Handgun Registration

Great Debates
81

…But I couldn’t let it go.

Glad to oblige. His conviction WAS upheld. But you’re wrong on the reason. Read the opinion. The conviction was upheld because the weapon he had was of no value to the militia. Operating on the assumption that he WAS a member of the militia. The appeal (he was entitled to possess the sawed-off shotgun on the grounds that as a member of the unorganized militia under U.S.C. Title 10, Sec 311(a), with the right to keep and bear arms) was rejected on the grounds that a militiaman should not have that weapon as it is not a military weapon.

Now, for the record, I believe the Miller case was flawed, and the court did not properly discuss the true implications of the 2nd Amendment. It does not protect a right for the National Guard (See the link I provide below), but for the people. Once again, let me give you an analogy:

if the 2nd Amendment said instead:
“A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to read and publish books, shall not be infringed”
Would that mean that only registered voters should be able to read or publish? Of course not.

It states a justification for a right, then protects it. Paraphrase:

“Because a well-equipped militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, from whom the militia is composed, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Not true. Read the links I provided. Those are only the highlights. I’m sure some lawyer can do a much more in-depth search than I can.

Not true. Read PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (1990), Where the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is NOT the militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, but part of the National Armed Forces.

**

Um, that is an invalid argument, because there is no relationship implied in the text of the Amendment. See the explanation I provided above.

Please do look into them, because they contradict everything you just said. But as for the right to be ‘god given’, read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Also, you say we think it’s our right just because it’s not forbidden by law? No, we think it’s our right because it is GUARANTEED in the highest law of the land: The Bill of Rights. It’s one of the untouchable rights, just like speech, religion, press, security from unreasonable search & seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, etc.

That’s why we think that.

82

Again, please enlighten me further (maybe on a new thread because we are now WAAAY off this one). until then…
In the miller case, i agree that it was because he did not have the approved fire arm of the militia (which we are to assume he belonged). I also understand that people OF or BELONGING TO the militia (a state run organization) were responsible for arming themselves. Therefore, it is a persons responsibilty (for now i will include ‘right’) to bear a firearm if and only IF they should belong to the militia. There is no mention of the right or responsibilty to bear a firearm if not ‘employed’ by the state.

what???

**

“a private, nongovernmental military org” is not invalid because of what i just illustrated above.

‘god-given’ refers to certain rights among them “life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness” and as you say the Bill of Rights (of which i still am unconvinced of its assurance that any individual has a right to bear firearms outside of an organized state run militia).

**As for the “spooky” DEMISE, don’t worry, we all feel unloved.

83

What makes you think that a militia has to be state-run to be a militia? Look at the definition the Supreme Court gave in my post above and then tell me how you see the state in any of that.

Hell, what makes you think that the National Guard is state run? The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has the right to supercede the governor of a state in deploying the National Guard. Therefore, the National Guard is NOT a state militia anyway, and absolutely not a militia that is meant to defend the people from a tyrannical government.

And don’t worry about the hijack, it’s hardly uncommon for someone to chime into a gun debate on the SDMB claiming that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it actually does mean.

Ummm, ok, thanks for sharing.

84

Folks- Uncabeer started this OP with some gereral 'rules". And discussing the 2nd admendment was not one of them. We have discussed the 2nd Ad over & over, time & again. Also- again it does not matter for the purposes of this debate whether or not the ultimate purpose of registration is confiscation. What we want to know- is there any actual defense or purpose for gun registration-EXCEPT that of eventual confiscation. You know, I have asked Unca’s question before in other threads- and it alwasy gets ignored by folks in favor of gun control. It seems to be that there is no valid reason FOR gun registration- or if there is, we have not heard it yet. We can assume, for the purposes of this debate- that the 2nd Ad does not prohibit registration- and that the purpose is NOT confiscation. (However, I reserve the right to conclude that, if no acceptable, cogent reasons for registration come out). See, if gun registration does NOT lead to a reduction in violent crime- then the reasons for passing the law must be one of 3- Stupidity, desire to annoy/harrass gun owners, or eventual confiscation. However- for THIS Op, it does not matter which of these 3- what matters is whether or not gun control supporters CAN muster a cogent defense of gun registration. And so far- they have failed.

See- I am not one of those knee-jerk NRA members, who is against all gun control. If you can show me that a gun control law will reduce violent crime- by a significant amount- without putting scads of law-abiding citizens in jail- I am all for it. I LIKE “instant background checks”- they infringe very little on gun-owners rights- and yet they stop felons from buying guns (at least the easy way).

So- show me & Unca how, exactly, gun registration would lead to less violent crime. “Slippery slope” & 2nd Ad debates can go to another thread- please.

85

joe_cool

can you specify where it says that? i couldn’t find any reference to the second ammendment in that link. i found references to “the ‘Montgomery Amendment,’ which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty.” and to “the Militia Clauses of Article I, 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

i also found where it states “The dual enlistment system requires state National Guard members to simultaneously enroll in the National Guard of the United States (NGUS), a reserve component of the national armed forces”, but still no implication that the national guard isn’t the militia necessary for a free state as stated in the second ammendment.

86

Holy shit. You can’t see that this might be, I dunno, maybe a slight conflict of interest? That is, assuming that the National Guard IS the militia refered to in the 2nd Amendment…which it isn’t.

87

Eh. No sweat. It was inevitable. We gave it a good shot though. And thanks, Daniel, for the attempt at re-tracking this sumbitch; it’s probably a futile effort though.

Or maybe, we’re done with the registration issue. Since no one yet has conclusively shown a positive benefit of handgun registration, I rather doubt one is forthcoming anytime soon. I’ll check back in later, but if youse guys are still arguing the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment, I won’t respond; I haven’t the energy for that monster right now. And actually, I still owe that thread on goals of good gun legislation anyway; my time might be better spent on that OP. Maybe tomorrow, right now I’ve got beer to drink.

Thanks, all.

88

that was a good conclusion, uncle beer, and had i not spent some time figuring how to word this post, i would have left it at that, but here’s my impression of what happened here. and demise - yes it would be a conflict of interest. that’s what i get for getting off-topic.

a warning to those who attempt to debate in this thread. here’s the format for the debate:

question A is posed and you respond with answer B. they argue against B with response C, to which you respond with comment D. comment D is ignored while the next few posts argue straw men E, F, and G. you ignore the straw men, or explain why they are straw, or, as in my case, allow yourself to be momentarily distracted. now, with a buffer of irrelevant arguments between their next post and the yet unanswered comment D, they re-post question A and claim it has yet to be answered. that’s where we are now.

89

zwald- there is certainly a nugget of truth in what you say- but here we are- do you have any evidence that gun registration would reduce violent crime by a significant amount? You did come up with some ideas- such as arresting & confiscating guns for those with unregistered fire-arms. However, as we pointed out- there are already laws on the books- that do not require registration- which allow for that. Again- i have asked this query before- but EVERY time it goes off into arguements about the 2nd admend, or whether anti-gun folks want to confiscate ALL guns.

So- i am listening. And- with not a shred of straw at hand. Since I am not rabid on this subject- I can listen & debate without getting excited. Again- there are some good gun control laws. But- and I do have quite a bit of experience working with governments & such- i can think of no SIGNIFICANT potential reduction in violent crime that could occur with registration. And i have been reading such arguements since high school. So far, your arguements, while well thought out, cannot meet my objections.

90

There is no reference to the 2nd Amendment. The ruling is that the National Guard is not a militia of the People, nor is it a State militia. It is a branch of the United States Armed Forces. The relevance to the 2nd Amendment is that gun control advocates claim the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard (a false claim) and protects its rights as a State militia (another false claim), and that decision debunks both cases.

You must have missed where it says “The District Court rejected the Governor’s challenge, holding that the Federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress’ Article I, 8, power to raise and support armies.”

But before we get caught up quibbling in details, remember that the 2nd Amendment does not say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Just because it contains the word “militia” does not mean it is addressing the militia.

And we have gotten really sidetracked.

Registration is GOOD because:

  1. It may save a few lives here and there by making owners easier to track.

  2. Some few crimes would be easier to solve and criminals easier to identify.

  3. Some few crimes would be prevented by confiscation and prosecution for unregistered guns.

  4. um…did we ever find more reasons than this? Maybe creation of jobs to man the registration stations and manage the database? But that’s really not a relevant benefit.

Registration is BAD because:

  1. It will streamline confiscation at some future point.

  2. It makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

  3. It is a violation of personal privacy.

  4. It requires citizens to go to unnecessary lengths of effort and pay fees out of pocket for the “privilege” of exercising a right protected by the Constitution. (speech license? not likely)

  5. It fosters the licensing and tracking of citizens who have done nothing wrong and have committed no crime.

  6. No practical implementation method.

  7. Prohibitively expensive.

  8. Favors criminals, who are exempt from registration and prosecution for unregistered firearms due to 5th Amendment protections.

(Preamble to the Bill of Rights, setting the original ten Amendments apart from the rest, as being above interpretation and usurpation)

  1. Since 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. (paraphrased from Article II of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States)
91

However- I cannot think of any way any of these would effect crime in a significant way. And- I am not going to be in favor of a law that will cost 10’s of millions, create a new agency that will make the DMV look “customer freindly”, and put hundreds of law-abiding (except for the gun registration law) folks behind bars- for the possible/maybe potential benefits. Before we do all of that- i want to see a solid estimate of a significant reduction in violent crime. IF, and I repeat IF we could do that- then would could consider the cost vs benefits of such a law. But as it is- is is all cost & no benefits. No law enforcement agency has ever had a study, afaik, that concluded gun registration would reduce crime.

Any of the crimes it could help with- in strained lifeboat cases- are with criminals so stupid that they cannot possibly be a long-term threat.

92

Thank you, Joe_Cool, for doing what zwaldd should have done. (It’s called a “recap”, by the way).

And, Daniel, you’re right… the concievable benefits that come from gun registration are statistically negligible, and are unprovable. I can not understand how some people can even think to base a such a heavy-handed law on such weak notions.

93

i haven’t recapped because if i did, per my debate format model above, you’d argue my points(B) with argument©, even though we’d already moved on to response(D) near the top of this page. it would make this long thread even more confusing.

however, i will move past points already posted to something else. the point that there’s no specific stats available to show how registration has affected violent gun crimes is a good one. i haven’t found any stats from an unbiased source so if anyone can do that it would be helpful.

from this biased source - http://www.handguncontrol.org/stateleg/fedlaws.asp i found this info:
**Q: Which state have registration laws?
A:Two states (Hawaii and Louisiana) and the District of Columbia provide for the registration of handguns or firearms.

Twenty-one states have record of sales laws: Alabama; Alaska; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Illinois; Indiana; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Vermont; Washington; and Wyoming.

(Note: These laws vary dramatically. Several like Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota require the information to be forwarded to a governmental authority. Others merely require the dealers to retain the information, usually for a limited period of time.)**

i couldn’t find what the difference was between registration and record of sales was. one of the points i brought up way back was that registration will make private gun transfers trackable, thus decreasing the opportunity for anonymous use of guns in crime (now please, this point(B) has been argued up to response(D) already, so please take the time to read the earlier posts before re-posting objection©). i believe the main obstacle to the effectiveness of this goal of registration is the continued proliferation of unregistered guns coming from states that don’t require registration. the quote above lists only two states with a registration law. now if this info is outdated, i apologize, but don’t just come back and say ‘california recently passed a registration law!’ one more state isn’t going to solve the problem. i think it makes sense that if there was a national registration law, the effectiveness of the law, as well as currently ineffective state gun laws, will be more fully realized. i acknowledge it’s an opinion that doesn’t have backup stats, mainly because such a national law doesn’t exist.

now, joe_cool, on to a huge can of worms. your last reason why registration is bad is

i conceded demise’s point earlier, acknowledging that the militia referred to here is an individual state militia and not a national security type militia (as gun control advocates usually contend). if that’s the case, then is the quote above even true? before i argue that it’s false and brand myself a commie, can someone tell me when, in the 250 years since this was written, that a state militia was called upon and successfully defended the security of a free state? there are many states in this country in which the right to bear arms has been severly infringed (nj, for example), yet their state is no less free than texas (except for the gun laws). in the 24 years i spent growing up in new jersey, i only knew one private citizen who owned a gun and, as far as i know, the only time he used it was to put down his old dog. almost everyone i know in texas owns a gun, yet none of them have ever participated in a militia of any kind. i don’t know of any incident in which private citizens as a group or as individuals have risen up and used their guns to protect themselves from oppression in this country, nor have i heard about states with severly restrictive gun laws having any of their other freedoms stripped away. so i question whether a well regulated militia is in fact necessary for the security of a free state. is there any event or evidence in the history of our country that proves otherwise?

94

So to paraphrase, what you are saying is that since we haven’t needed to exercise a right, we shouldn’t have that right?

95

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zwaldd *
**

Once again, you’re either missing or else ignoring the point: The 2nd Amendment doesn’t address the militia. It addresses THE PEOPLE. The militia clause is subordinate. The primary clause of the sentence is “The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” You get so caught up looking at the details that you miss the main point. “Like a finger pointing away to the moon…don’t conentrate on the finger, or you miss all that heavenly glory!” (Bruce Lee)

Anyway, read my point #9. That’s the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It’s usually not printed, because it’s not expedient to the lawmakers for the public at large to know what it says. The reason for the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government. The original ten Amendments are NOT open to interpretation and regulation. They are set apart from the rest of the Constitution and Amendments as “further declaratory and restrictive clauses … added [for the purpose of] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government…”

96

demise

no, i believe we’ve exercised the right to bear arms plenty and as a gun owner i’m glad we have the right. however, as joe_cool offered the statement as an argument against registration, i’m attempting to prove it false as a rational argument.

joe_cool

i’m not suggesting we alter the bill of rights. you posed this statement as an argument against registration. by offering this argument, you’re equating registration as defined in the debate thus far by your opposition (me), as an infringement on the right to bear arms, so i’m treating it as a logical argument: p, therefore q. i’m suggesting that p is false. not p, therefore not q. i’ll willingly recant this in the face of evidence that p is true.

97

and, joe_cool, keep in mind that if you tell me that my assumption that you included the statement as a logical argument was incorrect and that you were merely arguing that registration, as has been defined in this debate, is unconstitutional, then you are violating your own argument #9, in that you’re interpreting the meaning of the amendment. there’s no implication there about enacting an official procedure in the acquisition of arms.

98

I don’t like handguns nor am I convinced of the necessity of them, however, I don’t see any great benefit in the process of handgun registration. Nobody here has adequately met UB’s challenge.

99

So- tell me that LA & DC have lower violent crime rates than other States- whoops- DC has just about the HIGHEST violent crime rate.

How will registration make private transfers trackable- if the persons do not want to have their guns tracked? If a criminal buys a gun from a 'source"- the “source” will simply say the gun was stolen. Next- how would that reduce the “opportunity for anonymous use of guns in crime”? Do you think that at a 'drive-by"- we would know what the serial number of the guns used was? Or a bank robbery? Do you think a criminal would use a gun registered to him in a crime? Or if he did- leave it at the scene? Guns used in murders are usually dropped in the “east river”. So- in order for this to be helpful for solving crimes- we would have to have criminals that are stupid enuf to carry guns registered to them- and then leave them at the scene of the crime- (AND not be able to come up with a plausible “it was stolen a week ago story”). Umm- there ARE crooks that stupid- but when they are, the police don’t have to worry about tracking them thru gun registration, as they likely also wrote the stick-up note on the back of their pay stub, or something similarly foolish. OK, this COULD happen once in a while- but when it does we read about it in those 'stupid crooks" columns & books. In no way would this happen enuf to be a SIGNIFICANT source of evidence. My experience on the Grand Jury did not include any crime that could have been solved by gun registration.

However- and I want us to get back to the main point here- “gun registration” appears to NOT “infringe the right to keep & bear”- it appears to be the “well regulated” part. UNLESS the registration is made so onerous that it AMOUNTS to confiscation, eg $1,000 per gun “fees”, etc. So- the 2nd Ad is MOOT. Argue it somewhere else- PLEASE>

100

If there’s a regulation that does nothing except create new hassles and the potential for abuse, is that “well-regulated”?