# Handgun Registration **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2001, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332 "2001-01-10T15:06:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/61 "2001-01-12T00:04:20Z")
ok, i was losing momentum there. second wind. > [@](#): > > Do I have to drag the details of your registration system out of you one at a time? Or, and this is probably the true situation, have you never actually thought about how to implement a system such as this? so this is your argument? if zwaldd hasn’t come up with all the specifics of a nationwide registration system forget it, entire country, it can’t happen? how about leaving that to people who are experts in the fields of record keeping and database administration? who cares what specifics i come up with? > [@](#): > > For your information, prosecution under these circumstances already takes place. There’s no need to impose registration to allow prosecution of negligent gun owners. the point was that registration doesn’t mean that gun owners will necessarily be held liable for no other reason than their gun being used in a crime. it was a proactive statement, the validity of which was proven by the first knee-jerk response to my post. > [@](#): > > Isn’t registration designed to help the authorities trace a gun used in a crime? no. as i’ve tried to explain ad nauseum, registration is designed to reduce the proliferation of guns used in crimes and allow for the confiscation of guns bought anonymously to be used in crime. > [@](#): > > You want to impose the law and then after the fact, determine what use we can make of it. no, i was saying that you don’t need to invoke a registration law to prosecute a crime, but obviously you can include it if the registration law was broken. > [@](#): > > Prosecution of negligent gun owners is already taking place. not in the circumstances where the gun can’t be linked to the owner, such as a private sale. registration provides that link. > [@](#): > > Nothing yet. Keep Trying come on, beer. your arguments are as paper thin as the nra pamphlet pages they’re printed on. you keep trying. ---
**Author:** ![another\_diversion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@another\_diversion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/another_diversion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/62 "2001-01-12T00:22:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by justwannano \* > > Damn. A thief is a thief. > A murderer is a murderer. An accident is an accident. > > If you do not understand my first analogy let me put it another way. If the same guy stole your car out of your garage and killed someone with it would you be responsible? > > \*\* mr./ms. justwanno, a theif is not simply a thief, a murderer is not simply a murderer, an accident is not simply an accident. as you can see by the discussion that has been going on, interpretation is very important. just think about the second amendment: no where does it state that an individual has the right to bear arms ‘outside’ of a militia, however many people seem to want to interpret it that way. as for your parallel thinking: a car is not a gun. by your reasoning, no one should be held responsible for anything ever. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/63 "2001-01-12T00:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Isn’t registration designed to help the authorities trace a gun used in a crime? > > no. as i’ve tried to explain ad nauseum, registration is designed to reduce the proliferation of guns used in crimes and allow for the confiscation of guns bought anonymously to be used in crime. > > > [@](#): > > > > Prosecution of negligent gun owners is already taking place. > > not in the circumstances where the gun can’t be linked to the owner, such as a private sale. registration provides that link. > > \*\* Please give us some examples of how registration would “reduce the proliferation of guns & allow for the confiscation of guns bought anon. to be used in crime”. If you have a gun at home- no matter how illegal- the police need a search warrent to get it. So, the law would NOT reduce guns kept at home. Next- guns carried concealed are already subject to confiscation- registered or not. Again- I cannot think of how registration would reduce crime or keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Where there is gun registration already- there is no evidence at all of this occuring. If you had some guns that were registered, and sold them to a criminal, or used them in a crime; you would just report them stolen- or haven’t you watched Law & Order? And- how would you require folks to register their private purchase guns? Note that in areas where they have required registration- only about 10% of the guns are actually brought down & registered. The only way i could think of how this would work, if say a woman shot a rapist in her home, with an unregistered gun- she would be arrested for owning an unregistered gun. And, this would be good… why? ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/64 "2001-01-12T00:34:36Z")
QUOTE] just think about the second amendment: no where does it state that an individual has the right to bear arms ‘outside’ of a militia, however many people seem to want to interpret it that way. QUOTE] The Supreme Court disagrees with you. This has been documented in various other threads in the past. Also, part of the point of this thread was that the gun registration advocates could not just say ‘it is so’ but had to give a realistic method of registration that would out weigh the negative aspects of registration. (see the OP) ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/65 "2001-01-12T00:39:41Z")
And for those who want to go along the lines of “cars are registered- why not guns?”- you should note in CA, at least, and some other states- you only have to register an auto if you are going to drive it on public streets. Thus- if you keep them in the garege, or ina “museum” no registration is nessesary. Registration is not required to OWN a vehicle- just to use public highways with that vehicle. In most areas- if you are going to CARRY a gun in PUBLIC- you must get a permit. If you are just going to keep it at home- nothing is required. So- as much as cars are “registered”- so are guns. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/66 "2001-01-12T01:30:47Z")
another diversion. The constitution does not give you the right to have sex either.Or to sit in the park. IMHO it mentions rights to insure them. Rights are not given. You already have them.Rights are god given. If you have the right to own property then you must have the right to protect it. An ICBM is kind of impracticle and Dynamite is not very safe.ATF regulates them. On the other hand a handgun,a rifle,shotgun,and even IMO an assult rifle can be used to protect yourself and your property and be very selective as to who it is used against. Why then should it be regulated at all.Proving where the gun came FROM cannot be much of a help in prosecuting a crime. Proving possession would. Like them or not the NRA makes an interesting point. Felons who obtain guns ((do not have to register them))It would be self incrimination. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/67 "2001-01-12T01:41:52Z")
another diversion Don’t put words in my mouth. “by your reasoning, no one should be held responsible for anything ever.” By my reasoning it would not be so easy for someone to blame the country’s problems on the innocent. Put the blame for crime, and punish them for it, on those who commit crime. Don’t blame the owners of machined chunks of steel for something a criminal did. And most of all don’t make the owner of machined chunks of steel a criminal just because they own it. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/68 "2001-01-12T04:10:16Z")
… Punish the criminals and not the victims? That is not what they, the gun control lobby wants, ::: sheesh ::: that would be preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/69 "2001-01-12T04:32:19Z")
BTW I still have the permit to buy a handgun signed by our previous sheriff. He lost the election 4 years ago. I’m gonna pick out a nice revolver someday. I also bought my 13 year old daughter a new shotgun because she wanted to go hunting and attended the hunter safety course. It was a pleasant surprise to me that she was that interested. Oh. Guess who the shotgun is registered to. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/70 "2001-01-12T04:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > yeah, by the anti-registation side as a straw man because nobody on the pro-registration side in this thread is defending it. It is not a “straw man”. It is an “argument against registration”. If you wish to argue FOR registration, you must counter the arguments AGAINST registration. Instead of just pooh-poohing everything, of course. > [@](#): > > well i wouldn’t say nothing. i’d say plenty. do i really have to keep trying? just re-read what i’ve already written Do you suffer from selective illiteracy? The OP asked for any benefit that will come from gun registration. So far, all you’ve managed to drum up is “a few lives”, which, as has been pointed out, is negligible, nor is there any proof. All else that you’ve brought up first assumes that “Guns are bad, and hence any lowered freedom involving them is good”. This is not an argument. This is ignorant, paranoid drivel. You continue to claim that you’re not in favor of a ban. Well, good for you. But you seem to oppose continued reasonable gun ownership. > [@](#): > > so this is your argument? if zwaldd hasn’t come up with all the specifics of a nationwide registration system forget it, entire country, it can’t happen? I don’t know how many times this can be explained to you: **We can’t think of any benefits that will come from gun registration. Can you?** If there are no benefits to gun registration (so far, this thread hasn’t revealed any), then a gun registration law should not be passed. > [@](#): > > no. as i’ve tried to explain ad nauseum, registration is designed to reduce the proliferation of guns used in crimes and allow for the confiscation of guns bought anonymously to be used in crime. And as you’ve been told ad nauseum, registration WON’T reduce the proliferation of guns used in etc. etc. etc. Look, I’m sure you need to repeat these things to you fifty times a day just to feel secure about yourself, but repetition does not equal truth. You’ll need a fact or two in order to get truth. Have any facts? > [@](#): > > no, i was saying that you don’t need to invoke a registration law to prosecute a crime, but obviously you can include it if the registration law was broken. In other words, a registration law only affects things that are already illegal, but we should make things MORE illegal? And just happen to build this massive, costly, unreliable, unrealistic database that can be abused to violate personal rights along the way… of course. > [@](#): > > not in the circumstances where the gun can’t be linked to the owner, such as a private sale. registration provides that link. How? Do you not know the meaning of the word “private”? > [@](#): > > come on, beer. your arguments are as paper thin as the nra pamphlet pages they’re printed on. But at least they’re arguments. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/71 "2001-01-12T11:53:21Z")
Sheesh. You guys, Daniel, Spoofe, justwannano, CatBiker have left me with nothing to respond to, except a small crumb. Thanks. Now maybe I can find the time to start the previously promised thread on goal of good gun legislation. another diversion said: > [@](#): > > the police aren’t necessarily looking for people not wearing their seatbelt, but should they stop you they have the option of fining you for this infraction. Well, that certainly _used_ to be the case. In Ohio, when sealtbelt legislation was first implemented, the police couldn’t write a ticket solely for lack of seatbelt use. However, last year the law was changed; the cops can now pull you over and write you a ticket for this and this alone. Slippery slope, anyone? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/72 "2001-01-12T15:23:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Please give us some examples of how registration would "reduce the proliferation of guns, etc. when i said ‘read what i’ve already written’ to uncle beer, i was just being lazy. but danielinthe… please don’t expect me to retype all my posts in this thread. read some of them and you’ll have your answers. > [@](#): > > part of the point of this thread was that the gun registration advocates could not just say ‘it is so’ but had to give a realistic method of registration that would out weigh the negative aspects of registration. you’re starting with the false assumption that we all agree on the negative aspects of registration, but what the hell: ok, my friend bob has a database all set up and ready to go that he has designed to be effectively administered and updated by one person. he’s just waiting for the go-ahead from congress. ok? my point, stated again, is that it doesn’t matter what specifics i come up with. i’m not an expert in the field of records keeping, so my specifics would be arbitrary. if you need specifics to continue this discussion, then bob’s system will have to suffice. if you say you can no longer take me seriously in this debate (if you ever did) because bob’s system sounds made up, that’s ok, i won’t be offended. > [@](#): > > And for those who want to go along the lines of "cars are registered- why not guns? well, none of those people have checked in here yet, but i’m sure when they do, you’ll let 'em have it. spoofe > [@](#): > > It is not a “straw man”. It is an “argument against registration”. If you wish to argue FOR registration, you must counter the arguments AGAINST registration. i’ve explained this already, but here it is again: as a gun owner, i am not afraid of registration leading to a confiscation of my guns because there is no precedent in this country for registration leading to a ban of anything and there is no evidence that this will be the first time. > [@](#): > > The OP asked for any benefit that will come from gun registration i gave a benefit for each of the specific points he brought up. i also acknowledged a benefit brought up by another poster, that registration will give us a good statistic base we can use for an intelligent discussion of gun laws. i still haven’t seen a stat on how many gun sales there are per day. and just to add something new, i would like to get rid of truly useless laws like assault weapon and high-cap magazine bans in favor of a registration law, the merits of which i’ve already itemized. > [@](#): > > Guns are bad, and hence any lowered freedom involving them is good i specifically stated that i like and own guns. in fact, in reading the rest of your post, i see it pretty much amounts to ‘says you’, so i won’t waste any more time picking it apart. beer > [@](#): > > Sheesh. You guys, Daniel, Spoofe, justwannano, CatBiker have left me with nothing to respond to you forgot to include me. now i’m insulted. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/73 "2001-01-12T15:58:43Z")
you know, spoofe, some of these are so absurd i’m going to waste my time anyway. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## so this is your argument? if zwaldd hasn’t come up with all the specifics of a nationwide registration system forget it, entire country, it can’t happen? > > I don’t know how many times this can be explained to you: We can’t think of any benefits that will come from gun registration. Can you? If there are no benefits to gun registration (so far, this thread hasn’t revealed any), then a gun registration law should not be passed. what was the purpose of quoting me before your statement here? the quote lops of the explanation of the comment and why it makes sense, but you don’t even try to argue against the out of context portion you included! > [@](#): > > Do you not know the meaning of the word “private”? let’s see - in this context it means a sale between individuals not in the business of retail gun sales. not to make an ass out of u and me, but am i to assume you think a ‘private’ gun sale is one that is secret? do you picture the ‘private sector’ as a bunch of people in fedoras and dark sunglasses wearing trenchcoats with the collars raised? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/74 "2001-01-12T16:04:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CatBiker \* > **QUOTE] > just think about the second amendment: no where does it state that an individual has the right to bear arms ‘outside’ of a militia, however many people seem to want to interpret it that way. > QUOTE] > The Supreme Court disagrees with you. This has been documented in various other threads in the past…** Actually, this comes as a real surprise to me. Can you cite some cases? Because I can: [United States v Miller (1939)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174): Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. Probably the most famous decisions. Miller’s conviction for possessing an illegal sawed-off shotgun was upheld, but the reason is that the weapon in question had no practical military value and could not be construed as a militia weapon. Since it’s not a weapon of practical use to a member of THE (not a) militia, his appeal was denied. [UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ (1990)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259): The court ruled that **“The People”** under the First, **Second** , Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States. And a lower court decision: [U.S. v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON (1999)](http://ccrkba.org/EmersonViewOptions.html): Second Amendment is an Individual Right. This one is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, where it will FINALLY cause them to address the 2nd Amendment directly. (Read the [Judgment](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emersjd.pdf), the [Memorandum opinion](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emerson.pdf), and the [Amended opinion](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emers_2.pdf) at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas [website](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/)) Well, I showed you mine…now you show me yours. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/75 "2001-01-12T16:32:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > **…there is no precedent in this country for registration leading to a ban of anything and there is no evidence that this will be the first time…** Which part of the word “California” do you not understand? Or “New York City”? In both places, registration and licensing were put into place to “just keep track of guns and keep them away from criminals”. Then fees were increased to exorbitant amounts. Then mandatory conditions for licensing were made prohibitively difficult to attain. Then large blocks of weapon types were banned outright. Now there are large pushes to ban guns altogether. And as I said on the previous page, felons and other people banned from owning firearms are specifically exempted from registration requirements and prosecution for possession of unregistered firearms, due to protection against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment (I’m all hurt that nobody commented on my post :() So not only does registration not have significant benefit (unless you’re a government eventually wanting to confiscate guns), it also has huge drawbacks. ---
**Author:** ![another\_diversion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@another\_diversion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/another_diversion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/76 "2001-01-12T16:41:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by CatBiker \* > > **QUOTE] > > just think about the second amendment: no where does it state that an individual has the right to bear arms ‘outside’ of a militia, however many people seem to want to interpret it that way. > > QUOTE] > > The Supreme Court disagrees with you. This has been documented in various other threads in the past…** > > Actually, this comes as a real surprise to me. Can you cite some cases? Because I can: > > [United States v Miller (1939)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174): Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. Probably the most famous decisions. Miller’s conviction for possessing an illegal sawed-off shotgun was upheld, but the reason is that the weapon in question had no practical military value and could not be construed as a militia weapon. Since it’s not a weapon of practical use to a member of THE (not a) militia, his appeal was denied. \*\* doesn’t this just support the arguement because the supreme court ruled to DENY his appeal because he was NOT a member of the militia. His conviction for carrying a sawed-off shotgun was UPHELD. if i am reading this incorrectly please let me know (i’m sure you will). also: > [@](#): > > No federal court has ever struck down a gun control law as violating the Second Amendment. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to the prosecution of two individuals who transported a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia, and that it “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Because there was no evidence that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun had any “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court found that the Second Amendment had not been violated. Id. Subsequent cases have held that the modern equivalent of the “militia” is the National Guard. > > In U.S. v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit read Miller as protecting only those weapons which are actively being used by a militia member for a legitimate, militia-related purpose. A weapon is not constitutionally protected simply because it is “susceptible to military use.” Indeed, as observed by the court, it would be difficult to find a lethal weapon which does not have a “potential military use.” Hale, 978 F. 2d at 1020. Instead, a plaintiff must prove that “his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia.” Id. Membership in an unorganized militia, or a private, nongovernmental military organization, is not enough to satisfy the “reasonable relationship” test. Id. > > In Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), the Seventh Circuit upheld a local ordinance banning the possession of handguns. The court rejected the appellants’ Second Amendment challenge: > > Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia…[W]e conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment. > > Quilici, 695 F. 2d at 270. > > The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Quilici, allowing the Circuit Court’s decision to stand. > > The eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals which have analyzed the Second Amendment have uniformly adopted this narrow view. In addition, while the courts have chosen to apply many other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, they have explicitly declined to do so with the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Quilici, supra, and Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992) (the Second Amendment limits only federal action). > > In short, the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to rational gun control laws. As discussed above, the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of service to a state’s “well regulated Militia” i.e., today’s National Guard; it does not preclude federal, state or local regulation of the sale, use or ownership of guns for private purposes.\*\* i know the topic of discussion is gun registration, but i originally added the part about the second amendment because of peoples insistence that it is their ‘god’ given right as an indidual of the united states to own a weapon. just because the law does not forbide it, does not mean it is a basic right. as for the other cases you sighted, i will look into them, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/77 "2001-01-12T16:57:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Then large blocks of weapon types were banned outright. this isn’t the greatest link, but it mentions the existence of pre-ban and post ban weapons. [http://home1.gte.net/bblakley/ban/](http://home1.gte.net/bblakley/ban/) the argument that registration precedes a ban implies that pre-ban registered guns will be traced and confiscated. unless i (or anyone) can find some documentation that the pre-ban registered weapons are the ones that were made illegal and then confiscated, then there’s no reason to assume that registration was in any way related to a ban, had any impact on the scope of the ban, or was necessary to enact the ban. similarly, i can still by pre-ban high cap magazines and people who owned them can continue to use them and sell them without fear of having them confiscated. therefore, we are still without evidence that registration is the first step to a ban. ---
**Author:** ![another\_diversion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@another\_diversion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/another_diversion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/78 "2001-01-12T17:00:45Z")
joe\_cool i apologize for directing the last email to you, i misread the intention of your post. rather, mr. catbiker that is for you and yours. ---
**Author:** ![another\_diversion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@another\_diversion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/another_diversion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/79 "2001-01-12T18:12:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Which part of the word “California” do you not understand? Or “New York City”? \*\* I am sure that there are people in every state that push for a complete ban of all firearms (well, maybe not texas) and i am sure (in the case of New York City) they did so even BEFORE registration, permit laws etc. were passed. New York City requires a permit to purchase, registration, liscensing of owners, and a permit to carry. Doesn’t sound unreasonable or seem to be one or two steps away from a total ban. As far as costly, its New York City, a 10’x10’ room is $1000. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332/80 "2001-01-12T18:49:03Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by another diversion \* \*\* > [@](#): > > No federal court has ever struck down a gun control law as violating the Second Amendment. …\… In short, the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to rational gun control laws. As discussed above, the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of service to a state’s “well regulated Militia” i.e., today’s National Guard; it does not preclude federal, state or local regulation of the sale, use or ownership of guns for private purposes.\*\* Thanks for this beautiful bit of anti-constitution propaganda. Hmmm, I wonder if I, too, could string together out-of-context quotes, interspersed with my own commentary to make it look nice and official. Let’s see… The Miller SCOTUS ruling "show[s] plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. " Oh wait, I didn’t have to take quotes and fill bullshit in between them to make a point. In fact, some of the “quotes” from your post didn’t seem to be in the ruling at all. THX LIES! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-registration/49332.md?page=5)