The Coming Of Firearm Confiscation In The United States

[rmgill]

Actually before I got on the internet and found the abovementioned Chicken Little sentiment expressed by high-pitched choirs on various US-centric gun boards, my main insight into the American gun control debate was from random issues of "Guns & Ammo" that would for some reason show up once in a while at the local railway station newsstand. Though I will admit to also having a "Newsweek" subscription at that time, which once in a while supplied the high-pitched counterpoint.

 

Gun confiscation was not a boogie man that didn't exist. It happened in smaller form in a number of states like New Jersey and California. First came registration then came a ban. California is going through this right now with their Assault weapons ban having changes made administratively as political figures see fit and moving firearms from a formerly acceptable to unacceptable mode much to the surprise of the citizens. Fail to get the notice and you're a felon.

 

Between Chicago, DC, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California, gun control was very much alive and had many forms.

[DKTanker]

Actually before I got on the internet and found the abovementioned Chicken Little sentiment expressed by high-pitched choirs on various US-centric gun boards, my main insight into the American gun control debate was from random issues of "Guns & Ammo" that would for some reason show up once in a while at the local railway station newsstand. Though I will admit to also having a "Newsweek" subscription at that time, which once in a while supplied the high-pitched counterpoint.

 

Gun confiscation was not a boogie man that didn't exist. It happened in smaller form in a number of states like New Jersey and California. First came registration then came a ban. California is going through this right now with their Assault weapons ban having changes made administratively as political figures see fit and moving firearms from a formerly acceptable to unacceptable mode much to the surprise of the citizens. Fail to get the notice and you're a felon.

 

Between Chicago, DC, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California, gun control was very much alive and had many forms.

Let's not forget what Janet Reno, US AG, said 10 months after her massacre in Waco, on December 10, 1993:

 

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

 

Not one leftist, not one banisher, stood up to say she was wrong, to say she really ought to take another swipe at reading the Constitution and the Federalist papers. They didn't say it because they totally agreed with the sentiment.

[Simon Tan]

Guns? They are going to ban subway trains. There simply is no need for a subway train. You can go where you nned to on foot.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Simon Tan

[BansheeOne]

Gun confiscation was not a boogie man that didn't exist. It happened in smaller form in a number of states like New Jersey and California. First came registration then came a ban. California is going through this right now with their Assault weapons ban having changes made administratively as political figures see fit and moving firearms from a formerly acceptable to unacceptable mode much to the surprise of the citizens. Fail to get the notice and you're a felon.

 

Between Chicago, DC, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California, gun control was very much alive and had many forms.

 

I don't doubt the intent. I sincerely doubt the chance on the national level within the next 20 years as has been warned here. As noted, even in DC and Illinois, gun control legislation has been rolled back by Supreme Court decisions.

 

Here is a dilemma I see regarding registration. Everybody agrees firearms should be kept out of the hands of criminals and mental cases. As mentioned, this gets often circumvented through relatives or acquaintances, willingly or, as apparently in the Connecticut case, not. Obviously registration would not stop all those cases either - in our last instance of a school shooting in Germany, the perpetrator (also in previous treatment for mental issues) took a handgun of his father's who, contrary to safe storage regulations, had not kept it in a single access gun safe with his other guns, but in a bedroom closet, possibly for self-defense (he is currently in an appeals trial for involuntary manslaughter).

 

But I don't see how you could even begin to get a handle on the problem of legal handguns passing on to those who shouldn't have them without tracking near as every single one as possible. Of course that would run into the opposition of those who see registration as a preparatory step for eventual confiscation, and in fact that logic cannot be dismissed. So the problem remains unresolved.

[Jeff]

Canada might have a different opinion about the effectiveness of registration.

[Mike Steele]

Guns? They are going to ban subway trains. There simply is no need for a subway train. You can go where you nned to on foot.

 

Subway trains should be banned. 2 deaths in NYC, wont they think of the children!

[Archie Pellagio]

What is the constitutional justification for denying former felons the right to bear arms?

[R011]

Canada might have a different opinion about the effectiveness of registration.

With the exception of handguns and certain restricted weapons, like automatic weapons, we now licence the owners, not the weapons themselves, and haev training and storage requiremennts.

.

The Canadian laws seem to work reasonably well in some respects. Gun accidents are down sharply from before the law was passed. Registering handguns and other restricted weapons has worked - in the sense that just about all legally owned handguns are registered. Trying to register long guns was a failure, though. It was hugely expensive, was met with a great deal of non-compliance, and was so unpopular that the government was able to abolish it without political penalty.

 

Arguably, they have not worked in other cases. Criminals still don't register their guns and seem to have no great difficulty getting them. Meanwhile, the fall in the Canadian homicide rate is less than that of the US where gun laws that were already looser have loosened even more. In my opinion, we could drop our equivalent of the AWB, stop registering handguns, and permit CCW and I'll wager it would make little or no difference to rates of crime. suicide, and accidental deaths.

[DougRichards]

Canada might have a different opinion about the effectiveness of registration.

With the exception of handguns and certain restricted weapons, like automatic weapons, we now licence the owners, not the weapons themselves, and haev training and storage requiremennts.

.

The Canadian laws seem to work reasonably well in some respects. Gun accidents are down sharply from before the law was passed. Registering handguns and other restricted weapons has worked - in the sense that just about all legally owned handguns are registered. Trying to register long guns was a failure, though. It was hugely expensive, was met with a great deal of non-compliance, and was so unpopular that the government was able to abolish it without political penalty.

 

Arguably, they have not worked in other cases. Criminals still don't register their guns and seem to have no great difficulty getting them. Meanwhile, the fall in the Canadian homicide rate is less than that of the US where gun laws that were already looser have loosened even more. In my opinion, we could drop our equivalent of the AWB, stop registering handguns, and permit CCW and I'll wager it would make little or no difference to rates of crime. suicide, and accidental deaths.

 

What is wrong with using the same system as used for motor vehicles? You licence drivers, and register vehicles, with vehicles requiring inspection for roadworthiness at intervals. Specialist vehicles get specialised registration, and require specialised licences to operate.

 

Why could not this work with firearms?

[rmgill]

Bully if there's then a respect across all 50 states for those drivers licenses and if I'm legal to have a machine gun in my state then I can take it to New York and the NYPD can go pound sand. Currently, they don't respect other state issued carry licenses. Any time we float a bill saying they should the liberals argue that it trods upon state's rights.

[nitflegal]

 

What is wrong with using the same system as used for motor vehicles? You licence drivers, and register vehicles, with vehicles requiring inspection for roadworthiness at intervals. Specialist vehicles get specialised registration, and require specialised licences to operate.

 

Why could not this work with firearms?

 

I suspect the first problem is that it would be a compulsory registration, if the idea of an armed militia is to keep the government from being able to squash its citizens then having a database of everyone who owns a firearm might be an issue. More broadly, I may be a little bit embittered about this but living in NE I have seen how the tendency up here is for any form of registration/license of firearms to become a political tool. I've never had anything more than a speeding ticket 15 years ago and I can't get a CCW permit, for instance. I would fear that the registration process would be used to "discourage" firearm owning at the least through fees or requirements or would be outright used locally or nationally to keep people from getting them. Is there a mandatory yearly exam? Can the government make it a zero failure one on a tough enough test to prevent many from passing? With fees, why should people have to pay to use a constitutional right? If it's wrong to require ID to vote because a person may have difficulty getting to an office to get a free ID why is this acceptable?

 

Again, I am perhaps a bit warier based on where I live but what I have seen is the state and local gov't do everything it can to prevent people from getting forearms, using every gray area and outright favoritism (if you know the chief and are politically connected, you get a CCW permit, otherwise pound sand) to keep people from having guns. I fail to see the left not doing the same if given even a slim opportunity.

 

I've told it before, but here is the story of mine that sticks. A close friend is a SWAT cop who commuted from MA. He requested a CCW permit so he could more easily transport his gear in his vehicle. He was repeatedly denied and eventually had to move out of state to get one. He was a freaking multi-year full time police officer who had a legitimate LEO need for a permit and even HE couldn't get one. I don't trust the gov't havng any more say than can be avoided on firearms because we have seen that they will repeatedly abuse it to keep law abiding people from having access. Interestingly, my city has continued to have gun crimes go up as they have clamped down on legal ownership. Gosh, it's almost like the criminals not only keep getting guns, they use them more knowing they have a violent trump card that the victims are unlikely to be able to match. Weird. . .

 

Matt

[Simon Tan]

Silly Matt. The government would never tyrannize the population. Ever. They would never herd them into camps, steal their property etc. Ever. Silly Matt.

Democracies are simply incapable of such acts, by definition.

Since the US is a republic, that is why you need guns.

 

Silly Matt.

[R011]

What is wrong with using the same system as used for motor vehicles? You licence drivers, and register vehicles, with vehicles requiring inspection for roadworthiness at intervals. Specialist vehicles get specialised registration, and require specialised licences to operate.

 

Why could not this work with firearms?

Because people can't keep their cars in a closet and refuse to register them. There's also no fear that Big Brother will confiscate your car on a whim. It also helps that an automobile registry has been kept for a century or so while a gun registery had to be set up from scratch. A car registry is also more obviously useful as tracking vehicles by a big, easily visible licence plate is a lot easier than a hard-to-see serial number, like a VIN.

 

Now, while I can see licencing owners has some value, what does a central registry of each weapon they own do to reduce crime and accidents?

[DougRichards]

What is wrong with using the same system as used for motor vehicles? You licence drivers, and register vehicles, with vehicles requiring inspection for roadworthiness at intervals. Specialist vehicles get specialised registration, and require specialised licences to operate.

 

Why could not this work with firearms?

 

I suspect the first problem is that it would be a compulsory registration, if the idea of an armed militia is to keep the government from being able to squash its citizens then having a database of everyone who owns a firearm might be an issue. More broadly, I may be a little bit embittered about this but living in NE I have seen how the tendency up here is for any form of registration/license of firearms to become a political tool. I've never had anything more than a speeding ticket 15 years ago and I can't get a CCW permit, for instance. I would fear that the registration process would be used to "discourage" firearm owning at the least through fees or requirements or would be outright used locally or nationally to keep people from getting them. Is there a mandatory yearly exam? Can the government make it a zero failure one on a tough enough test to prevent many from passing? With fees, why should people have to pay to use a constitutional right? If it's wrong to require ID to vote because a person may have difficulty getting to an office to get a free ID why is this acceptable?

 

Again, I am perhaps a bit warier based on where I live but what I have seen is the state and local gov't do everything it can to prevent people from getting forearms, using every gray area and outright favoritism (if you know the chief and are politically connected, you get a CCW permit, otherwise pound sand) to keep people from having guns. I fail to see the left not doing the same if given even a slim opportunity.

 

I've told it before, but here is the story of mine that sticks. A close friend is a SWAT cop who commuted from MA. He requested a CCW permit so he could more easily transport his gear in his vehicle. He was repeatedly denied and eventually had to move out of state to get one. He was a freaking multi-year full time police officer who had a legitimate LEO need for a permit and even HE couldn't get one. I don't trust the gov't havng any more say than can be avoided on firearms because we have seen that they will repeatedly abuse it to keep law abiding people from having access. Interestingly, my city has continued to have gun crimes go up as they have clamped down on legal ownership. Gosh, it's almost like the criminals not only keep getting guns, they use them more knowing they have a violent trump card that the victims are unlikely to be able to match. Weird. . .

 

Matt

 

Except the original idea that lead to the 2nd amendment was that all able bodied males (I guess read that as 'free men') HAD to keep a musket, powder, ball, bayonet etc, and this was to be enforced by registration. quote:

 

"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394

 

So if the congress can legislate for compulsory gun ownership, presumeably enforceable by inspection and registration, why not registration of non-compulsory weapons? Note that the act also required compulsory enrollment in the militia of the area of residence.

[DougRichards]

What is wrong with using the same system as used for motor vehicles? You licence drivers, and register vehicles, with vehicles requiring inspection for roadworthiness at intervals. Specialist vehicles get specialised registration, and require specialised licences to operate.

 

Why could not this work with firearms?

Because people can't keep their cars in a closet and refuse to register them. There's also no fear that Big Brother will confiscate your car on a whim. It also helps that an automobile registry has been kept for a century or so while a gun registery had to be set up from scratch. A car registry is also more obviously useful as tracking vehicles by a big, easily visible licence plate is a lot easier than a hard-to-see serial number, like a VIN.

 

Now, while I can see licencing owners has some value, what does a central registry of each weapon they own do to reduce crime and accidents?

 

Don't guns have serial numbers imprinted by their manufacturer? Why bother having an ID number if those numbers are of no use?

[R011]

Because people can't keep their cars in a closet and refuse to register them. There's also no fear that Big Brother will confiscate your car on a whim. It also helps that an automobile registry has been kept for a century or so while a gun registery had to be set up from scratch. A car registry is also more obviously useful as tracking vehicles by a big, easily visible licence plate is a lot easier than a hard-to-see serial number, like a VIN.

 

Now, while I can see licencing owners has some value, what does a central registry of each weapon they own do to reduce crime and accidents?

 

Don't guns have serial numbers imprinted by their manufacturer? Why bother having an ID number if those numbers are of no use?

Do you have a more positive reason why a central registry of each weapon would reduce crime and accidents than that?

Edited December 30, 2012 by R011

[R011]

Don't guns have serial numbers imprinted by their manufacturer? Why bother having an ID number if those numbers are of no use?

Come to think of it, most manufactuired items have serial numbers imprinted by their manufacturer. I'm not aware of any call for a central registry of machine tools or IPods.

[Simon Tan]

If you do not take your car onto a public road, it does not need to be registered nor inspected.

 

ETA:- The initial requirements for clear and unique markings on firearms had to do with TAX. You needed to make sure that every firearm was accounted for as they were taxed individually. Hence the 'firearm' usually being the serialled part, most commonly the frame or action.

 

Serialising cars were for the same reason. Yes.....you pay taxes on each car manuctured.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Simon Tan

[DKTanker]

So if the congress can legislate for compulsory gun ownership, presumeably enforceable by inspection and registration, why not registration of non-compulsory weapons? Note that the act also required compulsory enrollment in the militia of the area of residence.

First, that law is no longer on the books, 2nd it might now find difficult to pass constitutional muster, third it doesn't answer the question as to why regulation is necessary. There is just one reason for registration, control. Convince people that it is in their best interest to relinquish freedom for control and then you'll get your universal registration of...everything if you so wish.

[DougRichards]

So if the congress can legislate for compulsory gun ownership, presumeably enforceable by inspection and registration, why not registration of non-compulsory weapons? Note that the act also required compulsory enrollment in the militia of the area of residence.

First, that law is no longer on the books, 2nd it might now find difficult to pass constitutional muster, third it doesn't answer the question as to why regulation is necessary. There is just one reason for registration, control. Convince people that it is in their best interest to relinquish freedom for control and then you'll get your universal registration of...everything if you so wish.

 

You are right, it is no longer on the books, which is unfortunate, because it is what actually gave meaning, and defined in the version ratified by the Congress, which implied control and registration as part of a militia:

 

quote

 

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."

 

as opposed to that ratified by the states (and we all know where the states' rights lead - to the continuation of slavery until 1865 and the ACW),

 

"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 punctuation is important, as emphasised in the following example 'Lets eat, grandma' rather than 'Lets eat grandma!:

 

perhaps leaning on the constitution and Bill Of Rights as it was originally written and ratified you would want to re-introduce slavery?

 

After all, the abolition of slavery, the 13th amendment, was achieved by force of arms, not by a democratic and unpressured movement. Would that stand up to current constitutional scrutiny?

 

Or perhaps the abolition of slavery can serve as the example for the reduction of firearms in society, after all slaves were freed by a Federal Government without recompense. At least there was no National Slavery Association in 1865.

 

 

So what did the Congress mean, and what did the states actually accept re tyhe bearing or arms? Maybe it is about time, given the contradictions in the two, to put the 2nd amendment back before the states and see what the result is now, except for the gun owners rights 'mob' having an undue influence, both financially and by direct threat against those who would want to change the status quo. (Cold dead hands....)

 

As I have said before: the NRA and others have decided that the death of twenty innocents outweighs the civil rights of even one gun owner.

[rmgill]

perhaps leaning on the constitution and Bill Of Rights as it was originally written and ratified you would want to re-introduce slavery?

 

BOLLOCKS. People try argue that originalist thought means that the constitution is static and unchanging. It's not, it can be changed.

 

Originalist thought hinges on one interpreting the Constitution to mean what it says and what it meant based on when it was written. That includes that Article V, the section on how to change the Constitution is used to change the Constitution. Changes via Article V are proper. Changes outside of Article V are NOT proper. You don't change it by just deeming that it's changed and go on about your business.

 

Handwaving into effect a change by moving the goalpost incrementally through court decision so that 3=10 by effect is bullshit. It's like having a series of court decisions that in the end say that a speed limit that says max speed 55mph really means 35 because of safety but because the legislators and people in power are lazy or are grotesquely disingenuous, can't be bothered to actually you know, change the law because the changes would be unpopular. Doing it by law when the law is patently contradicted by the constitution is even more disingenuous.

 

Or perhaps the abolition of slavery can serve as the example for the reduction of firearms in society, after all slaves were freed by a Federal Government without recompense. At least there was no National Slavery Association in 1865.

 

That's because slaves were people and not property. Are guns not property? Even when this country was founded there was a problem seen with slavery.

 

So what did the Congress mean, and what did the states actually accept re tyhe bearing or arms? Maybe it is about time, given the contradictions in the two, to put the 2nd amendment back before the states and see what the result is now, except for the gun owners rights 'mob' having an undue influence, both financially and by direct threat against those who would want to change the status quo. (Cold dead hands....)

 

So because some folks can't read history we get to re-ratify the unhappy parts of the constitution that folks don't like? Guess what you can't. You want to change it go follow procedures in ArticleV. There's no "re-ratify in case of dyspeptic weak stomach" clause of the Constitution Doug.

 

You want to see what it meant? Go read some scholarly work on the subject. OR you can read Heller v DC. That has a very detailed study of what it meant and even addresses the comma issue you raise.

 

As I have said before: the NRA and others have decided that the death of twenty innocents outweighs the civil rights of even one gun owner.

 

I expect better than that of you Doug.

 

That's because the death of other innocents protected by people owning and bearing guns don't get trumped by innocents killed by a madman.

Would it be cricket in your world to also jail and commit anyone on SSRIs and MAOIs absent any outward dangers? What's the civil rights of a few when we're talking about the lives of children?

 

[DKTanker]

As I have said before: the NRA and others have decided that the death of twenty innocents outweighs the civil rights of even one gun owner.

It is not an either or proposition. Furthermore, for some reason you give life and purpose to an inanimate object. How is that...please do explain. Had he used a 24oz framing hammer to bash in their skulls would you be calling for the abolition of framing hammers? Let us suppose he brought a gun firing 3 1/2 inch long rounds from an essentially silent weapon with a 100 round magazine capacity. Granted said weapon would be of fairly short range, but deadly nonetheless. Do you think such weapons should also be banned? Or do you think the marginal utility of nail guns would outweigh the potential deaths of 20 innocent children? Edited December 31, 2012 by DKTanker

[Mr King]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E

[Simon Tan]

Wait...don't we want to discuss serial numbers and why they are insisted upon by the Treasury? Why is it that every time I raise these industry issues that nobody wants to talk about it? Surely you all knew WHY your car has a VIN...........

[Ivanhoe]

Somehow I don't think the anti-gun crowd is going to bring this up as an example;

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SDZyfC1pLVXN

 

The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment.

 

Morgan Gliedman — who is nine-months pregnant — and her baby daddy, Aaron Greene, 31, also had instructions on making bombs, including a stack of papers with a cover sheet titled, “The Terrorist Encyclopedia,’’ sources told The Post yesterday.

 

People who know Greene say his political views are “extreme,” the sources said.

 

Cops found the stash in the couple’s West Ninth Street home Saturday when they went there to look for Gliedman, 27, who was wanted for alleged credit-card theft.

 

A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.

 

Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said.

 

Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.