• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Registration Is Bad

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it has, more or less. How you interpret weapons that are "unusually dangerous" I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

It's not "dangerously unusual", it's "dangerous and unusual". According to Caetano v Massachusetts, no firearm sold legally today is both "dangerous and unusual".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078

But, I don't recall registration being a part of any of those decisions, do you?
Click to expand...

No, it's likely Constitutional. It's just not efficient or effective and is currently against federal law. Registration, where it exists, hasn't been shown as a significant factor in solving crimes or adding to public safety. It has been shown to be absolutely necessary for an effective confiscation program.
 
Rucker61 said:
It's not "dangerously unusual", it's "dangerous and unusual". According to Caetano v Massachusetts, no firearm sold legally today is both "dangerous and unusual".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078



No, it's likely Constitutional. It's just not efficient or effective and is currently against federal law. Registration, where it exists, hasn't been shown as a significant factor in solving crimes or adding to public safety. It has been shown to be absolutely necessary for an effective confiscation program.
Click to expand...

OK, dangerous and unusual. Let's see anyone get a generally agreed upon definition of that phrase.
The trouble is, there is no central computerized registration of firearms. If there were, it would be very quick and easy to identify the legitimate owner of a given weapon, which would help to solve crimes and would discourage people from selling guns to questionable characters.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, dangerous and unusual. Let's see anyone get a generally agreed upon definition of that phrase.
Click to expand...

We don't need to get a generally agreed upon definition. SCOTUS decided already, and that's all we need.

The trouble is, there is no central computerized registration of firearms. If there were, it would be very quick and easy to identify the legitimate owner of a given weapon, which would help to solve crimes and would discourage people from selling guns to questionable characters.
Click to expand...

We'll never have a central computerized registry. The compliance rate won't be sufficient - look at the recent Connecticut and New York attempts at creating a registry. As long as the GCAs keep calling for gun bans, gun owners simply won't comply in sufficient numbers to make a registry useful. Canada couldn't even complete a long gun registry.

Also, straw purchases and FFL diversions, two of the largest sources of guns to criminals, are de facto registries. Every gun a straw purchaser sells is traceable to that straw purchaser, yet straw purchases are likely the largest single source of guns to criminals. It's not a discouragement.
 
Rucker61 said:
We don't need to get a generally agreed upon definition. SCOTUS decided already, and that's all we need.



We'll never have a central computerized registry. The compliance rate won't be sufficient - look at the recent Connecticut and New York attempts at creating a registry. As long as the GCAs keep calling for gun bans, gun owners simply won't comply in sufficient numbers to make a registry useful. Canada couldn't even complete a long gun registry.

Also, straw purchases and FFL diversions, two of the largest sources of guns to criminals, are de facto registries. Every gun a straw purchaser sells is traceable to that straw purchaser, yet straw purchases are likely the largest single source of guns to criminals. It's not a discouragement.
Click to expand...

If a straw purchaser who buys a gun for someone else who then went on to commit a crime with it were to be held responsible for being an accessory before the fact, then few people would be willing to provide weapons to criminals.

It would take a long time to get all guns registered, that's a fact. The sooner we start, though, the sooner it will become a reality. All new guns would be registered, as would any gun sold by a legitimate dealer. Private sales might not all be registered, but if a seller could be held liable for the actions of a purchaser who didn't pass a background check and didn't register the gun, there would be an incentive to register any gun sold. It could be done. The biggest barrier standing in the way is the irrational fear that registration will lead to confiscation
 
Rucker61 said:
We don't need to get a generally agreed upon definition. SCOTUS decided already, and that's all we need.



We'll never have a central computerized registry. The compliance rate won't be sufficient - look at the recent Connecticut and New York attempts at creating a registry. As long as the GCAs keep calling for gun bans, gun owners simply won't comply in sufficient numbers to make a registry useful. Canada couldn't even complete a long gun registry.

Also, straw purchases and FFL diversions, two of the largest sources of guns to criminals, are de facto registries. Every gun a straw purchaser sells is traceable to that straw purchaser, yet straw purchases are likely the largest single source of guns to criminals. It's not a discouragement.
Click to expand...

Hawaii has a registry
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, dangerous and unusual. Let's see anyone get a generally agreed upon definition of that phrase.
The trouble is, there is no central computerized registration of firearms. If there were, it would be very quick and easy to identify the legitimate owner of a given weapon, which would help to solve crimes and would discourage people from selling guns to questionable characters.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. it will never be "quick and easy to identify the legitimate owner of a given weapon which would help solve crimes". Gun registration is easily defeated by a 59 cent file from home depot that takes off the serial number. Poof.. a weapon that's not identifiable.
 
vegas giants said:
Hawaii has a registry
Click to expand...

Yep and its already being abused.

The Honolulu Police Department has sent letters to local medical marijuana patients ordering them to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms because of their MMJ status.
Click to expand...

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients

Perhaps you think its reasonable.. that one of my patients that is a hunter.. should have to surrender his property because he takes Medical Marijuana to control the symptoms he gets from chemotherapy.

Meanwhile if he was taking opioids to control his symptoms.. he is all good.

I don't think its reasonable.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep and its already being abused.



https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients

Perhaps you think its reasonable.. that one of my patients that is a hunter.. should have to surrender his property because he takes Medical Marijuana to control the symptoms he gets from chemotherapy.

Meanwhile if he was taking opioids to control his symptoms.. he is all good.

I don't think its reasonable.
Click to expand...

No one has surrendered a gun in Hawaii over this
 
Dittohead not! said:
If a straw purchaser who buys a gun for someone else who then went on to commit a crime with it were to be held responsible for being an accessory before the fact, then few people would be willing to provide weapons to criminals.

It would take a long time to get all guns registered, that's a fact. The sooner we start, though, the sooner it will become a reality. All new guns would be registered, as would any gun sold by a legitimate dealer. Private sales might not all be registered, but if a seller could be held liable for the actions of a purchaser who didn't pass a background check and didn't register the gun, there would be an incentive to register any gun sold. It could be done. The biggest barrier standing in the way is the irrational fear that registration will lead to confiscation
Click to expand...

Pipe Dream at best. Here Texas you would get even a quarter of gun owners to register their firearms.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If a straw purchaser who buys a gun for someone else who then went on to commit a crime with it were to be held responsible for being an accessory before the fact, then few people would be willing to provide weapons to criminals.
Click to expand...
Straw purchasers are already subject to a $250,000 fine and ten years imprisonment. Enforce that and there isn't a need for registration.
It would take a long time to get all guns registered, that's a fact. The sooner we start, though, the sooner it will become a reality. All new guns would be registered, as would any gun sold by a legitimate dealer. Private sales might not all be registered, but if a seller could be held liable for the actions of a purchaser who didn't pass a background check and didn't register the gun, there would be an incentive to register any gun sold. It could be done. The biggest barrier standing in the way is the irrational fear that registration will lead to confiscation
Click to expand...

You claim the fear of confiscation is irrational, yet Connecticut, New York, Maryland and California have all passed laws making ownership of previously legal firearms illegal, requiring the owners to get rid of them or turn them into the State. GCAs constantly praise gun control efforts in the UK and Australia, both of which used registration to enable confiscation. It's not really an irrational fear at this point.

This, coupled with the facts that you can't even charge a felon with failing to register a firearm and that files and dremel tools will still be legal to own makes registration strictly an effort to harass lawful gun owners.
 
vegas giants said:
No one has surrendered a gun in Hawaii over this
Click to expand...

The reason why there is such a low level of gun crime, or crime in general in Hawaii, isn't because of strict gun laws its because of the culture. Hawaiians are very nice, easy going, and not the kind of people that commit crimes. When crime does occur in Hawaii its usually burglary or some other form of non violent crime.
 
DebateChallenge said:
The reason why there is such a low level of gun crime, or crime in general in Hawaii, isn't because of strict gun laws its because of the culture. Hawaiians are very nice, easy going, and not the kind of people that commit crimes. When crime does occur in Hawaii its usually burglary or some other form of non violent crime.
Click to expand...

There is always a reason there is low gun crime where there is gun control. It has to be something but god forbid it can't be the gun control. I find this hilarious.
 
vegas giants said:
There is always a reason there is low gun crime where there is gun control. It has to be something but god forbid it can't be the gun control. I find this hilarious.
Click to expand...

Low gun crime perhaps but what about other types of violent crime?
 
vegas giants said:
There is always a reason there is low gun crime where there is gun control. It has to be something but god forbid it can't be the gun control. I find this hilarious.
Click to expand...

Does your data set include Russia? Does it account for Vermont and Maine?
 
Dittohead not! said:
If a straw purchaser who buys a gun for someone else who then went on to commit a crime with it were to be held responsible for being an accessory before the fact, then few people would be willing to provide weapons to criminals.

It would take a long time to get all guns registered, that's a fact. The sooner we start, though, the sooner it will become a reality. All new guns would be registered, as would any gun sold by a legitimate dealer. Private sales might not all be registered, but if a seller could be held liable for the actions of a purchaser who didn't pass a background check and didn't register the gun, there would be an incentive to register any gun sold. It could be done. The biggest barrier standing in the way is the irrational fear that registration will lead to confiscation
Click to expand...

A couple of problems.

1. why should I be held liable because someone who purchased my firearm didn't register it? Right now.. If I sell a firearm to a person.. and they move to NY and fail to register it.. you would make me a criminal.. because of their actions.. that makes no sense.

2. Gun registration is foiled by a simple 59 cent file. Just file off the serial number and all that database is useless.

3. Its been tried.. and it doesn't work. Canada has had handgun registration for decades. In fact.. purchasing a handgun and owning one is a chore in Canada.. quite difficult. So.. according to your premise.. then handguns should not be available to the criminal element in Canada...

Ooops.. the firearm most used in crime in Canada? Handguns.

4. It doesn't and hasn't worked for crime prevention.. however gun registration HAS been used to confiscate firearms... Australia and the UK are easy examples... examples that our touted by the anti gun crowd as proof that gun control works. So.. no.. in no way is it irrational to understand that registration can be used as a tool for confiscation. Its already been done.
 
jaeger19 said:
A couple of problems.

1. why should I be held liable because someone who purchased my firearm didn't register it? Right now.. If I sell a firearm to a person.. and they move to NY and fail to register it.. you would make me a criminal.. because of their actions.. that makes no sense.

2. Gun registration is foiled by a simple 59 cent file. Just file off the serial number and all that database is useless.

3. Its been tried.. and it doesn't work. Canada has had handgun registration for decades. In fact.. purchasing a handgun and owning one is a chore in Canada.. quite difficult. So.. according to your premise.. then handguns should not be available to the criminal element in Canada...

Ooops.. the firearm most used in crime in Canada? Handguns.

4. It doesn't and hasn't worked for crime prevention.. however gun registration HAS been used to confiscate firearms... Australia and the UK are easy examples... examples that our touted by the anti gun crowd as proof that gun control works. So.. no.. in no way is it irrational to understand that registration can be used as a tool for confiscation. Its already been done.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be held liable for a purchaser having failed to register the gun. You would be held liable if you sold a gun without a background check, and the buyer then used the gun to commit a crime. That would be an accessory before the fact.

There is far less gun violence in Canada than in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom