Why Registration Is Bad

[Dittohead not!]

Correct for the most part, although Heller doesn't address storage laws. Nothing in Heller, Miller, McDonald or Caetano allows the banning of firearms in common use for lawful purposes or having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

It does address prohibiting gun ownership by felons and the mentally retarded.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The only way to do so is:

Ban and confiscate all guns. This may require martial law.
Next, prohibit, find and confiscate any bit of machinery that can be used to manufacture firearms, like CNC machines, milling machines and 3D printers.
Lastly, try closing the porous 1000 mile border between the US and our lawless neighbor to the south. We can’t stop a flood of drugs and people crossing that border – what makes you think that we wouldn’t see illegal firearms coming through to meet the demand of criminals and citizens alike. How many more police will we need to protect the now unarmed public from the criminals who won’t have complied with a gun ban?

And that's just for guns. How do you keep all other lethal weapons out of the hands of those that we agree should not have them?

Reductio ad absurdum

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.

 

[jaeger19]

You don't need registration to confiscate guns.

But you're arguing something that wasn't my point.

It's possible to do it without the registry. But the registry would make it much much easier.

If the law was that no gun store/person could sell a gun without ensuring that the purchaser registered it (the same as when you register a car at a dealership) then essentially all new guns would be registered at POS. Very few if any gun stores would defy the law. This information would allow us to see who is purchasing insane amounts of guns. For instance, right now if I were to go to 12 different gun stores and buy 2 guns at each of them, file down the serial numbers and then hand them out to my friends that couldn't pass the back ground check, how would you catch me without a registry?

how would you know with a registry? Like you said.. you filed down the serial numbers and handed them out to your friends.

So... unless you plan on having police officers go to people houses that have bought guns, and search those houses for the guns they bought... you aren't going to catch anyone. And think of how many searches you are going to have to do.. just based on the person having bought a firearm.. before you catch someone that did not register it or did but sold it with the serial number filed off.

So we aren't talking about whether it's impossible to do it without a registry, but the fact that a registry provides extremely useful information in some scenarios that would help to track down people doing bad ****.

Not at all. in your scenario. you just pointed out just how USELESS a registry would be. The serial number is gone... so how do you trace it back tot he guy that bought those guns?

 

[jaeger19]

Reductio ad absurdum

Just to point out.. Reductio as absurdum.. is used to EXPOSE a fallacy.

In other words.. Rucker61 exposed your fallacy that you can

but how to keep all weapons out of the hands of people who I think we agree should not have them

Seriously.. how do you think you can keep all weapons out of the hands of people that you think should not have them.????

 

[roughdraft274]

How would we catch you with a registry? By filing off the serial number you've just eliminated the link between firearm and registry. There is no law against buying "insane amounts of guns".

Well, for starters, if one of the guys I gave the gun to rats on me, you can check the registry and you have proof that I bought 23 other guns. You can't do that currently.

Or, you could check the gun purchases of all known associates of the criminal caught with a gun with a filed off serial number. If I'm his buddy and I just purchased 24 handguns just like the one he used, maybe you want to question me and ask to see those 24 guns. You could then arrest me if I don't have any of those 24 guns anymore because they are registered to me and I sold them.

There are plenty of ways that it would be incredibly useful.

No, the registry would not show that you are not in possession of any of them.

If you bought guns at a gun shop following the current process, sold them to prohibited persons, and the police found one of those firearms with or without a damaged serial number in the possession of a prohibited person, that firearm can be traced back to you now. The problem is that nothing is done about it.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-rel...urchase-violations-depends-on-state-laws.html

Even when successfully prosecuted, the punishment is insufficient:

"Jalita Jenera Johnson has been sentenced for lying when she bought a gun and 50-round drum magazine for her convicted felon boyfriend, Marcus Wheeler. Wheeler later used the gun and magazine to kill an Omaha, Nebraska, police officer while the officer was attempting to serve a warrant on Wheeler for his arrest. Jalita Jenera Johnson, 26, of Jonesboro, Georgia, has been sentenced to one year of probation, 40 hours of community service, and 180 days’ home confinement. Johnson was convicted on these charges on August 19, 2015, after she pleaded guilty."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/p...uying-firearm-used-kill-omaha-nebraska-police

Because these cases are incredibly hard to prosecute. Generally they are pleaded down to very minor penalties. Currently you don't have to simply prove that they gave the gun to a felon. You have to prove that they did all of this with knowledge that the person is a felon and intended to do it from the start. That incredibly hard to prove. If you find out that my buddy who is a convicted felon has a gun that I purchased in possession, you have to prove that I bought that gun for him in order to convict me of a straw purchase. I could easily lie and say I bought it for me and he stole it or I bought it for me and gave it to him later on cause I didn't need it and I had no idea he was a felon that couldn't have a gun etc.

With the registry that I would like to see all you need to prove is that I bought a gun (easy) and that gun ended up in someone elses hands (easy). I should be in possession of the gun. In the rare cases that a gun is stolen then you'd file a police report and we could denote that on the registry.

A world of difference, do you agree?

Doesn't work so well in practice.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#27daf36b5a1b
Maryland spent millions on gun database that solved no crimes. - Baltimore Sun

As long as Democrats continue to push for both registration and gun bans the popular support for registration won't be there. Ask Connecticut and New York, both blue state, how well their registration efforts went.

I'm not saying it's not difficult. I'm just saying that a registry that was well enforced would be incredibly useful for fighting crime.

 

[vegas giants]

how would you know with a registry? Like you said.. you filed down the serial numbers and handed them out to your friends.

So... unless you plan on having police officers go to people houses that have bought guns, and search those houses for the guns they bought... you aren't going to catch anyone. And think of how many searches you are going to have to do.. just based on the person having bought a firearm.. before you catch someone that did not register it or did but sold it with the serial number filed off.



Not at all. in your scenario. you just pointed out just how USELESS a registry would be. The serial number is gone... so how do you trace it back tot he guy that bought those guns?

You are free to do that now. But you will get caught eventually. One of your "buddies" will narc on you and you are busted. Now they have you on two separate crimes.

 

[jaeger19]

Well, for starters, if one of the guys I gave the gun to rats on me, you can check the registry and you have proof that I bought 23 other guns. .

If the fellow rats on him without registration.. you could do that anyway.

Or, you could check the gun purchases of all known associates of the criminal caught with a gun with a filed off serial number. If I'm his buddy and I just purchased 24 handguns just like the one he used, maybe you want to question me and ask to see those 24 guns

Violation of the Constitution. You have no probable cause to link the gun with the filed off serial number with the original purchaser. In your scenario.. you would then have to do a house to house search of EVERY family member, and friend.. who had a register of purchasing that firearm.

Because these cases are incredibly hard to prosecute. Generally they are pleaded down to very minor penalties. Currently you don't have to simply prove that they gave the gun to a felon.

nor would you in this instance either. they could simply say they sold it.. and the buyer failed to register the gun. Or simply say they stole it. the worst they would get would be a slap in the wrist because they didn;t report it stolen fast enough etc.

Heck.. they could simply say they didn;t know the gun was stolen. I don't check my firearms every single night to make sure they are in my safe. I person could steal a firearm from me, and I wouldn't know possibly for years

I'm just saying that a registry that was well enforced would be incredibly useful for fighting crime.

Not at all. In fact.. Canada is proof. They have handgun registry. they have severe penalties and restrictions on handguns.

The preferred firearm that Criminals use in Canada? Handguns.

If it worked as you say.. it should reduce the number of handgun use and other firearms that have less restrictions should be more popular.. but they are not.

 

[jaeger19]

You are free to do that now. But you will get caught eventually. One of your "buddies" will narc on you and you are busted. Now they have you on two separate crimes.

if they "narc" on me I am busted whether I had a registered firearm or not.

"Narcing" on me does not require registration..

 

[vegas giants]

if they "narc" on me I am busted whether I had a registered firearm or not.

"Narcing" on me does not require registration..

But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.

 

[Maccabee]

But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.

Then why not instead add the years to the already existing law rather than create a new law?

 

[vegas giants]

Then why not instead add the years to the already existing law rather than create a new law?

The existing law is what? Its legal to sell guns to anyone you want now in a private sale. You do not need to ask or find out if they are criminals

 

[roughdraft274]

If the fellow rats on him without registration.. you could do that anyway.

How would you prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns under the current system? As of right now you have the word of a felon vs. the word of a guy who isn't a felon. And you have no proof that the guy he ratted on has even purchased a single gun. So please show me how you prove that the guy purchased 24 guns and gave one to this guy that he knew was a convicted felon.

 

[jaeger19]

But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.

Giving a firearm to a known felon is punishable by 10 years in jail. If that's not deterrent. that additional charge isn;t going to matter.

 

[vegas giants]

Giving a firearm to a known felon is punishable by 10 years in jail. If that's not deterrent. that additional charge isn;t going to matter.

You are not required to ask currently. Its a loophole so wide you could drive a aircraft carrier thru it. LOL

 

[Dittohead not!]

Just to point out.. Reductio as absurdum.. is used to EXPOSE a fallacy.

In other words.. Rucker61 exposed your fallacy that you can

Seriously.. how do you think you can keep all weapons out of the hands of people that you think should not have them.????

Obviously, you can't keep all weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. The best you can do is to cut down the number of felons and nutters with guns. The argument seems to revolve around (1) is that even possible at all, and (2) how best to go about it.

 

[jaeger19]

How would you prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns under the current system? .

Purchasing 24 guns is not a crime. so why would you have to prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns?

So now.. you have the word of a felon. and the world of a guy who isn;t a felon.. and you are now going to search the house based on that? And search all the other family and known associates?

How do you prove that the gun in question is actually the gun that was purchased? there is no serial number to identify it.

Heck.. just because a firearm is missing.. from the fellows collection means nothing. He could have sold it.. and the other person failed to register it. He could have sold it to someone else or had it stolen and failed to report it.. heck.. he might not even know it was stolen.

 

[vegas giants]

Purchasing 24 guns is not a crime. so why would you have to prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns?

So now.. you have the word of a felon. and the world of a guy who isn;t a felon.. and you are now going to search the house based on that? And search all the other family and known associates?

How do you prove that the gun in question is actually the gun that was purchased? there is no serial number to identify it.

Heck.. just because a firearm is missing.. from the fellows collection means nothing. He could have sold it.. and the other person failed to register it. He could have sold it to someone else or had it stolen and failed to report it.. heck.. he might not even know it was stolen.

You couldn't sell it without it being registered to the new owner

 

[roughdraft274]

Purchasing 24 guns is not a crime. so why would you have to prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns?

So now.. you have the word of a felon. and the world of a guy who isn;t a felon.. and you are now going to search the house based on that? And search all the other family and known associates?

How do you prove that the gun in question is actually the gun that was purchased? there is no serial number to identify it.

Heck.. just because a firearm is missing.. from the fellows collection means nothing. He could have sold it.. and the other person failed to register it. He could have sold it to someone else or had it stolen and failed to report it.. heck.. he might not even know it was stolen.

You need to understand the kind of registry that I support as I stated a few posts back.

When you buy a gun, he gun store registers it to you. They can't sell it otherwise, just like a car. When you sell or give a gun to a buddy, you ensure the registry is updated. Like a notary or something. If you give your buddy your gun, or sell it, and you don't file with the registry that you've sold it, just as you do with a car that you've sold, then it's on you.

So I'm not suggesting that his house needs to be searched. We have reason to believe that the guy is a straw purchaser due to the amount of guns he's buying, the way he's buying them and the fact that someone has confirmed they illegally bought a gun from him. At that point if he can't produce the other guns that are registered to him you can tack on additional charges, or you could get a warrant to search his property if needed. And when you say search all other family and known associates, that's not anything I've ever said. If you are trying to suggest that then you are either being intentionally obtuse or I haven't been clear. But at no point am I wanting to go around and just search random peoples property just because they have a friend that might have committed a crime.

You don't really have to prove that the gun purchased is the same gun. It would be a crime just for the fact that the guy purchased 24 guns and doesn't have them anymore and has no record of legally selling them. He didn't update the registry. If he did it once, he'd likely get a slap on the wrist. If he did it with 20 guns, then I'd suggest making an example out of him.

 

[CLAX1911]

"Confiscation" equals paranoid.

or what you're doing is denial. You can't tell me a legitimate purpose of registration.

"Show some integrity"? Because we disagree I have no integrity...

no it's because you make up nonsense that you have no integrity. Local serial numbers where did you come up with this crap?

You right-wingers always resort to ad-hom when you're stuck.

And you resort to boo-hooing when you can't defend the nonsense that you're told to believe. It's like you're in a cult.

 

[TurtleDude]

please, we've had this conversation before. The Second Amendment is not absolute. The issue is where the line is drawn.

it should be at the federal level. the dishonesty of the FDR administration completely changed the entire concept of how the bill of rights works. the founders never intended the federal government to have any say in this area

 

[TurtleDude]

it also said:



summary of Heller vs. DC

most of those are state laws. the ban on felons is a tenth amendment violation at the federal level

 

[TurtleDude]

It does address prohibiting gun ownership by felons and the mentally retarded.

wrong-mentally retarded is not the standard. adjudicated mentally incompetent is. that's a big difference

 

[Dittohead not!]

wrong-mentally retarded is not the standard. adjudicated mentally incompetent is. that's a big difference

Mentally incompetent is a much better term, but the summary I quoted did say "mentally retarded." I think that's an outdated term anyway.

 

[Rucker61]

Mentally incompetent is a much better term, but the summary I quoted did say "mentally retarded." I think that's an outdated term anyway.

"adjudicated mentally incompetent" is the term used in 18 USC 922g.

 

[jaeger19]

You couldn't sell it without it being registered to the new owner

It can't be registered to a new owner.. UNTIL ITS SOLD!.

Selling it has to come before the registration.