Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumLicensing and registering all new handguns, regardless of make or model.
This is admittedly a post-and-run for now, but only because I have work in a bit and I'll be gone until next morning.
However, what are your thoughts as the subject line ("Licensing and registering all -new- handguns, regardless of make or model"
as a first (and preferably last) step towards reducing gun violence? If somehow that legislation could be limited solely and exclusively to any new handguns (not rifle/shotguns), with incentives to voluntarily register/license older handguns, do you believe that the rate of firearm crime would decrease without significantly impacting the ability of the citizenry to obtain said firearms?
(Note: this is an attempt to gauge personal opinions on the notion. I would humbly request that name-calling and whatnot be checked at the door, but I don't control any of you, so it's only a request. 
)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jody
(26,624 posts)Perhaps you should have recommended disarming the 800k+ sworn law enforcement officers and see how much that reduces firearm crime.
After you do that and if crime decreases, then get back to us for a discussion on disarming law-abiding citizens.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)I'm not saying "Disarm" anyone. I'm saying "leave all the guns currently", with "All -new- guns (all guns currently not available on open market) must be registered/licensed.)"
ON EDIT: (Okay, NOW I'm going to sleep. G'night. 
)
jody
(26,624 posts)be used by a totalitarian government to confiscate every registered firearm.
That's already happened in this country as discussed before on this forum.
Search and read the discussion and cited instances.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Every vehicle in the country that drives of our roads is registered and should be. Are you worried about the government confiscating them, too?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that makes it a false equivalence.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)We register cars anyway.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)You can buy a car, have it shipped to your private property, and never be forced under penalty of theft/imprisonment/death if you keep it unregistered with the state.
There is no age limit on who may purchase a car. Anyone with the funds, may do so.
VERY different than what is being proposed here regarding firearms.
jody
(26,624 posts)rights.
There is a vast difference between natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable "rights" that each person has that do not depend upon words written on paper such as a constitution and "privileges" granted by a government created by or imposed upon the citizens of a country.
RKBA is a "right" but owning a vehicle is a "privilege".
You might benefit from reading http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2980285&mesg_id=2981257
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Oh, wait. I did. But I have a different opinion than you. How is that possible?
Let's see... what is the history of totalitarianism in the US? There isn't one. What is the history of the government of this country going door-to-door and confiscating anything? Well, there isn't one.
Gee. We have the same level of knowledge about the Constitution, but you conclude that gun registration (which already exists) would lead to confiscation (which doesn't exist).
I guess I'll continue to believe that the extreme gun lobby is composed of paranoiacs and the huge industry that encourages them.
jody
(26,624 posts)You ask "But I have a different opinion than you. How is that possible?"
Opinions that are odds with facts are often based on ignorance.
I cited facts, please support your opinion with facts.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)New Orleans police confiscated weapons after Katrina. If that isn't a totalitarian action, what is?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If the car is driven solely on private property, registration is not needed. On farms and ranches there are vehicles that are driven solely on the farm or ranch and never taken on public roads.
Same with guns. If the gun stays on private property, no permit is needed in most states. If you want to carry it in public, most states require a permit.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I support that 100%.
All firearms. All public places. No exceptions.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)With the license to carry concealed, I can carry any type of concealed gun I want to. No need for the individual gun to be registered if I am personally registered.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)"All people. All public places. No exceptions."
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)And the requirement for issue are cheap and simple enough that the average person who wants the permit can qualify if they put forth a modest amount of money and effort. IOW - about the way it is now in most shall-issue states.
And no permit needed for gun possession on private property, with the permission of the owner.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)In most places, if you want to carry a concealed weapon, you have to obtain a permit.
Several states have dropped the requirement, however. Probably because they have discovered that the people who bother to go to the trouble and expense of getting such permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.
It's a waste of state resources to track such people.
Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/zastava.php
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199719980AB48
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/8/california-anti-gun-state-leaders-want-to-confiscate-your-legal-firearm!.aspx
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But if you only drive the vehicle on private property, no registration, license, or insurance is required.
Firearms are much the same way. If you keep and use them on private property, no paperwork should be required.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Yeah, right. Every firearm in the country was registered and confiscated by a totalitarian government in this country.
Holy shit.
jody
(26,624 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The strategy here is to act as insane as possible to suppress rational discourse based on fact.
This forum is a complete swamp.
So you didn't come here with the intent of having a rational discussion?
What a surprise. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's a cool little google search button in the corner. You could have at least tried, before you started belittling people.
This happened at the state level in California between 92 an 98.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)ideas from Starboard Tack. He is on record here wishing to have American cops without sidearms, much like it was when he was a cop in Manchester.
jody
(26,624 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)on these threads who suggests cops should not be carrying guns. I was attempting some irony, no insult intended for you.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)And DU is famous for twisted responses.
Congrats.
How the hell one goes from firearm registration to disarming the police force is unknown to me. Let's keep it that way. I have no desire to understand the inner working of such minds.
jody
(26,624 posts)granted by government to keep and bear arms.
I'm so sorry you don't understand the difference between natural, inherent unalienable/inalienable "rights" that preexist government and "privileges" granted by government.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)And just about every right in this county has boundaries and rules, and these rights can be revoked.
If you want the police in your community or state to be uarmed, work toward that end. What that hell that has to do with registering handguns is completely unknown to me.
jody
(26,624 posts)Constitution".
Those two statements demonstrate you either don't understand or you are just blowing smoke.
Have a great day.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)What I did was to make a point with a snarky comment. You apparently have not been here long enough to understand.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for those running the system. Other than that, I don't see the benefit. It is not like it seems to do much good anywhere else.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)I'd still strongly oppose and work to defeat any attempt at registration.
And assuming such a law did come to pass... it would simply result in a greater incentive to obliterate serial numbers on firearms intended for sale to prohibited persons.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Criminals rarely leave the gun at the scene of the crime. They take it with them as they escape, unless they are captured right then. Once they escape, if they fired the gun they know to get rid of it. So you will rarely have the gun with no criminal attached.
Criminals are mostly repeat offenders who can't legally have a gun anyway, so they have to get guns illegally. There are enough stolen guns to supply the needs of criminals.
Serial numbers are easy to remove. Microstamping is even easier to remove. Ballistics of the bore can be changed by running a stiff steel brush through the bore. So keeping track of any of those is useless.
And registration lists have twice been turned into confiscation lists in the U.S. Once each in CA & NY.
Registration would be an expensive boondoggle that would accomplish nothing. Gun controllers would then demand new restrictions, until finally they reached a total ban.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Not one, as I recall.
Most gun crimes are by repeat gun criminals, just like sex crimes, so register all gun criminals and treat them like sex offenders.
Registration of handguns would be way cheaper than auto registration as it would only take place once at purchase and not yearly. Registration of autos makes it very hard to resell complete stolen cars and works very well in making sure you are not buying a stolen car. It also makes it very easy for LEOs to return stolen cars to the original owner or insurer that paid for it.
With registration, it would make the market for stolen handguns that have had the serial numbers removed very small and dangerous for the thief.
Any thief caught with a handgun not registered to them would face more charges and longer jail time, keeping them off the streets longer and less likely to steal and sell more stolen handguns.
All legal handgun owners would still be able to purchase and possess handguns. The only people that would be affected would be illegal purchasers and carriers. Those that become criminals and not legal to own handguns anymore could be required to turn in the now illegal handguns.
Who cares what "gun controllers" demand, they are a small minority. Even though anti-pot people are not for any kind of legalization, pot laws are becoming more liberal.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is to make money. What you are describing is the car's title. While I'm not paranoid of mass confiscations, I'm simply looking at the cost vs benefit.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Quantity is not the issue.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)is for evidence that just ONE was taken away by forced entry into the owners home by the government. You must have some news articles about the big bust by swat teams and the following court case.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Do you not believe that a letter from the government saying "turn it in or remove it from the state" is not backed up by force? Do you think if any person had written back saying "Fuck off and shit yourself", that they wouldn't have been visited by armed government personnel?
In this situation, the threat is equal to the deed.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)a few people did exactly that. Wouldn't you have?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"You are advised to relinquish the assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department pursuant to California Penal Code section 12288 or render the weapon permanently inoperable,"
CA DOJ, June 8, 1999
In fairness, they offered to refund the registration fee. The weapons are either moved out of state, destroyed, or handed in. The DOJ stopped fighting the confiscation order in 2000.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)What, no doors kicked in by swat teams?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Tell you what, move to California, register one, be informed that you have to surrender, sell to an out of state party, or destroy the weapon. Respond with a short note that says 'fuck you', and let us know how that works out for you.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)I respect it. However, those that are using fear to discourage handgun registration in this forum want to use that as an example, most people aren't buying it. The picture painted here is that the evil government is going to come in and take away your handgun because it is registered is BS. There are way too many to do that with out the help of U.N. black helicopters. We have SC rulings that say it won't happen. There are states that have handgun registration and they have never done it. The 2 examples quoted here are BS and a poor argument against HANDGUN registration as no one can find one time in either cases where the government has broke down a door to take away a registered hand gun or any other legally owned firearm. This fear argument ranks right up there with "death panels" and "government take over of General Motors".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)given a few iron clad grandfather clauses, however, the California debacle (and the Hughes Amendment) stand as reminders of how a registry can go horribly wrong, and it makes the idea a very hard sell with the gun owning community at large.
I think it could be done properly. Could even be very useful. Make my guns less of a target for theft, because they can more easily be proven stolen, if they were stolen. Could even be returned to me. Registration can also take a bite out of that transfer point between lawful owners and unlawful grey/black markets. Fewer guns in the hands of bad actors is a good thing. I like that.
But rather than screaming 'paranoia', how do we bridge that 'mistakes were made' gulf and produce a better registry?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The simple fact is one of the principle intents of the second amendment is so that the people have a final recourse against tyranny.
Whether you think that is possible or not does not matter.
And because of this, if you give the government a list of everyone with the capability of armed resistance against tyranny, you have directly undermined the intent of the second amendment.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)handguns only and not long guns.
Long guns are way more capable of armed resistance against tyranny.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The problem is, if you own a handgun, you may very well own a long arm also.
Giving the government a list of firearm owners undermines the second amendment.
And we can achieve most, if not all, of the benefits through opt-out licensing.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)A large standing army is what really undermines it.
If you really think a dictator is about to take away your military rifle, don't own a handgun. Problem solved. Which do you think would best defend you against black hawks and navy seals?
For a couple of dollars more on a sale, most greedy folks would opt-out.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Sure, but so does giving the government a list of people able to fight back, right?
If you really think a dictator is about to take away your military rifle, don't own a handgun. Problem solved. Which do you think would best defend you against black hawks and navy seals?
This is true, but I should not have to make this compromise. Handguns are also legitimate small arms appropriate for infantry use, not to mention highly effective for self-defense.
For a couple of dollars more on a sale, most greedy folks would opt-out.
I don't know what you are talking about here.
What I am talking about is universal firearm licensing, where everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID is automatically run through NICS and issued a license, unless they opt-out.
Then, like Illinois already does, require private sellers of firearms to record the FOID information of the buyer for some period of time.
This fixes the private-sale-without-background-check problem and preserves anonymous firearm ownership.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)You mean a list of everyone with a gun that can fight back?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)My proposal is very similar to what Illinois has.
In Illinois, in order to own a firearm, you must first obtain an FOID (Firearms Owner ID). When you privately sell a firearm, the seller is required to record the buyer's FOID information and retain it for 10 years after the sale. Failure to do this is a misdemeanor. Sellers are motivated to comply because selling to someone without an FOID is a good indicator that that person has a criminal record that prevents them from obtaining one, which increases the likelihood that that firearm will be used in a crime and traced back to the last legitimate owner.
The problem with the Illinois system is that it is opt-in. That is, only people who own, or are very likely to own a firearm go and obtain an FOID. This, of course, creates a firearm owner registry.
To fix this is simple: Make the system opt-out.
My proposal is that every time someone applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, they are automatically run through NICS and issued an FOID, unless they opt out. Because many people will not opt out even though they are not firearm owners, having a list of FOID holders will not guarantee that everyone on that list owns firearms, and all FOID holders will have plausible deniability that they own firearms.
The government can still trace firearms through manual police legwork, by starting with the FFL the firearm was originally sold through and obtaining the first buyer, and then through the first private buyer (within a 10 year time frame, of course), and then the next private buyer, and so on, by demanding the sale paperwork from each subsequent prior owner of the firearm until the last legitimate owner is discovered. But because there are no electronic or centralized records this sort of thing will be practically used only for crime investigation.
Should someone become ineligible to own firearms, the FOID can be revoked and the local sheriff can be dispatched to the FOID holder's address to confiscate the FOID and any firearms on the premises. If the FOID is claimed to be lost they will expire like driver's licenses every 3 years or so and thus cannot be used indefinitely.
As a result of this universal licensing, we will know that every FOID holder has passed a background check. As a happy consequence of this, there is no longer a need to have a background check at the point of sale. Which means that everyone should be able to buy firearms through the mail once again, instead of having to have firearm shipped through an FFL milddle-man to to do a background check.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)So that local newspapers can obtain it. Saves all that Freedom of Information paperwork.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Have an opt-out FOID system and you get all the benefits you suggest while also preserving firearm ownership anonymity.
derby378
(30,262 posts)I don't need a permit to vote, blog, worship, speak out, or serve on a jury - why a permit to own a pistol?
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Pretty hard to blog without a registered ISP account that is traceable. People that serve on a jury are grilled on their views and background.If you worship at a tax exempt church, it has to register with the IRS. I don't need a permit to register my car.
sir pball
(5,340 posts)Specifically registering every firearm I own.
I can't logically or consistently argue against the former - when I live where I can get a CCW, I do, and it's an entirely reasonable assumption that since I have a CCW I own at least one firearm. Extending that to an FOID scheme isn't something I can argue against since I pretty much voluntarily subscribe to it in the first place.
Registering individual weapons I'm not so keen on...I've said before I would 100% support mandating all transactions go through an FFL and be recorded in a bound book, giving law enforcement a complete paper trail on any firearm they obtain after the fact - but no a priori list of "sir pball owns an AR10(T), an M700 .300WM, and a 1911A1".
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)a legal CCW holder. I could also go for your suggestion as a compromise.
I would like some provision that makes it possible to catalog hand guns that are legally owned, until the they are no longer legally owned, such as the owner commits a felony.
derby378
(30,262 posts)Nobody said that my church has to be tax-exempt. And as for ISPs, well - they're not all registered. 
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Open a kiddy porn download site and see how registered your ISP is.
You left out registering to vote too.
jbgood1977
(91 posts)Registration of firearms has historically lead to confiscation every time it has been done. No only that but it's been done right here in the U.S. already! No registration EVER!
But for the sake of mental exercise, how would registration be a "step towards reducing gun violence"? Please explain how registration would accomplish this.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)That's actually not true Canada registered all long guns for years w/out confiscation.
That said, the potential for abuse is certainly there
there is the one example but it is not historically accurate for the reality. Hell, registration has lead to confiscation in California and New York - right here in the U.S.
NO REGISTRATION, EVER!
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Do you have any numbers of people that had the government forcibly enter their homes to confiscate a firearm that was registered?
We live in a democratic country. We have elections. No democratic country has ever had mass confiscations.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I don't have exact numbers, but notice that rich people and their Blackwater goons were exempt?
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)any registration records. But, that doesn't mean the U.N black helicopters weren't on stand by as reported in the World Nut Daily. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or is the New York Times sink to their level?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They weren't taken away by SWAT teams, but they were still confiscated:
Have you been speaking from ignorance, or telling deliberate untruths?
jbgood1977
(91 posts)It ranks right up there with the sacrifice of an innocent life to save other lives. What is the acceptable ratio? There is NO acceptable ratio. None at all.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)a large capacity mag, like the one in Oregon is too many also?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)What good does it accomplish, and how does it do so?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)Registration would provide a list firearms and the ones used in crimes that still have readable serial numbers could be put into one of three categories:
- Guns that have been stolen
- Guns that have been "stolen"
- Guns owned by exceedingly stupid criminals
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Good to hear from you too
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...there's that, too.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Wasn't there an Italian company that re-used serial numbers when manufacturing rifles in multiple locations? With respect to serial numbers, didn't the factories operate independent of one another with no effort to coordinate the numbers?
An example of that company's re-using the serial number C2766, with photos showing at least two of its rifles with that serial number, can be found two-thirds down on this page:
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...they're supposed to be but...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)then 'No.'.
And if you do, it would have to be a pretty significant effect to convince me to even briefly entertain the notion of forfeiting a bit of liberty for a temporary perceived notion of safety.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)They have a high % of guns in homes, including full autos and low crime rates and very few illegal guns on the streets compared to the U.S..
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or is it because they have a markedly different society than the U.S.?
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)A correlation doesn't prove direction anyway. If it does, do you have any evidence that a markedly different society causes registration?
Now show me your evidence that handgun registration has a negative effect on liberty.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Edit: On review, a better source - http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/tahmassebi1.html
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You stated that Switzerland has gun registration, and they also have low crime. At no point have you linked the two in any way.
Have a good day.
Clames
(2,038 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Registration did not happen until 2008, and no purchase permits for private sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)or purchase a percussion cap and ball revolver I would be required to register it?
"limited solely and exclusively to any new handguns"
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)and exception for percussion cap and ball revolvers.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)one will get you two. Most states already treat black power weapons different than modern ones.
beevul
(12,194 posts)First, on the federal level, it would be against federal law. Firearms owners protection act of 1986 iirc.
Second, I can not and will not trust that sort of information to future unknown administrations, supreme courts, etc.
Just no.
spin
(17,493 posts)Registration is seen as a prelude to confiscation. Probably all the Republicans in Congress would vote against it as would a significant number of Democrats.
Some states require registration and some forbid it. the Supreme Court would probably rule that it is a state decision.
Florida Statute 790.335 sums up my beliefs on the subject:
The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress. ....
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/790.335
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)the federal requirement to register full autos in Florida?
spin
(17,493 posts)but that law passed at the Federal level many years ago.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Can't say if it'd reduce gun violence but if there ever was such a law passed, I wouldn't really care.
Personally, I think it ought to be reuired that all who wish to puchase a gun and/or ammo be first reuired to attend an approved safety course and go thru a background check before being issued an photo I.D. which they will have to show to buy a gun and/or ammo even if it's just a private purchase. A person who commits a crime or is judged to be mentally incompetent to own a gun can be required to surrender his or her I.D.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)I don't favor registration of long guns and they are used in less than 15% of gun crimes.
While I think the argument that registration could led to confiscation of those used to defend against a dictator is pretty lame in this country, allowing long guns to remain unregistered covers that.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)And without regestration how would the gun banners find them?
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Just use their list of NRA memberships.
hack89
(39,181 posts)grabbers keep forgetting that only a tiny fraction of gun owners are NRA members.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The only argument against it is paranoia.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Obama is going to use U.N. black helicopters to take away registered handguns.
This is the only part of DU that finds teabag paranoia possible.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...and poor technical education.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)What are the specific benefits to registration? What positive outcomes would registration produce, and by what specific means would it produce them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)March 30, 1992 and Aug. 21, 1998, and had to either hand your gun to the state for destruction, render it permanently inoperable, or send it out of the state.
Nothing but paranoia.
These people followed the laws, did the right thing, attempted to register during the State Justice Department's registration extension, and got screwed.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts) 
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)more difficult for the law abiding to obtain a firearm.
I'm using existing examples from states that have mandatory registration:NY, NJ and CA.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Since the vast number of guns used un crime ars held by criminals who shouldn't have them anyway, such a scheme would become an exoensive bureaucracy with no clear connection to a desired drop in crime. If this were to happen, criminals would continue to obtain guns illegally, just as they do now. This would lead to new
gun-control bureaus, so the scheme would't be the last.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Registration sounds great on paper, however in practice it does not seem to work. I have yet to find or have anyone show me where registration of firarms has had any effect on gun violence at all.
I'm going to assume your post is referring to a national registry and not something performed on the state level.
My biggest point is simply this. A registration law would have no effect on those with illegal or stolen firearms. There are laws already on the books for this. A criminal cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a solen or illegal firearm. It would violate the criminal's 5th Ammendment rights against self incrimination and has already been run through the courts.
If you look at the U.S. states or Canada that has firearm registration, one thing is always absent. I have yet to find or be shown (and I have searched) an instance where the registration of a firearm has solved a crime. Now I know that does not mean it has not happened, but you think that those who push for this type of legislation would want to insure the public knows that what they are paying for is actually working.
That leads me to costs. How much would it cost to build and maintain a database the size that the U.S. would require? Who would maintain it and how will it be sustained? How would its effectiveness be measured?
What would be the punishment for failing to register a firearm? I see a lot of comparisons to voting and vehicles throghout this thread, however if I recall correctly, there is no penalty for failing to register to vote besides the fact that you cannot vote. And most state vehicle statutes are code, not law, and therefore are only finable offences. In states where you have firearm registration, the penalties for an otherwise law abiding citizen are jail, fines and an arrest record.
Who exactly will have access to the registry, for what purposes and who will oversee and investigate any abuses of the system? The police are not very good at policing themselves. How specifically will this information be used and who specifically will be excluded from accessing this information? My pessemism stems from our current systems and the powers that be that maintain lists. These list are always setup with the greatest of intentions, however they almost enevitably end up being used for purposes other than their original intent.
You take the NY, CA or NJ firearms registrations and they all have four things in common. They have had no measurable effect on crime, they are expensive, they do not effect criminals, and they have all served to aid in the removal firearms from law abiding citizens.
I understand the reasons for wanting a registry, however I fear that it will not have the desired effect. My assumption is that you are thinking of methods of reducing straw purchases. I recognize that desire, as straw purchases are the most common method that criminals get guns. Personally, I feel that a more effective way to reduce straw purchasing is to support a law enforcement endevor to combat it. IIRC (from an ATF report) the vast majority of illegal firearms seized cam from less than 8% of our nation's gun shops. I'm a fan of cutting the head off the snake not starting at the tail and working my way up.
HALO141
(911 posts)Not willing to go down that road even a little bit.
jbgood1977
(91 posts)The O.P. has been gone for a rather long time. . . .