Reason why a gun registration will not happen.

[Glitch]

Unless the penalty of failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

Seriously? If they seize your property for not registering that property, how is that not an infringement?

And arguing what might happen down the road is not germane to the immediate issue.

Of course it is germane, because it speaks to the purpose of government registration. The ONLY purpose of government registration of firearms, as has been demonstrated numerous times, is to confiscate those firearms. Which makes any form of mandatory registration unconstitutional.

* I am not for or against registering firearms. Just participating in the debate, playing devil’s advocate.

We know that is a lie, considering you have been advocating for registration while trying to deny that you are. Every time a point that has been brought up to demonstrate why mandatory firearm registration violates the US Constitution, including Supreme Court cases, you try to shoot it down. So you can stop pretending that you do not support firearm registration, because it is very obvious that you do.

 

[CLAX1911]

The law wasn’t the cause in Roof’s case, failure to properly implement the law was.

What law? Laws against murder?

 

[roughdraft274]

Take a scenario you have a person with a gun and the government says register it and he registers. Should it get stolen he has the duty to report it to the police in a timely fashion lest he be suspected for any crime it should be involved in. So why would he register it? It's a lose-lose situation for him.

If the gun registration were enforced at point of sale from federally licensed dealers, meaning that when you purchase the gun it's registered to you at that time, then you wouldn't have the option of going to the gun store and buying a new gun and not registering unless you found a dirty dealer which is highly unlikely cause I doubt they'd want to lose their license etc.

If we are discussing guns that are just already owned by someone, then it's still possible to track the gun back to them if they didn't register it. It's just much harder, more time consuming and sometimes not possible. But if the person were ever caught with the unregistered fire arm he'd get in trouble. Which would be motivation to register.

If all new guns were registered, eventually almost every gun, except for ones that have been owned by the same person for a very long time and are very unlikely to be used in a crime, would be registered and therefor the point is pretty much moot.

This sort of ties into universal background checks as well. The idea as I understand it, is to perform a background check on a person to person sale. if person A wants to sell his gun to person B all he does is trade the gun for money and he can do that anyway there's no way the government would know about it. Requiring person A to do a background check for most certainly a fee, wait for info to come back from the government which takes weeks sometimes months, to sell the gun to person B. If by some magical feet there is a registration that is functional, person A would just sell it to a person B and report it stolen to save himself the trouble the cost and the time.

That would require both of the persons to be wanting to break the law. I'm sure that this would happen in a few instances. But you'd need to find a seller that is willing to take this chance by illegally selling this gun and illegally filing a police report that it was stolen and you'd also need a person that wants to purchase a gun that he can't register because it was just reported stolen. If the guy goes to register it and you just reported it stolen, you're up ****s creek without a paddle.

A gun registry does have it's complications. But I don't think you've given any good reasons to believe it can't work.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Seriously? If they seize your property for not registering that property, how is that not an infringement?

You’re not paying attention. I said unless the penalty for failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

Of course it is germane, because it speaks to the purpose of government registration. The ONLY purpose of government registration of firearms, as has been demonstrated numerous times, is to confiscate those firearms. Which makes any form of mandatory registration unconstitutional.

No, your argument is not germane. There is no known or planned government seizure of American’s firearms, and there isn’t any history in the U.S. of that ever happening (that I know of). Maybe, might, and “I just know it’ll happen” are not valid arguments.

We know that is a lie, considering you have been advocating for registration while trying to deny that you are. Every time a point that has been brought up to demonstrate why mandatory firearm registration violates the US Constitution, including Supreme Court cases, you try to shoot it down. So you can stop pretending that you do not support firearm registration, because it is very obvious that you do.

You speak for yourself only, not everyone else, and I don’t give a **** if you believe me. I own firearms too, and have no desire to ever have them taken by my government, but don’t see any genuine threat of that as a result of registration.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What law? Laws against murder?

Federal law requires FFL’s to conduct a background check prior to selling firearms. Didn’t you know that? The failure of the background checking system (NICS) wasn’t properly completed. That is how Roof got his handgun.

 

[Glitch]

If the gun registration were enforced at point of sale from federally licensed dealers, meaning that when you purchase the gun it's registered to you at that time, then you wouldn't have the option of going to the gun store and buying a new gun and not registering unless you found a dirty dealer which is highly unlikely cause I doubt they'd want to lose their license etc.

That would be an infringement, and a violation of the Second Amendment. Any requirement to register a firearm would violate the Second Amendment. In order to be constitutional firearm registration must be voluntary.

If we are discussing guns that are just already owned by someone, then it's still possible to track the gun back to them if they didn't register it. It's just much harder, more time consuming and sometimes not possible. But if the person were ever caught with the unregistered fire arm he'd get in trouble. Which would be motivation to register.

And that is what makes it an infringement - Any penalty for not registering.

Furthermore, if a firearm is never registered then it is quite impossible for law enforcement to trace that firearm back to its owner. None of my firearms are registered, and I've never been subjected to a background check for any of my firearm purchases. So how, exactly, is law enforcement suppose to trace any of my firearms back to me?

If all new guns were registered, eventually almost every gun, except for ones that have been owned by the same person for a very long time and are very unlikely to be used in a crime, would be registered and therefor the point is pretty much moot.

Not in the US. Some other country maybe, but in the US where we have the individual right to keep and bear arms without infringement by government, any form of mandatory firearm registration would be unconstitutional.

 

[Glitch]

You’re not paying attention. I said unless the penalty for failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

If the penalty for not registering a firearm was a fine, and not confiscation, it would still be an infringement. Any penalty of any kind makes it an infringement. The only time registering a firearm would not be an infringement would be if that registration was entirely voluntary.

No, your argument is not germane. There is no known or planned government seizure of American’s firearms, and there isn’t any history in the U.S. of that ever happening (that I know of). Maybe, might, and “I just know it’ll happen” are not valid arguments.

Actually, there is and has been for decades. Thus confirming your support for mandatory firearm registration. Senator Diane Feinstein has been saying for decades how much she would love to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the US.

Sen. Feinstein's 1995 "60 Minutes" interview

You speak for yourself only, not everyone else, and I don’t give a **** if you believe me. I own firearms too, and have no desire to ever have them taken by my government, but don’t see any genuine threat of that as a result of registration.

Right, and I own ocean-front property in South Dakota that you will just love! ROFL! Your lies are very transparent.

 

[roughdraft274]

That would be an infringement, and a violation of the Second Amendment. Any requirement to register a firearm would violate the Second Amendment. In order to be constitutional firearm registration must be voluntary.

And that is what makes it an infringement - Any penalty for not registering.

Furthermore, if a firearm is never registered then it is quite impossible for law enforcement to trace that firearm back to its owner. None of my firearms are registered, and I've never been subjected to a background check for any of my firearm purchases. So how, exactly, is law enforcement suppose to trace any of my firearms back to me?

Not in the US. Some other country maybe, but in the US where we have the individual right to keep and bear arms without infringement by government, any form of mandatory firearm registration would be unconstitutional.

There is a gun registry in Hawaii. So if it violates the second amendment you should call them and tell them.

Actually, you can punish people for not registering. The only ones you can't punish, are the people that can't legally own guns (Felons) because of their right not to incriminate themselves. For those people you just punish them for having a gun when they aren't supposed to rather than the not registering part.

There will be some guns that are unregistered no matter what. I've already said that is the case. But the good majority would be registered. Just like the overwhelming majority right now are sold only after a back ground check. Pointing out that some would be untraceable really has nothing to do with the topic. The argument that a gun registry wouldn't work or shouldn't be done because it won't be 100% is just a stupid argument.

 

[Chillfolks]

Unless the penalty of failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

And arguing what might happen down the road is not germane to the immediate issue.

* I am not for or against registering firearms. Just participating in the debate, playing devil’s advocate.

If registration was federal law and someone didn’t register a firearm wouldn’t they face a felony charge? If they are found guilty they would in turn forfeit their right to own a gun. I’m not a lawyer but do believe a case could be made the penalty would be a form of confiscation especially if you are required to turn guns over to the government if its not registered

 

[Glitch]

There is a gun registry in Hawaii. So if it violates the second amendment you should call them and tell them.

Yes they do, and they also require firearms to be licensed. Which is yet another infringement against the US Constitution. Like I said, Democrats make it a habit to regularly violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people, and Hawaii is a Democrat stronghold.

Actually, you can punish people for not registering.

No, you can't. At least not without violating their Second Amendment rights.

There will be some guns that are unregistered no matter what. I've already said that is the case. But the good majority would be registered. Just like the overwhelming majority right now are sold only after a back ground check. Pointing out that some would be untraceable really has nothing to do with the topic. The argument that a gun registry wouldn't work or shouldn't be done because it won't be 100% is just a stupid argument.

The only way you can make firearm registration constitutional is by making it voluntary. The instant you impose any penalty for not registering a firearm, you've crossed the line into infringement.

Firearm registration only serves one purpose - to allow government to seize all registered firearms. This has been demonstrated to be the case historically in Germany, England, Australia, and Canada. Therefore, anyone who voluntarily registers a firearm in the US is a complete idiot and incredibly ignorant of history.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If the penalty for not registering a firearm was a fine, and not confiscation, it would still be an infringement. Any penalty of any kind makes it an infringement. The only time registering a firearm would not be an infringement would be if that registration was entirely voluntary.

Clearly, you don’t know the definition of infringement.

Actually, there is and has been for decades. Thus confirming your support for mandatory firearm registration. Senator Diane Feinstein has been saying for decades how much she would love to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the US.

I don’t know whether to laugh at your stupidity or feel sorry for you. **** sympathy, :2rofll: A 29 year old idea of one (1) U.S. Senator is not a government plan.

Right, and I own ocean-front property in South Dakota ....

You probably believe you do.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If registration was federal law and someone didn’t register a firearm wouldn’t they face a felony charge? If they are found guilty they would in turn forfeit their right to own a gun. I’m not a lawyer but do believe a case could be made the penalty would be a form of confiscation especially if you are required to turn guns over to the government if its not registered

You’re assuming what the penalty might be. That isn’t an argument. I could say it’s also possible that charge would be a civil misdemeanor with monetary penalty and no confiscation. One idea isn’t more valid than the other.

 

[Lursa]

Unless the penalty of failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

And arguing what might happen down the road is not germane to the immediate issue.

* I am not for or against registering firearms. Just participating in the debate, playing devil’s advocate.

You realize that once the right is breached by registration, that it's easy for a govt to change the law to enable confiscation. Esp. a govt that feels threatened by that gun ownership. Or to declare martial law and do so like they did in New Orleans. Or just claim that it's a security risk in a time of national vulnerability, etc etc etc.


And of course 'what happens down the road' is relevant. A key reason for the 2A was because a govt that fell into tyranny would have to think long and hard about revolution against an armed population. This was one if the intents described by the FFs.

 

[roughdraft274]

Yes they do, and they also require firearms to be licensed. Which is yet another infringement against the US Constitution. Like I said, Democrats make it a habit to regularly violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people, and Hawaii is a Democrat stronghold.

No, you can't. At least not without violating their Second Amendment rights.

The only way you can make firearm registration constitutional is by making it voluntary. The instant you impose any penalty for not registering a firearm, you've crossed the line into infringement.

Firearm registration only serves one purpose - to allow government to seize all registered firearms. This has been demonstrated to be the case historically in Germany, England, Australia, and Canada. Therefore, anyone who voluntarily registers a firearm in the US is a complete idiot and incredibly ignorant of history.

The supreme court has already ruled on this. It's not unconstitutional.

 

[Glitch]

You realize that once the right is breached by registration, that it's easy for a govt to change the law to enable confiscation. Esp. a govt that feels threatened by that gun ownership. Or to declare martial law and do so like they did in New Orleans. Or just claim that it's a security risk in a time of national vulnerability, etc etc etc.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in other countries. But you are wasting your time with RaleBulgarian. He came here to advocate for mandatory firearm registration and absolutely nothing you, or anyone else, says will change his fascist point of view.

 

[TurtleDude]

The supreme court has already ruled on this. It's not unconstitutional.

Really-what case?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You realize that once the right is breached by registration, ...

How is anyone’s 2A right breached by requiring registration?

...., that it's easy for a govt to change the law to enable confiscation. Esp. a govt that feels threatened by that gun ownership. Or to declare martial law and do so like they did in New Orleans. Or just claim that it's a security risk in a time of national vulnerability, etc etc etc.

It is a false argument to say that changing laws to allow for confiscation of firearms would be easy. And as for the cluster **** that was New Orleans’ Marshall law declaration, those actions were found to be unlawful and numerous lawsuits had to be settled by the city/state.

And of course 'what happens down the road' is relevant. A key reason for the 2A was because a govt that fell into tyranny would have to think long and hard about revolution against an armed population. This was one if the intents described by the FFs.

Baseless assertions of what might happen down the road aren’t valid points of debate. In the history of our country, there has never been a confiscation of firearms on a mass scale (that I know of), and there is no reason to believe that possibility would turn to reality.

 

[CLAX1911]

If the gun registration were enforced at point of sale from federally licensed dealers, meaning that when you purchase the gun it's registered to you at that time, then you wouldn't have the option of going to the gun store and buying a new gun and not registering unless you found a dirty dealer which is highly unlikely cause I doubt they'd want to lose their license etc.

you don't have to buy a gun from a FFL or a store. This reality is often times called The gun Show loophole but it has nothing to do with the loophole or a gun show.

If we are discussing guns that are just already owned by someone, then it's still possible to track the gun back to them if they didn't register it. It's just much harder, more time consuming and sometimes not possible. But if the person were ever caught with the unregistered fire arm he'd get in trouble. Which would be motivation to register.

so this is a case of if they are caught. So they either have to be waving it around bragging about it or get arrested for something else requiring a search

I don't see that being much of a deterrent.

If all new guns were registered, eventually almost every gun, except for ones that have been owned by the same person for a very long time and are very unlikely to be used in a crime, would be registered and therefor the point is pretty much moot.

Or the guns traded or sold without registration, guns purchased from across the border or guns purchased illegally.

That would require both of the persons to be wanting to break the law. I'm sure that this would happen in a few instances. But you'd need to find a seller that is willing to take this chance by illegally selling this gun and illegally filing a police report that it was stolen and you'd also need a person that wants to purchase a gun that he can't register because it was just reported stolen.

well there aren't really any chances that the seller is taking. If somehow the police came across the gun and went back to the original owner and question that me he would say that he reported it stolen they would have to prove that it wasn't stolen in order to charge him with a crime. this would be the way an individual would sell a gun because it's not very risky.

You can make laws against peeing in the shower but if I pee in the shower I'm not going to tell you about it so you're not going to know.

If the guy goes to register it and you just reported it stolen, you're up ****s creek without a paddle.

the only reason he would be buying it from a seller that would do that it's so you can have an unregistered gun.

A gun registry does have it's complications. But I don't think you've given any good reasons to believe it can't work.

well is it won't work because the only people that will register guns are honest people and I doubt very much that honest people running around committing crimes with guns. Dishonest people that run around committing crimes with guns would probably not register it that would be profoundly stupid of them.

"Yeah government I would like to register my carjacking gun because I want to make sure I'm obeying gun registration laws when I go out carjacking. the punishment for threatening someone with lethal force is acceptable but define I would have for an unregistered gun is not."

Said nobody ever

 

[CLAX1911]

Federal law requires FFL’s to conduct a background check prior to selling firearms. Didn’t you know that?

you don't have to buy a gun from an FFL dealer didn't you know that?

The failure of the background checking system (NICS) wasn’t properly completed. That is how Roof got his handgun.

okay maybe a good ideas to fix the systems we've got rather than piling new idiotic laws on top of a system that isn't up to code.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

you don't have to buy a gun from an FFL dealer didn't you know that?

Yeah, I’m aware of that. The point being discussed involved Dylan Roof, who murdered 9 innocents with a hand gun he purchased from an FFL. Had the NICS system worked properly on that occasion, Roof wouldn’t have gotten the firearm.

okay maybe a good ideas to fix the systems we've got rather than piling new idiotic laws on top of a system that isn't up to code.

The NICS system actually works very well, but yeah, no system is perfect.

 

[Glitch]

The supreme court has already ruled on this. It's not unconstitutional.

Yes, the Supreme Court did rule on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the State and local government in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), where they held that the amendment does apply to State and local government as well as the federal government.

They have not ruled on Hawaii's deliberate violations to the US Constitution. Nor has the Supreme Court ruled on California's, New York's, or any other other Democrat-stronghold State where they repeatedly violate the Second Amendment. However, that may change in the future. On April 11, 2019 Hawaii's prohibition of certain knives is being challenged on Second Amendment grounds. Knives also fall under the Second Amendment's protection to "keep and bear arms."

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, I’m aware of that. The point being discussed involved Dylan Roof, who murdered 9 innocents with a hand gun he purchased from an FFL. Had the NICS system worked properly on that occasion, Roof wouldn’t have gotten the firearm.

Just FYI I am 100% in support of correcting the failings if the NICS system.

The NICS system actually works very well, but yeah, no system is perfect.

Well, now that we saw the error that led to roof getting a gun we can correct it. Good systems can be better.

 

[Visbek]

They have not ruled on Hawaii's deliberate violations to the US Constitution.

sigh

Mandatory firearm registration dates back to at least 1934, and has never been found unconstitutional. Heller, by the way, did not find that registration on its own was unconstitutional; the problem in that case was the specific combination of a) requiring all handguns to be registered AND b) the city refusing to register handguns in almost all circumstances, thus resulting in a de facto ban.

If registration on its own was a problem, it would have been rejected as a mechanism in Heller. But, it wasn't.

I know of no challenges specifically to firearm registration on its own. If you know of one, then you ought to identify it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Just FYI I am 100% in support of correcting the failings if the NICS system.


Well, now that we saw the error that led to roof getting a gun we can correct it. Good systems can be better.

We have an agreement. :cheers:

 

[VanceMack]

Actually, the Supreme Court held that the individual right to keep and bear arms was binding upon the States in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and California frequently violates the Second Amendment, among numerous other protected rights under the US Constitution. It is very obvious that Democrats don't give a damn about the US Constitution, considering it is always, without exception, the Democrat-controlled States who continually violate the rights of the people.

My oft stated position is that yes...Ca and other states are violating the 2nd Amendment...and thats obvious...BUT...if the people in CA arent willing to fight it, thats on them.

I was born in that ****hole state. I wont every move back.