- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,079
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The concept of a national firearm registry available to law enforcement has been broached before, but people seem to buck against the idea. Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
~Ease of identification- A firearm registry would allow a firearm's identity and ownership information to be made available to law enforcement. This means questions with regards to the legality of owned firearms as well as giving law enforcement a way to check stolen firearms as well as setting up a system whereby pawn shops forward firearm information to law enforcement to check if a sold weapon is possible evidence or was imported.What is a coherent argument for having a national firearms registry? Seems to me the burden would be on those wanting to establish it.
(taken from the thread where this thread started)
1) the government does not have the power to do that-especially with guns no longer moving in interstate commerce. while I and most people who understand that CC deny that it properly was designed to facilitate gun control, one can make at least a semi honest argument that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate firearms transactions-ie wholesalers selling across state lines to dealers. but certainly not retail shops selling in their own states and clearly there is no power to make me register a gun I have owned for years
2) since criminals are exempt from registration, why have a program that only applies to the people least likely to cause gun related problems
3) it facilitates future confiscations and has been used to facilitate confiscation in the past
4) it has little, if any, use in solving crimes. Hawaii has had gun registration for years and testimony I reviewed suggested that maybe a handful of crimes were solved with the help of a registry
5) government agents are not always honest and someone who has a lot of guns could be targeted for theft if the police misuse the information or allow it to get out
6) you already have a duty to report stolen firearms so when a firearm is stolen, its serial number should be on a national list. Sure, people fail to do that but honest people who have no other criminal activity often refuse to register firearms. Cincinnat passed an assault weapon ban in 1990 or so and required people to register such arms already owned. Less than 100 did (I had moved out of the city as a result) and I knew for a fact (having been counsel for two major gun stores) that thousands were owned by people within the city limits.
but most of all, why does the government need the information?
Bravo, kudos, and other positive comments. I couldn't have put it any better than that.
1. No Constitutional authority.
2. Doesn't work for the intended purpose.
3. Can and probably will be abused.
4. None-ya damn business what I have. As an ex-cop I know damn few murders solved by tracing legal ownership of the weapon. Most are solved because people can't keep their mouths shut.
~Ease of identification- A firearm registry would allow a firearm's identity and ownership information to be made available to law enforcement. This means questions with regards to the legality of owned firearms as well as giving law enforcement a way to check stolen firearms as well as setting up a system whereby pawn shops forward firearm information to law enforcement to check if a sold weapon is possible evidence or was imported.
~Keeping tabs on arms trafficking- A national registry can be used to check firearm serials to verify a weapon's country of origin and give more information to the ATF that would help stem the flow of illegal weapons.
~Ease of information flow- Information is a vital tool in law enforcement and the registry provides fast access to information regarding any and all registered firearms.
~Helping track domestic arms trade- Requiring private sales and trades to pass on registration information to the ATF to ensure criminals and potential domestic terrorists aren't stockpiling or acquiring weapons.
This system does not impede or stop any legal owners from following the law and it gives more tools to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute mis-use of firearms in the domestic sphere.
I look at your reasons...and I look at criminals...and I look at the illegal drug trade...
and I laugh and laugh and laugh...
Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
The people who advocate for a national firearms registry are the same people who advocate for civilian disarmament. Giving them the national firearms registry is not only one step closer to their goal, it's a step that gives them the means to effectively accomplish it. The only guns the government has any legitimate business tracking are the guns that it issues.
what I laugh about is that those who push for it seem to pretend we don't know their real motivations even though sawah Bwady and the rest of those scum who run the ARC constantly tell their deluded minions that registration is a necessary step for confiscation to take place
Let's not try to bring conspiracy theories into this. There are plenty of factual, logical reasons to not have a national registry.
I feel it is in the interests of our nation to extend that power to the federal government.1) the government does not have the power to do that-especially with guns no longer moving in interstate commerce. while I and most people who understand that CC deny that it properly was designed to facilitate gun control, one can make at least a semi honest argument that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate firearms transactions-ie wholesalers selling across state lines to dealers. but certainly not retail shops selling in their own states and clearly there is no power to make me register a gun I have owned for years
Because it makes it harder to acquire firearms anonymously and it helps combat illegal importation of firearms.2) since criminals are exempt from registration, why have a program that only applies to the people least likely to cause gun related problems
How?3) it facilitates future confiscations and has been used to facilitate confiscation in the past
I dont see that Hawaii is a valid testing ground for a nation-wide network.4) it has little, if any, use in solving crimes. Hawaii has had gun registration for years and testimony I reviewed suggested that maybe a handful of crimes were solved with the help of a registry
That's why we have government oversight and controls to prevent this from happening.5) government agents are not always honest and someone who has a lot of guns could be targeted for theft if the police misuse the information or allow it to get out
Make it a requirement for CC permits, purchasing, trading, and exchanging of any firearms that their registration be checked against the database.6) you already have a duty to report stolen firearms so when a firearm is stolen, its serial number should be on a national list. Sure, people fail to do that but honest people who have no other criminal activity often refuse to register firearms. Cincinnat passed an assault weapon ban in 1990 or so and required people to register such arms already owned. Less than 100 did (I had moved out of the city as a result) and I knew for a fact (having been counsel for two major gun stores) that thousands were owned by people within the city limits.
For reasons I have already outlined.but most of all, why does the government need the information?
Maybe you should ask. I dont support civilian disarming, I support reasonable allowances for civilian firearm ownership but I dont support disarming civilians.The people who advocate for a national firearms registry are the same people who advocate for civilian disarmament. Giving them the national firearms registry is not only one step closer to their goal, it's a step that gives them the means to effectively accomplish it. The only guns the government has any legitimate business tracking are the guns that it issues.
complete BS Hoplite
tell me has the war on drugs made obtaining cocaine or weed all that tougher? NO, but it has wasted billions of dollars and ruined millions of lives
you can claim all you want that you are not in favor of bans but when those who want to ban guns desire certain tools to be in place and you support those tools you support the gun banners at least partially
it would be like someone saying "I dont support genocide but I support putting Jews and others in concentration camps so we can keep an eye on them.
We arent discussing the war on drugs. If you'd like to discuss it, you're free to start a new thread on the subject.
And if you cant control your temper, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.
The concept of a national firearm registry available to law enforcement has been broached before, but people seem to buck against the idea. Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
I can understand opposition to a national registry, but some people here are being a little absurd. While I am against many restrictions on gun control, the notion that anyone should be able to buy a gun without any record being kept of it is a little insane.
The argument that most legal gun owners don't commit crimes is disingenuous since most people don't hijack planes either,
that doesn't mean we should not demand photo id for people boarding planes just because most of them aren't going to hijack it.
I can understand opposition to a national registry, but some people here are being a little absurd. While I am against many restrictions on gun control, the notion that anyone should be able to buy a gun without any record being kept of it is a little insane. The argument that most legal gun owners don't commit crimes is disingenuous since most people don't hijack planes either, that doesn't mean we should not demand photo id for people boarding planes just because most of them aren't going to hijack it.
so if I were to provide quotes of major anti gun scum saying that registration is a necessary step towards confiscation would that be a "conspiracy"
I feel it is in the interests of our nation to extend that power to the federal government.
Because it makes it harder to acquire firearms anonymously and it helps combat illegal importation of firearms.
How?
I dont see that Hawaii is a valid testing ground for a nation-wide network.
That's why we have government oversight and controls to prevent this from happening.
Make it a requirement for CC permits, purchasing, trading, and exchanging of any firearms that their registration be checked against the database.
For reasons I have already outlined.
Maybe you should ask. I dont support civilian disarming, I support reasonable allowances for civilian firearm ownership but I dont support disarming civilians.
This kind of rhetoric I rather expected: mildly paranoid and entirely un-supported.
We arent discussing the war on drugs. If you'd like to discuss it, you're free to start a new thread on the subject.
And if you cant control your temper, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?