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

[Wildalaska]

I mean registration of guns of course.

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.

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

WildogodanothercavalrycoltAlaska

[WSM MAGNUM]

Okay. Lets use the First Amendment as an example. Freedom of speech. Lets say there is a law now where you have to register your name for a licence to write a book about a taboo topic or something. That would be unconstitutional.
Same thing with gun registration. It`s just another useless law that does nothing but restrict law-abiding citizens. So I beleive it is unconstitutional. This is what I would argue in court with, but there are many other good points to show in court. I just can`t think of any arguments off the top of my head.

[Cyrgelman]

I worked in law enforcement some twenty five years, and I do have some of those (opinions, that is.)

In and of itself, registration would not be an infringement. Ideally, registration could be similar to registering a vehicle in your name. If one (or all) your weapons are stolen, this would facilitate their entry into NCIC. This would also facilitate their recovery and return to you, if and when they are located. So, in that regard, I do agree with you. Registration could be a good thing for the gun owner, if it is properly utilized and not used towards the end of potential confiscation.
On the other hand, one thing that I would be leary of is the possibility of prohibitive licensing charges that might be placed on gun owners. (And, of course, registration of anything does cost something, doesn't it? Think of your car tags, etc. Do they go up or down over the years?) So you can bet your bippy that registration, if it is ever instituted, will not be for free!

Anyway, that's one thing I thought of. Maybe more later.

[obxned]

It is not the process of registration that is the infringement, it's the intent.

[Doug.38PR]

Yes registration is unconstitutional.

[BillCA]

Wild,

As much as I disagree with some of your posts, I have to be on your side on this one.

Registration could be interpreted as constitutional provided Congress can show that such registration is used for maintaining and disciplining the militia.

Registration, for militia purposes, would be a tally by the government of the types and calibers of arms available. In theory, it would allow the gov't to acquire stocks of ammuntion in the most popular calibers by region for use in an emergency.

Alternatively, Congress could get off their collective behinds and standardize on an effective battle-rifle cartridge (or a pair of cartridges) to be issued to militia forces. Militia volunteers with other calibers would be duty bound to supply a minimum (120?) of ammo on their own for their non-standard rifle.

For such purposes, all one would need to do, at the time of acquisition would be to fill out a postcard form that asks;
Make, model, caliber, capacity, type (rifle, pistol, revolver or shotgun) and your ZIP code. Not your name, no serial number, no other detail.

There would be no fee for such registration (and no postage required). Additional functions to take care of moving from one zip code to could be implemented as well.

[applesanity]

The thing with using car analogies (besides the red herrings and straw men) is that you are constantly taking cars off your own property, across state lines, and it's inherently tied to the way you make your living. It's an instrument of commerce.

A gun is something you usually keep in the confines of your house, save the occasional trip to the range or a hunt, or if you carry.

If you carry or hunt, you need a permit - but you are taking it off your property. it is interacting, directly or otherwise, with other people. I'm okay with getting a permit for that stuff, sort of.

Keeping a gun in your house is none different than keeping a TV in your house. Should you register your TV?

"But TV's aren't for killing people."

Now we're attaching intent onto an inanimate object. If I drop a TV on your head, it'll mess up your skull all the same.

[Hugh Damright]

If we are talking about a federal law requiring national gun registration, then I think the US militia power might empower the US to have us register militia weapons, but I do not see what part of the US Constitution would empower the US to require registration of things like .22 rifles and pocket pistols ... so I think a law requiring all firearms to be registered would go too far.

If we're talking about a State law, then that's different ... I don't think any part of the US Constitution prevents State level gun registration.

[Antipitas]

Hugh, hold your breath!

I'm gonna have to agree with you, here. Completely.

[Doug.38PR]

I agree too. All except this part.

If we are talking about a federal law requiring national gun registration, then I think the US militia power might empower the US to have us register militia weapons

As a strict constructionalist Mr. Damright, you have to go back to the original intent. There was no registration of any milita weapons back then. A milita was a voluntary force of men who all brought their own personal firearms guns to serve their states and/or the Union for defense.
Unless there was an arsenal of weapons that were owned by the county/state/ or Federal government there was no weapon registration of any kind.
The founding fathers would shudder at the idea of you having to register your personal arm of any kind with the Federal government or any kind of government state or local registration (although the state and local wouldn't be a Federal Constitutional matter)

[Antipitas]

Doug, you're both right and wrong at the same time.

The Militia Act of 1798 required that each eligible person would have a certain amount of shot (lead) and powder in addition to whatever arms they had. Perfectly legal.

It would not be much of a stretch to include registration of make model and caliber of your (militia) arms, so that the Feds could accomodate your ammunition needs. Parker hinted at this.

[Big Don]

Wild, great pot stirring!
I like the analogies with vehicle registration. We do not have a Constitutional right to own/drive cars and the State has "good" reasons (they say) for keeping track of them. In California, you must register your car, even if you're going to keep it on your property and not drive on the public roads. It's called a "certificate of non-operation" so they can keep track of your car, even thought you're not on the public road. And, you have to pay a fee to do this.
If the government wanted me to register my firearms then the government would, without a doubt, charge me money to do so. That, I believe, is an infringement and thus contrary to the Second Amendment. I do agree with the argument of registering for the purpose of supplying ammunition to the militia but that would have to be at zero cost to the firearms owner and be done anonymously.

[Wildalaska]

The Militia Act of 1798 required that each eligible person would have a certain amount of shot (lead) and powder in addition to whatever arms they had. Perfectly legal.

Sounds like Switzerland...except they get a PE57 and a can of 7.5 or a 550/551 and a can of 5.56....and it better be there at inspection time....

And dang, some of those real old reservists (like my age) would still be hanging on to their Lugers with that sweet swiss cross on the toggle!

If we're talking about a State law, then that's different ... I don't think any part of the US Constitution prevents State level gun registration.

What if the second is applied to the states via the 14th

WildsaucierAlaska

[Dust Monkey]

Yes, IMO, registration is unconstitutional. In all the other rights that include the phrase "the rights of the people" you do not have to register. If you have to register to exercise a right, it is not a right. My opinion is the same on a concealed Permit. If you have to apply and get approved for a Permission slip to exercise a right, it is not a right.

WA, why do you think registration is constitutional? On what grounds.

[Wildalaska]

Shall we digress to the presumption of constitutionality?

Let me digress further

What do you think of this:

The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the
restrictions are justified without reference to the content
of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to
serve a significant governmental interest, and that they
leave open ample alternative channels for the communication
of the information.

WildWardv.RockAgainstRacismAlaska


Hey wait:

The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, or manner of keeping or bearing arms, provided the
restrictions are narrowly tailored serve a compelling governmental or societal interest.

lSpeech but not guns??

[deguello]

I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, so I don't have anything to offer except another question. Okay two questions. What would be the difference between registration (assuming the law allows collecting an 'administrative fee') and a poll tax? And was the poll tax ever actually ruled to be unconstitutional?

[Cyrgelman]

The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, or manner of keeping or bearing arms, provided the
restrictions are narrowly tailored serve a compelling governmental or societal interest.

Ah, a "weasel clause!"

There's a bigger picture in all this, and it's ugly.

This "weasel clause" is obviously already in place since convicted felons and violent offenders are denied the right to possess firearms, in the same way felons have been denied the right to vote. So felons/violent offenders, strictly speaking, already have their rights suspended "in the interest of society."

Why does this not mean that, potentially, the whole Second Amendment couldn't be suspended "in the interest of society?"

[Redworm]

I don't really see how it's unconstitutional but I don't know if it's really a good idea. As for "registration leads to confiscation" one simply needs to look at switzerland to see that's not always the case.

I'd rather not have to register my guns with anyone but don't I already give all the pertinent information on a 4473? As for the registration I wouldn't mind as long as it was a reasonable percentage of the original purchase price. I know that in every state where I've registered a car for the first time the fee has been a percentage, not a set price. Renewals are typically a set price, though...

I wouldn't mind if for a $500 gun I only had to pay a 2% tax. Ten bucks is not prohibitive if one has the money to buy a $500 gun and ammunition.

[TimRB]

"As for "registration leads to confiscation" one simply needs to look at switzerland to see that's not always the case."

Of course it's not always the case. On the other hand, you would have to look much harder to find an instance where confiscation wasn't preceded by registration.

Tim

[Antipitas]

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

What if the second is applied to the states via the 14th

Um, we are already in a "what if" scenario, per your initial post. Do you really want to conflate the issue with more "what ifs?"

[Redworm]

Of course it's not always the case. On the other hand, you would have to look much harder to find an instance where confiscation wasn't preceded by registration.

Tim

so? cart then horse, of course registration would have to come first. but again, that doesn't mean it will lead to confiscation or that there's even a high likelyhood of it.

Now I would not be comfortable registering a gun to keep on my property any more than I'd be comfortable registering a car to keep on my property. However I have no qualms about registering to carry in public just as I have no qualms about registering - and being licensed! - to drive in public.

[Doug.38PR]

It would not be much of a stretch to include registration of make model and caliber of your (militia) arms, so that the Feds could accomodate your ammunition needs. Parker hinted at this.

Well it seems to me the requirement could be fulfilled without gun registration. why would your rifle/pistol need to be registered. It would seem to me that the army would have whatever caliber of ball/cap(post flintlock) available anyway and be able to provide it to you (the militia volunteers) upon your arrival to the camp or fort regardless of what type of weapon you had.

EDIT: Also back then, did you mostly mold your own ball with a tool that would shape it the your caliber of gun?

[Edward429451]

The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, or manner of keeping or bearing arms, provided the
restrictions are narrowly tailored serve a compelling governmental or societal interest.

Now we're back to intent. Exactly what would this compelling governmental interest be?

I think it would be unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.

I wouldn't have a problem with voluntarily registering myself as a gun owner/carryer, to the local boys (cty Sheriff) and qualifying annually as a show of faith to the community in which I live, that I am safe and have enough gun handling skills to not put my community in danger from recklessness.

What governmental interest is one that could not be handled locally, by the Sheriff?

[Wildalaska]

Um, we are already in a "what if" scenario, per your initial post. Do you really want to conflate the issue with more "what ifs?"

Sometimes I wonder whether a check solely on the Feds should be evaluated in a vacuum, since the states are the ones usually messing up our lives altogether

But isnt it the states we are really talking about? How could the Feds meet a minimal burden of showing a compelling interest for Fed registration schemes.

A state could.

WildupearlyandworkingforyouamericaAlaska

[Slideman]

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

Registration is illegal and unconstitutional.

Whip out your copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Amendment X: If it ain't in the preceeding, the feds CANNOT do it. Trust me, registration of firearms isn't in there.

Amendment IV: We all have a right to be secure in our persons and papers. The feds cannot secure any data they have. Thus they cannot collect data about us with any assurance they can keep it secure.

Worse still, slimeball politicians and perverted bureaocrats are authorized access to government data and, as the Clintons publicly proved*, use it against anybody they take a dislike to. Lists of those prepared to defend themselves, their families and their communities should not exist. They are bound to land in the wrong hands eventually.



* How many of you remember that BJ Clinton was originally brough up on charges for using the IRS, Secret Service, FBI, CIA and others as personal weapons against his enemies? ... That they were caught in possession of FBI files on their enemies?

It was only a sympathetic press and lenient Congress that decided to let those charges drop and turn it into a sex scandal so the public would forget what people in power tend to do with that power. Both sides of the halls of congress LIKE having their turn and didn't want to break the machine that gives such pleasure.