun on his person, but leaving them in your car like that (according to the stories I read) is illegal, not to mention stupid. Suppose these guns were used an hour later in a murder. Should Mr. Penn be held accountable to some degree? If the guns aren't registered in his name, then he can't be.

I believe that guns should be registered and that a simple test (at least) should be taken before you can buy or use one. In California a written test is required before purchase (again this may just be for handguns).

Do people think that just because their guns are registered that the government will someday come in and say "Hey, give us all your guns!"? My answer to them..."Sorry they were stolen yesterday, I don't have them. I was going to report it." I sure as hell wouldn't just give my guns away if I felt the government was going beyond its limits. And if they went way beyond their limits and were forcibly searching peoples homes, then I would use that gun to protect myself from the government, which seems to be the main reason the constitution contains the 2nd Ammendment (from my cold dead fingers, etc).

I think the pro-gun crowd often shoots itself in the foot (hah) with some of the ridiculous arguements and stances they have held in the past. If they had someone representing them with as much logic and common sense as they have passion for guns, they might have an easier time.

[reprise]

Does the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed under the US Constitution prevent the individual states from making laws which might restrict that right? Or do the states have the power to pass laws in respect of whether concealed weapons are allowed, what kinds of weapons one is allowed to own, etc? How does the Constitutional right to bear arms interact with domestic violence laws, for example (in my state, a firearms licence is revoked if an apprehended violence order is issued against the licence holder, the rationale being that if a court has found sufficient grounds for issuing an order to protect a person from being harmed by the licence holder, the licence holder is probably no longer fit to hold that licence)?

[Ian Osborne]

The second amendment refers to a 'Well regulated militia'. Could those regulations include registration of weapons? I don't know enough about your constitution to form an opinion, but I'm genuinely interested in what American pro-gun folks think about this.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The second amendment refers to a 'Well regulated militia'. Could those regulations include registration of weapons? I don't know enough about your constitution to form an opinion, but I'm genuinely interested in what American pro-gun folks think about this.

You are parceling out the 2nd Amendment so it fits your gun-grabbing logic.

A "well-regulated" militia defines government's responsibility to give all the citizens guns if they want them--government must ensure the citizens have access to arms and if the citizen can't afford them then government is supposed to buy them for the citizen. That fits with "the right of the "people" to bear arms shall not be infringed". If there is regulation, there is "infringment"--so the "well-regulated" means the opposite of what you are thinking--government giving guns to "the people" rather than taking them away, as most leftists believe or try to get others to believe.

JK

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You are parceling out the 2nd Amendment so it fits your gun-grabbing logic.

JK, if you want to abandon all civility and just have a flame session, go start your own thread on the subject and stop polluting this one with such juvenile statements. I'm really looking for quality discussion here, and thus far you've brought presicely zero to the table.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The second amendment refers to a 'Well regulated militia'. Could those regulations include registration of weapons? I don't know enough about your constitution to form an opinion, but I'm genuinely interested in what American pro-gun folks think about this.

As noted by Smith in the work cited previously:
The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".

Based upon this historical context, "regulated" has a different meaning than in the question you've posed; in a nutshell, the answer is no. :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by reprise
Does the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed under the US Constitution prevent the individual states from making laws which might restrict that right? Or do the states have the power to pass laws in respect of whether concealed weapons are allowed, what kinds of weapons one is allowed to own, etc?

States each have their own constitutions, and some are rather different from others concerning the 2nd Amendment.

New York, ironically, echoes the 2nd Amendment almost verbatim:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

Texas:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Colorado:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Florida gets rather specific:
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c). . . anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun."


How does the Constitutional right to bear arms interact with domestic violence laws...

This has some variance from state to state (depending on specific nature of licensing, e.g. concealed weapons permits) however there is Federal law which states the following:
18 USC 922(d)(8 & 9)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

(8) - is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -

(A) - was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i) - includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) - by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) - has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[reprise]

Thank you for the clarifications, and also from not making the assumption that because I live in a nation with strict gun control provisions that I necessarily believe every other country on the planet should adopt our model.

[Richard G]

The second amendment refers to a 'Well regulated militia'. Could those regulations include registration of weapons?

"Well regulated", in old english means trained, not regulated. Yes, States do retain the right to control the manner in which firearms are carried, but they cannot prohibit it.

"Permit" systems ensure the person is properly trained. But registering their firearms has nothing to do with training, and is irrelevant in that regard.

Registration is in effect in New York, and to date it has not solved one crime, or prevented one.

There is only one practical purpose for firearm registration; to allow the goverment to know who, and where, the law abiding gun owners are so they may later confiscate them.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by schplurg
First of all, I'm pro-gun for the most part, though I'm not a gun enthusiast.

Just because owning a gun is a right, doesn't mean that right can't be taken away. For instance, ex-felons cannot own guns. Should they be allowed to own guns, since it's their "right" according to the Constitution?


If someone is an "ex-felon" then there shouldn't be a problem since they are no longer a criminal.

The problem is, most felons commit more felonies later on. If we would just execute 2nd time felons, we wouldn't have to worry about denying someone who has made one mistake their right to vote or their right to bear arms.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
Just because owning a gun is a right, doesn't mean that right can't be taken away. For instance, ex-felons cannot own guns. Should they be allowed to own guns, since it's their "right" according to the Constitution?

Darn fine question. Honestly I'm somewhat on the fence. While folks like shanek here on the board have presented rather compelling arguments as to why once a criminal has paid their debt their rights should be restored, I tend to look at the rates of criminal recidivism for violent offenders and think it's a really bad idea to allow them to own firearms once they've committed a felony -- after all, that was their decision, and they should have to face the consequences. I'd have to give the issue more thought before reaching a truly informed conclusion.

As far as comparing automobiles to guns...I know the gun enthusiasts love to do this, but it doesn't hold water. Sure I can own a car without having a license and drive it on my own property (though it must still be registered). However, I can't kill my neighbor across the street while he's watching TV with my car (not easily), but with a gun, one accidental pulling of the trigger, from my own property, could. Cars are "safe" when they are sitting in your own garage, or being used on your own property, guns are not. Bullets can go through a wall in your house, through your neighbors wall, and into his head, or a child's head. Cars and guns are not comparable.

I'm not sure if Thanz is a gun enthusiast or not, but he introduced the comparison between firearms and automobiles, which I pursued in context.

I think the law states that every handgun purchased, as of now, must be registered. I'm not sure this is true for all guns or states.

There are 9 states which mandate handgun registration. If you're interested in learning more, this (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state) is an excellent resource.

Having a gun registered may make it easier to track the original owner of a gun used in a crime.

As I posted in the previous thread, John Lott demonstrates otherwise (http://www.tsra.com/Lott25.htm):

In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. But, amazingly, despite police spending tens of thousands of man hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules), as well as in big urban areas with similar laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., there is not even a single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who has committed a crime.

Consider the recent incident regarding Sean Penn's stolen car. He had two guns inside the car. He had a permit to carry a gun on his person, but leaving them in your car like that (according to the stories I read) is illegal, not to mention stupid. Suppose these guns were used an hour later in a murder. Should Mr. Penn be held accountable to some degree? If the guns aren't registered in his name, then he can't be.

Penn should be held accountable for not obeying the law concerning carry procedures related to his permit (although I'm not certain, I think his negligence is grounds to have it revoked), but he surely shouldn't be held accountable for any damages possibly resulting from the theft, should those handguns be used in a crime. By having filed a police report on the incident, and providing the officers with the serial numbers on both firearms, the police can trace the weapons if they're ever recovered. If the police had wanted to press charges against Penn or revoke his permit, they could have already done so, and without registration.

I believe that guns should be registered and that a simple test (at least) should be taken before you can buy or use one. In California a written test is required before purchase (again this may just be for handguns).

I respectfully disagree. Firearms ownership and compliance with the law (as well as safety education) should be personal responsibilities. Those that fail to abide by the law or commit irresponsible acts should be prosecuted accordingly. All gun owners should not be penalized for the boneheaded behavior of a fraction of the population. I would contend that effective law enforcement would yield far more benefit, without restricting rights, raising costs, or creating more needless bureaucracy.

Do people think that just because their guns are registered that the government will someday come in and say "Hey, give us all your guns!"?

To a certain extent, yes, and not without precedent. Did you read about what transpired with gun registration in New York? (The article's linked in the first post on this thread.)


I think the pro-gun crowd often shoots itself in the foot (hah) with some of the ridiculous arguements and stances they have held in the past.

I'd be curious to hear an example, just for grins. :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by reprise
Thank you for the clarifications, and also from not making the assumption that because I live in a nation with strict gun control provisions that I necessarily believe every other country on the planet should adopt our model.

My pleasure. :)

I'm still hopeful that everyone can pursue rational exchanges on this subject without going for each others' throats.
Things are looking pretty good so far. ;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wolverine


JK, if you want to abandon all civility and just have a flame session, go start your own thread on the subject and stop polluting this one with such juvenile statements. I'm really looking for quality discussion here, and thus far you've brought presicely zero to the table.



As noted by Smith in the work cited previously:


Based upon this historical context, "regulated" has a different meaning than in the question you've posed; in a nutshell, the answer is no. :)

Looky here wolv, if someone uses 1/2 of the Amendment when they promote anti-gun rhetoric, they have to be called on it. Civility doesn't have anything to do with it (and my post was civil ;)).

The mistake people make with the 2nd Amendment is that they think it is designed for an army. They see the words "well-regulated militia" and think the US Army. Not true. An army contains "soldiers" and falls under laws that are different than "the people".

The "rights of the the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"--that does not say: "the rights of the army shall not be infringed". Why on Earth would the smartest men the world has ever seen in the history of mankind make an amendment to form a federal army and ensure they had the right to bear arms?!?!

It is ludicrous and that is all I am saying so no need to get nervous because I am not flaming anyone--just pointing out the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, an Amendment by the forefathers to ensure that government ensured every citizen got a gun and was trained on how to use it.

So when does the government buy me a gun, lol?!? You know, a genius could take my idea and turn the 2nd Amendment debate into something pretty exciting.

JK

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Looky here wolv, if someone uses 1/2 of the Amendment when they promote anti-gun rhetoric, they have to be called on it. Civility doesn't have anything to do with it (and my post was civil ;)).

*sigh*

Ian asked a legitimate question about the 2nd Amendment and its scope/interpretation. He didn't use any anti-gun rhetoric, yet you provided him with a smarmy, condescending reply -- which does nothing whatsoever to bolster your position.

IIRC, Ian does have a bit of a different view on firearms ownership, to which he's certainly entitled. He approached this matter with a genuine intrerest, so, ya think you could put down the Leftist Stalinist Matriarchal Totalitarianism script for a while in the interest of having a constructive discussion?

I agree that are many misconceptions about firearms in general as well as the 2nd Amendment, although I'd really prefer not getting into the collective/individual rights issue if at all possible -- let's try and stick to the topic of registration. If people really want to discuss that aspect perhaps we could go there, but last time I saw it attempted the results were ugly.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The second amendment refers to a 'Well regulated militia'. Could those regulations include registration of weapons? . . . The clause introducing Amendment II is a statement of fact cited as the reason for allowing ownership of arms. The logic of the amendment seems to require that you first prove the militia is no longer needed before you can contest the right to bear arms. This may nvolve defining "militia" as it relates to "the people" since the two may no longer be synonymous.

[Dancing David]

Would like to point out that the argument that registration would not work because it doesn't work in a single state seems flawed. Sure you need to register your gun in New York , so you go to a state that doesn't allow registration and purchase one there and take it to New York.
My point on registration is this: we have all these unregulated guns out there, many of them are in the hands of juveniles and others who most likely should not have them.(This is a point of debate). I believe that the registration of firearms would help (Notice not stop) the flow of illegal firearms.
What would those who oppose registration propose, that would stop juviniles in any large city from purchasing a hand gun.

I would also like to point out a major gap in certain peoples reasoning: namely the constitution garantees the right to bear arms does it not. Many states and municipalities will not allow you to bear a knife over a certain length and many will not allow you to carry a sword or spear.

On the domestic violence issue: It is currently a Federal law that someone who has an extended order of protection can not have a FOID card. (The problem being that is does not require the surrender of weapons)

Thank You Wolverine!

Peace
dancing david

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wolverine


*sigh*

Ian asked a legitimate question about the 2nd Amendment and its scope/interpretation. He didn't use any anti-gun rhetoric, yet you provided him with a smarmy, condescending reply -- which does nothing whatsoever to bolster your position.

IIRC, Ian does have a bit of a different view on firearms ownership, to which he's certainly entitled. He approached this matter with a genuine intrerest, so, ya think you could put down the Leftist Stalinist Matriarchal Totalitarianism script for a while in the interest of having a constructive discussion?

I agree that are many misconceptions about firearms in general as well as the 2nd Amendment, although I'd really prefer not getting into the collective/individual rights issue if at all possible -- let's try and stick to the topic of registration. If people really want to discuss that aspect perhaps we could go there, but last time I saw it attempted the results were ugly.

Come on Wolv, listen to what you are saying. The "well-regulated" militia selective interpetation of the 2nd Amendment is the backbone of the gun grab lobby's agenda. They conveniently ignore the full Amendment and pull just a few words out of it and then spin it to mean 21st century definitions of the word "regulated".

There should be no firearm regulation whatsoever in the United States. None. That doesn't mean people should be able to go out and buy rocket launchers, but it does mean that pistols and rifles should be free of any government regulation to any degree. That is what the 2nd Amendment states.

That said, my reply is not condescending. It is simply understanding and properly quoting from and defining the 2nd Amendment. Sorry if it wasn't meant to be what you thought it was.

JK

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My point on registration is this: we have all these unregulated guns out there

All guns are regulated, unless you define regulated different than most people. Please elaborate on your definition.

I believe that the registration of firearms would help (Notice not stop) the flow of illegal firearms.


How?

What would those who oppose registration propose, that would stop juviniles in any large city from purchasing a hand gun.

It's already illegal for a juvenile to legally purchase a handgun.

On the domestic violence issue: It is currently a Federal law that someone who has an extended order of protection can not have a FOID card.

Here you are mixing federal law (Lautenberg amendment) and state law (Illinois FOID law). This is also a perfect example of how licensing and registration is used to effectively reduce or outright ban gun ownership

For example, in Chicago, (IIRC) guns are technically legal and must be registered, but I think they stopped letting people register their guns around 1982. Since then, it has been illegal to possess an unregistered gun in Chicago. You can purchase a gun with an FOID outside of Chicago, but can't legally bring it back. Only guns that were registered as of 1982 can be re-registered. A nifty way of banning firearms by changing the requirements of licensing and registration.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
There should be no firearm regulation whatsoever in the United States. None. That doesn't mean people should be able to go out and buy rocket launchers
:rolleyes:




You do indeed recall correctly, Wolverine - I do indeed have views on guns that's very different to your own and JKs, but as this thread is about firearms registration in the US, not gun rights in general, it would be inappropriate to share them here. And I won't be baited by Jedi Knight into starting a flame war.

I thank you (and several others) for offering a serious answer to my serious question.

[Tmy]

We have all sorts of rights, but none of them are absolute.

We have freedom of religion but its not unlimited. I cant smoke peytote and sacrifice live pandas in my front yard, even if thats part of my religion. We have freedom of speech, but I cant yell outside the mayors window at 2:00am.

Registering can be a safety measure by the state.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Would like to point out that the argument that registration would not work because it doesn't work in a single state seems flawed.

In the case of New York (City, by the way), I was illustrating a legitimate concern many gun owners have -- that registration ultimitely leads to confiscation.

If you're referring to the article I posted by John Lott, he has demonstrated not in one place, but three of the nation's larger cities (all of which have pronounced rates of firearms crime), that registration has failed to help identify criminals or deter gun crime. How is that a flawed conclusion?

Sure you need to register your gun in New York , so you go to a state that doesn't allow registration and purchase one there and take it to New York.

That would be illegal.


I believe that the registration of firearms would help (Notice not stop) the flow of illegal firearms.

I too would like to know how.

What would those who oppose registration propose, that would stop juviniles in any large city from purchasing a hand gun.

Simple: enforcement. It's already illegal for juveniles to purchase firearms, period -- handguns and otherwise. We seem to have a consistent problem holding those who violate the law accountable for their actions, and due to weak enforcement and sentencing, we're not sending a message strong enough to deter violations.

Example: Mark Manes, an individual who illegally sold one of the weapons used in the Columbine shootings to the perpetrators, was eligible for an 18-year sentence. Despite the judge's findings that Manes "had a history of ignoring rules of law," he was only sentenced (http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/13/columbine.manes.01/) to six years in prison on that charge.

Phillip Duran, who worked with the Columbine shooters, "allegedly introduced them to Manes and allegedly was involved in the brokering of the TEC-9 for Harris and Klebold. He was charged with unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun as well as a charge of possession of a dangerous or illegal weapon. He was also charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
...
If Duran is convicted of all three counts, he could be sentenced up to 12 years to the Colorado Department of Corrections."
(Source.) (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/MAFIA_TEXT.htm)

Duran received a sentence of 4.5 years. (Source.) (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/731934/detail.html.)

I would also like to point out a major gap in certain peoples reasoning: namely the constitution garantees the right to bear arms does it not. Many states and municipalities will not allow you to bear a knife over a certain length and many will not allow you to carry a sword or spear.

There are municipalities such as Washington D.C. which prohibit handgun ownership entirely. This reflects infringement of citizens' constitutional right to keep and bear arms, not that the constitution does not guarantee said rights. If you could provide any court findings or other interpretations which validate your position, please do so.

On the domestic violence issue: It is currently a Federal law that someone who has an extended order of protection can not have a FOID card. (The problem being that is does not require the surrender of weapons)

As noted by another poster who has once again replied faster than myself ;), it appears you are confusing federal and state law.

For those who may not be familiar, the State of Illinois requires that citizens apply to the Illinois State Police for a Firearms Ownership Identification Card (FOID) (http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearms.cfm) in order to purchase/possess firearms and ammunition. Illinois gun laws may be viewed here (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=Detail&R=IL).

*** Edited to add a forgotten URL.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by John Harrison
For example, in Chicago, (IIRC) guns are technically legal and must be registered, but I think they stopped letting people register their guns around 1982. Since then, it has been illegal to possess an unregistered gun in Chicago. You can purchase a gun with an FOID outside of Chicago, but can't legally bring it back. Only guns that were registered as of 1982 can be re-registered. A nifty way of banning firearms by changing the requirements of licensing and registration.

FYI:
In Chicago it is unlawful to keep any firearm unless it has been registered with the Chicago Police at Daley Center. All firearms brought into the city must be registered. The registration certificate (valid for 1 year) must be carried simultaneously with the firearm, and exhibited upon demand of any police officer. Handguns may not be registered after 1982. So-called assault firearms may not be registered.

You're correct on date and methodology, but the 1982 registration cutoff applied only to handguns. Still, an absolutely despicable practice... I'm glad I moved from Chicago many years ago.

*** Edited for silly grammatical error.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lemastre
This may nvolve defining "militia" as it relates to "the people" since the two may no longer be synonymous.

Although I had wanted to refrain from exploring the individual/collective issue concerning the 2nd Amendment, after further review, I suppose it can bear relevance to the registration issue. It has been a source of confusion for some.

It's rather simple, actually:

10 U.S.C. § 311(a)

Militia: composition and classes

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Additionally:

The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.

...

And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person. (Source.) (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm)

More recently:
There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. (Source.) (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been consistently affirmed as an individual, not a collective right, or something intended to arm the National Guard.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Wolverine


FYI:


You're correct on date and methodology, but the 1982 registration cutoff applied only to handguns. Still, an absolutely despicable practice... I'm glad I moved from Chicago many years ago.

*** Edited for silly grammatical error.

Argh! :o I stand corrected.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

:rolleyes:




You do indeed recall correctly, Wolverine - I do indeed have views on guns that's very different to your own and JKs, but as this thread is about firearms registration in the US, not gun rights in general, it would be inappropriate to share them here. And I won't be baited by Jedi Knight into starting a flame war.

I thank you (and several others) for offering a serious answer to my serious question.

OK, so you just quoted the core of the anti-gun lobby's argument for banning guns and you expected people to precognitively know what was on your mind when you did it. :rolleyes:

JK

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I thank you (and several others) for offering a serious answer to my serious question.

Anytime, sir.

By the way, I came across this bit on another developing story, and thought it might offer further insight into your original question.

FWIW:
The phrase "the people" appears in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments and has always been interpreted to refer to individuals, according to Professor Nelson Lund of the George Mason University School of Law. Lund told CNSNews.com that - based merely on the plain reading of the words of the amendment - Levy's "individual rights" interpretation is the correct one.

"That's exactly what it means," Lund said. "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

He explained that the purpose of the amendment was to prohibit the federal government from disarming citizens "under the pretense of regulating the militia."

"The main clause of the Second Amendment - 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' - means exactly the same thing that it would mean even if the preface were not there," Lund continued. (Source.) (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200304\CUL20 030417a.html)

This situation in Washington D.C. is going to be interesting to say the least. I'm consumed with curiosity to see how the complaints (http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/dc_case.pdf) are received.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Thanz
From a strictly legal perspective (not cost - what I propose would cost a ton of money) what is wrong with a system that requires registration and liscensing for firearms?

Even without considering the cost, I do not understand precisely what is gained with this system. I am unsure how such a system would reduce accidental deaths involving firearms or significantly reduce the number of crimes committed with firearms. Criminals often obtain their guns illegally so requiring law abiding citizens to go through some additional licensing procedure does not increase the nation's safety.


The specific system I would advocate is a licence to individuals, who would be required to demonstrate proper safety in handling and storing guns in some sort of test (like a driving test) before being able to purchase a gun. The license would be firearm class specific, like a drivers licence is. Once someone has a license, they can buy a gun, which is registered in a manner similar to a car. Registration would involve the granting of some sort of part that makes the weapon operable, and this part of the gun is non-transferable. It is an individual part (like a licence plate for a car) and the person who buys a gun privately would have to prove they have the proper licence, and then register the gun to get the part.

When a thief steals one of these new guns, the thief will steal the critical part as well.

Are you suggesting that all existing guns be retrofitted or destroyed?

Isn't it possible that such a law involving non-transferrable parts required for operation would simply stop firearms makers from selling guns in the U.S. The manufacturing and liablity costs might rise to the point that domestic manufacturers would simply continue making the guns without such a part and then sell them overseas (or go out of business).

[corplinx]

Currently we do not register firearms. I think the burden of proof is not on anti-registration but on the people who want it. I think one of the rhetoric problems is that it seems anti-registration people are always asked "why not" when the proper question is "why should we?" and should be directed at those who want registration.

[gnome]

I can think of a plausible scenario where registration of firearms could benefit law enforcement in a way unrelated to confiscating firearms... it gives you a lead.

Someone gets murdered and they find the gun. It is registered to a homeowner in another state. They call over there and find out that the homeowner's gun was stolen in a burglary. Now they can combine the evidence of both crimes to help find the murderer.

I would not be opposed to a private system (like the one already described where gun dealers have to keep records and can release them to a court ordered warrant) that let police trace a gun on an individual basis without owning the entire registration database...

Could that be a fair compromise?

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by gnome
I can think of a plausible scenario where registration of firearms could benefit law enforcement in a way unrelated to confiscating firearms... it gives you a lead.

Someone gets murdered and they find the gun. It is registered to a homeowner in another state. They call over there and find out that the homeowner's gun was stolen in a burglary. Now they can combine the evidence of both crimes to help find the murderer.

I would not be opposed to a private system (like the one already described where gun dealers have to keep records and can release them to a court ordered warrant) that let police trace a gun on an individual basis without owning the entire registration database...

Could that be a fair compromise?

The system that is already in place can solve the scenario you described. For example: Police find the gun at the crime scene (I assume you mean with the criminal since guns are rarely just "left" at the scene of the crime), the police get a warrant and give the serial # to the manufacturer who tracks it to the wholesaler/retailer, then to the original buyer, etc. This totally ignores the idea that the criminal may actually just tell the police where he got the gun in the first place.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by gnome


Someone gets murdered and they find the gun.

What an inept crook. He probably left his fingerprints on it to boot. This is a very marginal hypothetical.

[schplurg]

quote from me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as comparing automobiles to guns...I know the gun enthusiasts love to do this, but it doesn't hold water. Sure I can own a car without having a license and drive it on my own property (though it must still be registered). However, I can't kill my neighbor across the street while he's watching TV with my car (not easily), but with a gun, one accidental pulling of the trigger, from my own property, could. Cars are "safe" when they are sitting in your own garage, or being used on your own property, guns are not. Bullets can go through a wall in your house, through your neighbors wall, and into his head, or a child's head. Cars and guns are not comparable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wolverine:
I'm not sure if Thanz is a gun enthusiast or not, but he introduced the comparison between firearms and automobiles, which I pursued in context.

I was referring to the author of the article I quoted, not to Thanz. The whole cars vs guns comparison in general doesn't work for me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. But, amazingly, despite police spending tens of thousands of man hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules), as well as in big urban areas with similar laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., there is not even a single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who has committed a crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find that very hard to believe.

Registration doesn't have to solve a crime to be useful, although it could help. In th above hypothetical scenario (few posts back) where a murderer left a gun at the crime scene...yeah that's a stretch maybe, but what if the gun was ditched in a field and later found? Murder weapons are found quite often. The gun is believed to have been used in this crime due to forensics or some other evidence, then traced back to the owner who had it stolen a few days earlier in a home robbery. The burglar has been found, providing a lead in the murder case. Are you telling me that something similar to this has never happened? Maybe I'll do some research later.

Since this particular gun was originally bought at a gun show from an unlicensed "dealer", there is no record of the purchase to trace. The gun is traceable thru registration.

This example isn't perfect, but it shows, to me anyways, that registering a gun can have positive benefits. The main negative result of registering that I'm aware of is that the gov will come and take all of our guns. As I said before, if this started happening I would simply file a stolen gun report and hide my guns(s). If the gov was totally out of control and knocking down doors, I would consider using my gun, if push came to shove. Many other people would too IMO. Certainly many of these gun enthusiasts would in such an extreme case. Registration or not, I don't think people would just lie down in such a situation...a situation which is possible, yet pretty far fetched.

Could Sean Penn, having left his guns in his car, be considered criminally negligent if they are subsequently used in a crime? Like a parent would be found negligent if a child found a gun in a closet and shot himself? Honest question, I'm far from being a lawyer :)

In response to me stating that a test should be required to be able to own a gun.

I respectfully disagree. Firearms ownership and compliance with the law (as well as safety education) should be personal responsibilities. Those that fail to abide by the law or commit irresponsible acts should be prosecuted accordingly. All gun owners should not be penalized for the boneheaded behavior of a fraction of the population. I would contend that effective law enforcement would yield far more benefit, without restricting rights, raising costs, or creating more needless bureaucracy.
I agree that the last thing we need is more bureaucracy, but I think a test should be required to own a gun. I don't see how that "penalizes" gun owners. Guns are dangerous in a unique way. A knife or a baseball bat can both be used as weapons. But killing someone accidentally with either, especially from a distance, is very difficult. With a gun, I can accidentally shoot someone down the street from the comfort of my own home. A negligent or uninstructed gun owner is very dangerous to him/herself, and the public. So is a negligent or uninstructed automobile driver. The risk of injury to others is very high in a car, which is why we must pass a (pretty damn simple) test in order to drive on public roads. Cars aren't dangerous to others when used on your own property, but a gun can be. That's the difference. Even if you have a gun on your own property, you still can't fire it in incorporated areas. Owning a gun is dangerous to the public at all times, even on your own property. Therefore, like a car, a license to operate should be required for public safety, if nothing else.

I think allowing people to buy a gun with no instruction is irresponsible. Why wait for people to make a deadly mistake when a simple gun safety test could help eliminate a lot of accidents? One test, one time. I don't see a big problem with that.


me:
I think the pro-gun crowd often shoots itself in the foot (hah) with some of the ridiculous arguements and stances they have held in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be curious to hear an example, just for grins. :)
I'll have to get back to you on that...it's sunday man! I'll say that the NRA is fairly moderate compared to other organizations. I'll dig up some goodies for y'all :)

I could be persuaded to change my mind on registration ...but licensing / testing? I just remain unconvinced that passing a mandatory safety test is a bad thing.

Good discussion!

[Gem]

*flame on*
Cowards... Grab your sword and fight like real barbarians!
*flame off*
A very interesting topic. Probably the biggest problem in registration waiting periods is people who need a gun right now. How are they going to get protection? We can't mind sweep people and see what their thoughts and desires are.

I don't have a link for this, but I saw a documentary on guns, and there is this one guy who bought assault rifles in the US (in the hundreds) and sold them to countries in latin america. Anyone has any info on this? I mean... assault rifles! In the hundreds...

And here's an interesting question for pro gunners: How is having handguns/shotguns going to save you from a SWAT team/snipers assaulting your house?
I hear these people are good marksman.

Gem

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Gem
*flame on*

I love the Fantastic Four! ;)

Probably the biggest problem in registration waiting periods...

Waiting periods and firearms registration are actually two separate issues.

...is people who need a gun right now. How are they going to get protection?

That's one of the reasons I'm opposed to waiting periods being imposed on purchases. I see no logical reason why law-abiding citizens who meet the criteria for purchase/ownership should be deprived of an immediate means with which to defend themselves.

I don't have a link for this, but I saw a documentary on guns, and there is this one guy who bought assault rifles in the US (in the hundreds) and sold them to countries in latin america. Anyone has any info on this? I mean... assault rifles! In the hundreds...

I'm not familiar with this, personally. Do you remember the title of the program, or on what station it aired? On a side note, you have to be careful with many of these gun documentaries -- most I've ever seen are geared to invoke an emotional response in the viewer rather than address factual material objectively.

And here's an interesting question for pro gunners: How is having handguns/shotguns going to save you from a SWAT team/snipers assaulting your house?
I hear these people are good marksman.

As a law-abiding citizen, I can see no reason why a SWAT team would ever show up to assault my house. I'm a somewhat of a marksman myself, but that likely wouldn't do me much good against multiple attackers brandishing automatic weapons. ;)

[GrapeJ713]

To my knowledge, Vermont is the only state that doesn't require a special liscence to carry a firearm, concealed or not. I'm sure Vermonts crime rates are much lower per capita than any other place. The only way you can defend shall-carry (easy to aquire) concealed carry permits is the 'well regulated' part of the preamble to the second amendment. Most gun freedom supporters people say the preamble is irrelevant, just flowery language used at the time.
I challenge anyone to show me one place in America that is anti gun freedom that has a lower crime rate per capita than a place that has shall carry permits available and follows the constitution fairly closely.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
I was referring to the author of the article I quoted, not to Thanz. The whole cars vs guns comparison in general doesn't work for me.

Ah, my mistake. I was unable to discern that.

In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. But, amazingly, despite police spending tens of thousands of man hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules), as well as in big urban areas with similar laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., there is not even a single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who has committed a crime.

I find that very hard to believe.

John Lott is not in the habit of conjuring statistics out of thin air. ;) He's researched gun control issues extensively, and has written two books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Lott%2C%20John%20R.%2C%20Jr./002-9079036-0524857) on the subject, including More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html). I've not seen any information which refutes his above statement.

Registration doesn't have to solve a crime to be useful, although it could help. In th above hypothetical scenario (few posts back) where a murderer left a gun at the crime scene...yeah that's a stretch maybe, but what if the gun was ditched in a field and later found? Murder weapons are found quite often. The gun is believed to have been used in this crime due to forensics or some other evidence, then traced back to the owner who had it stolen a few days earlier in a home robbery. The burglar has been found, providing a lead in the murder case.

In all honesty, you've stretched your stretch. ;)
As noted by John Harrison in his last post, registration is not necessary in order for law enforcement to trace a firearm. The record-keeping process already mandated by law is more than adequate to assist in the process.

Are you telling me that something similar to this has never happened?

I don't care for hypotheticals, I'd rather stick with specifics.

Since this particular gun was originally bought at a gun show from an unlicensed "dealer", there is no record of the purchase to trace.

I'd love to know the origin of the phrase "unlicensed dealer." I didn't mean to dredge up the alleged "gun show loophole" but it's important to correct a widely-held misconception:

Claims about a loophole have convinced many people that the rules for buying a gun at a gun show are different from buying a gun elsewhere. That is false. Two types of people sell guns: registered dealers and private individuals. Registered dealers must fill out the same forms and meet the same requirements regardless of where they sell a gun. Private transfers are unregulated, but they are unregulated both inside and outside a gun show.(Source.) (http://www.tsra.com/Lott30.htm)

Originally posted by schplurg
The gun is traceable thru registration.
Even today, when guns are rarely registered, a paper trail usually exists. When crime guns are traced, one comes up with a list of either past owners or the original purchaser. It doesn’t provide the name of the individual who used the gun in a criminal act – nor will registration. To do that still requires fingerprints, witnesses, or a confession. Knowing who the legitimate owner is, is superfluous. (Source.) (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=681)

This example isn't perfect, but it shows, to me anyways, that registering a gun can have positive benefits.

I disagree. The scenario is dependent upon 'maybes' and 'what ifs' while not acknowledging the investigative resources already at the disposal of law enforcement agencies.

Could Sean Penn, having left his guns in his car, be considered criminally negligent if they are subsequently used in a crime? Like a parent would be found negligent if a child found a gun in a closet and shot himself? Honest question, I'm far from being a lawyer :)

Same here, however, this sounds like a civil matter to me, not criminal.

I agree that the last thing we need is more bureaucracy, but I think a test should be required to own a gun. I don't see how that "penalizes" gun owners. Guns are dangerous in a unique way. A knife or a baseball bat can both be used as weapons. But killing someone accidentally with either, especially from a distance, is very difficult. With a gun, I can accidentally shoot someone down the street from the comfort of my own home. A negligent or uninstructed gun owner is very dangerous to him/herself, and the public.

Just to put things in perspective, please take a look at page 23 of this document (http://home.attbi.com/~guys/GunFacts32Screen.pdf).

So is a negligent or uninstructed automobile driver. The risk of injury to others is very high in a car, which is why we must pass a (pretty damn simple) test in order to drive on public roads. Cars aren't dangerous to others when used on your own property, but a gun can be. That's the difference. Even if you have a gun on your own property, you still can't fire it in incorporated areas. Owning a gun is dangerous to the public at all times, even on your own property. Therefore, like a car, a license to operate should be required for public safety, if nothing else.

If comparing guns and cars "doesn't do it for you" or "doesn't hold water" ... why are you now doing it? I don't understand the sudden contradiction. Anyway, I would again direct you to this article (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=681) referenced previously.

I think allowing people to buy a gun with no instruction is irresponsible. Why wait for people to make a deadly mistake when a simple gun safety test could help eliminate a lot of accidents? One test, one time. I don't see a big problem with that.

I certainly do -- it's a matter of personal responsibility. By placing such limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, you'd be converting it to a privilege rather than a right, and, in order to address the vast minority of the firearm-owning public. IMO it's extremely unreasonable.

I could be persuaded to change my mind on registration ...but licensing / testing? I just remain unconvinced that passing a mandatory safety test is a bad thing.

See above.

[Dancing David]

Well, I just suggested registration as a way that we might slow the flow of illegal arms.

Simple enforcement means what? How do we stop people from selling guns to people without FOIDs ? I don't think it would be acceptable to set up roadblocks and ask all people to present a FOID card who have a gun in thier possesion. While effective I can't imagine it happening. It would work.

On the knifes issue, I thought Illinois had a limit to the length of a knife that could be carried in public, I don't knpw cases on the sword thing but I have been told by people who like to go to Rennisance fairs about all sort of regulations and restrictions. I know that here in central Illinois the police frown on people carrying even unsharpened swords, although it may not be a statute..

I thought I was just answering someone's question about guns and domestic violence, I wasn't taking a stand. I have been told that is the VOWA provisions (which is a federal law) that allow people to have thier FOIDs revoked, I don't know what states may have other regulations.

Peace
dancing David

[gnome]

Originally posted by Wolverine
I disagree. The scenario is dependent upon 'maybes' and 'what ifs' while not acknowledging the investigative resources already at the disposal of law enforcement agencies.


I'd like to point out that a good rule needs to address the "Maybes" and "what ifs". What good is a law if it only serves common situations?

But is it really that uncommon that the police have a weapon they need to trace?

Perhaps existing methods serve that purpose adequately. That is more or less what I am proposing, that instead of instituting a new registration system, can we review what's already there, and perhaps close a few holes, a few "what ifs" as it were, and achieve the same benefits?

Would you object to that?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well, I just suggested registration as a way that we might slow the flow of illegal arms.

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated how. ;)

Simple enforcement means what? How do we stop people from selling guns to people without FOIDs ?

(BTW, the terms "simple" and "enforcement" were separate in my post, connotating that I percieved the answer to be simple... being, enforcement.)

As we've already covered, criminals do not obey these laws. What is the logic in enacting more laws which will yield equal inefficiency? I would still contend that the answer lies in diligent enforcement of existing laws. As demonstrated in that previous post, even seemingly in high-profile cases, those convicted of such offenses receive rather weak sentences, which, again, I feel sends the wrong message.

I don't think it would be acceptable to set up roadblocks and ask all people to present a FOID card who have a gun in thier possesion. While effective I can't imagine it happening. It would work.

I couldn't possibly think such a scenario would be acceptable either. It strikes me as a tremendous waste of manpower and law enforcement resources, which would only work if someone possessing a gun illegally just happened to have it in their car at the time and place of the roadblock.

It's somewhat irrelevant anyway, since there's this little matter of the entire hypothetical consituting a gross violation of the 4th Amendment, by subjecting individuals to unreasonable search and seizure, without probable cause.

[schplurg]

Me:
So is a negligent or uninstructed automobile driver. The risk of injury to others is very high in a car, which is why we must pass a (pretty damn simple) test in order to drive on public roads. Cars aren't dangerous to others when used on your own property, but a gun can be. That's the difference. Even if you have a gun on your own property, you still can't fire it in incorporated areas. Owning a gun is dangerous to the public at all times, even on your own property. Therefore, like a car, a license to operate should be required for public safety, if nothing else.

Wolverine:
If comparing guns and cars "doesn't do it for you" or "doesn't hold water" ... why are you now doing it? I don't understand the sudden contradiction.
I was using the "auto vs gun" pro-gun arguement against people who use it. If you want to compare cars to guns, then you will see that both are a hazard to the public, which is why they should be licensed.

I can see how registration may not be necessary, if indeed guns are truly traceable with our current system. I'm still open minded on this and am not a foe of guns at all. I don't own any at the moment, but I've fired plenty, even on my own rural property (possibly illegally).

Even if you have the right to own a gun without license or registration, I still believe that a license should be required for you to carry it, transport it (even to a private gun range), and otherwise possess it on public property. That might complicate bringing it home from the store though ;) It also may infringe on the "bear arms" part of the ammendment (literally, to "bear" means to carry). But then...

Does being required to have a permit to carry a concealed gun in public infringe on the 2nd ammendment? This is a form of licensing after all. Where does the infringement end...or does it?

Many feel that there should be no restrictions at all on guns. Maybe there shouldn't. I still feel uncomfortable with people owning a gun who were never instructed on how to use it. The test here in California isn't difficult, but it requires you to at least read a very small pamphlet on gun safety. The test merely proves that you read it.

My bottom line:
I know keeping guns from criminals is a bigger (if not impossible) concern, given the statistics. I just don't feel comfortable with people with absolutely no safety training owning a gun. I am "pro-gun", in that I want to own one, or several, and I think it is a right. I have no problems being required to pass a safety test. Isn't there some mandatory way to educate gun owners without everyone screaming about the 2nd ammendment? Or is this truly not a big problem?

[Wolverine]

*Warning: Long post.* ;)

Originally posted by gnome
I'd like to point out that a good rule needs to address the "Maybes" and "what ifs". What good is a law if it only serves common situations?

I would agree to an extent.

In this context, specifically, no one thus far has established that existing laws are somehow insufficient to address uncommon situations. Additionally, while some have suggested that gun registration would help curb firearms crime, no causal relationship has been introduced to corroborate those assertions, or clearly demonstrate how registration would somehow better address the issue than the existing laws. It is my feeling that this may be in part due to misconceptions or limited understanding of current procedures already in effect -- I hope to explore some of which in this post by addressing the process by which guns are traced.

But is it really that uncommon that the police have a weapon they need to trace?

No. According to the BATF, there were approximately 200,000 trace requests in 1999, 11,000 of which were submitted from outside the United States.

Perhaps existing methods serve that purpose adequately. That is more or less what I am proposing, that instead of instituting a new registration system, can we review what's already there, and perhaps close a few holes, a few "what ifs" as it were, and achieve the same benefits?

Would you object to that?

Not at all -- but first, we'd have to establish that there are indeed holes in the system somewhere, of which I currently don't see evidence. Let's begin the examination by understanding the current system already in place to trace firearms.

From the report titled Commerce in Firearms in the United States, published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm):

Crime Gun Tracing

Tracing is the systematic tracking of the movement of a firearm recovered by law enforcement officials from its first sale by the manufacturer or importer through the distribution chain (wholesaler/retailer) to the first retail purchaser. Crime gun trace information is used for three purposes: (1) to link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation; (2) to identify potential traffickers, whether licensed or unlicensed sellers; and, (3) when sufficiently comprehensive tracing is undertaken by a given community, to detect in-state and interstate patterns in the sources and kinds of crime guns.

The crime gun tracing process

A crime gun trace begins when a law enforcement official recovers a firearm, usually from a crime scene or from the possession of a suspect, felon or other prohibited person, and the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction of the case submits a trace request to ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). Although the NTC traces recovered crime guns for local, State, Federal and international law enforcement agencies, most traces are performed for local law enforcement agencies. The trace request contains information pertaining to the identification of the firearm;* the individual possessing or associated with the firearm, if known; recovery location; and the offense that brought the crime gun to the attention of law enforcement
authorities.

This data is entered into ATF’s automated Firearms Tracing System (FTS) at the NTC. The NTC then conducts a trace by first checking the records of out-of-business FFLs, which are preserved separately on microfiche and accessed through an auxiliary indexing system of firearm serial numbers, and by checking multiple sales records. If these steps do not identify the first retail transaction, the NTC contacts the manufacturer or importer, and tracks the recovered crime gun through the distribution chain (wholesaler and retailer) to the retail dealer, requesting the dealer to examine his records to determine the identity of the first retail purchaser. While manufacturers and others in the distribution chain are aware of traces about which they are contacted, they are not currently informed about traces resolved by searches of the out-of-business records or multiple sales report information.

Results are sent back to the trace requester and entered into the FTS, where they are accessible by NTC personnel. They are also entered in On-Line LEAD, a daily extract from the FTS that can be used to find repeat sellers and buyers of crime guns. In November 1999, ATF extended access to On-Line LEAD to all ATF field offices, where the system can also be used by Federal, State and local firearms task forces. The average time it takes at present for the NTC to complete a trace to the first retail purchaser is 11.4 days. It takes another one to three days for the trace information to be delivered by mail to the State or local agency requesting the trace. Urgent traces are handled in an expedited manner.

* = A trace request identifies the firearm by serial number, firearm type, manufacturer or importer and caliber.

From the same publication, the BATF discusses limitations of the tracing system currently in place:

Approximately 200,000 trace requests were received in 1999. Until all crime guns are traced, the level of diversion of crime guns from FFLs to felons and other prohibited persons cannot be fully measured, and the illegal sources may remain unknown to law enforcement. In addition, not all trace requests result in the identification of the original licensed retail dealer or purchaser of the traced firearm. A firearms trace currently identifies the first retail dealer for approximately 60 percent of trace requests and the first retail purchaser for approximately 40 percent of trace requests. A number of factors, discussed below, prevent the tracing system from identifying the source of every crime gun traced.

• Non-responsive dealers.
The firearms tracing system depends entirely on the accuracy and completeness of licensee records. Manufacturers, wholesalers and importers maintain records of the retail dealers that initially acquire the firearms for sale. Retail dealers are required to maintain the transaction records that link the make, model and firearms serial numbers with firearms purchasers. FFLs are required to respond to trace requests within 24 hours. If an FFL fails to respond, ATF inspectors must spend extra time seeking the information. Traces can be conducted in a timely manner and be completed only if FFLs keep proper records and cooperate with ATF trace requests. While most FFLs respond promptly to trace inquiries, some FFLs either totally disregard or refuse to comply with a request, others fail to respond within 24 hours and still others supply incorrect information. In 1999, there were approximately 50 active retail dealers who were either entirely non-responsive to a trace request, slow to respond to a trace request on at least three occasions or who gave incorrect information requiring an NTC re-check. Uncooperative FFLs often fail to maintain accurate records or fulfill other statutory and regulatory responsibilities.

While recognizing this is indeed a legitimate concern, please note that there are in excess of 93,000 FFL dealers in the United States. To describe this situation as a rarity would be quite an understatement. ;) Additionally, FFLs which do not cooperate with the agency are in jeapordy of having their licenses revoked. Sufficient means already exist to help correct this problem, again, it's a matter of proper enforcement.

• Untraceable secondhand guns.
Federal law does not require unlicensed sellers to preserve transfer records, nor are gun owners required to keep a record of the serial number of their firearms or to report lost or stolen firearms. It is generally impossible for a crime gun trace to identify purchasers beyond the initial retail buyer. The initial purchaser may have transferred the gun to a third party or it may have been stolen. To trace a gun beyond the first retail purchaser, law enforcement authorities must conduct an “investigative trace,” using traditional investigative methods, such as interviews and use of informants. Investigative traces are extremely resource intensive and, because of the absence of records, often unsuccessful. For these reasons, ATF conducts investigative traces only in rare cases. Even though FFLs do maintain transaction records on firearms they sell secondhand, a regular crime gun trace cannot capture this information because no link exists between first and subsequent retail transactions. Since over half of ATF’s trafficking investigations involve secondhand firearms, the fact that the tracing process is unable to capture sales of used firearms by FFLs and unlicensed sellers is a major problem.

This is also a legitimate problem, but again, one which would not be solved via registration -- the same "investigative trace" procedure would be required in cases of stolen firearms, and those privately sold or transferred. I cannot imagine a scenario where a gun owner would not report a stolen firearm... unless the owner were himself a criminal, in which case he would not register his firearm anyway. Responsible gun owners already keep a list of the make/model and serial number of firearms they own, not only for insurance purposes, but in order to report theft to law enforcement in hopes of recovery. What sane individual wouldn't want their stolen property back? :)

• Unreported firearms stolen in shipment.
Some traces cannot be completed because the firearm is lost or stolen while in transit between two licensees, and not reported as such to ATF. Current regulations do not specify whether the shipping or receiving licensee is responsible for reporting the theft or loss of a firearm while it is transit. Interstate carriers are not required to report the theft or loss of firearms shipped in commerce. In Fiscal Year 1999, there were 1,290 crime gun traces in which the FFL claimed that it never received the firearm shipped to it.

I would be the first to agree that this issue requires correction, and would only require a simple measure added to the list of requirements for FFL dealers. Registration concerning the general public is not applicable here.

• Obliterated serial numbers.
The intentional obliteration of firearms serial numbers by traffickers and criminals poses a serious threat to the effectiveness of the firearms tracing system. Since serial numbers are the principal means by which firearms are identified, the obliteration of serial numbers make it difficult to trace recovered crime guns. ATF restores obliterated serial numbers at its three national firearms laboratories, and over the past two years has increased its efforts to train other law enforcement laboratories to restore obliterated serial numbers on crime guns. Due to the growing problem of obliterated serial numbers, on June 23, 1999, ATF issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to impose marking requirements that would make it more difficult to obliterate serial numbers.

Removing a serial number from a firearm is already highly illegal:

18 USC § 922(k)
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Back to the document...

• Incomplete trace requests.
A significant fraction of trace requests cannot be completed because the trace submission from State and local law enforcement agencies does not contain adequate information. Reading serial numbers on imported firearms poses particular problems. ATF is working with State and local agencies to address this problem.

Again, not relevant to registration, and, solving this problem is already underway.

• Out-of-business records.
Out-of-business FFLs are required to submit their records to the NTC. This permits the continued tracing of crime guns that have been sold by the out of business FFL. Many FFLs do not comply with this requirement, necessitating follow-up efforts by ATF inspectors. The NTC uses a microfilm system to create an index of FFL and serial number for every firearm transaction in the out-of-business records submitted by the FFL. While over 100 million firearms records have been indexed, over 300 million records are still in the process of being indexed and are, therefore, accessed for crime gun tracing purposes by manual searches. The approximately one quarter of crime gun trace requests that are currently resolved through searches of out-of-business records could be completed more rapidly if all out-of-business records were indexed. ATF estimates that it will take at least two years to complete its ongoing process of imaging the additional out-of-business records.

Registration is again not applicable here, and ATF is working on the problem.

• Untraceable older firearms.
A regulation enacted in 1958 required that all handguns and most rifles have serial numbers. Although many pre-1958 firearms were manufactured with serial numbers, some were not, and are, therefore, untraceable.

Here we have another example of where registration would be of no use. I'm sure there are many older firearms in the US which do not have serial numbers (e.g. a couple of friends own shotguns or rifles which have been in their families for generations). Important to realize, though, is that older and antique firearms are not desirable to criminals seeking a weapon to use in a crime. ;)

Thanks for your patience in reading this. I felt it extremely important to put these issues on the table to identify and discuss the existing protocols in this area.

Given the information presented here, I don't feel there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current system in place is inadequate (with one exception not pertaining to registration, noted above), or would in any way justify that registration be mandated by law in order to correct the problems listed, let alone be effective in doing so.

***Edited for formatting.
***Edited a second time to remove the "hope this constitutes fair use" bit since the BATF material is indeed an open source.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
I was using the "auto vs gun" pro-gun arguement against people who use it. If you want to compare cars to guns, then you will see that both are a hazard to the public, which is why they should be licensed.

In that case, may I bounce a few questions off you? :)

(These originated from this article (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2021) on the subject, and I feel they're quite legitimate.)

1) How does vehicle registration prevent cars from being stolen?

2) How does vehicle registration prevent people from driving like jerks or in a dangerous or reckless manner?

3) How does vehicle registration prevent death or injury of innocent bystanders in auto collisions?

4) How does registration prevent crimes being committed with automobiles?

I can see how registration may not be necessary, if indeed guns are truly traceable with our current system. I'm still open minded on this and am not a foe of guns at all. I don't own any at the moment, but I've fired plenty, even on my own rural property (possibly illegally).

Noted... I'm not trying to give you a hard time, rather, offer some food for thought. ;) But... please be aware of the firearms laws in your area and abide by them.

Even if you have the right to own a gun without license or registration, I still believe that a license should be required for you to carry it, transport it (even to a private gun range), and otherwise possess it on public property.

Again, I strongly disagree with you, for reasons stated previously.

Does being required to have a permit to carry a concealed gun in public infringe on the 2nd ammendment? This is a form of licensing after all.

In my opinion, yes. The problem with this is rectifying the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the constitution versus the abilities of states and municipalities to pass legislation they feel to be in their own best interests. My head hurts just thinking about it.

As it stands, though, there are 34 states with right-to-carry (http://www.nraila.org/images/RTCmaplg.gif) laws on the books.

Where does the infringement end...or does it?

That seems to be quite the recurrent problem. Despite substantial evidence that gun control is completely ineffective in preventing crime in the US, there always seems to be new legislation being proposed or submitted that further restricts our rights. Will it ever end?

Many feel that there should be no restrictions at all on guns. Maybe there shouldn't. I still feel uncomfortable with people owning a gun who were never instructed on how to use it. The test here in California isn't difficult, but it requires you to at least read a very small pamphlet on gun safety. The test merely proves that you read it.

I agree, to an extent, but still feel proper safety education is a matter of personal responsibility. There are numerous resources at our collective disposal to gain the necessary knowledge and skills crucial to being a responsible owner. News like this (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1310) suggests to me that we're definitely headed in the right direction, thanks to ongoing education and accessibility of same.

My bottom line:
I know keeping guns from criminals is a bigger (if not impossible) concern, given the statistics. I just don't feel comfortable with people with absolutely no safety training owning a gun. I am "pro-gun", in that I want to own one, or several, and I think it is a right. I have no problems being required to pass a safety test. Isn't there some mandatory way to educate gun owners without everyone screaming about the 2nd ammendment? Or is this truly not a big problem?

It's not as big a problem as some would have you believe, and the statistics available in the materials I've posted on this thread illustrate that safety education is working. In addition to groups like the NRA and the various state rifle associations which actively work with the public, I also feel that manufacturers do an excellent job of advocating gun safety.
Examples:
Ruger (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/S-BasicRules.html)
SIG (http://www.sigarmsacademy.com/)
Smith & Wesson (http://www.smith-wesson.com/CustSupport/safety.htm)
Beretta (http://www.berettausa.com/safety/safety_guidelines.htm)

You get the idea... ;)

[Richard G]

Does being required to have a permit to carry a concealed gun in public infringe on the 2nd ammendment? This is a form of licensing after all. Where does the infringement end...or does it?

No infringement here. The permit system is the States way of making sure your are trained ("well regulated [trained] militia"). It is the right of the State to define the manner of your training. This mostly applies to concealed carry permits. But state cannot deny your right to own a firearm, permit, or no permit.

A permit is not registration, it simply says you have been trained.

The Illinois FOID card is quite different, that IS registration, registration of the gun owners, not their weapons, and is unconstitutional. You have some rabid gun grabbers in office there who are out of control, and many of the draconian laws the people there are dealing with need to be challenged in court. You see, with no FOID card, it is illegal to even own a gun, weather your going to carry it or not. Constitutionaly, owning a firearm is not conditional upon recieving permision from the State, it is a right that cannot be infringed.

If I lived in Illinois, I would move.

Regarding safety training, every firearm one purchases comes with an easy to read owners manual that instructs one on every safety feature, and the proper way to load, clean, maintain, and safely operate the firearm. There are even the basic gun safety tips (the 4 golden rules).

Firearm ownership mandates responsibility. That burdon falls to the individual, and when they are not responsible, they need to be held accountable. Violating everyones rights because of the stupidity of a few is not the answer.

[swellman]

In Massachusetts, we have the Firearms ID card (FID). It is issued by the local police for anyone who wants to purchase or possess a rifle, handgun, etc. Also required to purchase ammo. Sounds very similar to Illinois FOID program.

The cool thing about the FID is the fact that the local police chief effectively determines policies on issuance. Most just make you come to the station, fill out the form and pay a fee. Others play games such as only accepting the application during small windows of an hour or two a month. Others just don't seem to like citizens having guns, and have policies of not issuing FID's unless a big stink is raised.

Start talking carry and conceal, and this gamesmanship is taken to another level.

The disturbing part is that many Mass residents don't raise an eyebrow over this stuff.

[Tmy]

The Mass law is just plain dumb. If the local Police Cheif doesnt like you then you're screwed. They dont even need a reason to deny you. The appeal proceess is horrible.

Is there any statisical proof that a highly regulated state like Mass has less gun crime than a looser state, for example Washington?

[Richard G]

Mass. is another horrible anti-gun State. What you have there is a MAY issue permit, versus a SHALL issue permit. It is enforced, and issued arbitrarily. This is all a violation of the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments. Equal protection under the law, gauranteed constitutionaly, is being violated here.

The ultimate answer is to stop electing officials who wipe their ass with our Constitution. [Kennedys in Mass.]

[Thanz]

Well, since a post of mine inspired Wolverine to create this thread, I think it is only fair that I respond. A lot of good points have been made, and I will not be addressing all of them, for reasons that will become apparent.

Originally posted by corplinx
Currently we do not register firearms. I think the burden of proof is not on anti-registration but on the people who want it. I think one of the rhetoric problems is that it seems anti-registration people are always asked "why not" when the proper question is "why should we?" and should be directed at those who want registration.

This is a very good question, and I am afraid that I do not know enough about the issues to give a satisfactory answer. It seems like common sense in my mind, but that is probably the lamest answer ever. I don't own a gun, and I have no desire to own a gun. I think that those who really feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves in their homes are paranoid. But what do I know? I live in Canada, and while I have an alarm system for peace of mind (and cheaper insurance), I would never consider a gun.

Also, part of the problem in interpreting the Constitution is that the rights are framed in absolute terms, while the Courts have seen the need for some necessary infringment of those rights. So some things that are obviously "speech" on a plain meaning aren't "speech" for the first amendment. A more honest approach is to admit that some rights can be infringed for the greater good, and then argue about the level of infringement that is justified.

I will address this one other point:

Originally posted by Wolverine
I agree, to an extent, but still feel proper safety education is a matter of personal responsibility. There are numerous resources at our collective disposal to gain the necessary knowledge and skills crucial to being a responsible owner. News like this suggests to me that we're definitely headed in the right direction, thanks to ongoing education and accessibility of same.

Well, I agree that it is a personal responsibility - but that does not preclude it from being a legal requirement. It is a personal responsibility to be a good driver - but you still have to pass the test. It is good to see that accidents are down. If everyone were required to learn basic gun safety before owning one, then I believe that accidents would be even fewer. I don't think that this is an onerous requirement, and I believe that most pro-gun people actively encourage gun safety courses etc. Writing a simple tests should not be a big deal.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Wolverine
This is also a legitimate problem, but again, one which would not be solved via registration -- the same "investigative trace" procedure would be required in cases of stolen firearms, and those privately sold or transferred. I cannot imagine a scenario where a gun owner would not report a stolen firearm... unless the owner were himself a criminal, in which case he would not register his firearm anyway. Responsible gun owners already keep a list of the make/model and serial number of firearms they own, not only for insurance purposes, but in order to report theft to law enforcement in hopes of recovery. What sane individual wouldn't want their stolen property back? :)


I see room for improvement here... a need for information about second-hand purchasers. While you could count on most people to report a stolen handgun, that is not the only issue here. More "What-ifs" but I don't think they're implausible. What if someone else had access to the gun without theft? Or, you make the point that someone intending to commit a crime with the gun would definitely not register it. This is clearly true, but there's no reason to think someone wouldn't purchase a gun with no criminal intent, follow all the legal procedures, and then later find themselves considering a crime. If information about their purchase were available they might think twice about using that weapon.

I don't insist that registration is the answer, but I think this is a vulnerability worth addressing, that registration happens to address. I would say that if one opposes registration they should suggest an alternative, or provide a convincing argument that it's not a big enough problem to be worth fixing.

[Tmy]

Whats so horrible about registration? Theres a legit safety concearn for the state. Hell, theres a BIG safety concearn!!

What if gun owner Bob flips out and is wanted by the police? It'd be nice to know if Bob is armed and with what.

Even free speech has some restrictions. If your going to have a public protest you need a permit from the city right? Whta Constitutional right doesnt have any limitation?

[John Harrison]

If information about their purchase were available they might think twice about using that weapon.

The information about their purchase is already available about their weapon. How is it "more" available with registration? Unless you are speaking about the boondoggle that is "ballistic fingerprinting", the hypothetical person is in no different of a situation whether the gun was registered or not.

Whats so horrible about registration?

Because some states such as California have used registration files as a confiscation list (one example: SKS fiasco in CA).

Theres a legit safety concearn for the state. Hell, theres a BIG safety concearn!! What if gun owner Bob flips out and is wanted by the police? It'd be nice to know if Bob is armed and with what.


Please, no more "what ifs". You're going to have to be specific about how registration increases safety for the state.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by John Harrison


Please, no more "what ifs". You're going to have to be specific about how registration increases safety for the state.

What the hypothetical doesnt apply?

Ok without registration how do you know who the guns rightful owner is? That comes in handy with charging criminals who use stolen guns, or tracking stolen guns.

If the police are aware of the guns they can take them from dangerous individuals. OR at least know if a person is dangerous should theyhave to arrest them on a warrant.

I'm all for gun rights, I just dont see why something as simple as registeration becomes such a hot topic. It just seems like common sense that you would have to register a dangerous device such as a fire arm..

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, I agree that it is a personal responsibility - but that does not preclude it from being a legal requirement. It is a personal responsibility to be a good driver - but you still have to pass the test. It is good to see that accidents are down. If everyone were required to learn basic gun safety before owning one, then I believe that accidents would be even fewer. I don't think that this is an onerous requirement, and I believe that most pro-gun people actively encourage gun safety courses etc. Writing a simple tests should not be a big deal.

Apologies for the repetition, but perhaps it's necessary to more clearly illustrate the difference between a right and a privelege:

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, which is a different thing altogether. In the area of government, a privilege is a special permission or immunity granted by a government, it is generally related to the use of some public facility (such as driving on the streets, or using the public library) and it may be suspended or revoked even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

Rights do not require government registration, certification, or approval, and are not subject to any form of taxation — otherwise they are not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of the government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the government.

Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. (Source.) (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1052)

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ok without registration how do you know who the guns rightful owner is?

Both Wolverine and I have explained this in previous posts above. Please read the entire thread.

That comes in handy with charging criminals who use stolen guns, or tracking stolen guns.

Yes, it does, and the current system works fine.

If the police are aware of the guns they can take them from dangerous individuals. OR at least know if a person is dangerous should theyhave to arrest them on a warrant.

You need to define what you mean by a "dangerous person", because at one point it seems like it could be almost anyone that looks funny, and at another point it includes criminals. Again, please be specific. Nebulous claims about "dangerous people" don't cut it.

I'm all for gun rights, I just dont see why something as simple as registeration becomes such a hot topic.

Well, we've listed our concerns above, but it seems that you are a) not reading the thread, or b) ignoring our points. Which is it?

It just seems like common sense that you would have to register a dangerous device such as a fire arm..

Common sense? You haven't listed a need that isn't already covered by current law. It really irritates me when people call for "common sense" laws, but they can't take the time to learn the current laws that are already in place.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Apologies for the repetition, but perhaps it's necessary to more clearly illustrate the difference between a right and a privelege:



long quote snipped

I see your point, but I feel that it is a rather extreme position. I will declare my bias upfront: I think that the "right" to bear arms, as set out in the US Constitution, is utterly ridiculous. Why guns have such an importance so as to be granted specific protection over all other material objects baffles me. But anyway....

I take it, then, that you are against any form of regulation for any sort of arms? That you should be able to have an Uzi, a rocket launcher, or whatever if you so choose? That there should be no restriction on who should be allowed to own a gun - unless of course, you don't consider them to be people?

I know that pro-gun people say that the "reason" part does not limit the "right" part of the second amendment. But doesn't requiring some basic training in the use and safety of a firearm fit very nicely into a "well regulated militia"?

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Thanz

But doesn't requiring some basic training in the use and safety of a firearm fit very nicely into a "well regulated militia"?

One reason why we are somewhat reticent about training requirements is that often, over a period of time, the requirements (and fees, etc) are changed (made more difficult, too expensive) to the point that it is almost impossible for anyone to satisfy the requirements to purchase a firearm.

However, I would be for basic firearm safety training for all high school students, that way everyone can safely handle a gun.

It may reduce accidental death rates, but it's not like they are very high as it is. (776 deaths out of more than 80 million gun owners)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ok without registration how do you know who the guns rightful owner is? That comes in handy with charging criminals who use stolen guns, or tracking stolen guns.

Ok, this was discussed previously in the thread, but I'll recap.

In order to purchase a firearm, you must fill out an ATF Form 4473 (http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm). The firearms dealer takes your personal information from the form, and, if you're eligible for ownership in accordance with Federal and State law (determined by answers provided on the form), the dealer contacts the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top) (provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), which performs a background check, ensuring that you have no felony convictions or other information on your record which disqualifies you from purchase. If the dealer is given approval to sell you a firearm, form 4473 is completed with the details of make/model/serial number of the firearm(s) you buy. Your personal information, address, identification information (e.g. driver's license or other gov't issued photo I.D.) is kept on file by the dealer from which you've made your purchase. If it becomes necessary for law enforcement to trace a firearm they've recovered, they follow the procedure I've listed above (scroll back to the post where you see "Crime Gun Tracing").

If the police are aware of the guns they can take them from dangerous individuals. OR at least know if a person is dangerous should theyhave to arrest them on a warrant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dangerous individuals"; however if you look at the URL to Form 4773 which I've provided above, and click on the various highlighted numbers in red at the left hand side of the form, you can see what the specific Federal requirements are for purchase... they're quite detailed. Additional State laws also apply, which are not listed on 4473. I suspect that those you mention are already disqualified from legal purchase and/or ownership.

If you'd care to elaborate on what you deem "dangerous individuals," or if the answers provided do not address your comment properly, I'll be happy to go further if you'd be willing to offer clarification.

I'm all for gun rights, I just dont see why something as simple as registeration becomes such a hot topic. It just seems like common sense that you would have to register a dangerous device such as a fire arm..

Which is precisely why I started this thread. Many things concerning firearms that people would interpret as "common sense" are, in reality, anything but.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Thanz
I see your point, but I feel that it is a rather extreme position. I will declare my bias upfront: I think that the "right" to bear arms, as set out in the US Constitution, is utterly ridiculous. Why guns have such an importance so as to be granted specific protection over all other material objects baffles me. But anyway....

Noted. While I disagree with your opinion, I'm certainly not attempting to deprive you of it. Hopefully this thread has at least presented some context or insight into this section of the Bill of Rights, whether you find it silly or not. ;)

I take it, then, that you are against any form of regulation for any sort of arms? That you should be able to have an Uzi, a rocket launcher, or whatever if you so choose?

I never stated such. Personally, I would draw the with military weaponry, such as grenade launchers, mortars, bazookas, that sort of thing. Although, I would have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning fully-automatic weapons (such as the Uzi you referenced). There are neither "good" guns nor "bad" guns; it all boils down to usage and intent.

That there should be no restriction on who should be allowed to own a gun - unless of course, you don't consider them to be people?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I know that pro-gun people say that the "reason" part does not limit the "right" part of the second amendment. But doesn't requiring some basic training in the use and safety of a firearm fit very nicely into a "well regulated militia"?

There has been no precedent set establishing such. We have already discussed the correct interpretation of "well-regulated" previously on this thread, and the scenario you propose is not applicable.

[gnome]

Originally posted by John Harrison
The information about their purchase is already available about their weapon. How is it "more" available with registration? Unless you are speaking about the boondoggle that is "ballistic fingerprinting", the hypothetical person is in no different of a situation whether the gun was registered or not.

If you look closer at what I was responding to, I was referring to the specific case of second-hand purchase. I would like to see some system where information about second-hand purchasers can be obtained by police investigating a crime, which Wolverine's info specifically listed as a problem under the current system. Registration is one possibility, but I am more than willing to consider alternatives.

Please, no more "what ifs". You're going to have to be specific about how registration increases safety for the state.

This is a confusing requirement you propose, since we are not going over actual case histories... what do we have available for discussion besides hypotheticals...? If you think a hypothetical is so far-fetched it's not worth messing with the law for, just say so.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by John Harrison
Both Wolverine and I have explained this in previous posts above. Please read the entire thread.

Jeez, John, you type too fast. :D

[schplurg]

Thanks for the continued discussion. This whole "thread" has remained relatively calm and composed, given the heat of this topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by schplurg
I was using the "auto vs gun" pro-gun arguement against people who use it. If you want to compare cars to guns, then you will see that both are a hazard to the public, which is why they should be licensed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wolverine:
In that case, may I bounce a few questions off you?

(These originated from this article on the subject, and I feel they're quite legitimate.)

1) How does vehicle registration prevent cars from being stolen?

2) How does vehicle registration prevent people from driving like jerks or in a dangerous or reckless manner?

3) How does vehicle registration prevent death or injury of innocent bystanders in auto collisions?

4) How does registration prevent crimes being committed with automobiles?

I never said registration would do any of these things, however teaching gun safety / licensing might help items 2 and 3, possibly 1 as well. Some people don't realize just how powerful their gun is. I was in a house about 10+ years ago when a gun accidentally went off when its owner thought it was empty. He was surprised out how far the bullet traveled and the damage it did.

Yes, that can fall under the category of personal responsibility. But again, he and the people in his house were not the only people in danger (he lived in a duplex in a nice little neighborhood).

A neglectful gun owners' gun can harm other people in a greater way than just about any other single item. I don't feel comfortable relying on someone elses responsibility to learn safety when handling a firearm in my neighborhood. I would feel better knowing that this guy, in owning a gun, was required to take a general safety course. Maybe he'd remember to check the chamber for a round before handling it in such a way.

me:
I can see how registration may not be necessary, if indeed guns are truly traceable with our current system. I'm still open minded on this and am not a foe of guns at all. I don't own any at the moment, but I've fired plenty, even on my own rural property (possibly illegally).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolverine:
Noted... I'm not trying to give you a hard time, rather, offer some food for thought. But... please be aware of the firearms laws in your area and abide by them.

No prob, I'm enjoying the discussion.
Maybe some people would be more aware of the laws if they had to take a test, me included.

As far as me firing a gun on my property, I live out in the boonies, in the county. I believe I was legal firing it here way back when I did...I was under 18 so my dad would be to blame ;)

You make a good arguement against registration, and licensing somewhat. With licensing though, the only valid arguement against it that I see is that it's unconstitutional, not that firearm safety wouldn't effectively cut down on accidents. Some say the test would be too expensive and bla bla...okay, so maybe it should be free, since it's a constitutional "right". Licensing and safety training is logical (even if there are no accidents, it's still logical), but the constitution "prevents" this. I hate to bring up cars again, but that test is easily passed, and is very cheap. Nobody has challenged the difficulty of the test (except that it's too easy) or the expense. No demographic is excluded from driving because the test is too hard or expensive, as I've heard people say a gun test might be.

However, since according to the statistics this doesn't appear to be as widespread a problem as the media makes it out to be, maybe it's not as important an issue as people think. Kind of like the "epidemic" of school shootings...it's not such an epidemic at all, it's just that a huge deal is made out of every single case that it seems widespread, at least more than it actually is.

Still, the problem remains. Just because gun accidents are few doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be improved.


Wolv:
If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right.
I had to register for my right to vote.
Violent felons can't own guns. Should they be able to?

Registration...I can see how that is probably unnecessary. However, I'm still on the "mandatory test" side of the fence. I see no logical reason why gun safety should not be mandatory. Aside from the constitution (that ol' thing heh) why shouldn't a safety test be mandatory?

Wolverine, you've made me re-think some of my positions on this issue. I don't mind being proven wrong and I believe a person can and should change their opinions on issues if a convincing arguement is presented. That's why I come to this board, to learn, to teach if I can, to vent, to show off a little, to exercise my mind. Note my sig. I'm still for mandatory safety testing though, but keep trying ;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Wolverine


I never stated such. Personally, I would draw the with military weaponry, such as grenade launchers, mortars, bazookas, that sort of thing. Although, I would have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning fully-automatic weapons (such as the Uzi you referenced). There are neither "good" guns nor "bad" guns; it all boils down to usage and intent.

I didn't say that you did state that, but it naturally follows from the strict interpretation given in the quote you provided. If I want a bazooka, and a bazooka is an "Arm", doesn't the second amendment give me the right to have it? And if I cannot have it, isn't that a denial of my rights - an outright denial, as opposed to a hoop I have to jump through? Doesn't that make it a privilege, not a right, as set out in your quote?

Thanz: That there should be no restriction on who should be allowed to own a gun - unless of course, you don't consider them to be people?

Wolverine: I have no idea what you mean by this.

What I mean is, it is my undrestanding that there are restrictions on who may own a firearm, based on age, mental competance, and criminal record. For example, if a convicted felon may not buy a gun, ever, even if convicted of a non-violent crime. (if I am wrong, I apologize)

So, are these individuals not "people" within the meaning of the 2nd amendment? If they are "people", are their rights not being deinied? And if their rights are denied, why not idiots who can't pass a simple safety test?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Wolverine






I'm not sure what you mean by "dangerous individuals"; however if you look at the URL to Form 4773 which I've provided above, and click on the various highlighted numbers in red at the left hand side of the form, you can see what the specific Federal requirements are for purchase... they're quite detailed. Additional State laws also apply, which are not listed on 4473. I suspect that those you mention are already disqualified from legal purchase and/or ownership.

If you'd care to elaborate on what you deem "dangerous individuals," or if the answers provided do not address your comment properly, I'll be happy to go further if you'd be willing to offer clarification.



Just cause someone is law abiding at the time of purchase does not mean they will remain law abiding forever. How many times do we see stories of legal gun owners going bad and or crazy. I think knowing if suspect is armed is a legit safety concean for the state.

Are you against registration period, or against the current system? I would agree that the current system is flawed and overcomplicated.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
Thanks for the continued discussion. This whole "thread" has remained relatively calm and composed, given the heat of this topic.

Indeed! :)

I never said registration would do any of these things, however teaching gun safety / licensing might help items 2 and 3, possibly 1 as well.

If you'd like, feel free to replace "registration" with "licensing" -- I don't think that undermines the validity of the questions.

And, there are those dang "maybes" again. ;)

Some people don't realize just how powerful their gun is. I was in a house about 10+ years ago when a gun accidentally went off when its owner thought it was empty. He was surprised out how far the bullet traveled and the damage it did.

:mad: That's what happens when you ignore the rules of safe handling, and incidents like that drive me bonkers. If I'm going to clean or otherwise handle a firearm, I check it thoroughly even if I know I left it unloaded. Always, always, always follow the guidelines, no matter what the situation.

Yes, that can fall under the category of personal responsibility. But again, he and the people in his house were not the only people in danger (he lived in a duplex in a nice little neighborhood).

That still falls under the category of personal responsibility. Had anyone else been injured, he would be criminally negligent. Incidents of such negligence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, IMO.

A neglectful gun owners' gun can harm other people in a greater way than just about any other single item. I don't feel comfortable relying on someone elses responsibility to learn safety when handling a firearm in my neighborhood. I would feel better knowing that this guy, in owning a gun, was required to take a general safety course. Maybe he'd remember to check the chamber for a round before handling it in such a way.

I can certainly understand that, but as I've made clear I object to the government getting involved in the process. It strikes me as foolhardy to assume that the gov't is somehow more capable of addressing these issues than anyone else. (Holy crap, I'm starting to channel shanek... ;) )

You make a good arguement against registration, and licensing somewhat. With licensing though, the only valid arguement against it that I see is that it's unconstitutional, not that firearm safety wouldn't effectively cut down on accidents.
Well, that would remain to be determined. I'm still of the opinion that safety education offered by private instructors or groups that genuinely take a vested interest, such as the NRA, would be of higher quality than anything the government would be able to provide.

Some say the test would be too expensive and bla bla...okay, so maybe it should be free, since it's a constitutional "right". Licensing and safety training is logical (even if there are no accidents, it's still logical), but the constitution "prevents" this. I hate to bring up cars again, but that test is easily passed, and is very cheap. Nobody has challenged the difficulty of the test (except that it's too easy) or the expense. No demographic is excluded from driving because the test is too hard or expensive, as I've heard people say a gun test might be.

The costs involved are something else I would take issue with. There is a tremendous amount of free instruction available for those new to firearms; intermediate and advanced courses which do more than outline the basics of safe firearms handling and operation usually require fees. When it becomes an issue of revenue, I consider that to be an undue burden placed upon gun owners. Again, since it's a right, not a privilege, I hold the process of imposing additional fees on firearms owners just to secure or possess guns they're already entitled to own anyway in dim view. Since driving is a privilege, and subject to regulations, taxes, fees, and also necessitates state or federal maintenance of the infastructure (roads, highways, bridges, etc.) I think those fees are justified.

However, since according to the statistics this doesn't appear to be as widespread a problem as the media makes it out to be, maybe it's not as important an issue as people think. Kind of like the "epidemic" of school shootings...it's not such an epidemic at all, it's just that a huge deal is made out of every single case that it seems widespread, at least more than it actually is.

Yep. Another reason I love to discuss all these issues, since guns seem to have garner such negative press in the media -- it's diffucult to separate fact from fiction when someone without any experience in firearms is visually bombarded with emotionally fueled stories demonizing guns.

Still, the problem remains. Just because gun accidents are few doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be improved.

I can't see any way to justify further erosion of the 2nd Amendment particularly with accidents on the decline. ;) Estimates I've seen claim between 60 and 80 million gun owners in the United States, possessing in excess of 200 million firearms. Given the previously mentioned statistic of 900 accidental deaths nationally involving firearms, if we use the conservative estimate of 60 million owners, that translates to (roughly, of course) 0.0015%. I'm really skeptical of any tweaks to the system being able to further lower the numbers of accidents, and, no less, at the risk of infringement.

I had to register for my right to vote.

Sure, but that's a separate issue entirely. Nobody is attempting to infringe upon your right to vote, levy fees or taxes against it, or otherwise remove your ability to exercise your right.

I liked this example from an article I cited previously on the thread:

"Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed,'" Levy urged the audience at the National Press Club. "Is there anyone who would suggest that what that means is that only registered voters have a right to read?

;)

Violent felons can't own guns. Should they be able to?

IMO, no.

Registration...I can see how that is probably unnecessary. However, I'm still on the "mandatory test" side of the fence. I see no logical reason why gun safety should not be mandatory. Aside from the constitution (that ol' thing heh) why shouldn't a safety test be mandatory?

I feel this has been sufficiently discussed throughout the thread, including this post. :)

Wolverine, you've made me re-think some of my positions on this issue. I don't mind being proven wrong and I believe a person can and should change their opinions on issues if a convincing arguement is presented. That's why I come to this board, to learn, to teach if I can, to vent, to show off a little, to exercise my mind. Note my sig. I'm still for mandatory safety testing though, but keep trying ;)

Hey that's what this place is all about, and I enjoy it immensely. Glad you're participating, and nice to see that we can discuss issues from opposing viewpoints without getting mean and nasty. This might be a first for a gun thread here...

*** Edited to add a forgotten thought.

[Tmy]

I live in Mass. I think we have the toughest gun laws in the country. I dont have an FID card but someday I plan to own a gun. I feel the system is unfair because it lacks checks n balances and the local police have to much control. You do have to take a gun safety class before you can get your licence. I dont think thats such a bad thing. Funny thing is that the class taught by a bunch of "gun nuts". Ive heard some funny stories. Anyhoo when I hear about the restrictions in other states I'm like "thats it!!!!".

Grass is always greener.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Thanz
If I want a bazooka, and a bazooka is an "Arm", doesn't the second amendment give me the right to have it? And if I cannot have it, isn't that a denial of my rights - an outright denial, as opposed to a hoop I have to jump through? Doesn't that make it a privilege, not a right, as set out in your quote?

Yes, it would. However...

What we do have is judicial precedent which has established that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed an individual, rather than a collective right. What we do not have (or if we do, I'm unaware of it) is similar precedent conclusively defining limitations, if any, concerning "arms."

To further explore this issue, interpretation is necessary. I am essentially in agreement with the following from this page (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html):
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

Further scope is addressed in much greater detail and with specific respect to historical context in this fascinating article entitled The Right to Keep and Bear . . . What? (http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/arms/index.htm)

While I disagree with some of the author's conclusions in regard to the scope of limitations, I concur with the general idea which would yield conclusive, reasonable limitations and ultimately put the debate to rest:
Surely, we can come up with reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms. To impose these restrictions correctly and legitimately, we would need to enact a Twenty-Eighth Amendment that fleshes out the Second. Perhaps we could limit the right to keep and bear arms to those weapons with destructive power equivalent to the best heavy weapons of the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Centuries. This would permit citizens to arm themselves, but not with weapons so capable of killing vast numbers of other people that the risk would outweigh the benefit.

I certainly don't think people should be entitled to own Howitzers, nor would I personally define a bazooka as an "arm."
My definition of "arms" would include fully-automatic (e.g. Class 3) weapons and everything below. That's just my opinion, and I'll be curious to see if a precedent will be established anytime in the future.

What I mean is, it is my undrestanding that there are restrictions on who may own a firearm, based on age, mental competance, and criminal record. For example, if a convicted felon may not buy a gun, ever, even if convicted of a non-violent crime. (if I am wrong, I apologize)

So, are these individuals not "people" within the meaning of the 2nd amendment? If they are "people", are their rights not being deinied? And if their rights are denied, why not idiots who can't pass a simple safety test?

Thank you for the clarification.

Some would argue that the rights of certain individuals (e.g. felons) are being denied by not legally allowing them to possess firearms. As I stated previously on this thread, given the rates of criminal recidivism for violent offenders, I'd prefer not to restore felons' right to keep and bear arms -- keeping in mind that I'm receptive in regard to hearing cases be made for non-violent offenders' rights being reinstated once they've paid their debt to society. Again, my current opinion on felons is a "no," although some instances may have merit depending on the situation. There's no easy answer.

Additionally, I have no problem with present restrictions based upon age or mental health, as I feel those are historically consistent. The mentally ill should not be allowed to possess firearms for obvious reasons. Felons exercised a choice to violate the law, resulting in the restriction or removal of their right. Those are two restrictions which I consider to be legitimate. That is not the case for safety testing, again, on which I've elaborated significantly -- it's a non-sequitur in the context you've provided.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just cause someone is law abiding at the time of purchase does not mean they will remain law abiding forever.

Are we to treat all law-abiding gun owners as potential criminals without evidence of illegal behavior?

How many times do we see stories of legal gun owners going bad and or crazy.

We see sensationalized reports on news broadcasts which are neither common, nor representative of gun owners as a whole.

I think knowing if suspect is armed is a legit safety concean for the state.

Registration is not the only means by which police would be able to determine a suspect is armed.

Are you against registration period, or against the current system?

Will you please read the thread? :(

I'm opposed to firearms registration.

I would agree that the current system is flawed and overcomplicated.

To what system are you referring?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
What if gun owner Bob flips out and is wanted by the police? It'd be nice to know if Bob is armed and with what.


Not at all. Registration would not tell you if he is armed or not. He may have a gun, but he may not have it with him. What about gunless Jim who has no registered weapon. He may have bought one off the black market. So they police approach him as if he isnt armed?

You might be surprised to know that cops assume most people have a gun, they way they are never caught off guard.

Only a true psychic would know if John Doe was truly armed, and of course, there are no true psychics.

[Dancing David]

This had been a great discussion and it has caused me examine my beliefs. I can't really come up with a cogent argument for the registration of guns, although I still believe, oh well.

There are some assumptions I seem to have underlying my belief:
1. registration would lead to knowing who is selling guns illegally.
2. registration would allow the police to track illegal firearms.
3. registration would hold people accountable for what they do with thier firearms.

I can not support these assumptions nor can I prove them, I have just spent some time examining my beliefs and found these assumptions underlying them. Sorry I won't defend them because they are beliefs and beliefs by thier nature are indefensible.

Peace
dancing david

[Thanz]

Wolverine -

The quote you posted stated that any requirement that must be fulfilled prior to owning a firearm - even touching one's nose 5 times - is a denial of the right and turns it into a privilege. If this is true, why is it not applied across the board? Are children not people? why make them reach a certain age? It turns the "right" into a privilege for those who are older. Mental capacity? Are the mentally disabled not "people"? You said there were "obvious reasons" for this restriction - what are they?

As for felons, I can understand the restriction on violent offenders. I would consider it part of the sentencing for whatever crime. The same cannot be said for non-violent offenders. What justification is there for denying someone the right to bear arms for tax evasion? Are they more likely to use the gun for a crime? No - and the punishment would not fit the crime, either. There is no connection between tax evasion and gun ownership or gun violence.

I would submit that if there are "obvious reasons" to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disabled, then those reasons ought to apply to someone too stupid to pass a simple safety exam.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Are we to treat all law-abiding gun owners as potential criminals without evidence of illegal behavior?



Geez Wolvie, were talking about filling out some paperwork. Its not like gun owners are being beaten by phonebooks.

Your against felons having guns, well how can you do that without some sort of registration system. I figure we register guns for the same reason we register cars.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

Your against felons having guns, well how can you do that without some sort of registration system.

Felons cant buy guns under the current system. We do backgrounds checks and straw purchases are illegal too. I am not sure where registration fits in to this.

[Tmy]

I feel like we are talking about 2 things, registeration and licencing. I guess some people would argue that as long once you have a licence its no ones concearn how many guns you buy. Others would say that you should register every gun purchased.
And still others will say you shouldnt have to get a licence.

My view. You should have to get a licence and register your arms. How else can you keep guns out of criminal hands.

[corplinx]

Your still off base here. Every time you purchase a firearm you get a background check. If you commit a felony, you cannot purchase. There is no license to purchase. The only license is one to carry. Have you ever even bought a firearm?

Still, I have not seen any evidence from you that registration would work as intended. The only evidence we have (from states where registration is mandatory) is that it has zero effect on crime.

So, the burden of proof is still on you. Present one reason for registration that isn't based on a misconception about the way guns are currently sold or misconceptions about law enforcenment. I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems like I spend half my posts debunking the most common of misconceptions.

[Tmy]

Ok heres a common occurance.

Some jealous ex boyfriend is stalking-threatening his old girlfriend. She gets a restraining order against the guy. The police go to him and he has to turn over his guns. Shouldnt they know if he's turned in all his guns?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ok heres a common occurance.

Some jealous ex boyfriend is stalking-threatening his old girlfriend. She gets a restraining order against the guy. The police go to him and he has to turn over his guns. Shouldnt they know if he's turned in all his guns?

Riddle me this. In the UK there is a total gun ban. If someone there has committed a crime, the bobbies have no fear that the perpetrator has a gun, right?

Your logical fallacy is that you assume registration works as intended. However, even in the midst of a total ban there is a black market for guns.

Not to mention, in your pursuit for safety you neglect the right of privacy for the citizen.

[Tmy]

You asked for an example on why we should register guns and I gave you one. Your reply about illegal guns really dosnt address the example of a gun registration benefit.

Isnt your beef really with privacy rights. What does registeration have to do with the 2nd amendment. You can still get your gun, your right to bear arms is intact.

[John Harrison]

Isnt your beef really with privacy rights. What does registeration have to do with the 2nd amendment. You can still get your gun, your right to bear arms is intact.

Not when the government uses the registration records as a list for confiscation. Another point that you totally ignore.

It's fairly difficult to bear arms when you don't have any arms.

And I see that you've dragged up the lovely Lautenberg amendment, where you can be deprived of your 2nd Amendment rights for anyone under a restraining order. Nice idea in theory. Know how easy it is to get a restraining order against someone? Without due process? And it is retroactively effective. Neato.

Lautenberg is also a shining example of an ex post facto law (if you yelled at your wife just once in 1969 and wound up in the cooler for 24 hours to calm down- you are now banned for life) and ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden under the Constitution.* But when has that ever stopped Congress.:mad: It also is the only law that imposes loss of rights for misdemeanor offenses. A punishment that used to be reserved solely for felony offenses.

* They get around this by -- (Q3) Does application of the law to persons convicted prior to the law’s effective date violate constitutional rights?

No. This provision is not being applied retroactively or in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. This is because the law does not impose additional punishment upon persons convicted prior to the effective date, but merely regulates the future possession of firearms on or after the effective date. The provision is not retroactive merely because the person’s conviction occurred prior to the effective date.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), 27 CFR 178.32(a)(9)]

Link (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/qa.pdf)

Ah, I see. It's just a regulation, not punishment. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tmy]

I don't agreed with gun confiscation without due process or ex post facto laws. (You'd probably find that we are in agreement with most gun issues)

Isnt your argument about the goverment using registeration as a means for future confiscation the same as saying that we should have gun registeration because gun owners will commit future crime?


I am enjoying the views on this topic and dont mean to sound like some unwavering zelot. I dont know if I'm coming across as such.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Tmy
I don't agreed with gun confiscation without due process or ex post facto laws. (You'd probably find that we are in agreement with most gun issues)

Isnt your argument about the goverment using registeration as a means for future confiscation the same as saying that we should have gun registeration because gun owners will commit future crime?


Now I think I understand where you're coming from. :) The confiscation I speak of is when the government decides that a particular firearm looks scary, or holds too many cartridges, has a pistol grip, etc. and decides to ban them. They then have a handy list on who owns what. I wasn't even thinking about criminals. The whole point I was trying to make was that historically our government has used registration as a precursor to confiscation, not based on criminal actions, but based on some administrative decision to ban certain types of firearms.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Dancing David
This had been a great discussion and it has caused me examine my beliefs. I can't really come up with a cogent argument for the registration of guns, although I still believe, oh well.

There are some assumptions I seem to have underlying my belief:
1. registration would lead to knowing who is selling guns illegally.
2. registration would allow the police to track illegal firearms.
3. registration would hold people accountable for what they do with thier firearms.

I can not support these assumptions nor can I prove them...

That's okay, David, neither can anyone else. ;)

I'm glad you've examined your beliefs and are receptive to the information presented here. As it stands, there is no evidence which supports the assertions you've presented. Again, I'm delighted you've found the discussion stimulating.

[schplurg]

Hey Wolv:

Well I guess we've gone through all the points in this debate. Where we differ is on the mandatory safety test issue, and I guess we can just leave it at that. I will put some thought into this though...mainly to try and determine if there is a feasible way to get all gun owners to take safety courses without infringing upon anybody's constitutional rights.

I don't see a safety test as a magical "cure all" for gun accidents, but I believe it would help in many cases. Hopefully for now, most gun owners are smart enough to take such training on their own. Maybe you're right in that this problem isn't really such a problem after all. The real problem in the U.S. is the illegal use of firearms, and no matter how much you force people to license and register their guns, the criminal aspect of the problem will remain unaffected.

I honestly don't see many ways to keep guns from the "bad guys". I don't think any law can effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Maybe that's why people attack gun enthusiasts on this issue so much, because there's no one else to attack.

Are there any ideas floating around out there that would somehow keep guns off the street? I think one way would be for the legal gun owners to keep better track of their guns, store them safely, keep them inaccessible to other people. And I suppose that is one reason why legal gun owners are taking such heat, even though it seems unlikely that the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen from careless gun owners...or am I wrong?

I am concerned on laws that restrict a citizens right to own guns. I'm not an "enthusiast", but I like guns and will own several when I can afford it. I have a friend who has 5 or six big safes full of guns...AR-15s, dozens of handguns. He's a licensed dealer and is a dyed in the wool gun-guy :) He's also one Bar Exam from being an attorney, a test he will will never take just because he doesn't give a crap heh. We have some good discussions, but we never really argue gun laws, not too often (I'd lose anyways). My feelings on all these laws aren't that passionate, which makes it easy for me to understand all sides of this debate.

Round and round the arguement goes,
Where it stops, nobody knows...

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Thanz
The quote you posted stated that any requirement that must be fulfilled prior to owning a firearm - even touching one's nose 5 times - is a denial of the right and turns it into a privilege. If this is true, why is it not applied across the board?

Simple. There are legal precedents which have established acceptable distinctions in this application, and, as previously stated, I feel they are historically consistent.

Are children not people? why make them reach a certain age? It turns the "right" into a privilege for those who are older.

The Militia Act of 1792 established the minimum age at "who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years."
The currently effective Militia Act, 10 USC § 311, establishes a minimum age of 17.

Minors in the United States are, in many cases, not entitled to the same rights as adults. Pertaining to firearms, there are state laws on the books permitting minors the ability to possess or operate a firearm when supervised by an adult, but it is illegal for anyone to sell or transfer a firearm to a minor.

Historically consistent precedent has been established.

Mental capacity? Are the mentally disabled not "people"? You said there were "obvious reasons" for this restriction - what are they?

As I stated previously, I never suggested that children or the mentally ill are not people. Someone afflicted with mental illness or otherwise retarded would not meet the criteria of being "able-bodied" under the previous or current Militia Acts.

Furthermore:

18 USC § 922 (d)(4)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.

18 USC § 922 (g)(2)
It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Section 12f of ATF Form 4473 asks the following question of buyers: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" If the buyer answers "yes" to the question, they are disqualified.

Again I take note of established precedent and history.

You said there were "obvious reasons" for this restriction - what are they?

Must I really answer this question?

What justification is there for denying someone the right to bear arms for tax evasion? Are they more likely to use the gun for a crime? No - and the punishment would not fit the crime, either. There is no connection between tax evasion and gun ownership or gun violence.

I agree, and, mentioned in a prior post that I am receptive to arguments being made for the rights of non-violent offenders to be restored. As it stands, in the example you've provided, someone someone evading taxes would be construed as "a fugitive from justice," which serves as a disqualifier from owning or possessing firearms:

18 USC § 922 (d)(2)

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a fugitive from justice.

18 USC § 922 (g)(2)

It shall be unlawful for any person who is a fugitive from justice to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

I would submit that if there are "obvious reasons" to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disabled, then those reasons ought to apply to someone too stupid to pass a simple safety exam.

It is entirely possible that a court or state legislature might share your opinion. While I recognize the rights of states to prescribe limitations on certain aspects of firearms, I object to undue legislative hurdles being placed upon citizens' rights to keep and bear arms.

Whether someone is capable of being an aeronautical engineer or a ditch-digger, they possess an unalienable right to have a means of self-defense. Whereas the mentally ill might not be able to discern reality from delusion and possession of a firearm would jeapordize their immediate safety or that of others, it cannot be arbitrarily assumed that those of lesser intelligence can realistically be subjected to similar concerns.

If a purchaser meets the criteria for legal purchase/possession of firearms under current Federal law, I feel that's quite sufficient without imposing further restriction.

The argument that "we can restrict the rights of some, so why not restrict the rights of others" is a non-sequitur.

***Edited to add an inadvertently omitted word.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
Are there any ideas floating around out there that would somehow keep guns off the street? I think one way would be for the legal gun owners to keep better track of their guns, store them safely, keep them inaccessible to other people. And I suppose that is one reason why legal gun owners are taking such heat, even though it seems unlikely that the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen from careless gun owners...or am I wrong?

It is correct that most guns used in crimes are indeed stolen. That does not mean that all owners who experienced theft were careless, or that negligence promoted the instances thereof.

I secure my firearms and take appropriate measures to prevent them from being accessible to anyone but me. Perhaps if owners took a more vested interest in following similar precautions, it might help diminish the problem. Difficult to say, though, since one can only do so much to discourage theft.

The recent incident concerning Sean Penn serves as a prime example of what not to do. :mad:

I'm still of the opinion that the government must undertake much more serious committment to enforcing existing gun laws if we're ever going to make a dent in gun crime. Examples like the following infuriate me...

According to US Department of Justice and Bureau of Justice statistics (presented via Smith's Gun Facts):
Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check, only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71% of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons. None of these crimes were prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.
:mad:

We must also make a concerted effort to keep violent offenders off the streets. This Bureau of Justice study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm) (released last year) demonstrates that 61.7% of violent offenders were re-arrested within three years of being released from prison in 1994. The rates of recidivism are staggering.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by schplurg
Are there any ideas floating around out there that would somehow keep guns off the street?

Certainly. We should do more rigid checking for black market sources as we crack down on our ports in general as part of the homeland security thing.

I am for mandatory gun training for the purchase of a firearm. You arent any use in a state militia if your more liable to get your gun stolen or shoot yourself with it than to actually use it in a militia. Your typical training class teaches things lot _not leaving firearms in your car_. Many guns that people put in their glove boxes find their way onto the streets.

Thirdly, we need serious consequences for straw purchases. I say any crime committed with gun bought in a straw purchase, the sentence should be also apply to the person who supplied the gun.


All in all, there is _no_ way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, we can shore up those margins through common sense measures that actually work.

Registration is just something that makes people feel like something is being done but does nothing.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Are we to treat all law-abiding gun owners as potential criminals without evidence of illegal behavior?

Certainly not... but the fact can be used to dispute the argument that "criminals won't register their weapon." That assumes that the world is divided into criminals and non-criminals and nobody ever crosses over.

A comforting thought, but clearly untrue.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by gnome


Certainly not... but the fact can be used to dispute the argument that "criminals won't register their weapon." That assumes that the world is divided into criminals and non-criminals and nobody ever crosses over.

A comforting thought, but clearly untrue.

I would certainly concede that.

As an example, though, of just how rarely the law-abiding cross that line, allow me to offer some information from my state.

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/), in 2001, there were 222,496 individuals licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Only 180, or 0.08%, were convicted of any form of offense.
:)