Give me a valid argument against national gun OWNER registration.

[Xithras]

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.

The owning of a firearm in the United States is legal because of the second amendment, which specifically declares that it is not only acceptable to regulate that militia (adult U.S. citizens), but that regulation is necessary. One of the most basic requirements for regulation is knowing who you are dealing with. I cannot see any realistic constitutional arguments against the federal or state registration of firearms owners. I don't see how firearms owners can be "well regulated" WITHOUT their identities being known to the government.

So how about this as a crimefighting tool. The U.S. should implement a federal Shall Issue system in which all non-criminals can be issued firearms licenses after passing weapons training and safety courses. Mental health and criminal background checks are an obvious requirement. Once issued, those owners can buy whatever guns they want. If you violate the terms of the license and get it revoked (commit a gun crime) you lose it forever. Get convicted of a violent felony, and you lose it forever.

Children under 18 can handle firearms only in the presence of a licensed adult. Any adult caught permitting an unlicensed youth to handle a firearm without supervision loses his license for 10 years. Any adult over 18 caught in possession of a firearm without a license gets a mandatory year in prison, and 10 years suspension of firearms licensing rights. If you're caught a second time, you get 5 years and a lifetime ban. After that, it's 10 years a pop. If you're caught without a license while committing a gun crime, it's a special circumstance that can double the sentence for the other crime.

So explain to me how this 1) Wouldn't be constitutional. 2) Wouldn't reduce gun crime. 3) Isn't a good idea.

I'm a gun owner who opposes gun laws that limit our rights to own firearms based on cosmetic features, but I have NEVER understood the logic or legality of the arguments against the registration of gun owners themselves. Not only is it legally allowable, but I'd say that it's specifically authorized by the constitution.

[thunder rising]

1. That's how the Nazis rouded up the weapons. No I'll keep my cannons thank you.

[Xithras]

2. Irrelevant. The constitution authorizes it.

I don't think the actions of the Nazi's have much legal bearing in the U.S. anyway.

[beevul]

9. A2 most certainly does not "authorize" it.

Heres the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

The preamble basically spells out what the bill of rights is, and what its general purpose and intent is. As such, the second amendment is an enumerated restriction on governmental power. The second amendment grants no powers to government, nor does it authorize the government to do anything at all. It simply prohibits infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In modern language, it would read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state". That also clears up quite completely, the meaning of "well regulated" as it was originally intended to mean.


Well equipped.

[Blackeye101]

100. Enough Said

2nd Amen. It simply prohibits infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Lint Head]

3. There is a right to bare arms not missle launchers or WMD.

:dem:

[Old Codger]

4. well

That is bear arms :) LOL The main arguement is a valid one, th eregistration is th efirst step towards confiscation, never get mine registered, (if I really have any ):)

[napi21]

5. Not only is that the way the Natzi's confiscated all the weapons, but

it simply wouldn't work! The guns that mostly cause the problems are either stolen, or sold on the street for netharious purposes. People who are hunters or have guns for protection putposes aren't the problem.

Yes you get the occasional husband/wife shooting each other, but in cases like that, if they didn't have a gun, they'd find something else. When relationships go bad, they usually go REAL BAD.

All this talk about gun restrictions does nothing but bury Dems in a pit they can never emerge from! Get over it!

[beevul]

10. Well said Sir/Ma'am.

"All this talk about gun restrictions does nothing but bury Dems in a pit they can never emerge from!"

[napi21]

12. Thanks and it's a Ma'am. n/t

[Xithras]

26. I never, once suggested gun restrictions. Not once. Nothing in my proposal would limit gun ownership

It would establish minimum competence levels for those owning them (unless you WANT criminals owning guns), and establish stiff penalties for those who have them without licenses. That's all.

[Boomer 50]

98. Exactly the same line the Nazi's used.

They claimed they didn't want to ban guns or take them however, that is exactly how the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act was used. Sadly, Senator Dodd took his que from the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act and modified the wording slightly. That sorry piece of trash legislation became known as the 1968 Gun Control Act. It is taken directly from the Nazi Gun Control Act and has resulted in thousands of innocent people being trashed, thrown in jail and even killed.

If you want to compare word for word the two gun control acts, go to JPFO.org and you'll find them side by side.

I'm sorry but there is no legitimate reason for gun control except to subjugate the population by force. It does nothing for crime, accidents, or safety.

[iverglas]

30. how did the "Natzi's" handle highway traffic?

I wonder whether they had speed limits ... gosh, better get rid of them! They're "Natzi" shit.

Think of all the things we can get rid of because the "Natzi"s did 'em ...


... but it simply wouldn't work! The guns that mostly cause the problems are either stolen, or sold on the street for netharious purposes.

If I can stop giggling at these netharios selling their guns on the street ... nothing will ever be enough for you folks, will it?

You won't be happy until all firearms are registered and equipped with GPS systems, and there are door-to-door searches every evening to make sure that no one has left a firearm lying around where it can be stolen, and everybody standing on a streetcorner is strip-searched to make sure s/he isn't holding a firearm and fixing to sell it.

No halfway measures for you, eh??

[radioburning]

88. Completely unrealistic, childish post. Going waaaaaay out on a limb to make a point

Oh, it's iverglas. I should have known.

[iverglas]

89. and yet you still dodged it

Of course, it wasn't aimed specifically at you anyhow. Whoever you are.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlinPA]

69. A couple of guys in my sportsmen's club say there should be zero laws on guns.

They say "Gun control is using two hands". I don't think anyone can stop criminals from getting guns if the criminals want them bad enough. With what I understand about mental illness, some of them actually believe they are protecting themselves from society or "those out to get them" when they get a gun for their self-defense.

[The Magistrate]

97. This 'Gun Confiscation is What Nazis Did' Line, Ma'am, Is Very Tiresome

Because it is abundantly clear it is aimed at persons who know nothing about the condition of political life in Weimar Germany, and generally by persons who similarly lack the least glimmer concerning context.

Political life in Weimar Germany was dominated by the gun, by arms in the hands of party militias. These appeared in all political strands: even the Social Democrats had an armed body, though its leadership was not too competent at employing it. Armed bodies of Communist Red Guard, Nazi Storm Troops and Nationalist Steel Helmets shot it out in the streets, and not only during election seasons. We may leave to one side the early Freikorps, exclusively on the right, who predominated in the years immediately following WWI, and suppressed the Sparticist uprisings. Murder was the principle tool of politics, and the rise to power of the Nazis occurred in large part because they were better at killing their enemies than their enemies were at killing them. Any government that intended order, of any political stripe, would necessarily in such a climate have set a high priority on disarming the political process, and it was a key failing of the Social Democrats that at times when they had state power in their hands they failed to press it to this goal. The idea that an armed populace is a guarantee against tyranny is mere romanticism: it is can just as easily lead to tyranny, as those who seek tyranny tend to be both better organized and more ruthless than those who oppose it.

[Boomer 50]

99. You are exactly right.

The situation in Germany at the time was very militant. What then happened is that one of the parties involved became strong enough to disarm their opponents and slaughter them. So, even though you feel that it's tiresome, it's the absolute truth. Those that weren't killed in the "night of the long knives" were disarmed, tortured and murdered.

This is why no one in their right mind should support gun control because here in the US, we have the Democrats and Republicans. No matter which party you support you need to understand that it may not be the people you want in control who pull the plug on our rights. As Americans, we must defend our rights jealously. Bush has effectively stripped us of our right to privacy, right to a speedy and fair trial, damaged free speech greatly, and what is to stop him and others like him on both sides of the isle from totally destroying our rights if we can't forcefully say "NO!"?

If you think it can't happen here, let me refer you to something.... Go google US v. Kwan out of Seattle Washington and read the transcript of the trial. BATFE MANUFACTURED, thats right, manufactured evidence to pursue a case. They took a legally owned semi-automatic rifle called an M1A. It's based on the military M14 but without the selector switch. The BATFE took the gun, converted it to full auto and then claimed because they could do it, that Mr. Kwan was in possession of a machine gun illegally.

Mr. Kwan lost his clearance, tens of thousands of dollars, his job, and almost all of his freedom because of gun control and people that we are supposed to trust and respect abuse their power to harm citizens with zero criminal intent AND THEY GET AWAY WITH IT. This is why we have the 2nd Amendment and it should not be infringed upon at all.

[The Magistrate]

101. Always Fun When Someone Misses The Point Entirely, Sir, And Manages To Demonstrate The Point As Well

The 'Night of the Long Knives' was a quarrel within the Nazi Party, in which the political leadership of the Sturm Abteilung was killed by the Schutz-Staffel as a propitiation of the army generals, whom the S.A. leadership wanted to replace with themselves. The S.A. and its leadership were pretty well armed; it was hardly a case of disarmed and defenseless lambs being slaughtered, but more one of men who thought themselves the hardest and most ruthless critters conceivable being caught flat-footed by men a bit harder and more ruthless than they were.

To repeat: the Nazis gained their position by armed violence, against other armed parties. Their rise and ascendancy owed nothing to a lack of arms in the population, but rather stemmed from the fact of an armed population more than willing to use weapons as a means of political advancement. Nor did disarmament precede torture and murder: enemies of the Nazis were taken more or less 'in action', armed or no, once the party had the reins of state authority.

[Boomer 50]

106. So.... you advocate disarmament for everyone

Without realizing that by doing that, you empower those who don't give a damn about bans and laws and will use the ban to flex their muscles. Gun bans are a joke, the people that abide by them are the ones that wouldn't do anything in the first place, the ones that thumb their nose at authority and the law, well, you really think they give a damn about a ban or registration? Think they'll actually abide by it? They laugh when people want to ban guns because it makes their predatory lives just that much easier... just like the Nazi's. Just like Pol Pot, Just like Stalin, Just like every other person with violent intent.

The 1934 NFA was an attempt at mandatory registration. Fact: The NFRTR database used for the NFA is almost 50% inaccurate (per Thomas Busey BATF). Fact: BATF estimates that there are nearly 4 times the number of unregistered NFA class firearms in circulation inside the US. Fact: BATF refuses to actively pursue these contraband firearms and instead, they go after people with no criminal intent (its safer for the agents that way).

Basically, mandatory registration doesn't work. The 1934 NFA proves it. Combine that with the tendency of the criminal element to just simply ignore these idiotic laws anyway, one has to wonder why it keeps coming up. What is the real agenda folks?

[The Magistrate]

109. My Advocacy, Sir, Is Of Accurate References To History, Rather Than Distortions Of Its

That depend for their effect on the ignorance of the persons addressed. When the people doing this know no better themselves, it is simply an unfortunate spectacle; when the people doing it are aware they are deliberately exploiting ignorance, it is reprehensible. You have made it abundantly clear in this exchange that you know nothing of substance about the political strife of Germany in the fifteen-odd years between the end of the Great War and the establishment of the Nazi Reich: all you have on the subject is this factoid washed up like a sea-shell on the beach, that you have plucked up because it had an unearthly shimmer about it, and that you enjoy brandishing at people to establish your opponents are absolutely evil. My advice is to take care in future you do not brandish it at people who know well the subject it is a tiny and unimportant flake of....

[iverglas]

108. y'all come back now, y'hear?

And anytime you'd like to tackle explaining what Gandhi meant in the line they so love to quote, about disarming an entire people, you could do that too.

It won't help. But it could keep you busy!

[MercutioATC]

6. Practically, it's not a big deal. However, there is a lot of resistance...

...mostly due to the extremes we've all seen some courts go to.

The bigger issue is whether or not it would do any good...and it wouldn't. The majority of guns used in crimes that you see on the news are illegally owned under our current system. Requiring some sort of registration wouldn't make them any less accessible to criminals.

[provis99]

7. because it would cost a lot of money

Canada already did the gun registration thing, and it has cost them $2 billion+, still doesn't work,hasn't reduced gun crime (gun crimes have gone up, because more registered guns are being stolen), and has damaged the economies of provinces who depend on American hunters that aren't coming to Canada now because of the hassle.

Interestingly enough, the gun registry was created and maintained by the two main conservative parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, while it is opposed by the socialists, the NDP.

[Tejas]

15. Thank you for pointing that out.

I bring the cost of the antis fantasies up and ask if they and they alone are willing to pay for them but never get an answer.

[Vincardog]

8. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is the people given the right. Not the well regulated anything.
What is your point? What exactly do you wish to accomplish?

[Xithras]

24. Which is why I said "Shall Issue". No infringement involved.

According to my reading, there is no "right" without the "well regulated". Under my idea above, the only people who would be "infringed" are those who none of us wants owning firearms anyway...children, felons, the untrained. Every other law abiding citizen would have a right to own a firearm.

It would accomplish one simple thing that this country lacks...a consistent baseline for who can and who cannot own a firearm, and a consistent set of penalties for those who possess firearms when they are not permitted to.

[Vincardog]

31. IF yo are going to rely of jr's HomeLAnd gestapo to approve my application I wil take my chances

being unregulated and unlisted.

Thanks for playing.

[madeline_con]

51. Ditto, hear hear, and what YOU said!

:bounce:

[Will E Orwontee]

11. Your use of well regulated is not

in agreement with its use in the 2nd. Well regulated, when decsribing troops has nothing to do with "regulations" issued from a legislative body; it merely means "in operational order and condition."

I'm not going to bore you with quotes from the founders which show without question what "well regulated" means . . . Instead I'm going to offer something different, opposite in fact!

Well regulated, as used in the 2nd has a direct and unchallenged antonym.

This term has just chugged along for centuries without being redefined for political reasons. It has just gone on and on meaning the same old thing decade after decade.

That term is - - - ILL REGULATED

Ill regulated has been used for centuries to describe troops unfit for battle and in poor operational order . . . It is still used today!

Acute viral hepatitis and cholera were the two major diseases that Russian medical personnel had to contend with. Both are endemic to squalid living conditions and confined living space found in ill-regulated field camps and deployment areas. -- Viral Hepatitis and the Russian War in Chechnya, http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/hepatiti/hepatiti.htm">United States Army Medical Journal, May/June 1997

A further "Constitutional" argument against your position is that the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created, conferred or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that the citizen's right to arms is not dependent in any way on the Constitution for its existence.

If the right exists without any reference to the 2nd, how can the words and construction of the 2nd have any impact on the scope or exercise of the right?

No power was ever granted to government to impact the private arms of the individual citizen, so none exists, even your registration scheme. All the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

[hooptie]

23. Wow!

No power was ever granted to government to impact the private arms of the individual citizen, so none exists, even your registration scheme. All the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

Alexander Hamilton posts on DU!

[Xithras]

25. Quite the mental backflip there.

Regulated, even in 18th century English, had four potential meanings. 1) To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2) To adjust to a particular specification or requirement. 3) To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4) To put or maintain in order.

Even under your definition, I could easily argue that the government (aka, the organizing powers selected by the people) cannot place the citizenry in "operational condition" if it does not know who or what level of experience those defensive resources posess.

As for the rest of it, I wholly discard the notion that the right to own a gun is granted by an imaginary sky-god. Rights are granted by society. We recognize certain rights as innate and natural human rights, but those rights are generally limited to those things required for survival. Rights beyond your basic human rights are granted by society, often through the powers of government.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun grabber by any stretch of the word, but NRA talking points and quasi religious arguments for gun ownership don't wash with me. I believe that we should all have the right to own guns, but I also believe that society has a right to establish a minimum level of competence and sanity for their owners. The simplest way to establish that is through a licensing program.

[Vincardog]

32. "a licensing program" is not a power the Government was granted. What part of Shall Not infringe

don't you understand?

[dmsk8]

36. Counterflip

Even under your definition, I could easily argue that the government (aka, the organizing powers selected by the people) cannot place the citizenry in "operational condition" if it does not know who or what level of experience those defensive resources posess.

And my counter-argument for this would be that calling for volunteers for militia enrollment is not the same thing as maintaining a list of gun owners. You can have militia members volunteering for service who don't possess arms. In fact, historical state militias often maintained a small number of arms for those members that did not possess their own. Thus, a gun owner registry is separate from that of those who are members of the militia.

The "well-regulated" part is a requirement of the militia and the expectation was that regular mustering of the militia would allow its commanding officers to train its members to acquire that "well-regulated" state. Thus, by appearing for muster and training, the militia officers would be able to report on its operational condition. Any gun proficiency would be performed under the auspices of the militia and do not require separate government regulation to maintain. A gun owner's registry is not necessary in order to maintain the militia. However, a citizen providing their own arms as a member of that militia is the knowledge that they are likely to be proficient with it and require less training than others to acquire "well regulation".

How's that?

[iverglas]

47. you should have had a spotter!

Tsk, just think how many lives could be saved if people would wear helmets.

[krispos42]

41. The Congress has chosen to not regulate the miitia

Therefore, them knowing exactly what types and calibers a person has is not useful nor helpful. Assuming there is some kind of militia call-up, the types and caibers will be very diverse, but would mainly fall into 4 catagories: shotguns, .22s, varmit calibers, and deer calibers. If the military wants to supply a militia, they would simply have to pick the 10 most common ones and buy them in bulk.

Simply looking at gun sales for a particular region gives general proportions, and ammo sales will give you the most popular calibers. I can make a pretty good guess at the calibers, though. .308 Win., .30-06, .30-30 Win., .270 Win, 7mm Rem. Mag., .223 Rem, .22-250, .243 Win., 7.62x39mm, and .25-06.

As to tactical deployment, put the bolt-actions on sharpshooter duty, the semi-autos and lever-actions in for the more intimate stuff.


If, on the other hand the feds issue to me or write into law that I must own a certain type and caliber of rifle, then I'll be happy to show up with that rifle for inspections. It can even be registered. They can have me demonstrate proficiency, we can do tactical drills, whatever is required. But Congress has to act.

I believe that we should all have the right to own guns, but I also believe that society has a right to establish a minimum level of competence and sanity for their owners.

There is a difference between public use and private use. People can and do perform all sorts of tasks, using all sorts of tools, in the privacy of their own home. And some of those things are quite complex and potentially dangerous. Working on your own car, for example. Aside from the dangers of getting crushed or mangled, there is the distinct possibility that some repair or modification is done wrong and people die as a result.

Learning to shoot a gun is not terribly complicated. A half-hour spent with the gun's manual gets you the basics on safety, shooting, loading, unloading, uncocking, making safe and making ready-to-fire, jam-clearing, etc. It really is something almost anybody can do with almost any gun.

So for private shooting events, like hunting, plinking, or target shooting, we can and do depend on the concept of adult competence.

On the other hand, for people that want to carry in public, like a concealed handgun, then yeah, public safety deserves some education and a competence check. I had a pistol permit in South Dakota, and I was both surprised and dismayed to see how easy it was to get one. I expected more to the process, frankly. They have a very low homicide rate, though, so maybe they are onto something.


The sanity part goes without saying.

[madeline_con]

52. Good point.

[LooseWilly]

13. My biggest objection...

... is the streak of paranoia that led me to get the guns in the first place.

Looking through your idea, I find myself with a counter-idea.
We don't bother worrying about who has the guns (and when you think about it, at least in California, you need to get a permit anyway... so why bother with a federal registration? Leave that as a state concern...) but we could instead focus on the other end of your suggestion. Go ahead and require the weapons training and safety course to be taught in schools... then everyone will be qualified to own the guns safely.
The ones who're going to use them for criminal intent don't tend to acquire them legally anyway... but this way there won't be so many accidents.

Of course, another option is to just accept that the right to own guns is going to lead to gun deaths... just like the use of the automobile is going to lead to vehicular deaths. And processed foods will eventually lead to a wide variety of health issues and deaths. And smoking will lead to health issues and deaths. And alcohol will lead to health issues and death. And getting too little exercise will lead to health issues and death. And aging will lead to health issues and death.

I personally think the best solution would be federal legislation requiring that all Americans be equipped with Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers shortly after birth, perhaps funded by a special tax on the health insurance industry... which they would be able to afford due to the increased profits stemming from the reduction of claims as we all commence to live in a safety-bubble.

Hmm... the biggest irony though, is that I'm not even sure if I'm trying to be ironic. It's a funny thing, live in a high-crime city for a while (Oakland was #4 LEAST safe in the country in '07) and you come to the point where you realize that legislation is really irrelevant when it comes to the too-often moronic thugs on the streets that're carrying around the illegal guns. They're often dumb enough, and always unconcerned/too-little-concerned about consequences, for the proposed legislation to make any difference. And when they're finally caught (if?) with an illegal gun, or even a legal gun that's been used in a crime, then they generally get punished to the full extent that the prison funding in said jurisdiction allows anyway. Unless of course they're rich and/or well connected.

Maybe, if we'd just require a course in gun safety, we would at least have fewer innocent bystander injuries. And if there were actual training in shooting... and our criminals were more accurate, then yet fewer innocent bystanders would be injured. And perhaps a little more information about the penetration capabilities of rounds of various calibers, and perhaps the thugs might think twice before shooting someone when misses might enter houses behind their intended target... at least, if they're on their own turf and especially if the target is in front of their "cousin"s house.

Hmm... ironically enough, I think my ironic solution might in fact be a better one than any serious idea I've ever heard.

[Xithras]

27. Yes, because everyone who takes an Art class in high school can paint the Mona Lisa afterward

The problem with your idea is that it assumes that kids will absorb and learn that safety material simply because they sat through a class. A walk through the hallways of any high school in America should dissuade you from that. While I don't DISAGREE with the idea of teaching firearms safety in school (I grew up in a small town that not only taught safety, but actually had a hunting club), I don't think that a single semester class is going to do much to influence how people store and handle firearms. That class, combined with some sort of test to verify that you actually ABSORBED the information, would work however.

[madeline_con]

53. They might not all be Jackson Pollocks, either.

Maybe if they used firearms as part of the exam, they could show they'd learned something.

Classes in how to drive a vehicle help thousands qualify for driver licenses. I could argue your points against the idea that these kids are ready to drive just because they "sat through a class".

[DrCory]

70. Following your logic...

Education in any subject is pointless. Do you also reject sex ed? It is, after all, fairly obvious that a lot of kids didn't learn how to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Guess we should just shut it down, eh?

[politicalcamper]

92. Good idea but...

...I'm in high school right now, and just thought you should know that them trying to teach gun safety to a bunch of teenagers would result in not only a total lack of us learning anything useful, but probably an increase in gun-related injuries. Teachers in high school can't teach teenagers because that is basically impossible. Trying anything with guns would result in total and utter chaos.

[maxidivine]

96. You bought your guns out of paranoia?

That is an incredibly bad move, not to mention unhealthy. I love my guns and shoot as often as possible, because it is a very enjoyable activity, requiring concentration and self-discipline to succeed. Sort of like yoga with a "boom". Also cleaning them afterwards is very relaxing. If you did not buy guns for any reason other than "paranoia" then I think it would be in your best interest to get checked out. Unless you are just misusing the word "paranoia", which is frustratingly common these days.

[beevul]

14. Registration is a necessary component of confiscation.

Registration is a necessary component of confiscation.

For that reason its a bad idea.

Its also a bad idea for whatever political party that might try to enact it, and worse should they succeed. That party would lose control of the house, the senate, and the presidency for what could amount to decades.

Making potentially 80 million people that vote strongly on the gun issue angry at your political party is never a good idea.

[razors edge]

16. Shall not be infringed.

Nuff said?

[Xithras]

28. What infringement? Shall Issue.

Infringement of criminals and the mentally unstable only, as neither of those groups should be allowed to own firearms anyway. The only way an average citizen could be denied ownership is if they were unable to pass a basic gun safety test. Surely you're not extending the "shall not be infringed" to cover those who cannot or will not use a firearm safely?

Licensing is not infringement.

[razors edge]

40. Registration is an infringement.

Clear and simple. Registration and background checks would not be considered as anything other than an infringement by those who wrote the words. If they are not an infringement in your mind please tell what would be an infringement, short of an all out ban.

It is not present in the 2nd amendment as a legal means to determine civil rights.

The 2nd amendment has no litmus test I have been able to discern.

And yes I am extending the meaning of "shall not be infringed" to all people, just as it is written. If you wish to see a standard in the bill of rights that does not exist on this issue, you leave us all open to further standards on the remaining nine to be imposed without our consent and without regard to original intent.

Now that I have advocated for the devil in the legalese, I wish to say that I don't want there to be an armed psycho walking the streets because the constitution did not take into account the future of American society.

A clear failure of our government to address this with a two thirds majority ruling before we arrived at this point, has left us in this untenable position. We are now at a time when no real leaders are capable of dealing with an out of control situation without being labeled as gun grabber, or gun nut.

That division is so wide it is now akin to the third rail associated with Social Security.

I hope in the future we can arrive at a sensible solution, but just implying something is there when it clearly isn't, only leaves the door open to further implications. Someday they may imply something that impacts you in a way you never imagined, and precedent goes a long way in a court of law.

[iverglas]

63. register to vote

much?

[madeline_con]

54. And a psych exam...

by whose standards of normality?

[Irreverend IX]

17. I can't see how it would reduce crime.

The problem individuals will get weapons on the black market in any case, and once you require licenses for firearm ownership you introduce the possibility of the licensing requirements being tightened in the future. Require a mental health check, you say? An anti-gun attorney general could revise the mental health guidelines to say that anyone who wants a gun and isn't current or retired law enforcement is clearly a danger to society. The one legislative change that would make the biggest dent in gun crimes is legalizing drugs.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Give me an example of how this would reduce gun crime.

How about this lets enforce the laws that we currently have in place? How about we prosecute people found in illegal possession of guns now? There were minimal amounts prosecuted under Clinton and this administration.


David

[benEzra]

19. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a criminal in violation of gun laws

CANNOT be prosecuted for failure to register, because doing so would violate the 5th Amendment protection against requiring self-incrimination. Meaning, pretty much the only people who could be prosecuted under your plan would be people with clean records who violated the registration law.

Taking Chicago as an example, 97 percent of murderers had prior arrest records. Occasionally people with clean records do commit murders, and any of us could certainly name several, but the vast majority of murders are committed by people who are already legally barred from owning a gun--and hence would not be legally required to register.

On the up side, it would certainly be less intrusive than a registration of the firearms themselves, but IMO it would be a pointless waste of political capital.

FWIW, I am OK with licensure to carry a weapon, as long as it is based on non-arbitrary criteria ("shall issue"), but I think registering lawful owners is pointless.

[maxidivine]

20. Well-regulated

Meant 'well trained and equipped', as in, had a modern weapon and is proficient with it.

Didn't mean regulated as in, FDA regulates meat-packing plants.

You are a little mixed up, but that is because the term well-regulated that is in the 2nd Amendment is not a commonly used term anymore, however, regulated and regulations are very commonly used terms nowadays.

[aikoaiko]

21. After the gun confiscation of post-Katrina, I no longer think its paranoia to worry about the gov...

...confiscating weapons when they are anxious about civilian gun ownership.

[Tejas]

42. "We're going to take all the guns"

Registration would have given them a list of addresses of doors to kick, saved time and manpower :sarcasm:

[old mark]

22. WHY...

...do you still believe that any "Government" still has your best interest in mind. They are interested in the individual as a potential voter and as a taxpayer, and that is all.
Government of all types clearly is not the friend of any individual of any political belief.
They are as much a group of fucking thugs as any drug gang.
Actually, with a drug gang, at least you get drugs.

mark

[iverglas]

29. sounds like

how most of the civilized world does it. ;)

Marriage has been found by your Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. You still need a license to get married, and there are still restrictions (not counting the unconstitutional ones on the sex of the parties) on who may be issued a licence. "Shall issue", as long as there are only two of you and you're both adults and you're not brother and sister ...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[slackmaster]

34. Federal government has no authority to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of used things

Federal law cannot involve itself in private-party transfers of ordinary firearms (meaning firearms not regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 which are essentially war materiel). A national registry would obviously require federal laws, regulations, etc.

Therefore a national gun registry would not be Constitutional.

[Tejas]

55. Basic things are oft overlooked,

and sometimes are just not common knowledge. Thanks for the reminder, helps to keep discussions on this subject above board.

[slackmaster]

56. I appreciate your comment very much, Tejas

I often feel like the child pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

[dmsk8]

35. It's illega

Here's a reason no one has raised. Simply put, it is illegal to establish a gun owner or firearm registry under existing Federal law. Here is the relevant excerpt from 18 USC 926(a):

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

Emphasis mine.

I would point out to when many laws proposing establishing licensing or registration schemes at the Federal level are proposed, they all include language that quietly repeals this section. It is a tacit acknowledgment that this is the law of the land which must be changed in order for gun registration to stand.

[iverglas]

46. l

Oops, I guess you didn't get a chance to edit.

[spin]

37. The government has the ability to tell that you own guns...

With all the sophisticated data mining technology available it's all not that difficult to come up with a fairly accurate list of gun owners.

Despite privacy concerns about CAPPS II that were raised by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, top U.S. officials continue to express faith that the technology will prove to be useful for national security purposes.

"This issue of using data to ferret out evildoers, many administration officials believe very firmly this is the way we should be going and that the barriers there should be overcome because it will result in a greater good," said another former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's a philosophy that if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if I know what movies you rent? Who you are talking to? If you live a godly life, a perfect life, you don't have worry about 100 percent disclosure."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402063.html

To me, the basic idea in the OP is a good idea. I'm already on a list of gun owners as I have a concealed carry permit, therefore I am registered.

The requirements suggested are very similar to those for a carry permit. Determining a persons mental heath might prove to be a problem, since there are privacy concerns. The individual applying for the permit could be required to grant permission for access to his records. Some form of mental health data base would have to be set up similar to the current criminal data base for the licensing agency to use.

The one thing I would add to the suggestion is that anyone who passed all the requirements and obtained the license would be allowed to carry a weapon concealed. Since this would be a federal license, he should be allowed to carry anywhere in the country.

I sincerely doubt anti-gunners would like this idea.

[Tejas]

38. just a note

"The requirements suggested are very similar to those for a carry permit. Determining a persons mental heath might prove to be a problem, since there are privacy concerns. The individual applying for the permit could be required to grant permission for access to his records. Some form of mental health data base would have to be set up similar to the current criminal data base for the licensing agency to use."


This part of your post reminded me of California recently handing over approximately 200,000 patient records to the NICS system.

[spin]

39. A note to your note...

You prompted me to do a little research on mental records provided to NICS. I found these remarks by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey:


As the Virginia Tech tragedy made clear, it is vital that NICS have accurate and complete information on persons prohibited from possessing firearms because of mental health history. Several states have begun submitting records that previously had not, or have worked to increase the number of records they submit.

As of November first, 32 states have submitted records. Ohio increased its records from just a handful to more than 7,000. And California recently made more than 200,000 available. Though there is more to be done, that is tremendous progress, and I want to thank those states – particularly California - for the hard work I know they have put into this effort.

As the information available to NICS increases, we can ensure that required background checks are thorough and complete, while still protecting privacy. I look forward to reporting back to you in due course that all 50 states are providing prohibiting mental health records to NICS, so that we can have the most complete and accurate background check possible to protect public safety.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_071129.html

You learn something new everyday.

[HK91-762mm]

43. Trick question

At the time the Constitution was written the word regulated Was Used in the context as==Regulating the barrels of a double barrel gun as so they both fire into the same center of the target.
Thus the term well regulated would mean ==well aligned!
Secondly-If the government knows I have guns because I'm registered the can come to my place and confiscate them==JUST LIKE THEY DID IN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA!

[iverglas]

45. neat avatar you've got there!

!

[iiibbb]

44. Isn't incumbent on the proponents of gun control to prove it would reduce crime or is consitutional?

It seems to me that it's up to the proponents of new laws to firmly demonstrate the mechanisms that it would reduce crime or accidents. It is up to them to make the constitutional arguments. It seems gun owners are the only one "compromising" in a gun registration scenario. What do we get in return? Most gun registration is proposed under the "treat guns like cars" paradigm.

Ok...

I'll tell you when you'll have my ear. When my registration(license) comes with guarantees that I can carry my gun openly or concealed in any state, most locations, without fear of harassment by law enforcement. As it stands now registration just adds one expensive layer with no guarantee that it will lower accidents or crimes any significant margin. I'm sure it could prevent a few crimes... and there are those that say "if it saves one child, it's worth it". Well, I don't agree. There are lots of things this country could do that would save all sorts of children, but it doesn't because of costs and logistics. Education programs, free locks, safe subsidies, etc. could also save children from gun accidents... I dare say might even cost less and save more kids than a registration program could ever do.

Just like abortion, guns are a controversial freedom that has certain societal consequences. We weigh these consequences against freedom and against the Constitution. I personally don't think there is necessarily a Constitutional roadblock against certain types of registration... but certainly I think there are against registration as it is usually proposed. Therefore, those who propose registration have to think about what kinds of deals they're willing to make.

I think just about the only deal that a gun owner (and not all of them) might consider... is that the permit grant fewer restrictions as to where and how a gun may be possessed in public nationwide... even then I'm not sure you'd get people to go for it.

[Tejas]

48. it's so the antis

will "feel safe"

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

[Turbo Teg]

49. Well,

Back in the day regulation meant armed. A well regulated militia meant "a well armed militia".

REGULATORS!!!!!

[maxidivine]

50. MOUNT UP!!!!

[slackmaster]

57. Here's a concrete example of why gun owner registration is bad

An Illinois man who has not even been charged with any crime had his FOID card revoked arbitrarily by the police. His wife has been missing for over a year. Why they decided to do this now, only they know.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357461,00.html

Police confiscated 24 firearms, all legally owned. This is clearly an abuse of police power, but there is no check in place to keep it under control.

[iverglas]

58. and just exactly how stupid are you going to feel

when her body is found and the bullet in it is matched to one of his 24 guns?

Oh well, her body may never be found. And so you'll be able to continue pretending this man is the poor victim of tyranny.

Some people really do have no shame.

[slackmaster]

59. Probably not as stupid as you will feel

When she is found in another state living under an assumed identity.

[iverglas]

60. yup, just another rotten woman

trying to ruin a poor man's life.

Now, women sometimes do move to other jurisdictions and change their names. Oddly enough, it's usually to escape men who are trying to kill them ...

[slackmaster]

61. Yup, just another evil, woman-hating man

:eyes:

[Tejas]

64. ...with a bunch of GUNS

:sarcasm: !

[iverglas]

66. you've both got it, it seems

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/craig.stebic.lisa.2.731816.html

May 23, 2008 6:38 pm US/Central

While 24 guns were taken from the Stebic home after Lisa disappeared, today's filing claims additional weapons were not seized.

And on one or more occasions, the couple's "…son had possession of a loaded gun without supervision...and that Stebic "loaded firearms for the children's use, while he was intoxicated..."

... The Ruttenbergs (Lisa Stebic's parents) also claim Stebic had threatened to kill them.

... In fact, on the day Lisa Stebic disappeared, this court filing says, she told her own grandparents that Craig had been brainwashing the children.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-stebic_both_24may24,0,1830590.story

11:14 PM CDT, May 23, 2008

His wife, Lisa, was 37 when she vanished from their Plainfield home April 30, 2007. She and her husband had begun divorce proceedings, and the day she disappeared, she mailed her lawyer a petition seeking to evict him.

... According to the court documents filed Friday, the Stebics were in the midst of divorce proceedings for a second time when she disappeared. Shortly before the couple's daughter was born in 1995, Lisa Stebic filed for divorce on grounds of "extreme and repeated mental cruelty," the documents say.

After the baby was born, Lisa and Craig Stebic reconciled, but Craig remained hostile toward his wife's parents, the Ruttenbergs claim.

"Mr. Stebic called Lawrence Ruttenberg and said that, if he or Judith Ruttenberg ever came onto Mr. Stebic's property again, Mr. Stebic would cut Lisa up into a million pieces, no one would find her, and he would kill both Lawrence Ruttenberg and Judith Ruttenberg as well," the documents said.

Now ... either Lisa Stebic and her entire family are liars ... or this person is indeed just about the textbook example of an evil, woman-hating man ... with guns.


You people and your bedfellows. You're so cute.


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/922679,4_1_JO30_AUTHOR_S1.article

In her research of murders and mysterious disappearances of women, journalist Marilee Strong discovered a pattern.

Men were killing their partners, not for money or jealousy, but because the women were no longer convenient. Their relationships had no history of violence, but the women either vanished without a trace or were victims of staged suicides or accidents.

The men left behind are expert liars, she said. Manipulators who are hungry for attention.

Strong calls them "eraser" killings. Her book on the topic, "Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives," hit bookstores in March.

... Strong said she sees similarities between the cases in her book and two high-profile missing person cases from Will County -- Lisa Stebic of Plainfield and Stacy Peterson of Bolingbrook.

... "The most horrifying thing I've seen is there's a significant number of men who get away with it and go on to kill another partner or significant other," she said.

But who gives a fuck?

The most important thing is that nobody separate the menz from their gunz.

[slackmaster]

68. Taking away peoples' civil rights because of ALLEGATIONS is neither liberal nor progressive

[DrCory]

71. Or, better yet...

"The most important thing is that nobody separate the menz from their gunz."

It is most important that people, both men and women, not be separated from their constitutionally protected rights as the result of allegations. Unless, of course, you believe that allegations carry equal weight as evidenced facts.

Oh, and women (and their families) do lie by the way. Is that a revelation to you?

[iverglas]

72. revelation?

Oh, and women (and their families) do lie by the way. Is that a revelation to you?

Would you think so?

The actual question would be: is this fact relevant? Has this family lied? Is there any evidence that would suggest the family has lied? Is there any basis whatsoever for thinking, let alone suggesting or implying or stating, that the family has lied?

In other words, would there be any basis for asking one of the family members, in a court, "Are you lying?" If not, why is your assertion relevant here?


It is most important that people, both men and women, not be separated from their constitutionally protected rights as the result of allegations.

Funny. Many people think it is MOST IMPORTANT that people not be killed.

Of course, that is a constitutional right, so I guess you have a point.

Some people actually think it's important that children be protected from all forms of abuse and neglect, too. In some places, like where I'm at, that's a constitutional right, in fact: the right to security of the person, and the corresponding obligation of the state not to permit harm to be caused by one person to another.

Aren't some people just the funniest things? They actually don't think that the most important thing is that the menz not be separated from their gunz ...

[slackmaster]

76. Talk about irrelevancies...

Has this family lied? Is there any evidence that would suggest the family has lied? Is there any basis whatsoever for thinking, let alone suggesting or implying or stating, that the family has lied?

None of that matters.

We have two paths for disarming someone short of a criminal conviction, mental health adjudication, etc.:

A. A restraining order alleging domestic violence, and

B. Indictment on a felony of any kind, or on a violent misdemeanor.

Both of those require someone to make a sworn statement and have some kind of documentation that there is a criminal problem. Allegations don't. People involved in divorce situations say defamatory, false things all the time, and it's perfectly normal for their families to back them up. My divorce was amicable yet still my ex told whopping lies about me until it was over.

Some people actually think it's important that children be protected from all forms of abuse and neglect, too. In some places, like where I'm at, that's a constitutional right, in fact: the right to security of the person, and the corresponding obligation of the state not to permit harm to be caused by one person to another.

Very ironic in the context of the fallout from the raid on the Texas FLDS compound. Those "authorities" were just trying to protect children from abuse. They overstepped their legitimate power, and caused irrepairable harm to the state's ability to form a case against any individuals who were actually involved in abuse of children.

They actually don't think that the most important thing is that the menz not be separated from their gunz ...

Wow, a plain old straw man.

[iverglas]

79. well apparently that ain't so

We have two paths for disarming someone short of a criminal conviction, mental health adjudication, etc.:

A. A restraining order alleging domestic violence, and

B. Indictment on a felony of any kind, or on a violent misdemeanor.


First, just a humble request.

Is there any chance we could do without the moronic jargon?

"Disarming someone". Now, if a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of hunting, s/he is never "armed". If a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of skeet shooting, s/he is never "armed". If a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of investing, s/he is never "armed".

Eligibility to acquire and possess firearms has nothing to do with the purpose for which someone wishes to acquire and possess them, generally. So it has nothing to do with anyone being "armed", from the point of view of the authority that determines eligibility.

So what you have is two paths for disqualifying someone from acquiring and possessing firearms, and enforcing that disqualification when it occurs after someone has acquired firearms. Not for "disarming" anyone.

Alrighty.

It seems not to be so. It seems that the FOID requirement in Illinois is more expansive than that.


And what the rest of it comes down to is:

(a) I and many people would prefer to err on the side of temporarily depriving someone of eligibility to possess firearms, and of firearms, where there is reason to believe that s/he has harmed or is harming or will harm another person.

(b) You and others here would prefer to err on the side of someone getting killed, where there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has either a disqualifying criminal record or a disqualifying mental health record (or a current restraining order or outstanding criminal charges).


Both of those require someone to make a sworn statement and have some kind of documentation that there is a criminal problem. Allegations don't.

Well, we don't actually know whether there are sworn statements in this case, maybe -- although given that there are child access proceedings underway in civil court, I would expect there are affidavits or solemn declarations involved.

So require a sworn statement. Seems easy to me. A sworn statement attesting to harm or fear of harm. Ta da.

Mind you ... someone, like an abused woman, might be reluctant to go doing something like that. And without the sworn statement, the man who everyone knew was at risk of causing harm to others, but had nothing they could swear to that met the criteria, might just shoot his wife, or his kids, or his wife and kids, and/or himself ...

But hell. They'd all die with his constitutional rights uninfringed.


They actually don't think that the most important thing is that the menz not be separated from their gunz ...
Wow, a plain old straw man.

I'm afraid I'm just not smelling any straw.

What I'm seeing is you and others insisting that men's right to possess firearms outweighs anyone's interest in safety, i.e. in life. And that's what I said.

[slackmaster]

81. I'll just skip the bullshit and cut to the chase

What I'm seeing is you and others insisting that men's right to possess firearms outweighs anyone's interest in safety, i.e. in life. And that's what I said.

You are totally wrong.

I am saying that civil rights should not be curtailed through someone's subjective, arbitrary judgement. We restrict peoples' freedom through processes that have checks and balances, and accountability. If someone makes a false affidavit on something like a restraining order, that person can be charged with perjury or sued in civil court. There may be, as pippoman pointed out, an appeals process for this person to get his property back and have his name cleared, but there is no accountability for the "official" who decided to pull his FOID.

If the state has grounds to indict this man for a crime, say kidnapping or murder of his wife, let them form a case and indict him. Arrest, jail, and try him in court. People have been convicted of murder in the absence of a body. It can be done. What you are supporting her is state-sponsored harassment by the police of someone who has has not been charged with any kind of crime.

[DrCory]

87. It certainly is...

Relevant when allegations are granted the same gravity as facts. Especially if someone is to be deprived of personal property based on allegations. With that in mind, is there any proof as of yet in this case that they did not lie? If, as it seems, you support the right of law enforcement to seize property based on suspicion or allegation, than I suppose you would have no objection if the police were to confiscate any potentially lethal objects in your possession because your neighbor alleged you were planning to cause him harm. After all, following your line of logic, his right not to be killed supersedes yours to be secure in your property.

Some people actually think it's important that children be protected from all forms of abuse and neglect, too. In some places, like where I'm at, that's a constitutional right, in fact: the right to security of the person, and the corresponding obligation of the state not to permit harm to be caused by one person to another.

I would imagine there are some evidential requirements before the state is permitted to fulfill this obligation.

[iverglas]

90. I see

The fact that "families do lie" is relevant TO THIS CASE. Is that what you're saying? So were you going to produce something on which to base that assertion of relevance?


With that in mind, is there any proof as of yet in this case that they did not lie?

Gosh. Proof that someone did not lie. That's an odd concept.

Generally speaking, people make their statements -- sometimes under oath, as it seems these people have done -- and if someone wants to prove they're lying, well s/he can go right ahead and do so.

I've never encountered this "proof that they did not lie" notion before, I think. Invent it, did you? Too bad you didn't do it several centuries ago. Or maybe lucky you didn't. I'm thinking a whole lot of motherkillers and fatherrapers would have gone on to commit more mayhem, when nobody was able to prove that the witnesses against them weren't lying.

Proof somebody wasn't lying. That's a whole new one on me. And I can just imagine ... no, I know quite well ... what would have happened if I'd got up in court and said: Constable, can you prove you aren't lying?

Maybe you're thinking of corroborative evidence. And maybe you're suggesting there isn't any here. I dunno. Beyond me, it is.

I'll bet this guy has a lawyer or two. Maybe you could all get retainers to advise them.


... and the corresponding obligation of the state not to permit harm to be caused by one person to another.
I would imagine there are some evidential requirements before the state is permitted to fulfill this obligation.

I would imagine ... no, I would conclude from the available facts ... that that makes no sense.

I'd say that if there's no evidence, then the obligation is merely inchoate and there'd be no question of fulfilling it, other than in the general way the state fulfils that obligation, i.e. by making laws to prohibit everybody from harming anybody else, and punishing those properly found guilty of doing so.

I know, I know, I know. Removing someone's firearms from his/her possession is about the harshest punishment there can be. And it must not be done unless and until someone has been caught with a body or three at his/her feet and the proverbial smoking in his/her hand. Then we'll hang 'em high -- and point out how this anecdote proves nothing, and express our sincere condolences to whatever survivors there are -- and all will be right with the world.

I think the same approach should be taken when it comes to speeding and drunk driving. No harm caused to anybody, no driver's licence suspensions, let alone jail terms. Donchoo?

Regulating behaviour is just such an evil concept. We should really all be at perfect liberty to do anything we want, and then if something bad happens, well, we'll be responsible. And everybody else can point fingers at us and feel superior and pat themselves on the back and go home.

[pipoman]

73. I agree

with your take on this case. Not the sarcasm but that I would be extremely surprised if this woman is ever found alive, in fact the chances are astronomical. I spent a lot of time looking for people who do not want to be found..much, much easier said than done..one might say impossible...20 years ago, maybe. The odds that he was somehow involved in her disappearance are extremely high. The revocation of his FOID card after a year is a great tool for law enforcement to keep him on his toes. He should expect and receive more of the same in the future. All this assuming there are no other viable suspects in her disappearance.

[iverglas]

74. thank you

I'm actually quite sure you're not the only one. ;)

I prefer neither to leap to conclusions based on completely inadequate facts nor to ignore the obvious staring me in the face.

The current allegations regarding the parenting practices of this individual combine with other information and just make a little too complete a picture that fits the pattern too well. As it happens, his parenting practices look like they may be the only recognized reason for removing his firearms authorization. At least it's fairly predictable that a wife-killer will be a pretty bad father.

You probably haven't heard of Colin Thatcher. The CBC docudrama of that story, Love and Hate, is highly rated everywhere.

It seems to have a longer title in the US:

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/30265/Love-and-Hate-A-Marriage-Made-in-Hell/overview

He was a rich rancher and a cabinet minister in the Conservative govt of Saskatchewan, and he had his wife murdered. He was just denied parole again recently. (We have a faint-hope clause for people sentenced to serve a minimum period without parole of a life sentence.) The movie focuses a fair amount on how he brainwashed his children -- turning children into such monsters is an ugly form of abuse in itself.

[pipoman]

75. I would guess the thinking might go like this

We will revoke his FOID. Being too lazy to look it up, I would guess there is a hearing/challenge provision for revocations. If the guy chooses to challenge he will likely have to make statements, answer questions or testify on his own behalf. This would allow some level of questioning by the state. The state would ask tough questions which they already know the answer and can prove. If the guy lies they would be able to prosecute him on some sort of perjury. These tactics are often used by prosecutors against prime suspects in serious crimes, revocation of state issued professional licenses etc. in attempt to get the person on the witness stand. I have personally seen this happen against a nurse, a real estate agent, a liquor store owner and a strip bar owner (revocation of their state issued license to do business while under investigation for other crimes that is). The nurse was suspected of multiple counts of distribution of cocaine. She had a great lawyer who responded by requesting a hearing on the revocation which allowed for subpoena of witnesses. He then issued subpoenas to every police officer, detective, lab person and prosecutor involved in the criminal investigation. The revocation was dropped by the state. The nurse was later charged and convicted but the state didn't want to reveal their hand at the hearing on the revocation.

[slackmaster]

77. It will be interesting to see if this situation ever gets resolved

If the outcome is a criminal indictment against the man; or a restoration of his FOID card and return of his property, the system will have worked as you describe.

If not, then it surely runs against the spirit and intent of the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional cases often involve people who are not pleasant or likeable.

[pipoman]

86. I don't know this guy, obviously

but have seen cases in addition to the high profile cases which only someone who is in complicity with the subject could deny the level motive."She and her husband had begun divorce proceedings, and the day she disappeared, she mailed her lawyer a petition seeking to evict him." and possible previous verbal threats of murder and a description of a plan for disposal of the body. The parents story may be a lie. If the parents claim is verified prior to the disappearance by them telling a third party or making a report, the police would rightfully believe the claim of the parents. The police/prosecutor would be naturally skeptical of a claim which couldn't be verified. The divorce proceedings are really enough motive to strongly suspect him. I consider myself a civil libertarian and at one time was a card carrying ACLU member(and NRA since the ACLU is a failure on the 2nd IMHO. No longer a member of either). The laws of IL allow for the FOID card and revocation of it. Any challenge or law suit would be a civil case. It would be nearly impossible to challenge successfully without the subject testifying/deposing, which would suck bad if he is squeaky clean. It is, as I said before, a useful tool for the police. If he doesn't use remedies at his disposal to get the guns/FOID back it is because he doesn't want to endure the process for one reason,...or more likely another. I say tough shit..he'll either get them back in a few years or will be convicted of some felony.

[stompk]

105. The revocation of his FOID card after a year is a great tool for law enforcement to keep him on his

"The revocation of his FOID card after a year is a great tool for law enforcement to keep him on his toes."

but without proof of guilt? maybe they should put him in prison. . . just until she is found?

how is that different ?

[Tejas]

65. gunowner = guilty until proven innocent n/t

[slackmaster]

78. Gun owner + Male = Two Strikes

:nuke:

[iverglas]

80. you know

One seldom has such a chance to see the whining white man doing his thing in his natural habitat as one has hereabouts.


Only one of my lovers owned firearms to my knowledge, but then there were, uh, a few I didn't get to know well enough to enquire ... And there was my good buddy with the sporting handgun he hadn't done anything with in years, as far as I know, but we kept it to the Tuesday nights with a little spaghetti, a little red wine, a little homegrown and a few treacle toffee puddings and the latest episode of Red Dwarf and no hanky panky ... although I imagine we both wonder what we might have missed ... Trust me, the firearm would not have stood between us had the occasion arisen.

So c'mon, slacky: aren't you going to get in line for the marry a Canadian and get your free health care lottery??

[slackmaster]

82. What does my race have to do with anything?

Are you a racist as well as a misandrist?

[iverglas]

83. hmm

adding that missing word ...



What does my race have to do with anything?

I just so seldom see black men (or women) hanging around the Guns forum whining about anything ...


Are you a racist as well as a misandrist?

Are you having another divorce or something?

You sure have turned incoherently nasty lately ...

[slackmaster]

84. In fact you have never SEEN anyone on this forum, so you really can't be sure

what color anyone's skin is, except where they have shown you.

...You sure have turned incoherently nasty lately ...

Well, there's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.

[iverglas]

85. well that ain't quite so

I happen to be looking at one on youtube as we speak. Plays a very fine acoustic blues guitar. And not just for an old dead white guy. I've been converted.

And oh yes. Your sig line friend is an old white guy too, that one I can vouch for. ;)


I gotta tell ya, this whole place turned more than usually incoherently nasty while I was gone. My latest ban from the genealogy board will be up soon (damn, I'm just so rude to people who spam the forums there with multiple posts about the same thing and end up wasting multiple people's time, which is so against the rules ... but they don't have clever people like Wickerman running the show, so they just ban people whenever somebody complains ...), so anyhow, your apoplexy may get a chance to go into remission before long.

[stompk]

104. ahhh

guilty until proven innocent. that should save some trial costs.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Regulated

In the context of the 2nd Amendment, I don't believe your usage of the word Regulated is correct. Try thinking of it as 'equipped'. At one point there were state laws requiring a certain amount of shot, powder, flint, and a working rifle. Look to the American Heritage Dictionary's 4th definition of the word, "To put or maintain in order".

That's my opinion anyway. The Supreme Court will probably touch on the intent of that word, and the entire supporting clause when it issues it's decision on D.C. vs. Heller.

[krispos42]

67. An awful lot of crime is done via computer

Feel like having your PC or Mac registered? And, since is uses Internet access like a gun uses ammunition, we'd have to register your modem/WiFi/router as well, so we can track down both the computer owner and the location that crime was committed from.

So explain to me how this 1) Wouldn't be constitutional. 2) Wouldn't reduce cumputer crime. 3) Isn't a good idea.



Here's another one: how about each time you take money out of the bank, the serial numbers of the bills are recorded along with a date/time/location stamp and account or driver's-license number, then put in a federal database?

Think about how many drug users or johns we could get! When the cops bust a dealer or a hooker, they run a check on the money found. If any of it came right out of an ATM machine, they go bust the guy!

[jody]

93. Because no one can guarantee that a registration data base will not be used to confiscate firearms.

That's why I oppose registration.

[iverglas]

94. watch out! watch out!

They're coming for your minivan. There they are! They're turning into the driveway! There's the tow truck! Don't you just wish you'd just said NO when they told you you had to register it???

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

95. Some interpretations of Am. II are even more restrictive

Some hard-core gun control advocates believe that "well regulated militia" only gives militias the right to hold arms, not private individuals!

I would take a somewhat more liberal perspective on the amendment (by "liberal" I actually mean "pro gun") and argue that the people DO have a right to bear firearms as individuals, but that modest regulations are acceptable (background checks, registration, age restrictions, and the like)

[Xela]

102. Because registration is useless

Mexico, which has a very closely related gun culture like ours, is a good example.

Mexico has strict gun control laws including registration and it has done NOTHING but hurt law abidding legally armed people. Abuse of power, ignorant officials, arrogant management of the law, callously biased interpretation, etc...these are all constant pains that a legally armed citizenship should be guarded against.

And that's with a Mexican constitution that legally guarantees the right to self defense with a firearm to its inhabitants!!!

Xela

[old mark]

103. All your provisions are met under US law.

The background check that is MANDATORY whenever anyone buys a gun is a police computerized check of your record since you were 18 ( any criminal record before that time is sealed by law). You MUST give yous SSAN, your full name and current address. You must (here in PA, at least) fill out a federal and State police form for any gun, plus a thire state form if you are buying a handgun, as well as undergo the background check. You must also pay for all of it.
I would not like to see the Feds get involved in this any more than they already are-do you really trust them?
The system in Pennsylvania is exactly what you propose-the owners record-criminal. mantal health, etc, are ON FILE with the state on computer, and this information can be downloaded to any police link-even to individual patrol cars in any small town or county in the state.
To get a license to carry a firearm, there is yet another form and several background checks done by the county sheriff, again at your cost.
(FWIW, I have had one of these for nearly 14 years now.)
I have read that in PA with this system, fewer than 1/10 of 1% of all
persons licensed to carry a firearm are involved in a gun related crime per year.
The numbers are quite large - over 4 years ago, the number of persons licensed to carry a firearm (handgun) just here in Berks County, PA was over 25,000. The number has been growing every year since.

mark

[Thirylaermi]

107. Registration

I agree that gun ownership should registration. Florida has a good law called 10/20 life where you go away 10 years automatically if you use a gun in the commision of a crime, 20 years if you shoot it and life if you hit someone.

[jeepnstein]

110. Perhaps we should have a series of tests

We could test before a person was given permission to engage in free speech, to vote, or join a church. That would ensure that only the right types of people, you know, people we like can exercise their Constitutional Privileges. Full citizenship could only be extended to those people who meet the government's criteria. That's the problem with this country today, too many people act like they should just be free to live peaceably without government intrusion into their lives. How can we be sure they are thinking and acting correctly unless they have to pass tests every few years?

[SlipperySlope]

111. Two problems with this understanding...

1: The initial clause is prefatory, not limiting. The initial clause serves to explain the purpose, not limit the scope.

"A well-educated populus being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Nothing in the first clause could be read to restrict books to only some sub-class of the population that had achieved some minimum level of education, nor would the first clause be read to mandate some national program of education.

2: The adjective "well-regulated", as used in the 18th century, implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. Effectively it means the same as if you wrote "well functioning" today.

One place where the word "regulated" has kept this meaning into the twenty-first century is timepieces. When you say a wristwatch is "well regulated" you mean that it keeps time accurately, not that there are many laws imposing conditions on its use.

[Real_Talk]

112. try this

a well educated jury pool being necessary to the preservation of a free state,the right to keep and read books will not be infringed.

I think this is a bit better analogy, since it gives a similar state centered prefatory phrase. I am sure that not too many would think that you had to be doing jury duty or be a registered juror keep or read your books.