Simple Question on Gun Registration.

[BretJ]

Background checks.

You don't know what prior restraint is do you....

 

[vegas giants]

Canada has had a lot of problems with their registration program... in particular, a huge degree of nonparticipation and passive resistance. Many Canadians don't like it and it has been deemed largely a failure. This according to my Canuck friends and news articles they've sent me at any rate.


How much more it would fail in America, with far more guns and a far less cooperative population than Canada....

Yet they keep it. They must want it.

 

[BretJ]

It's a form. You will survive. Lol

Apparently, you need a form to survive. Lol

 

[Captain Adverse]

Do you realize that doesn't even make any sense? Do you realize criminals don't follow the law, hence the term "criminal"?

I asked you earlier if you understood what a straw purchase was, and you replied "yes". Clearly you are mistaken. A straw purchase is when a non-prohibited person purchases a firearm from an FFL, filling out the Form 4473 where their name, address and serial number of the firearm are recorded. In other words, the gun is registered to the buy. The straw purchaser then sells the gun to an prohibited person.

Registration, check. Form, check. Background check, check. Registration does not do a single thing to stop straw purchases as every single straw purchase is de facto registered to the straw purchaser who sells the gun to the criminal.

As you know, the other rights and especially that of worship have been undermined in recent years. It would seem then the liberal thing to do to regulate gun ownership, while maintaining the fiction of the right of ownership.

We that understand disagree.

Again, how does it make it far more difficult?

Bear in mind criminals do not register their guns, and are not required to by law (SCOTUS) because it would be self-incrimination.

Notta lotta use for crime prevention really.

Here we are on page 11 and in all that time all we have is one member whose repeated matra is "It's just a form," and the argument is that this will stop "straw sales" and is a first step in making people "safer" from gun owners.

I was actually hoping that my OP would allow gun control supporters an opportunity to express and debate the actual merits of gun registration, since they call it rational control.

Maybe better luck when the evening crowd shows up.

 

[vegas giants]

Apparently, you need a form to survive. Lol

We need many forms in this country to survive

 

[Goshin]

Yet they keep it. They must want it.

Actually it has been scaled back and limited in recent years.

Originally the program required the registration of all non-restricted firearms but this requirement was dropped on April 6, 2012 by the coming into force of Bill C-19.[2][3] Bill C-19 also mandated the destruction of the non-restricted records of the registry as soon as feasible

There have been a number of calls to dismantle it entirely.


Also, just because a government keeps trying to do a thing, doesn't mean it has the support of a majority of the people.

 

[vegas giants]

Here we are on page 11 and in all that time all we have is one member whose repeated matra is "It's just a form," and the argument is that this will stop "straw sales" and is a first step in making people "safer" from gun owners.

I was actually hoping that my OP would allow gun control supporters and opportunity to express and debate the actual merits of gun registration, since they call it rational control.

Maybe better luck when the evening crowd shows up.

It is just a form. One that could save lives

 

[vegas giants]

Actually it has been scaled back and limited in recent years.


There have been a number of calls to dismantle it entirely.


Also, just because a government keeps trying to do a thing, doesn't mean it has the support of a majority of the people.

And yet handgun registration remains

 

[The Resister]

The Constitution identifies the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. to own and carry them) as an individual right like freedom of expression and freedom of worship. This has finally been confirmed by SCOTUS decisions in McDonald and Heller.

I've a very simple question for those who advocate registration of guns in any form...what purpose is served by requiring gun registration?

Here are some common purposes for registration:

1. Vehicle registration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_registration

2. Voter Registration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration

3. Sex offender registration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry

Example #1 is about crime detection and taxation, #2 is about controlling access to something you are otherwise entitled to, while #3 is about keeping track of something.

So it seems to me that the purpose of gun registration would fall into one or more (if not all) of these categories; thus gun control is often justified as a means to more easily detect a gun used in a crime, to tax gun owners, to authorize ownership, and to keep track of which citizens own guns.

I wonder which of the above, or other reasons those who advocate for gun registration consider valid and why.

Why should they be taxed?

How does it detect crime?

Why control access (at least to those with no violent criminal record)?

Ultimately, why keep track of who owns, what they own, and where they are?

Unlike your examples, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that was originally intended to be above the law. So, it's ONLY and sole purpose is to serve as a precursor to weapon confiscation. Your other examples are not Rights as contemplated in the Bill of Rights.

Calling people criminals and then prohibiting them from owning weapons once they've paid their debt to society is a political excuse not worthy of real consideration.

 

[vegas giants]

Unlike your examples, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that was originally intended to be above the law. So, it's ONLY and sole purpose is to serve as a precursor to weapon confiscation.

Calling people criminals and then prohibiting them from owning weapons once they've paid their debt to society is a political excuse not worthy of real consideration.

No right is above the law

 

[Goshin]

And yet handgun registration remains

At this time, yes. Canada has no equivalent of the Second Amendment, of course.


Comparing different nations in this regard is always a tricky and slippery thing. Different history, different culture, different demographics and problems, different laws, different means of tracking and defining crime, etc.


What works in one place, will not necessarily work in a different culture.

 

[vegas giants]

At this time, yes. Canada has no equivalent of the Second Amendment, of course.


Comparing different nations in this regard is always a tricky and slippery thing. Different history, different culture, different demographics and problems, different laws, different means of tracking and defining crime, etc.


What works in one place, will not necessarily work in a different culture.

Perhaps. But it is evidence that registration does not always lead to confiscation

 

[Goshin]

No right is above the law

Not very well-put.


Rights are, in fact, a matter of law: by definition a limitation on how restrictive law can be towards the citizen.


When considering specifically enumerated rights, as in the BoR, restrictions are often viewed in the light of a legal principle called Strict Scrutiny, to whit:

Of the proposed law, the following questions are asked:

is the law truly necessary, as opposed to merely preferred or desirable?
is the law narrowly construed, rather than broadly purposed.
is the law the least restrictive means possible of achieving the intended goal?


most gun control proposals do not pass this test.

A good question to ask is, if this were a restriction on the FIRST Amendment, say freedom of speech or the press, would you support it? If no, you shouldn't support it for gun control.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Unlike your examples, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that was originally intended to be above the law. So, it's ONLY and sole purpose is to serve as a precursor to weapon confiscation. Your other examples are not Rights as contemplated in the Bill of Rights.

Calling people criminals and then prohibiting them from owning weapons once they've paid their debt to society is a political excuse not worthy of real consideration.

Ah, but I am not arguing for regulation. The examples were provided to show the different purposes government has used for registration requirements.

Many gun control supporters argue one or more of them.

I put them up to show I already know those arguments, and to see how they respond justifying reasons for gun registration (and other control efforts).

 

[Goshin]

Perhaps. But it is evidence that registration does not always lead to confiscation

It depends on what you mean by confiscation. Classes of firearms are banned or so heavily restricted as to be nearly banned. That is a form of confiscation.

 

[vegas giants]

Not very well-put.


Rights are, in fact, a matter of law: by definition a limitation on how restrictive law can be towards the citizen.


When considering specifically enumerated rights, as in the BoR, restrictions are often viewed in the light of Strict Scrutiny, to whit:

Of the proposed law, the following questions are asked:

is the law truly necessary, as opposed to merely preferred or desirable?
is the law narrowly construed, rather than broadly purposed.
is the law the least restrictive means possible of achieving the intended goal?


most gun control proposals do not pass this test.

A good question to ask is, if this were a restriction on the FIRST Amendment, say freedom of speech or the press, would you support it? If no, you shouldn't support it for gun control.

We already do have restrictions on the first amendment. And we should. I believe gun registration could pass strict scrutiny. But this is for scotus to decide

 

[vegas giants]

It depends on what you mean by confiscation. Classes of firearms are banned or so heavily restricted as to be nearly banned. That is a form of confiscation.

We already have that in the US. Registration had nothing to do with it

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not very well-put.


Rights are, in fact, a matter of law: by definition a limitation on how restrictive law can be towards the citizen.


When considering specifically enumerated rights, as in the BoR, restrictions are often viewed in the light of a legal principle called Strict Scrutiny, to whit:

Of the proposed law, the following questions are asked:

is the law truly necessary, as opposed to merely preferred or desirable?
is the law narrowly construed, rather than broadly purposed.
is the law the least restrictive means possible of achieving the intended goal?


most gun control proposals do not pass this test.

A good question to ask is, if this were a restriction on the FIRST Amendment, say freedom of speech or the press, would you support it? If no, you shouldn't support it for gun control.

I already point this out here:

No "right" is absolute. However, in order to restrict a Constitutionally protected individual right SCOTUS will review the law following the strict scrutiny standard.

The government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

What would be the "compelling state interest" requiring universal registration of firearms?

The response was a non-answer. :shrug:

 

[Goshin]

We already do have restrictions on the first amendment. And we should. I believe gun registration could pass strict scrutiny. But this is for scotus to decide

Only if Congress passes the law to start with.... and congressmen have found it is often not good for their re-election chances to attempt such things. As it should be, imho.

 

[vegas giants]

I already point this out here:



The response was a non-answer. :shrug:

Just an answer you don't like

 

[vegas giants]

Only if Congress passes the law to start with.... and congressmen have found it is often not good for their re-election chances to attempt such things. As it should be, imho.

Yes congress must pass the law. I wouldn't have it any other way

 

[BretJ]

We need many forms in this country to survive

Not this one lol.

 

[vegas giants]

Not this one lol.

You are welcome to that opinion

 

[BretJ]

No right is above the law

:lamo

??!!???

 

[vegas giants]

:lamo

??!!???

Every right is subject to restrictions by law