• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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

There are a couple of problems with national registration.

First, there is a practical problem. There is no reliable way to know exactly how many firearms are currently in private circulation in the U.S, and (more importantly) for good or ill, the unregulated secondary transfer market makes it impossible to know who currently has what firearms. I believe in 2015 the Washington Post estimated the number of privately-held firearms to be approximately 357 million—more than the population estimate of 315 million. Yes, manufacturers are required to keep records of where every firearm is shipped. Yes, you could take these gigantic lists and task ATF with visiting each FFL dealer (all of whom are required to keep records of who bought what firearm from them), require the agent to comb through these records, and from this massive time investment create a new list of who bought each firearm from what dealer. You could even attempt to go to each purchaser and demand to know where the gun is—assuming you could even find them in a freely traveling society years after the purchase. And all that money and effort runs into the simple ability of every purchaser to say “I don’t have it anymore. I lost it/sold it to some guy whose name I don’t remember/traded it to some unknown guy for a kayak he had, etc.”—for which you have no ability to know whether they are telling the truth or merely lying to you. Simply put, the chain is broken after the FFL dealer sale, and there is no way to know where the gun goes after that.

I know, I know, those of you who want registration argue this is the very problem registration is needed to address. So tell me how you do it then? How would you write the law to address this problem?
 
Second, there is a legal problem to consider. No, not the one you think of. Set aside the 2nd Amendment for a moment. No one will justify registration by telling us a particular government official is curious to know how many guns someone owns and registration is necessary to satisfy his curiosity. Rather, to the extent that registration can have a publically legitimized purpose, it is always sold as a way to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous felons and other prohibited persons. The question will be asked: “How many firearms are currently held by felons and other prohibited persons?” The obvious answer is “no one knows” (thus registration is needed to solve this problem). The problem here is you will never know the answer, even if you create a universal registration scheme. Why? Because the very people you are most concerned about getting unregistered access to firearms are completely immune from a registration requirement. Follow me for a moment…

To be even remotely workable, registration requires some punishment for refusal to comply with the registration requirements. This might achieve a result of having many—perhaps even a majority—of lawful gun owners register their firearms rather than face the possible penalty for refusal. But the very people you use to justify the need for registration will be immune from the registration requirement. Why? Because everyone has a 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, and forcing them to register their secretly held firearm compels them to incriminate themselves by admitting they are committing the crime of possessing a firearm by a prohibited person. Thus the very people registration is aimed at will be immune from its reach. In the end, my opinion is registration will only serve to create more accidental criminals out of otherwise lawful gun owners who did not properly register their firearms—while giving complete immunity to the people the registration requirement was created to deal with.

Its one thing to say other countries do it, or even that a law exists somewhere in America. I would submit the mere existence of a law is not proof of its effectiveness. Laws are written because of a perceived need to address something, and they are written to work so it can address the problem that called for the law to be passed—in a way that does not violate the Constitution. It’s one thing to say “we want/need universal firearm registration.” But no one wants (or will at least honestly admit wanting) a useless, unenforceable law that will serve only to hassle peaceful gun owners and potentially criminalize their otherwise completely lawful possession of firearms while giving complete immunity to those who are already prohibited from having guns in the first place.

So if you want national registration…tell me how you do it. Write us a draft of the law that deals with these problems. Tell me what problem the law is designed to address. And tell me how the law can be effective in reaching that goal.
 
BryanVa said:
There are a couple of problems with national registration.

First, there is a practical problem. There is no reliable way to know exactly how many firearms are currently in private circulation in the U.S, and (more importantly) for good or ill, the unregulated secondary transfer market makes it impossible to know who currently has what firearms. I believe in 2015 the Washington Post estimated the number of privately-held firearms to be approximately 357 million—more than the population estimate of 315 million. Yes, manufacturers are required to keep records of where every firearm is shipped. Yes, you could take these gigantic lists and task ATF with visiting each FFL dealer (all of whom are required to keep records of who bought what firearm from them), require the agent to comb through these records, and from this massive time investment create a new list of who bought each firearm from what dealer. You could even attempt to go to each purchaser and demand to know where the gun is—assuming you could even find them in a freely traveling society years after the purchase. And all that money and effort runs into the simple ability of every purchaser to say “I don’t have it anymore. I lost it/sold it to some guy whose name I don’t remember/traded it to some unknown guy for a kayak he had, etc.”—for which you have no ability to know whether they are telling the truth or merely lying to you. Simply put, the chain is broken after the FFL dealer sale, and there is no way to know where the gun goes after that.

I know, I know, those of you who want registration argue this is the very problem registration is needed to address. So tell me how you do it then? How would you write the law to address this problem?
Click to expand...
This is easily resolved. The law is you must register all your firearms. If you get caught with a unregistered firearm you get five years in jail. Go ahead take the risk.....the vast majority will not. It is up to the firearm owner to comply.....or not
 
BryanVa said:
Second, there is a legal problem to consider. No, not the one you think of. Set aside the 2nd Amendment for a moment. No one will justify registration by telling us a particular government official is curious to know how many guns someone owns and registration is necessary to satisfy his curiosity. Rather, to the extent that registration can have a publically legitimized purpose, it is always sold as a way to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous felons and other prohibited persons. The question will be asked: “How many firearms are currently held by felons and other prohibited persons?” The obvious answer is “no one knows” (thus registration is needed to solve this problem). The problem here is you will never know the answer, even if you create a universal registration scheme. Why? Because the very people you are most concerned about getting unregistered access to firearms are completely immune from a registration requirement. Follow me for a moment…

To be even remotely workable, registration requires some punishment for refusal to comply with the registration requirements. This might achieve a result of having many—perhaps even a majority—of lawful gun owners register their firearms rather than face the possible penalty for refusal. But the very people you use to justify the need for registration will be immune from the registration requirement. Why? Because everyone has a 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, and forcing them to register their secretly held firearm compels them to incriminate themselves by admitting they are committing the crime of possessing a firearm by a prohibited person. Thus the very people registration is aimed at will be immune from its reach. In the end, my opinion is registration will only serve to create more accidental criminals out of otherwise lawful gun owners who did not properly register their firearms—while giving complete immunity to the people the registration requirement was created to deal with.

Its one thing to say other countries do it, or even that a law exists somewhere in America. I would submit the mere existence of a law is not proof of its effectiveness. Laws are written because of a perceived need to address something, and they are written to work so it can address the problem that called for the law to be passed—in a way that does not violate the Constitution. It’s one thing to say “we want/need universal firearm registration.” But no one wants (or will at least honestly admit wanting) a useless, unenforceable law that will serve only to hassle peaceful gun owners and potentially criminalize their otherwise completely lawful possession of firearms while giving complete immunity to those who are already prohibited from having guns in the first place.

So if you want national registration…tell me how you do it. Write us a draft of the law that deals with these problems. Tell me what problem the law is designed to address. And tell me how the law can be effective in reaching that goal.
Click to expand...
Criminals will not obey the law. That is not a news flash. But if they are caught with a unregistered weapon they can have additional charges. And over time almost all guns will be registered making it much harder for criminals to get guns.
 
vegas giants said:
So you are against all gun regulation....is that correct? It doesn't work at all.....right?
Click to expand...

Nope... I and the NRA have no problem with gun regulation. Of course its necessary. Neither I or the NRA wants a 8 year old to be able to go into walmart and buy a glock.

We also understand the need for regulation for consumer safety so that when you purchase a new firearm.. its designed properly and constructed properly so that it doesn't blow up in our faces.

We also understand that some folks, due to their actions, are unsafe with firearms and it should be a crime for them to possess said firearms.. people like convicted violent felons and those adjudicated by due process to not be mentally stable to own a firearm.

We are all for common sense regulation of firearms.

The problem is.. the things that you and your other fellow anti gunners push are not common sense.

Registration is useless to control crime.. and is proven to be useless for crime. Its defeated by a 59 cent file.

Universal Background checks are useless. Cripes a man kills his mom.. and steals her firearms ..and you antigunners cry "we need background checks".. and you call that "common sense" :doh
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope... I and the NRA have no problem with gun regulation. Of course its necessary. Neither I or the NRA wants a 8 year old to be able to go into walmart and buy a glock.

We also understand the need for regulation for consumer safety so that when you purchase a new firearm.. its designed properly and constructed properly so that it doesn't blow up in our faces.

We also understand that some folks, due to their actions, are unsafe with firearms and it should be a crime for them to possess said firearms.. people like convicted violent felons and those adjudicated by due process to not be mentally stable to own a firearm.

We are all for common sense regulation of firearms.

The problem is.. the things that you and your other fellow anti gunners push are not common sense.

Registration is useless to control crime.. and is proven to be useless for crime. Its defeated by a 59 cent file.

Universal Background checks are useless. Cripes a man kills his mom.. and steals her firearms ..and you antigunners cry "we need background checks".. and you call that "common sense" :doh
Click to expand...

You said gun laws don't work
 
vegas giants said:
Well registration works great. Which state has the lowest gun deaths and guess what they have? LOL
Click to expand...

Sure.. just ask Canada. they register handguns.. and its done wonders to prevent criminals from getting handguns.... wait.. criminals in Canada use handguns more than other firearms that have no registration at all!!!

Again.. the facts are not on your side.

And " gun deaths".. is an invalid statistic... as has been proved to you multiple times. But.. that's what we do in this age of "post Truth".. where the truth, facts, and objective reasoning don't matter to such as you. Decisions by you are made by emotion, fear, and allegiance to political party.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure.. just ask Canada. they register handguns.. and its done wonders to prevent criminals from getting handguns.... wait.. criminals in Canada use handguns more than other firearms that have no registration at all!!!

Again.. the facts are not on your side.

And " gun deaths".. is an invalid statistic... as has been proved to you multiple times. But.. that's what we do in this age of "post Truth".. where the truth, facts, and objective reasoning don't matter to such as you. Decisions by you are made by emotion, fear, and allegiance to political party.
Click to expand...

The answer is hawaii. Registration is a massive success
 
vegas giants said:
The answer is hawaii. Registration is a massive success
Click to expand...

nope... the only success it has is that registration has been used to threaten medical marijuana users in taking away their firearms.
 
vegas giants said:
This is easily resolved. The law is you must register all your firearms. If you get caught with a unregistered firearm you get five years in jail. Go ahead take the risk.....the vast majority will not. It is up to the firearm owner to comply.....or not
Click to expand...

Turning otherwise peaceful and lawful gun owners into felons—who thereafter can be banned from gun ownership—may very well be a goal of some.

But how does this affect the felon who has a constitutional right not to have to register the gun he already has?

Where else is registration as a condition precedent to the free exercise of a right permitted?
 
vegas giants said:
Criminals will not obey the law. That is not a news flash. But if they are caught with a unregistered weapon they can have additional charges. And over time almost all guns will be registered making it much harder for criminals to get guns.
Click to expand...

“Over time” is a term without context. How long will it take to register over 350 million privately held firearms for which the government has no idea who holds them? What amount of firearms need to be registered to consider the law “effective,” and how many years (and new felons minted out of otherwise peaceful gun owners who do not register either from a deliberate choice or mistake) will it take?

If the goal is to deter prohibited persons from possession, and an increased penalty is the chosen deterrent, then why not increase the existing penalty for prohibited possession and leave the otherwise peaceful non-prohibited gun owner alone? There is no need to create an increased penalty through a new law that will also burden and otherwise ensnare otherwise peaceful gun owners—unless that is the hidden purpose of the law to begin with. The increased penalty to deter felons from possession argument—as applied to justify a new registration law—does not seem logical to me.

So perhaps your deterrent is aimed at the otherwise lawful gun owner. A “register your guns so you will be deterred from selling them to felons” law. If so, then how do you make it work? Saying they can get five years is fine and all, but how do you enforce it?

If Nate doesn’t register his gun—one of the 350+ million already in circulation which the government has no way of knowing who actually owns them—and he later sells that gun under the table to a felon, and the felon commits a murder with it, and the felon gets caught with the gun, then how can the government prosecute Nate?

Conversely, if Nate registers his gun, and still sells it under the table to a convicted felon, and the felon commits his murder and gets caught with a gun registered to Nate, then how does the government prosecute Nate?
 
vegas giants said:
This is easily resolved. The law is you must register all your firearms. If you get caught with a unregistered firearm you get five years in jail. Go ahead take the risk.....the vast majority will not. It is up to the firearm owner to comply.....or not
Click to expand...

But that doesn't solve the issue of prphibited people from keeping their guns which is already a felony.
 
Casper said:
Hawaii does not count as representative of a typical US State, culture counts big time
Click to expand...

Yes....its always something. I move to the next state and its something else. I move to the next country and then its something else. It just CAN'T be the gun control that they all have in common. LOL
 
BryanVa said:
“Over time” is a term without context. How long will it take to register over 350 million privately held firearms for which the government has no idea who holds them? What amount of firearms need to be registered to consider the law “effective,” and how many years (and new felons minted out of otherwise peaceful gun owners who do not register either from a deliberate choice or mistake) will it take?

If the goal is to deter prohibited persons from possession, and an increased penalty is the chosen deterrent, then why not increase the existing penalty for prohibited possession and leave the otherwise peaceful non-prohibited gun owner alone? There is no need to create an increased penalty through a new law that will also burden and otherwise ensnare otherwise peaceful gun owners—unless that is the hidden purpose of the law to begin with. The increased penalty to deter felons from possession argument—as applied to justify a new registration law—does not seem logical to me.

So perhaps your deterrent is aimed at the otherwise lawful gun owner. A “register your guns so you will be deterred from selling them to felons” law. If so, then how do you make it work? Saying they can get five years is fine and all, but how do you enforce it?

If Nate doesn’t register his gun—one of the 350+ million already in circulation which the government has no way of knowing who actually owns them—and he later sells that gun under the table to a felon, and the felon commits a murder with it, and the felon gets caught with the gun, then how can the government prosecute Nate?

Conversely, if Nate registers his gun, and still sells it under the table to a convicted felon, and the felon commits his murder and gets caught with a gun registered to Nate, then how does the government prosecute Nate?
Click to expand...

You want a system that works tomorrow. The truth is most people will comply with registration. And that alone will stop most straw sales. I don't want a perfect system....I want a better one
 
BryanVa said:
Turning otherwise peaceful and lawful gun owners into felons—who thereafter can be banned from gun ownership—may very well be a goal of some.

But how does this affect the felon who has a constitutional right not to have to register the gun he already has?

Where else is registration as a condition precedent to the free exercise of a right permitted?
Click to expand...

You must register to vote
 
Maccabee said:
But that doesn't solve the issue of prphibited people from keeping their guns which is already a felony.
Click to expand...

Are you looking for a perfect system.....or a better one
 
vegas giants said:
Yes....its always something. I move to the next state and its something else. I move to the next country and then its something else. It just CAN'T be the gun control that they all have in common. LOL
Click to expand...

Ok pick Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom