If the 2nd is an Individual right does that mean registration is unconstitutional?

Wildalaska said:
Or is it more like "evolving standards"
Click to expand...
Actually, no. Now if you had said, "doctrine," I could have agreed with you. Using "standards" is as wishy-washy as the "I know it when I see it" sort of thing. No clear direction with standards (hint: ideals are always evolving). Always a moving target. Doctrine on the other hand is authoritative and generally only changes when a more concise philosophy (or credo) is accepted.

Wild, as you are aware, I don't always agree with the Court. But they are (who and) what they are. So I agree, once the ruling is made, it is law and we are obliged to accept it as such.... Even if I do grumble at times.
 
PS...I always try to avoid debating Roe since it is bad law that creates a good result...which makes it frustratingly not bad law even if it is bad law if ya know what I mean
Click to expand...

But, of course. :D
 
I did. It has a chilling effect on the exercise of the right. Show me the compelling state interest. Show me how the registration of every single gun is the least restrictive alternative for the tiny fraction of all guns owned that are involved in crime. You can't cry "it's up to the Supreme Court" every time you're offered a rebuttal, yet say that you're trying to encourage thinking (by not responding) when the burden is shifted back to you. Well, you can, but it's not productive. I find it hard to find any compelling interest for registration EXCEPT confiscation. Obtaining the ability to destroy the exercise of a right certainly can't be a compelling state interest.:rolleyes:


Quote:
Tell me first how it is an infringement.... to even trigger the whole analysis.
Click to expand...
 
yet say that you're trying to encourage thinking (by not responding) when the burden is shifted back to you. Well, you can, but it's not productive. I find it hard to find any compelling interest for registration EXCEPT confiscation.
Click to expand...

Nope its not my burden, not in this thread....

Not my job to think for you, and if you cant think of compelling societal reasons for registration, then how can you be thinking?

WildbecreativeAlaska
 
WHAT PART OF INFRINGE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND
Click to expand...
The point is that not everyone agrees on what constitutes an infringement. Completely unregulated firearms ownership - to the point that a released felon can walk right from prison into a store and buy a gun or to the point that a nine year old can walk into a shop and buy a M16 the same way he could buy a bag of M&Ms - is insane. The key is finding the balance between reasonable gun control and preventing infringement on a right. Five minutes filling out a form and five bucks does not qualify as infringement in my mind.
 
The infringement he listed in the first post would be that if you refused to register your firearm with authorities you couldn't own it type.
 
OK, Wild, I told you twice now what the infringement is. You've ducked it. I, at least, expected you to think for yourself of something since its your scenario.

QED: It's unconstitutional.

Decision: The party with the burden of proof (the proponent) failed to show a compelling state interest, or any legitimate interest for that matter, in support of registration. The party with the burden of proof failed to show that total registration is the least restrictive alternative (it's not by the way). The party with the burden, failing to make any showing in support of its position, has failed to meet its burden of proof.

Sorry, strict scrutiny is a bitch.
 
tHIS THREAD STARTED:

Pretend you are arguing before a Court.

Even worse...convince me I'm wrong because I view registration as entirely constituional.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehensions a bi-atch aint it?

So, passing the buck to me doesnt cut it.

If you really want me to help you I will but you can really do it yourself ya know.:)

WILDLOOKINGFORCREATIVITYaLASKA
 
The infringement he listed in the first post would be that if you refused to register your firearm with authorities you couldn't own it type.
Click to expand...

What if the penalty was merely punitive and did not entail loss of firearms rights.

WildheyihaveapollAlaska
 
The infringement he listed in the first post would be that if you refused to register your firearm with authorities you couldn't own it type.
Click to expand...
So then why not just register it?

for the record, I'm not a fan of registration for ownership. public carry, yes, but not ownership. still, I don't see it as unreasonable and would accept it if it meant fewer restrictions on types of firearms we could own and carrying
 
What if the penalty was merely punitive and did not entail loss of firearms rights.
Click to expand...

hrmmm....

Then it wouldn't prohibit them from owning a firearm so we wouldn't have an argument that it was unconstitutional. last time I looked Hawaii requires everyone to register firearms even visitors and they are still doing it. You would need to prove that there was some irreparable harm or damage to your rights or person by being required to register your firearm.
 
OK, Wild, I told you twice now what the infringement is. You've ducked it. I, at least, expected you to think for yourself of something since its your scenario.

QED: It's unconstitutional.

Decision: The party with the burden of proof (the proponent) failed to show a compelling state interest, or any legitimate interest for that matter, in support of registration. The party with the burden of proof failed to show that total registration is the least restrictive alternative (it's not by the way). The party with the burden, failing to make any showing in support of its position, has failed to meet its burden of proof.
Click to expand...

If thats the case then why are there states with gun registration laws like Hawaii?
 
As has been said, registration in and of itself, is NOT unconstitutional in my view. But I'm still against it, since historically it leads to *bad things*.
 
Various posters:

Re "at state level it's different" or words to that effect, pardon me but I seem to remember, as others might too, the old adage about "registration leading to confiscation", which at STATE LEVEL it has. See the antics of state government in California, New Jersey, and then there is New York City, where I lived for many years. Then there is both the possibility and the fact of escallating fees. A person much wiser than I once observed that "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

At federal level, Emerson and possibly Parker, various courts, while seeming to uphold The Second Amendment, have also smiled upon "reasonable regulations" or restrictions, same being undefined. Ever hear about how The Devil Is In The Details?

Peiople on/in various discussions have offered re particuar legislative proposals that "that would be unconstitutional". Perhaps it would, however questions of constitutionality have never, correct me if I'm wrong, of and in themselves, stopped or prevented the enactment of legislation. Seems that it takes court action, up to and including the USSC to so rule and I believe that rulings, either way, come only after enactment followed by enforcement actions. It's the enforcement actions or antics that can play hell with participants, some of them ayhow.
 
Law: No one may posess a firearm unless the make and model is registered with the Gov.

How does this violate the second amenndment...and can we PLEASE have some case law, not just stuff like "from my cold dead hands yadda yadda"

Pretend you are arguing before a Court.
Click to expand...

Define "registration".

What is required to comply with your "registration" law?
- Do I need a government issued ID card?
- Is this a one-time or annual registration?
- Is there a fee to pay for registration?
- Must a person have a fixed address?
- What documentation needs to be provided to register?
- How long does it take to complete the form? How many questions?
- How is the registration program funded? What happens if it is de-funded by Congress?

Hmmm... I'm going to change my position and say that your law will not pass strict scrutiny. Simple de-funding of the program results in the inability to exercise the right. Additionally, possession based upon a government-kept "ledger" (database) of what guns are registered means that a government error (clerical or intentional) would deprive a person of their rights.

Your "simply punitive" punishment (i.e. a misdemeanor crime requiring a fine and/or jail time in a county jail) doesn't fly either. As we have seen, Congress can declare certain misdemeanors are "disabling" for 2A rights at a future date.
 
Infringement means a violation of a rule or right. If one is penalized for not registering a firearm then that is de facto infringement of the right to keep and to bear.:)
 
Something Like This?

"HEAR YE! HEAR YE!"

Congress has passed legislation known as "The (Well) Regulation Militia Act"; both Houses in Agreement and the POTUS has signed it into law. This law, which requires ALL militia members, per 10 USC 311, to register with their local militia leaders, all firearms in their possession capable of being utilized by militia members for all legal purposes in defense of the STATE within the next 6 month period. In addition to registering all arms, each citizen shall provide an exact and accurate account of all ammunitions contained in their possession.

Said legislation also calls for penalties should any citizen/militia member, both organized and unorganized, be caught with a firearm not so registered. All future purchases of new or existing firearms and ammuntions shall be registered with local militia leaders.

In addition, all citizens (per 10 USC 311) are required to report for training and all such training shall be registered and noted by militia leaders.

In an unprecedented act, Leaders from each party of both Houses, all 50 Governors and the POTUS requested review of the new law by SCOTUS. In a 9-0 unanimous vote, the new law was held to pass Constitutional muster as "registration" of arms for purposes of militia members, all of whom are necessary for a "free state", the registration and accounting of their arms and ammunitions does not infringe upon their collective or individual rights to keep and bear arms. In fact, their issued statement says, "It is now once again, a well-regulated Militia. One our Founding Fathers would look upon with pride."

So Be It.

It should be noted that the NRA helped write the necessary language contained within the Bill and that the GOA is livid. As an aside, the NRA today announced a new organization within their group known as NRA Militia Training Center for Well Regulated Organization (see NRA-MTCWRO on their website). Their Executive VP said, "Finally, we can forget all about Lobbying Congress and go back to training marksmanship and firearms safety... our initial reason for existance. But now, more than ever, we need your financial help. Proper Training does not come cheaply."

Donations are pouring in. :D

You mean something like that?
 
Funny thing is, that bastion of gun rights, Switzerland, has a system just like that :)

And they issue a gun :)

Wildidtakeregistrationinexchangeforam249Alaska
 
Ok, this is killing me. From what I understand, "strict scrutiny" is in play here. Yes? No? Constitutional right? Individual at that? (under review at least)

Now I know you (WkenA) started this thread to see if there are any thinkers. Doesn't seem that way as there are no posts regarding case law.

Maybe that is because there is a lack of case law? Maybe a standard needs to be set? I don't know...I have never studied law...

Back to the strict scrutiny....Crime investigation

Compelling governmental interest: Yes, But federal only? States only have authority of what the federal government does not? right? Let's throw in states authority here due to my ignorance....

Narrowly tailored: Depends, what is on this registration? Serial numbers? pictures? central database? Lands and grooves? firing pin marks? enacting the shell stamping act? You get to a certain point where it is not "narrowly tailored...Then again, crime investigation would need most, if not all, of the previously mentioned to be effective.

Least restrivtive means: In order to be effective, all of the "narrowly tailored" part needs to be enacted. No more, I cannot see any less restrictive means....

The thing that is eating me, The reason for it. The only valid reason for as I see, Crime Investigation. Where does it stop though? registering your knives? the type of rope/line you own? Chemicals that are bought? The duct tape you buy? your computer?

Is there any case law I should be reading? Do you truly believe registration is okay? (I would like an issued m249 also!) I just don't like the idea. Not for just the "RTKBA" reasons, but the logistical reasons for it also, more taxes, retrofitting guns with new technology, extra burden for a constitutional right....yadda ruby ruby ridge yadda infringe yadda...screamer reasons...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top