Gun Registration. Why should gun owners be opposed?

Gun registration only affects law-abiding citizens. It won't do a thing to get guns out of criminal's hands. Google Canada's experience with gun registration. It was expensive and didn't work.

 

Happened in 1999, pre-Arnie.

 

A. Cars only have to be registered if they are used on public streets. I could live with that, if I only needed to register a gun in order to use it on public property.
B. I will agree to that when a literacy test is required of voters. Also, driver's licenses are only needed to drive cars on public property. I don't need one to drive around my own (or my friends') land.
C. "Cooling off periods" only hurt the unprepared, like the young woman who broke up with her boyfriend, only to be threatened by him. Now she has to wait to buy a gun to protect herself.......... Meanwhile, her ex-boyfriend buys one from his coke dealer.....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

Got other stats because this lot are leaning me TOWARDS registration and legislation

 

A) Cars can only affect the area in which they are driven...
B) See "A". Also, I believe a literacy test is not a bad idea for voters, in the national language of the United States...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States
C) Right... because every angry ex boyfriend has a coke dealer and motivation to use a gun on his ex...

 

So there was ONE occurance, 14+ years ago?
Is that the standard of evidence you'd accept for a contradictory position?

 

Logician,

I would suggest you do a search of "California SKS confiscation" and you will get a variety of stories. No, I do not believe it was during Anrie's governorship. Are you saying only those with birth cetificates and Social Security numbers have rights? Not sure where you're going there.

 

Like this one? http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30710-30735
Seems like a pretty significant list of exceptions considering the class of weapon was illegal in the state prior to the confiscation...

Not what I was saying. In fact, SCOTUS has regularly rules that "illegal aliens" are protected under the Constitution. The fact is that, EVERYONE within the US has freedom of speech and religion, so "possession" of these can be assumed. If these rights also represented ownership of tangibles that were designed solely for the purpose of inflicting lethal wounds, registration would be considered for them as well.

 

nope. Illegals are illegal. they have no rights because they entered into this country illegally. What part of illegal don't you get? I suppose we could always give them a legal boot back across the border. But hey, since you appear to be in favor of the illegals staying here, why don't you give them some space in your place? I'm sure you'll all be just ducky together.....
So you are in favor of legally giving guns to criminals??? that would seem in character for you................. Why the hell not, Holder and yer boy did it..............

 

Again with the psycho talk...
When did I say I was in favor of them staying here?
When did I say they should get guns? That seems especially odd since I believe there are a lot of legal citizens that shouldn't have them (criminals, morons, crazies).

As for them having "no rights"... Get educated.
http://immigration.lawyers.com/immigration/Legal-Rights-of-Illegal-Immigrants.html

 

strictly your opinion...............and the Lib agenda to make every person across the world a US Citizen. And screw those people who support it anyway. Tired of this crap.........(*)(*)(*)(*)ed libs

 

If this is true, then why is Canada getting rid of their registration mandate?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...iasts-cheer-the-end-of-the-long-gun-registry/

 

The 5A self-incrimination clause only applies in criminal cases, so it says nothing about the power of government to impose a registration requirement. The question, then, at least at the federal level, is whether that power arises from an enumerated or implied power of Congress; and going by the letter of the Constitution I'd say it does, from the general welfare clause.

 

There was a supreme court case about registration. Now, true, non felons wouldn't have this protection, but started to illustrate that the 5A does protect against people self incriminating if there was a registration requirement and part of the population was non-compliant.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

 

A) so can guns. If I'm driving a car on my own property, and the brakes fail, I can soon be on somebody else's property.
B)
C) Yet it happens. Yes, I exaggerated a bit. That said, most women are in physical danger from most men, should the man decide to harm the woman. Are you saying that you think that somebody that is being threatened with bodily harm should have to wait several days or weeks to buy a gun? The other factor is those of us who already own guns. What practical good is done by making me wait to buy a new gun? I have a shotgun, a rifle and a pistol already.

 

Just going by what you quoted I'd say the ruling was in error, as the plaintiff was not a criminal defendant at the time he was charged, and no rationale is provided for extending, under 5A, the "right against self-incrimination" beyond the limit specified therein.

 

It was an over turned ruling from a lower court I believe which did prosecute him saying that he was a felon and didn't register his weapons under the '34 NFA. But, since he was a felon, registering his weapon would have implicated himself into owning a prohibited item, therefore breaching his 5A right of no self incrimination. It could be argued in court that having a registration that prosecuted people of owning weapons that were unlawful only because of a registration mandate is unconstitutional. The cops will still take the weapon away, but a lawyer could cite this SCOUTS opinion as legal grounds for dismissal.

 

But it doesn't do that; so any constitutional redress would be under 9A/10A, or on the grounds that the statute falls outside the enumerated or implied powers of Congress.

 

This would be true but the Federal government has been taking many strides forward in power due to the Commerce Clause, A1 S8 C3. Any gun that was not registered could be inferred as disrupting the commerce clause by having an effect on interstate commerce and thus under the purview of the commerce clause and under federal powers because it would promote intrastate commerce that wasn't under the powers of the Federal Government. Citing Gonzales v. Raich, they sued under the 6A, 9A, and 10A.The Supreme Court ruled that they were still under the commerce clause because it effected interstate commerce even though the marajuana plant was strictly bought, grown, and consumed entirely within California.

 

a little late, but ....

the obvious difficulty with this laughably weak argument is that very VERY few people actually want to own dangerous dogs. one might suggest, politely, that the desire to own such a dog is suggestive of sociopathy. and if the individuals who feed these things don't care about the potential most of them have to kill small animals, or even a child, then we should consider ourselves darned lucky that govts do care enough to legislate for registration (or even removal).

as regards polluting cars being impounded - that's like pouting because you grazed your knee while burgling a house.

 

someone mentioned the perception that men who own guns are weak. they may or may not live in the same country as myself, but certainly that perspective is predominant here, too. I would go so far as to say that here, gun owners are deeply marginalised. we don't just think they're weak, we also see them as frightened, paranoid, undereducated, generally underemployed (if employed at all), and more than likely mentally ill - or at least in possession of an identifiable personality disorder. they're like the homeless tourettes guy who hasn't washed in 15 years that you cross the street to avoid. actually worse. the tourettes guy is usually unarmed, and doesn't carry a catering sized chip on his shoulder. and our society has evolved to this position. it was never imposed on us by govt.

what amazes outsiders in this is the fact that rational and intelligent americans actually engage gun owners in debate. in this country that would be seen to be either a) toying with an easy target - cat to mouse style, or b) evidence of just how much the lunatic fringe has corrupted your once great nation. ie, to the point that you no longer see it as bonkers, just 'difference'.

 

Why would an automobile driver be opposed to a mileage tax? Because it is intrusive and violates civil liberties. You already paid a tax on gasoline or the gun with regard to the original comment. Why should there be another "king" to report to? F*** those delusional kings. They are not worthy of additional commentary

 

It IS true.

Yes, but those strides were taken ultra vires.

Which of course is nonsense.

 

More shame on you, then.

 

Logician0311,

Nope. Not buying that argument. "...designed solely for inflicting lethal wounds" where did you get that? Firearms are designed to shoot projectiles - bullets, or shot. What a person chooses to shoot at makes all the difference.