Your thoughts on Firearm Registration

"Firearm registration is good. It helps the police solve crimes. The police are our friends. They would never, ever, ever, ever try to take our guns away. If just one child is saved, isn't it worth it?"

"Well, TimR you win the a*shat award for mind reading, congrats."

If I was wrong in my reading, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the parts that are incorrect?

Tim
 
Rich ultimately, I have to enforce them (by me saying I have to, that means my job requires me to).I will be the first to admit it is not a situation I am fond to be in. My oath to the Constitution precludes me from making my own decision of what is Constitutional or not. That, as is said here often, provides the "slippery slope" to choosing what laws I want to enforce. I know, say it. I'm speaking out of both sides. But until the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, the law is the law. It's a sh*ty position to be in. But I value my oath very much. Flame away, but at least you know where I stand.
 
Breacherup, think of it this way. Given the observed civil disobedience in Canada (at least from accounts I have read) will firearms registration not actually CAUSE more crimes than it solves?

Rick
 
Breacher-
I promised myself that I wouldn't make a value judgment, other than to laud your honesty, and I won't. I didn't ask the question to place you in the flame corner and I'd disagree with any non-LEO coming back on you for that.

But I did ask it to provide two (hopefully) cogent reasons for opposition to Registration:
1) It places good cops like you one step closer to having to decide between what is morally right and what is "law". Either way you lose.
2) It places guys like you and me one step closer to becoming mortal enemies due to actions of a third party....actions we BOTH disagree with. Either way we BOTH lose.

Rich
 
My oath to the Constitution precludes me from making my own decision of what is Constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does give the SCOTUS ultimate jurisdiction. However, the founders did not intend private citizens, nor agents of the executive branch, to acquiesce to the decisions of the Supreme Court while that court and the legislature lead the country off a cliff.
 
The oldest game in the world

The Constitution does give the SCOTUS ultimate jurisdiction. However, the founders did not intend private citizens, nor agents of the executive branch, to acquiesce to the decisions of the Supreme Court while that court and the legislature lead the country off a cliff.
Click to expand...

AMEN!!!!!

The problem we have is this - the Supreme Court and other lower courts are supposed to interpret the law based on what the Constitution says; what they actually are doing is interpreting the Constitution based on what the law says.

THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE.

Why do the courts do this?? It's simple - it increases the power of all branches of "The Government" over We The People and weakens the power of We The Pepole over "The Government."

It's a power grab by judges, bureaucrats and politicians OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES. Democrats, Independents and Republicans are ALL guilty. There are NONE that are blameless; all go along with this way of doing business at some level or other.
 
Re the original question, or what seemed to be that, Let Me Count The Ways.

Firstly, and I submit that this is one of the more cogent questions that one might ask, WHAT USEFUL, VALID, LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS, GIVEN THAT CRIMINALS WOULD NOT COMPLY?
 
The Constitution does give the SCOTUS ultimate jurisdiction. However, the founders did not intend private citizens, nor agents of the executive branch, to acquiesce to the decisions of the Supreme Court while that court and the legislature lead the country off a cliff.
Click to expand...

Um, not true.

I think I have heard several times recently that it was in the course of deciding a specific case that the SCOTUS assumed for itself the role of arbiter of all things Constitutional. Was it Marbury v. Madison or something like that? I think that sounds right.

Please show in the U.S. Constitution where the SCOTUS is defined as having ultimate, explicitly stated authority to decide what laws are Constitutional, or what wording makes clear that this was to be the role of the court.

-blackmind
 
I think I have heard several times recently that it was in the course of deciding a specific case that the SCOTUS assumed for itself the role of arbiter of all things Constitutional. Was it Marbury v. Madison or something like that? I think that sounds right.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's not as simple as that, though. The SCOTUS may not rightly have the power of judicial review, but if it doesn't, there is no authority higher than Congress. That presents the same problem. Someone has the power of judicial review, whether it's Congress or the SCOTUS or the Illuminati.

Those Silly Dead Guys said:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Click to expand...
Whether that means the judicial power includes judicial review is a matter of semantics.

The founders did not have this last 200 years of political theory to guide them. The vague language of article 3 gives very little indication of their intentions.

Thinking about it some more, I believe that a lack of Judicial Review at the federal level is incompatible with the post-Civil-War United States. If It is not a power granted to the Federal judiciary, it must rest with the states. Different states could then declare different laws to be constitutional or not, leading to another civil war.
 
BreacherUp:

As to the proposition of firearms registration, I and others too oppose it for the following reason. Registration can, does and has led to confiscation, and I'm not talking about the antics of some Third World Tin Pot Dictatorship, I make reference to things that have happened IN THIS COUNTRY, California, New York City, Cleveland, Ohio, and New Jersey all being parts of this country.

Earlier, someone brought up that old saw about you register your car, why not your gun(s). One answer is that nobody is talking about the confiscation of automobiles. Another factor is the following. Auto registration is, admittidly, A REVENUE RAISING DEVICE, while gun registration will somehow serve to combat criminal activity, we are told. Ostensibly, such imposition will somehow keep criminals from using/obtaining guns. Can't you hear the laughter in the background?
 
Great debate!
The founders did not have this last 200 years of political theory to guide them. The vague language of article 3 gives very little indication of their intentions.
Click to expand...
Yep, the founder did not have 200 years of political theory. Thankfully. They did have a clear understanding of human nature. Human nature being what it is will tend over time to create tyranny. So they built a political system that was astoundingly inefficient so that there was no direct path between conception and implementation. Checks and balances are inherent in our system because the founders knew we would tend to tyranny and they wanted to block it off.

Instead of political theory the founders had fresh memories of 8 years of combat against the world's super power at the time. They all had fresh memories of the destruction caused by unchecked power. They all had fresh memories of the horrors of civil war. . . . and make no mistake, the American Revolutionary War was first and foremost a civil war. They all had fresh memories of a law system beholden to the privileged few. The creation of checks and balances is what makes the American form of government unique in history and certainly unique in our day and time. And because of what they experienced and because of what they knew would happen at some point in the future, they enumerated the second amendment as a check and balance on unrestricted government power. History has demonstrated the founders were spooky in their ability to see the future.

A LOT of the problems we face are sourced in those areas where we have willingly ignored what the founders delivered. Central banks, direct election of senators, income tax, wars without declaration, and finally failure to exercise legislative override of SCOTUS and failure to control the judicial branch below SCOTUS. Article III is really quite clear. Problem is we have fallen for what SCOTUS claimed for itself and both the legislative and executive branches sat silent. Thomas Jefferson was very concerned with the implications of Marbury v Madison.

I maintain the future will see some sort of registration // confiscation in the US not via legislative action but through fiat decision at the SCOTUS level.
 
To register or not? I'm not a big fan of registering my weapons and prefer person-to-person sales. I'm not exactly worried about "Big Brother" knocking on the door to take them, it's just too radical an idea. Most of the Fed's I know are just as pro-gun as the rest of us and very much believe in protecting firearms rights. My worry about registering is more along the standpoint that it really is nobody's business what I have. With the right connections, it wouldn't be overly difficult for someone to find out whatever information they want that is stored on whatever database, and that's just not a good thing in my book. Anything I can keep off record is a step in protecting myself from such intrusion.
 
Range - I have the distinct feeling you're going to get a bit of feedback.

Haven't you read/absorbed the previous posts?
 
Yup, Mohutley, I've read. But I don't take it to extreme beliefs. Is there a chance we could face loosing out second Amendment rights? Seriously? In a country where the number of legally owned firearms outnumber the adult population by 10 to 1? (that's just an off the cuff figure, so don't go asking where the statistic came from). OK, lets just say hypothetical situation---Guns are suddenly illegal to own. Who's going to enforce it? Law enforcement agencies on every level have their hands full already. Are the feds going to go door to door collecting them? I just don't see that happening on a large scale--they have more important things to do for 1, and for 2-99% of them are just like the rest of us. It's not just going to slip across someone's desk and then it happens without question. States like California, well, that's what happens when you get too many extreme-thinking radicals in one place---Trust me, I know. I live in Utah, it's the same on a completely different topic. But does that mean the "California gun plague" is going to spread like a disease through the rest of the country? In certain areas, yes. In all areas? Not a chance.
 
Breacher,

You instigated this thread asking, " What is wrong with firearms registration?"

There have been an abundance of posts citing historical precedent, MANY IN THE US
Contrary to your contemptuous dismissals, You have been given numerous quotes by politicians, revealing that sending JBTs to seize all weapons, is exactly what they have in mind.

You have been reminded that criminals are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from registering firearms and as an LEO I am sure you understand that. So what we have is a plethora of politicians who sell registration to stupid voters, when the target of registration is, and always has been, law abiding citizens. Confiscation has ALWAYS been the goal.

You might as well try to sell the idea of tattooing social security numbers on babies at birth. Oh wait, babies DO get social security numbers at birth now. Not tattooed, but just try to get your tax deduction without a serialized child.

Breacher, registration is not so much for weapons, but it is intended to make a list of those Americans who might, theoretically, have the stones to resist an unconstitutional, blatantly tyrannical government. After making their lists, seizing guns, establishing checkpoints, creating a system of informers, they will begin the midnight raids on people who “must be” hiding more weapons.

Correction: if you are an LEO who is “just doing his job”, and “only following orders” YOU will be conducting those raids. YOU will be enforcing unconstitutional laws.

You took an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

As far as I read you are just an oath breaker.

But hey, you feel bad about it, right?

Come on to my house.

Molon Labe.

EC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top