Gun Violence Tracker (4 Viewers)

[dew4au]

Haynes certainly does not stand for the proposition that the government cannot prosecute individuals for possession of an unregistered firearm. It is only prohibited from prosecuting a convicted felon for possession of a registered firearm, the rationale being that because a convicted felon is prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, to require him to register a firearm would be a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Good clarification. Thank you.

My view is that registration is the least substantial burden possible and so even the slightest value that it might provide to law enforcement and the slightest reduction in violence is clearly justified. I think even as we travel down the rational path in search of a solution, this divide will be the nub of most disagreements as one side will have a predilection against accepting any purported burden and the other will have a predilection against recognizing recognizing the burden as such.

For me, the burden is akin to voter ID laws. If the courts have decided that a $25 fee for a state ID every 4 to 6 years is not acceptable, then any sort of fee imposed on the firearm registration process would also be unacceptable.

I think it's highly unlikely that a federal registration system would be established without the collection of some sort of fee to recoup the cost of running the system (at a minimum). I think it's likely that registration proponents would push for a prohibitive fee for registration like the 1934 National Firearm Act. $200 in 1934 was far more than the cost of any firearm covered under the act at the time, so the fee was clearly meant to be a deterrent.

In DrStrange's world the, registration fee would be only one of many costs that would burden a person who wishes to exercise their right. Personal firearm transfer fees, safe storage purchase requirements, firearm owner's liability insurance and the similar costs would all compound the burden.

Finally, in your opinion if even the slightest value can be obtained from such a system, then it would be worth it. I believe that we have too many laws that have such little impact that they are under enforced. I am not for placing a significant burden on millions of Americans, for any reason, for marginal benefit. That's why I am a proponent of evidence based, statistical analysis driven, law making with threshold effectiveness levels required for the passing, or at least retention, of new laws.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

What about car registration fees? No one is trying to take away your right to drive (other than maybe your kids when you turn 85 or so). Is charging a fee for car registration unacceptable?

 

[trever]

What about car registration fees? No one is trying to take away your right to drive (other than maybe your kids when you turn 85 or so). Is charging a fee for car registration unacceptable?

We don't have a right to drive a car, or to party, but we should fight for the right to do so

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

We don't have a right to drive a car, or to party, but we should fight for the right to do so

You GOTTA fight for your right to party.

 

[jbutler]

For me, the burden is akin to voter ID laws. If the courts have decided that a $25 fee for a state ID every 4 to 6 years is not acceptable, then any sort of fee imposed on the firearm registration process would also be unacceptable.

I think it's highly unlikely that a federal registration system would be established without the collection of some sort of fee to recoup the cost of running the system (at a minimum). I think it's likely that registration proponents would push for a prohibitive fee for registration like the 1934 National Firearm Act. $200 in 1934 was far more than the cost of any firearm covered under the act at the time, so the fee was clearly meant to be a deterrent.

In DrStrange's world the, registration fee would be only one of many costs that would burden a person who wishes to exercise their right. Personal firearm transfer fees, safe storage purchase requirements, firearm owner's liability insurance and the similar costs would all compound the burden.

I'm sure you're right that there would be an element within the anti-gun crowd that would push for a prohibitively large fee of some kind, but two things:

(1) It would be unbelievably stupid to do so simply on the basis that it would provide a prima facie argument that the registration fee would itself be an infringement. The movement in favor of registration would hopefully recognize that the main goal - registration - is paramount to any small (or large) fee and that the fee should be discarded so as to maximize the likelihood that the registration requirement is upheld when it is inevitably challenged.

(2) Even here we're talking about a fee that is an infringement, not registration itself. I can concede for the purposes of this discussion that a fee (and probably would agree in general anyway with regard to anything beyond a nominal fee) would constitute an infringement, but even setting the fee aside, there are those who argue that registration itself is an infringement. So rather than corrupting the hypothetical with a further condition (the fee), I'd prefer to focus on the discussion of whether registration itself is an infringement.

Finally, in your opinion if even the slightest value can be obtained from such a system, then it would be worth it. I believe that we have too many laws that have such little impact that they are under enforced. I am not for placing a significant burden on millions of Americans, for any reason, for marginal benefit. That's why I am a proponent of evidence based, statistical analysis driven, law making with threshold effectiveness levels required for the passing, or at least retention, of new laws.

I guess this is where we find the disagreement again. One is already required to fill out forms to purchase guns in the first place. Under a registration regime, the government would simply require the vendor to send those forms for processing by a national firearms registry. I don't see how this could even arguably be called a "significant burden".

 

[Old State]

The are already records of every sale through the NICS system and at the place of sale. They are just required to not keep the records.
The ATF Form 4473 is a record kept at the dealer's premises, and the Brady instant check requires that personal information be submitted by phone or electronically to the government for a criminal background check. That information is supposed to be dumped after the transaction is completed, but it probabaly isn't

 

[jbutler]

The are already records of every sale through the NICS system and at the place of sale. They are just required to not keep the records.
The ATF Form 4473 is a record kept at the dealer's premises, and the Brady instant check requires that personal information be submitted by phone or electronically to the government for a criminal background check. That information is supposed to be dumped after the transaction is completed, but it probabaly isn't

Only goes further to show that maintaining a registry could not conceivably serve as an infringement of the Second Amendment since it would require no further action by buyers than what is already required.

 

[Old State]

It's really much more simple than that. The government should not have a list of gun owners. Period.

The reason there is no gun registry isn't because it is burdensome and therefore a backdown infringement. It's because the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act made it illegal because it is in conflict with the reasoning for the Second Amendment.

 

[jbutler]

It's really much more simple than that. The government should not have a list of gun owners. Period.

The reason there is no gun registry isn't because it is burdensome and therefore a backdown infringement. It's because the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act made it illegal because it is in conflict with the reasoning for the Second Amendment.

The text of a law can't change the meaning of constitutional language. No matter the text of FOPA or the reasoning behind it, the text of the Second Amendment remains the same and it prohibits only infringement.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any reasonable basis for the claim that registration is an infringement.

 

[Old State]

I think the gun registration issue is very similar to the issue of government servellence and the 4th Amendment. The point of the 4th Amend is to protect individual privacy from government intrusion. There, again, the Governement makes safety the excuse to infringe on individual privacy. Here, again, much more is given up than given back.

To St George Tucker's point on the right of self defense, governments historically always move toward limiting individual rights....never to expand them. A "crisis" is always found as an excuse. In short, governments can never be trusted to act in the interest of individual liberty

To quote another great American, Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

 

[jbutler]

I think the gun registration issue is very similar to the issue of government servellence and the 4th Amendment. The point of the 4th Amend is to protect individual privacy from government intrusion. There, again, the Governement makes safety the excuse to infringe on individual privacy. Here, again, much more is given up than given back.

To St George Tucker's point on the right of self defense, governments historically always move toward limiting individual rights....never to expand them. A "crisis" is always found as an excuse. In short, governments can never be trusted to act in the interest of individual liberty

To quote another great American, Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

More platitudes, but still no basis for your claim that registration is an infringement of the Second Amendment according to the actual text of the Amendment.

If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be allowed to maintain a database, that's one thing. We can have a reasonable debate on that point. But it's complete fiction to pretend that the Second Amendment prohibits registration.

 

[Old State]

More platitudes, but still no basis for your claim that registration is an infringement of the Second Amendment according to the actual text of the Amendment.

If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be allowed to maintain a database, that's one thing. We can have a reasonable debate on that point. But it's complete fiction to pretend that the Second Amendment prohibits registration.

I am arguing whether the government should even have a registry. That has been my point and is the bigger point in my opinion. Laws are made in the context of an event or issue. You can't disregard that after the fact. As a lawyer you know there is mplain text.

I also find it worrisome that people have such disregard for the fundamentals of American government and its uniqueness in human history to refer to those things as "platitudes"

 

[bergs]

Hard to argue with a guy that jumps to such cognitive endpoints as "all guns used in crimes were obtained illegally" and "if we had a gun registry there is a 100% that the government would use it to take the guns".

If having the guns is the means to fight off an oppressive government, than why not just wait until the government comes after your guns via this central registry and use the guns to throw off their imperialist yoke?

Let's stop fucking around and circle jerking one another over Patrick Fucking Henry. This is about one thing and one thing only - the intersection of the set of people who likes guns overlaps considerably with the intersection of people who are paranoid that someone is coming to take them.

I credit the NRA for that, since if they hadn't created this paranoia in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for them to exist.

 

[jbutler]

I am arguing whether the government should even have a registry. That has been my point and is the bigger point in my opinion. Laws are made in the context of an event or issue. You can't disregard that after the fact.

I also find it worrisome that people have such disregard for the fundamentals of American government and its uniqueness in human history to refer to those things as "platitudes"

So just to be clear, you are not arguing that a national firearm registry would be an infringement on the Second Amendment?

 

[Old State]

So just to be clear, you are not arguing that a national firearm registry would be an infringement on the Second Amendment?

That argument is inconsequential

 

[Ronoh]

So just to be clear, you are not arguing that a national firearm registry would be an infringement on the Second Amendment?

Yes or no answer only please

FYP

 

[bergs]

To quote another great American, Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

When Patrick Henry was alive, the amount of force available to the government (muskets, cannon) was roughly available to the populace (muskets, cannon).

This will fall on deaf ears as it has in the past, but times have changed. You've already lost the ability to defend your public Liberty.

You have access to semi-automatic firearms.
The government has access to semi-automatic firearms, fully automatic firearms, anti-personnel mines, artillery with ranges measured in miles, thousands of aircraft and seacraft, drones, missiles, biological weapons, psychological weapons, and nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that if the government decided they wanted your firearms they couldn't just and get them.

It's a stupid argument. We're back to people with guns just liking guns and selfishly acting out of a sense of extreme paranoia fueled by the immensely popular NRA and the incredibly powerful gun lobby.

 

[Ronoh]

That argument is inconsequential

Then maybe you shouldn't have said it?

 

[jbutler]

That argument is inconsequential

It's very difficult to have a discussion when people refuse to respond to direct questions. Also a curious response from someone who seems to hold the Second Amendment and gun rights very dear.

FYP

May the dream never die.

 

[bergs]

We have to register cars and they're useful when a car is used in a crime. Why would you not register firearms for the same purpose. And please don't bring up the sad, tired, pedantic argument of "why not register knives and hammers?" It's different and you damn well fucking know it. If you squared off against me with a speeding car or a firearm, I'm done for. If you attacked me with a hammer or a knife, I like my odds.

 

[jbutler]

When Patrick Henry was alive, the amount of force available to the government (muskets, cannon) was roughly available to the populace (muskets, cannon).

This will fall on deaf ears as it has in the past, but times have changed. You've already lost the ability to defend your public Liberty.

You have access to semi-automatic firearms.
The government has access to semi-automatic firearms, fully automatic firearms, anti-personnel mines, artillery with ranges measured in miles, thousands of aircraft and seacraft, drones, missiles, biological weapons, psychological weapons, and nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that if the government decided they wanted your firearms they couldn't just and get them.

It's a stupid argument. We're back to people with guns just liking guns and selfishly acting out of a sense of extreme paranoia fueled by the immensely popular NRA and the incredibly powerful gun lobby.

It's amazing how direct the analogy is between religious fundamentalists and Constitutional fundamentalists.

Both have sacred documents which they elevate above all others and in the face of all reason. Both canonize figures from the past and look to those figures for examples in all things. When faced with obvious error on their part, they are incapable of admitting it ("That argument is inconsequential."). Both are suspicious of any interpretation of their sacred text that can't be found in some other ancient text. Both believe that if we would only be strictly faithful to their sacred text, all would be well.

And of course, both put a firm stop to any progress because things must be as they were in the past, not as we might hope they could be today.

 

[Old State]

When Patrick Henry was alive, the amount of force available to the government (muskets, cannon) was roughly available to the populace (muskets, cannon).

This will fall on deaf ears as it has in the past, but times have changed. You've already lost the ability to defend your public Liberty.

You have access to semi-automatic firearms.
The government has access to semi-automatic firearms, fully automatic firearms, anti-personnel mines, artillery with ranges measured in miles, thousands of aircraft and seacraft, drones, missiles, biological weapons, psychological weapons, and nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that if the government decided they wanted your firearms they couldn't just and get them.

It's a stupid argument. We're back to people with guns just liking guns and selfishly acting out of a sense of extreme paranoia fueled by the immensely popular NRA and the incredibly powerful gun lobby.

You need to update your "playbook". Those talking points are sooo 1988.

And we only had printing presses as well back then.

 

[Ronoh]

The problem is, the anti gun crowd isn't interested in actual statistics and facts

A National registry isn't illegal because is burdensome. It's illegal for the government to "officially" keep a registry of firearms because it is directly in conflict with the intent of the 2nd Amendment

So just to be clear, you are not arguing that a national firearm registry would be an infringement on the Second Amendment?

That argument is inconsequential

 

[Old State]

It's amazing how direct the analogy is between religious fundamentalists and Constitutional fundamentalists.

Both have sacred documents which they elevate above all others and in the face of all reason. Both canonize figures from the past and look to those figures for examples in all things. When faced with obvious error on their part, they are incapable of admitting it ("That argument is inconsequential."). Both are suspicious of any interpretation of their sacred text that can't be found in some other ancient text. Both believe that if we would only be strictly faithful to their sacred text, all would be well.

And of course, both put a firm stop to any progress because things must be as they were in the past, not as we might hope they could be today.

US Constituion is not a religious document. It is, however the most successful Constituion in human history and is still extremely modern in context to the rest of the world.

For the "progressive" movement, a charter of laws that LIMIT government is naturally an impediment to their goals. Your commentary is a tactic to discredit the document itself by discrediting the authors and making all those who support it look like extremists

 

[Old State]

Ronoh, A registry is in conflict with the entire basis of the Second Amendment. I have said that before. Nice try

 

[jbutler]

US Constituion is not a religious document. It is, however the most successful Constituion in human history and is still extremely modern in context to the rest of the world.

For the "progressive" movement, a charter of laws that LIMIT government is naturally an impediment to their goals. Your commentary is a tactic to discredit the document itself by discrediting the authors and making all those who support it look like extremists

How did my "commentary" attempt to discredit the authors of the Constitution? I mean, I'd be glad to do that, but that's clearly not what I did here.

Ronoh, A registry is in conflict with the entire basis of the Second Amendment. I have said that before. Nice try

I'm not sure why you can't be clear about this. Do you believe a registry is an infringement of the rights provided under the Second Amendment?

You love mentioning that I'm a lawyer as a way of impugning my statements, but you seem to be much less willing than anyone else to give a straight answer. It's very easy and clear to type yes or no.

 

[Old State]

I don't see how I can be more clear.

A registry is more than an "infringement"; it circumvents the intent of the law and is in direct conflict with it. It almost nullifies the point. It's on a whole different level to call it simply an infringement. What would be the point of having a security system on your house and putting the password on the front door.


I am familiar with the tactic of parsing words and pretended to not understand the meaning of a persons statement. The media does this every night with politicians they don't like.

Here is a "yes or no" question......if it was up to you and you alone, would you ban civilian ownership of firearms?

 

[jbutler]

I don't see how I can be more clear.

A registry is more than an "infringement"; it circumvents the intent of the law and is in direct conflict with it. It almost nullifies the point. It's on a whole different level to call it simply an infringement. What would be the point of having a security system on your house and putting the password on the front door.

I am familiar with the tactic of parsing words and pretended to not understand the meaning of a persons statement. The media doesn't this every night with politicians they don't like.

I suppose you won't believe me, but I was asking honestly. I thought it was clear as well that you were arguing that it was an infringement, but when I suggested that you should argue that is merely unwise rather than a constitutional infringement you responded that you were indeed making that argument. So it was evidently my confusion. Now that we're clear...

The Second Amendment prohibits only infringement, not a registry that might theoretically assist a later infringement. So how precisely does a registry infringe on your right to own a firearm?

 

[Old State]

The Second Amendment prohibits only infringement, not a registry that might theoretically assist a later infringement. So how precisely does a registry infringe on your right to own a firearm?

You answered your own question. There are enough people of your disposition in media, politics, and academia to make me believe that to be almost inevitable at somepoint in the future. Maybe 50- 100 years but still inevitable. The far left would push for a Constituional Convention at the first chance they got. They just need a crisis big enough. Then that type of "list" would come in handy

 

[jbutler]

You answered your own question. There are enough people of your disposition in media and academia to make me believe that to be almost inevitable at somepint in the future. Maybe 100 years but still inevitable

So you believe that any action taken by the government that could assist in later unconstitutional action is itself unconstitutional?