Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

Registration is rarely (if ever) anything but a precursor to confiscation.

I also fail to see why the police "knowing" who has guns would make them safer.

I would argue that the police "knowing" who has guns would make their job less safe, as it would foster a false sense of security if someone was not registered to have a gun, or if a registered gun owner was driving a vehicle not registered to them.

Since training would almost certainly teach officers to act like everyone has a gun, and the few deaths that would occur initially after the thorough registration required for police to "know" this would end up being ineffective.

There is no legitimate law enforcement use requiring the registration of guns (Hello Canada - they're kissing theirs goodbye), only the illegitimate use of confiscation - either on an individual or statewide scale.

But...but.....but Obama said all countries are on equal footing - America is no different or better than any other country.

Actually, those who registered punctually never faced confiscation. (I have three ARs registered with DoJ myself.)

However, the asshole attorney general Gray Davis (later to become the governor we ejected) ordered the confiscation of weapons owned by those whose applications to register were received after the deadline. He was, strictly speaking, within the law to do so. But he was an asshole for punishing people for complying (albeit later than the deadline); by doing so, he justified maximum paranoia among gunowners in California.

I'm guessing today's ruling is going to be used to attack the California assault weapon law's prohibition on certain handguns. I hope the whole damn assault weapon law comes down, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I continue to build more "California-legal" AWs (that can be, of course, converted into the real deal in seconds) and to collect "high capacity magazine rebuild kits" (which are not illegal)...

Yep.

I'd ask the question: what good can come of a registry?

If you can name some good that comes of it, its legitimacy can be debated. Otherwise, it's just as O2C says: a precursor to confiscation. And why should that be law in view of the ESTABLISHED interpretation of the Second Amendment? Future confiscation is no longer on the table.

Now if the Court will get started on the rest of the things that abridge our rights...

Y'all know I like guns. I've got mine and nothing is going to change that. But, while all rights are important, there are many more things that effect me on a day to day basis that are really pissing me off!

Purely playing devil's advocate: the same good that can come of registration of cars. If one is abused or stolen, it's easier to track it down than if there was no registry.

Because my car was registered, when it was stolen it got returned to me.

The same would go for any stolen gun.

If a driver hits someone and drives off, the car's having a license plate can be used to narrow down the list of suspects. Even without the license plate, the base description (blue Escort or whatever) can also narrow things down.

And yes, there are going to be criminals who don't register their guns, just like there are criminals who don't register their cars or who steal cars from other people to use in their crimes.

But there is at least a rational non-confiscation-related reason why a registry might be a sensible idea.

Since all sales are required to be documented by the BATFE, the information already exists and can be obtained if cause exists.

Absolute worst case? A recovered gun's serial number could be traced from the factory to the dealer that sold it. The dealer has the information or, if has gone out of business, the information has been given to the BATFE. No need for an additional registry.

Of course, that's presuming that the owner himself can't provide the serial number. Which he probably can.

Try reading the engraved serial number off a gun from a distance. With a gun, at most a witness could provide is the make and model. If the investigation centered on a PARTICULAR subject, then existing documentation could determine whether that subject owns that type of gun.

Another way cars are unlike guns: driving is not a Constitutional right.

You haven't yet provided any, least ways not any that aren't currently addressable by other means.

First of all, there is not necessarily the best of communications between BATFE and any given branch of government.

And secondly, the analogy still holds: all sales of cars are documented by some branch of government, presumably. Yet it is still useful that there is ongoing registration of them at the state level.

Third, in terms of the danger of confiscation, I don't understand how whatever BATFE database doesn't present the same danger.

This assumes the gun is recovered. It may not be. And yet, a registry might still help in case of a crime.

The crime techs could tell them that casings were from a certain type of gun, and a registry could potentially provide leads as to who owns that kind of gun.

Again, there are probably other entities that have the VIN number or other information about a car besides a state government. The ability of the state government to have its own registry helps speed up the process of tracking that information, though.

Some people have heads for numbers and keep good records themselves, while others don't.

It depends on the situation. In some cases, the cops recover the gun. In some cases, they don't.

In cases where the cops recover a gun, having a local or state registry would expedite tracing it over having to rely on whatever federal registry there might be. Moreover, the local or state registry may or may not be better kept than the federal one.

No analogy is perfect, and I didn't mean this one to be.

And the goalpost have moved. You asked for a reason why, and you just arbitrarily say that's not good enough because there's a federal registry of sales.

Under federalism, the local and state governments do retain the power to maintain their own registries, even if it's redundant, repetitive and does the same thing twice.

Because, by law, the BATFE can not turn over that information and their electronic records must periodically be destroyed to prevent the same*. In fact, the Bush Administration went well out of it's way to publicly state that any agent or employee of the BATFE or Justice Department that handed out any information would be publicly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The records do exist. Every FFL holder is required to keep their hard copies forever. The penalties for not doing so are rightfully draconian. So, the information is out there, it's just not very convenient. Good police work never is.

* - I don't believe they do destroy the information for even one millisecond. But, that's a whole different subject.

I don't see how this is at all meaningful in terms of preventing confiscation, nor how it is different from what might be involved in a local or state registry.

Assuming there were any move to confiscate guns through "legal" means, the lawmakers in charge could simply make it legal to distribute the BATFE records.

And of course, if we're talking a martial law/dictatorship scenario of confiscation, the dictators will simply ignore this law.

Finally, assuming this requirement that records can't be turned over and must be destroyed does something to prevent confiscation as a possibility, I don't see why the same requirement that the local or state agency maintaining a local record not be able to turn the records over to anyone else would not have every bit as much effectiveness as the requirement that the BATFE cannot turn over records.

What disagreement are you referring to, Bailey?

So? The information is still there and can be obtained by those who have legitimate need for it.

None of the purposes of car registration applies to guns. Gun owners cannot be taxed and there are no emissions tests to meet.

The BATFE's data does not lend itself to such a purpose. The BATFE's data allows the gun to be traced to the current owner; it is not a list of current owners.

And, as Elwood points out, the BATFE is restricted by statute on how it can use the data it collects.

So everyone with that model gun becomes a suspect?

Just owning the type of gun used in a crime does not make one a suspect.

In which case, the cop asks where the guy bought the gun, the cops go to that gun store, and the dealer's 4473 form is consulted for the serial number.

If they don't recover the gun, they have nothing. Unless they have a serial number, they're going to have a LARGE number of suspects.

Explain why expediting is important.

You've provided examples that can be worked without registration. So, you're asking me to accept a danger to my liberty (an easy-to-consult confiscation list) for no benefit to society?

I'm not arguing their power to do so. I'm arguing the need for them to do so other than as a precursor to confiscation.

Because the data isn't available--to use your term--expediently.

And they'd have to recruit about a million agents to research all of them to find current owners.

If we allow martial law or dictatorship as a possibility, I REALLY do not want registration.

Local authorities have the manpower to enact confiscation; the Feds do not.

In trying to sell us on registration, you've provided no benefits and done nothing to make confiscation less remote a possibility.

Just for the record, excluding small agencies with few employees like the Capitol Police or the Veterans Administration Police, the total number of Federal Law Enforcement Agents (FBI, DEA, BATFE, etc. etc.) are less than half the number of the NYPD.

The FBI has done its best to reinforce the perception that they're omnipresent, but they're really not.

Obviously, the use of a particular kind of gun doesn't mean everyone who owns that kind of gun is a suspect. Nor does it mean that the culprit has registered.

But I think that a detective looking at a crime committed against X using a gun might find it useful information that certain people in X's circle of friends and family owned that kind of gun. And it might be more useful if that detective interviewed A, who claimed he didn't own that type of gun when in fact he was the registered owner of that kind of gun.

I also think that a SWAT team responding to an emergency might find it useful to know that the suspect has certain registered guns.

I'm sure there are all sorts of potential problems with these scenarios in terms of how they might play out in real life. However, it's at least a rational reason a government agency might want to keep such a registry that has nothing to do with confiscation.

It should be self-evident that speeding up the investigation of a crime is a good thing.

By speeding up the investigation, you increase the chances of finding the bad guy, of recovering useful evidence and of bringing him to justice, particularly before anyone else is hurt.

That is pretty obviously of some benefit.

It may not be a substantial enough benefit for you or another reasonable person to justify the risk, but that's not what you originally asked for. You asked for some rational reason. There it is.

I still don't understand how a hard-to-consult list is any more of a safeguard against confiscation than an easy-to-consult list. If someone wants to go through the effort to confiscate all guns, seems to me clear that they will be willing to jump through whatever additional hoops that BATFE might have.

The data is still available. If it's available, someone who wants it badly enough can get it. And any group who wants to confiscate guns would presumably want the data pretty badly.

So would local law enforcement. Even if the registry was very easy to search, manpower would be as much of an obstacle for a local police department as the federal government. More, probably.

Well, there are only two scenarios that I can see for confiscation.

A government body -- state, federal or local -- goes through some semblance of due process.

Or a government body -- state, federal or local -- enacts a martial coup.

If the body goes through some due process, the legal obstacles to collecting ownership data can be -- and presumably would be -- dissolved.

If the body enacts a martial coup, the legal obstacles aren't going to matter a great deal.

Indeed, in the wake of this ruling, it seems almost impossible that confiscation could happen except for via martial coup.

It depends on what you're talking about by "manpower." Police departments? The armed services? All employees?

I'd guess by most measures, the federal government would be in a better position to confiscate weapons than state or local officials.

In any case, it seems like the local/state officials -- assuming they are hellbent on confiscation -- could assemble their own version of the registry through consulting the federal records.

How many times do I have to say this? When government is given an inch, they will take a mile.

My guns do not need to be registered. It would serve no useful purpose other than confiscation. I have been background checked every time I've purchased a firearm in Tennessee and Virginia and passed. I'll be getting another background check this Friday when I submit my application for my handgun permit.

They already know everything they need to know.

Agreed.

My issue, however, is given that here the government has already taken the inch (recording information at the BATFE level), it seems unlikely that not having the same information at the state or local level in an easily accessible form would stop any level of government from taking the mile.

And indeed, in the wake of this ruling, I don't see how they can even attempt to take the mile without completely disregarding due process and jumping all the way to martial law.

They've taken the inch and that's as far as it needs to go.

As for jumping to martial law, I don't discount it. It's been done before.

By another president from Illinois.

It's simple, really.

The feds have the data. It isn't in any easy-to-use form. That means it CAN be used for tracking a particular gun if needed, but difficult to use as a means of confiscation.

The agents of confiscation are much more likely to be state than federal IMHO (my life experience informs my view that my state steps more heavily on the Second Amendment than most others). That being the case, I'd rather they not have a registry of my guns. The more roadblocks I can put up to confiscation, the better. If they'd have to cooperate with the feds to get it done, even better (one of them is bound to be on my side).

As it stands now, my state already registers handguns. The legislature is currently considering a law to register all new long guns as well. I'm not sure what crime wave registering hunting rifles and shotguns is supposed to solve...

I don't know about you, Raoul, but I've seen the tactics and lies of those on the gun-grabbing side. I've seen them lie to the masses, I've watched them make unsupportable claims, I've heard them call Draconian measures "sensible." I've heard their false reassurances that their schemes wouldn't affect "the law abiding." Well, it's all a BIG LIE.

Just look at what's happened today. Even with the matter decided, that asshole Daley is still going to throw up whatever hurdles he can to people enjoying their Constitutional rights. The Brady Center is promising more of their "sensible" gun laws (read: bans and confiscation) to keep guns off "the street" (meaning, in my house).

Well, they can kiss my fat ass. The debate about what my rights are is over.

It's all you need to know.

It's never stopped you before.

The right of gun ownership is already established by the Constitution. It's a matter of restoring Constitutional law.

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

My rep prematurely ejaculated before I finished typing "that's a truly surprising statistic!"

Someone should ask her about "other societies" that have rejected woman's rights? Or "other societies" that have rejected the right to own land. Or "other societies" that have rejected the right of their people to be free.

SWAT teams are given briefings on what a suspect has on him at that moment but all SWAT teams operate under the assumption that the suspect is armed and ready to shoot. (unless they are 100% sure the suspect doesn't have a gun).

What guns the suspect has and whether they are registered or not is irrelevant.

A guy with a .22 can kill as fast as a guy with a .40 or a guy with an AK.

On top of that it's not always possible to know who the suspect is until they get to him.

Raoul has said some interesting things.

#1: A Swat team always has to assume a suspect is armed. To not do so would be stupid, foolish, and unprofessional.

#2: I don't shoot my gun at Federal Gun ranges. I drive my car on Gub'mint roads all the time. That said, the constitution protects my right to move about freely. I guess I don't really need a car to do that. Ok, ban guns.

Does a car actually legally need to be registered in the US? Down here the registration is basically a payment to use public roads, if your vehicle never leaves your property you don't need to have it registered.

A vehicle in working order must be titled since an auto is considered to be "real and tangible property", but it is not required to be registered unless it is going to be operated on a public road.