What's Wrong With Gun Registration?

[SecularMotion]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by discntnt_irny_srcsm (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I live in Maryland, whose nickname is the "Free State," and I am no less free because of the laws in my state require registration of handguns and prohibit the more dangerous varieties of firearms, magazines and ammunition. In fact, I feel more free because I have less fear of being blown away, freedom and all, than I would have if guns were less regulated.

Very few people have serious objections to registration of activities in many other contexts; we register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration. Many people have totally given up on privacy in giving any information to businesses. But guns are treated differently. Why? One reason is that we are inundated by demands that we do so from loud gun proponents stirred up and financed by a cynical commercial gun lobby. Another is we all have at least a little bit of rebellion in us and we can dream of throwing off the restraints of civilization and of running wild.

But we should not forget that this dream is a dream of going back to the state of nature and, as every one knows, the state of nature is where life is "nasty, brutish and short." It certainly was short for the twenty children and six teachers who died at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the thirty thousand or so who died from gun incidents last year.

The slogan or talking point "registration always leads to confiscation" has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history; but the picture being painted by gun zealots is of "jack-booted thugs" from the federal government taking the tools of liberty from true patriots. An example of this is currently happening in New York State where the SAFE Act requires registration of assault weapons. Many owners are being reported as unwilling to comply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-harvey/gun-registration_b_5186200.html

[pipoman]

1. What's wrong with voter ID?

I am no less free because of the laws in my state require registration of handguns and prohibit the more dangerous varieties of firearms, magazines and ammunition.

The problem is that you are not one bit more safe because of this....

In fact, I feel more free because I have less fear of being blown away

Because you "feel" less fear only indicates irrationality.

States can do things the feds can't, just as it should be....

Bottom line is that registration will not pass constitutional scrutiny. Next.

[LonePirate]

57. Because you "feel" more safe with a gun only indicates irrationality.

[Recursion]

2. The argument is that it will lead to confiscation

I don't buy that, but that's universally what opponents of registration say.

(The guns Cho used at Virginia Tech were registered, however, so there's that.)

I'm not against registration (I think the first step of having a "militia" would be knowing who has weapons and so can be called up), but I'm also much more concerned about who has guns in the first place than what guns they have, which is why I think licensing is a better model, like Illinois does. In Illinois, you get a specific ID card to be able to buy a gun, but once you have that, nobody asks how many or what kind of guns you have.

[GGJohn]

5. Are you aware of the fact that the ACLU is opposed to registration

on the grounds of privacy?
I'm against registration because I don't believe the govt has any right nor business knowing what firearms I own.

[Recursion]

7. I am. That's another reason I prefer licensure

Hell, just make it a checkbox on your driver's license or state ID. A gun endorsement, like a motorcycle endorsement.

[GGJohn]

8. ...

I can live with that as long as it's not registration of what firearms are owned by citizens.

[Recursion]

9. Yeah, I mentioned IL when I brought it up (nt)

[GGJohn]

10. Yeah, I saw that and had a brain fart.

My bad, I edited my post.

[Lee-Lee]

42. Illinois has had that for decades. Seems to have no effect on reducing crime or violence

If it hasn't proven effective in one state, it's unlikely to work any better in more.

[SecularMotion]

11. Wrong again

The ACLU has often been criticized for “ignoring the Second Amendment,” and refusing to fight for an individual’s right to own a gun or other weapons. The ACLU, however, has not ignored this issue. The national ACLU Board of Directors has in fact discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

http://www.acluohio.org/about/faq

[GGJohn]

12. Wrong again.

Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Positions

[SecularMotion]

15. From the ACLU website

ACLU POSITION

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment

The ACLU does not "oppose any effort to create a registry of gun owners" as the wikipedia quote claims.

[GGJohn]

20. Notice you left this part out.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

Also this part.

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The latest position of the national ACLU is that it opposes any registry due to 4th Amendment concerns.

[GGJohn]

3. ......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178417#post3

[restorefreedom]

4. nothing imo. nt

[ileus]

6. Don't give them a reason...

[Travis_0004]

13. I sometimes wonder if you get bored and search for articles written in april.

Maybe you can head to the library and check out the microfilm. Probably lots of articles there as well that have never been posted.

[mwrguy]

14. It's a good first step

[tabasco]

16. The well-regulated militia, i.e., any nutjob off the street, would never hear of it!

The well-regulated militia must be free from such burdensome restrictions, in order to continue its campaign of terror in America.

[Kang Colby]

17. From the OP

I live in Maryland, whose nickname is the "Free State," and I am no less free because of the laws in my state require registration of handguns and prohibit the more dangerous varieties of firearms, magazines and ammunition. In fact, I feel more free because I have less fear of being blown away, freedom and all, than I would have if guns were less regulated.

This is not only false but illogical. Martin O'Malley has generally been dishonest with the public about his "assault weapons" and magazine ban. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-10-06/news/bs-ed-gun-control-letter-20141006_1_assault-weapons-ban-firearms-safety-act-maryland

Maryland's laws are so nonsensical that they don't ban much of anything fortunately. But they do cause massive compliance headaches, because no one including the state regulatory agency for firearms, Maryland State Police, can even figure out what the laws mean.

Let's compare Maryland's homicide rate with the surrounding gun friendly states. People blame the surrounding states for Maryland's failed gun laws, yet they never explain why those states don't have the same out of control violent crime.

[Kingofalldems]

18. Gimme my guns!!

[PowerToThePeople]

19. not a thing is wrong with registration.n/t

[GGJohn]

22. Why do you think it's ok for the govt to know what weapons one owns? eom.

[PowerToThePeople]

23. They know what cars I own

I have zero issues with knowing who owns weapons of mass destruction.

They have an obligation in my opinion to monitor these devices very closely if they are to allow them on our soil.

[GGJohn]

25. Owning vehicles isn't an enumerated right,

owning a firearm is.
The govt has no idea of how many vehicles I own on our farm, our farm vehicles aren't registered, licensed, insured, etc.

AFAIC, the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own.

[-none]

29. Enumerated Right?

All that Enumerated means is that something has a number next to it. Being enumerated in no way hardens the 2nd Amendment as somehow being an absolute Right of some kind.
Enumerated Right just sounds impressive, even more so than bullet point, which is what it means anyway. Just another item on a list. A list riddled with exceptions, except for the 2nd item on this list. Too many people are dying for this lack of exceptions.

And back on OP subject, registering all firearms and their sale is resisted because it would put a kink in straw buying and in selling to those that should not be having any firearms in the first place.

[GGJohn]

31. Not true.

For most, like myself, my belief is that the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own.

Why do you think the framers of the Constitution made the RKBA number 2?

[-none]

32. Because the newly formed nation could not afford a standing army and had to rely on State Militias.

That is why.

[GGJohn]

34. So they thought that the right to keep and bear arms was pretty important? eom.

[-none]

36. Ever hear of the militia?

That is the reason of the second Amendment. There were no restrictions on private firearm ownership back then, even before the 2nd Amendment.

[GGJohn]

37. Ever hear of Heller v DC?

The right to individual ownership of firearms not connected to militia service.

[Duckhunter935]

40. You do not have to register

A car to own one, just use it on the public roadways.

[Marrah_G]

51. why would it not be okay?

[GGJohn]

54. Answer a question with a question?

The govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own, for me, it's a 4th Amendment issue.
I see no gain to me for the govt to know what my firearm possessions are.

[aikoaiko]

21. Attempting to link registration with preventing Sandy Hook is bizarre

Registration would not have prevented most deaths involving a gun, but it's really not clear how many.

[hack89]

24. If only Adam Lanza's guns were registered... Oh wait. Nt

[CanadaexPat]

26. The same thing that's wrong with free speech zones.

I actually support it, but let's be clear on what it is.

[gwheezie]

27. The founders had all kinds of rules.

About gun ownership. Maybe we could require all gun owners to pass muster.

[Kingofalldems]

28. Here's one I read on DU:

'I really don't like the NRA but they are right about everything.'----Gun fanciers.

[etherealtruth]

30. All of our enumerated rights have limits

This is a good and appropriate limit. I am very glad to see Democrats and the Democratic party once again addressing this very serious issue!

Its not always easy or expedient to do the right thing .... but, doing the right thing is always the correct course of action

[NutmegYankee]

33. I disagree.

I have a right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects and am not required to log any of my household property information with the local government where it is subject to hacking by criminal elements. It's not the government's business how many TVs, radios, beds, wrenches, or guns I own.

This is a 4th Amendment issue and I would never comply with it.

[etherealtruth]

35. Hmmmm, is it the governments right to know how many cars, boats, CNC machines, presses, farm equip

... you have?

If you have ever lived in the state of Virginia you were required to identify all of the above and pay taxes on your personal property.

[NutmegYankee]

38. Personal property is different from household property in taxes

Household property is exempt. Property used in business and objects that are mobile under their own power (cars, boats) are taxable. Boats and cars leave the property and therefore cannot be considered household objects (there are rare exceptions). In the case of business, the government has the power to regulate business and (until Citizen's United) businesses are not people and don't have a right to privacy.

[etherealtruth]

41. That is correct ... however, it is still a limitation placed on your property

Additionally, pets are considered property under the law (in my mind they are "family&quot , one would assume the ownership of pets would be free of limitations; however, we know there are limits placed on the type of pets one may own and keep.

All of our enumerated rights are limited

[NutmegYankee]

44. The Constitutionality of laws on pets is questionable in some cases.

Limiting the acquisition is legal, but to force someone to get rid of what they already own, there has to be a court hearing (due process) and compensation if taken. Anything other than that is illegal.

As often happens in our system of Common Law, the government overreaches, loses a court battle, and that right it then protected/further protected. Most of the "limits" are actually exceptions made for law enforcement to let them off from mistakes. The 4th has been the victim of that the most.

[etherealtruth]

46. Unfortunatley, under BSL that is exactly what can happen

you may be a maligned gun owner (on DU) .... but, I am a pitbull owner (or "mom&quot .... so I get it

[NutmegYankee]

49. The pitbull ban craze is just another classic "moral panic".

The American Pit Bull Terrier is such a lovely looking breed and my experience with them (several neighbors have them) has been great.

[GGJohn]

39. Huh?

We own a farm in AZ and we don't have to declare how many farm vehicle we own, no registering, no licensing, no insurance.
The only taxes we pay are land taxes, not what personal property we have on that land.

[etherealtruth]

43. Does Arrizona have personal property taxes?

perhaps you should google states that do and do not have personal property taxes. If Arizona does not have personal property taxes or exempts farm equipment you would not pay. If Arizona does have personal property taxes and includes this you are breaking the law.

[GGJohn]

45. Vehicles are taxed as personal property only if they're registered and used on public roads,

otherwise, AZ doesn't have a personal property tax.

[etherealtruth]

48. Here is some info about personal property taxes

I live in Michigan, I pay a sales tax on my initial purchase (other than real property) and no taxes after that .... however, personal property taxation varies from state to state. Just because you don't pay personal property taxes on something does not mean it is not universally true


http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/personal-property-taxes.htm

You may already know that you need to pay property taxes on your real estate, like land, a house or a building. But what about your car, the new boat you just bought, or even Fido?

Depending on what state you live in, you could have to pay personal property tax on these and other items. Personal property taxes are usually assessed as a percentage of the value of an item. They can fall under county or state taxes, depending on where you live. Not all states tax personal property, however, and what is subject to personal property tax varies widely from state to state.

[Lee-Lee]

47. Registration would be a huge expense and the money would have better impact used elsewhere

Everyone pushes for registration like cars- if you take what the typical state spends per car for such a system and apply it to guns there would be a about a $6,000,000,000 cost per year to maintain a registry.

And, or course, you can't charge gun owners for that because just like a poll tax it would be tossed as an unconstitutional restraint on exercise of a right.

Of course first you need to get all those guns in the database. That would be an effort on par with the census- so figure a $15,000,000,000 cost just like the census if everyone cooperates. Even deep blue states like NY and CT have seen lots of noncompliance with their registration efforts and in all the red states it would be worse.

All that money would be far, far better and more effectively spent on targeted efforts at getting guns out of the hands of criminals, early intervention programs to keep youth out of a life of crime, and far better access to mental health care.

Oh- and one last thing. After all that expense you can't actually require a criminal to register a gun or prosecute them for not doing so- see Haynes Vs US

[Lee-Lee]

50. Fifth Amendment says that the very people barred from owning an item can't be forced to register it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So, registration would only be enforceable against those who are under current and any future law legally allowed to own a gun.

Registration would, because of this, only target exactly the people who don't need to be targeted by any efforts to reduce misuse of guns.

[Scootaloo]

52. That's a bad argument

It assumes crimes are only committed by people who illegally own guns, and that legal owners never do.

Reality strongly disagrees with that assessment.

[Lee-Lee]

53. Tell me, then, how the registration will stop any crime?

If a person legally owns it, registered or not, and misuses it how would registration have changed that?

The whole point registration advocates give is to keep guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. Otherwise it's just a multi billion dollar yearly exercise in futility for little or no gain.

[Glassunion]

56. No... It would perfectly target straw purchasers.

They are legally able to purchase a firearm, but they do so to sell to those who are not able.

[Lee-Lee]

59. They don't prosecute or go after them now- spending billions on a database

won't change misguided priories and lazy attitudes of federal LE and US Attorneys.

There is more than enough meat on the laws that exist now to go after and prosecute straw buyers, but the Feds and US Attorneys don't do it because they see it as low priority and not "sexy" enough.

Hell, the 18 year old girl who bought the guns for the Colunbine killers because they were under 18 was never even charged- because they don't care about it.

80,000 people commit a federal felony every year by trying to illegally buy a gun at a dealer. The Feds prosecute less than 100 of those 80,000 a year. They don't care that people ineligible to own guns commit a felony trying to get one and leave them alone to go pursue illegal means to obtain one

Because despite all the laws and tools available the Department of Justice doesn't care and doesn't want to be bothered with enforcing the laws regarding straw purchases and committing perjury when trying to buy a gun.

When I was a deputy I had a case where a girlfriend bought a shotgun for her boyfriend who she was fully aware could not buy a gun because he had a domestic violence protection order from his estranged wife. I had her on video, in our interview room admitting to doing it, as well as copies of all the paperwork. It was a 100% slam dunk case to prosecute. I handed it to the Feds because as a local deputy I couldn't go after violations of Federal law, they have to. They did one interview with her trying to see if she was useful as an informant on any cases they were working, mostly around motorcycle gangs, and when they realized she wasn't in a position to be forced to be an informant in exchange for a lighter sentence they decided she wasn't worth even prosecuting at all. It was a 100% perfect slam dunk case and they couldn't be bothered to do anything with it.

A new database and billions spent on it won't change that. It's not that there are not enough tools to catch these people and put them away now- it's that they just don't care.

[Glassunion]

55. Because the government cannot be trusted.

Look at England... They registered and took away almost all the guns... Now they have cameras all over the place to spy on every one.

The government just cannot be trusted at all!

[gwheezie]

58. One thing gun registration would do

Is hold people accountable for what happens to their guns.
I don't know how else to do this without registering guns. If you are the registered owner of a gun that finds itself in the hands of someone who has lost the right to own a gun or uses it in a crime, I'd like to find a way to stop that or at least make it less profitable.
Somehow these handguns find their way to people who are not using them as the 2a protects. How do we stop that.
Does anyone who does not support registration have any ideas how to hold someone who buys a gun responsible for that gun when it winds up in the wrong hands.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Locking after unanimous votes from hosts

Does not fit the GD SOP.