How does registration stop crime?

 

If I am forced register my private property with the ATF, otherwise becoming a criminal, and I go in a database along with a fingerprint, where was the just cause for search and seizure? I have now lost some of my privacy -- which is my property -- without due process. Government cannot take my property without just compensation. Where will this compensation come from?

 

When you register weapons you will have an even bigger (financially) underground market for unregistered guns. Is the possibility of that becoming bigger than the drug trade a consideration.

 

Again, how is this a common sense solution?

 

Simple. Makes sense to most. It's not onerous. It doesn't stop anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. The fact that it could lead to a bigger underground is irrelevant to me.

Simple. Makes sense to most. It's not onerous. It doesn't stop anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. The fact that it could lead to a bigger underground is irrelevant to me.

 

 

So if it isn't stopping someone from getting a weapon, how does it help prevent gun crime?

 

And while it may be irrelevant to you, the money and debt that will be used to go after unregistered weapons will be coming from my paycheck, and all those who work beside me.

So if it isn't stopping someone from getting a weapon, how does it help prevent gun crime?

 

And while it may be irrelevant to you, the money and debt that will be used to go after unregistered weapons will be coming from my paycheck, and all those who work beside me.

 

You raise a fair point about policing it. Seems like an important enough issue to me.

 

Requiring a driver's license in and of itself doesn't prevent drunk driving. Are we to eliminate that requirement?

Pay attention, LB. I've already stated numerous times in this thread that my suggestions are not aimed at stopping a Columbine/Sandy Hook/Aurora. I responded to a question posted by RTS about legislation that make sense. Those that I mentioned seem to make sense to me and apparently the vast majority of NRA members surveyed. You either cannot keep up or you choose not to. Neither are appealing.

 

You don't to have like what I think is common sense legislation. Couldn't care less if you agree. However, stay on point and quit trying to change the narrative.

 

You keep saying common sense legislation, but what is common sense about new laws that don't solve any problems. You can keep calling it common sense but the statistics and facts prove the law to be lacking sense. But you can continue to avoid all the questions. Why put more laws on the books that solve nothing and just create more red tape for law abiding citizens. In the land of the free, free people shouldn't be treated as criminals before they commit a real crime. It is not your business or the governments business what gun I choose to buy. You want to talk common sense then suggest real solutions then maybe I will take this opinion serious.

You raise a fair point about policing it. Seems like an important enough issue to me.

 

Requiring a driver's license in and of itself doesn't prevent drunk driving. Are we to eliminate that requirement?

 

Drunk driving isn't the reason a DL was required, so IMO that point doesn't hold.

 

I'm wanting to know how gun registration will prevent crime. That is the whole logic behind gun-control! No one is giving me a direct answer.

 

Where is the justification in the infringements my fellow gun owners will have to go through? Is the cost of freedom worth it if gun owners are giving up their fourth amendment rights - - forcing them to: undergo an intrusive background check without a probable search warrant, take a loss to their property rights, give up their right to due process.

 

How is that common sense?

 

Simply pointing to a poll by the NRA showing majority of their members 'agree' with registration and using that as reason is about as good as mandating insurance companies to cover trident gum because 9 outta 10 doctors agree. There is nothing of substance (other than trident has studies proving it actually does something)

 

I'm all for eliminating violent crime and preserving every life possible - - this does neither.

 

All I see is a revenue scheme, and that is not a good enough reason.

Drunk driving isn't the reason a DL was required, so IMO that point doesn't hold.

 

I'm wanting to know how gun registration will prevent crime. That is the whole logic behind gun-control! No one is giving me a direct answer.

 

Where is the justification in the infringements my fellow gun owners will have to go through? Is the cost of freedom worth it if gun owners are giving up their fourth amendment rights - - forcing them to: undergo an intrusive background check without a probable search warrant, take a loss to their property rights, give up their right to due process.

 

How is that common sense?

 

Simply pointing to a poll by the NRA showing majority of their members 'agree' with registration and using that as reason is about as good as mandating insurance companies to cover trident gum because 9 outta 10 doctors agree. There is nothing of substance (other than trident has studies proving it actually does something)

 

I'm all for eliminating violent crime and preserving every life possible - - this does neither.

 

All I see is a revenue scheme, and that is not a good enough reason.

 

Great points. Furthermore, as I've often mentioned, a driver's license is not required to operate a vehicle on private property. An apples to apples analogy would be to require me to have a license or register my firearm if I intended to fire it on public property.

 

And even then it's not a true apples to apples analogy. Driving on public property is a privilege granted by the state and thus subject to any and all restrictions the state wants to impose to grant that privilege. Owning a firearm is a Constitutional right.

 

Finally a thought to keep in mind: as Daniel Webster advocated and Justice Marshall agreed, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Common sense legislation. It's not onerous on a gun owner.

 

 

So you are advocating that before I can give a gun to my son or my brother, I should be required to do a background check on the recipient?

 

What about knives? They can easily be used to kill, can't they? Should a background check be required before I transfer a knife with a 10 inch blade to a son or brother?

 

What about bags of left over fertilizer that I'm not using on my farm? As we all know, fertilizer can be used to make bombs and kill people. Should I be required to do a background check before I give this deadly material to my brother for use on his farm?

 

The obvious point is that if the goal of a licensing or background check requirement is to stop the transfer of deadly items, we need to be consistent about it if we expect citizens to comply with it. It's rule 101 of effective government and legislation. Pass a law that citizens don't think is fair, consistent or effective, and the percentage of citizens complying drops really low. Think Prohibition here.

 

If however the goal of licensing or background checks is revenue generation, then once again we need to be consistent. Why should I have to pay a special tax to own or transfer my gun but not have to pay a special tax to own or transfer my chainsaw, my couch, my wide screen TV, my riding lawnmower, etc.? Where is the consistency?

 

Why would legislation restricting the transfer of guns be any less onerous that restrictions on the transfer of knives, fertilizer, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, etc., etc.? Or are you advocating that restrictions on the private transfer of those items should also be enacted?

Great points. Furthermore, as I've often mentioned, a driver's license is not required to operate a vehicle on private property. An apples to apples analogy would be to require me to have a license or register my firearm if I intended to fire it on public property.

 

And even then it's not a true apples to apples analogy. Driving on public property is a privilege granted by the state and thus subject to any and all restrictions the state wants to impose to grant that privilege. Owning a firearm is a Constitutional right.

 

Finally a thought to keep in mind: as Daniel Webster advocated and Justice Marshall agreed, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

 

I was going to make that same argument as the bold, but I couldn't word it correctly. You said it perfectly.

So you are advocating that before I can give a gun to my son or my brother, I should be required to do a background check on the recipient?

 

What about knives? They can easily be used to kill, can't they? Should a background check be required before I transfer a knife with a 10 inch blade to a son or brother?

 

What about bags of left over fertilizer that I'm not using on my farm? As we all know, fertilizer can be used to make bombs and kill people. Should I be required to do a background check before I give this deadly material to my brother for use on his farm?

 

The obvious point is that if the goal of a licensing or background check requirement is to stop the transfer of deadly items, we need to be consistent about it if we expect citizens to comply with it. It's rule 101 of effective government and legislation. Pass a law that citizens don't think is fair, consistent or effective, and the percentage of citizens complying drops really low. Think Prohibition here.

 

If however the goal of licensing or background checks is revenue generation, then once again we need to be consistent. Why should I have to pay a special tax to own or transfer my gun but not have to pay a special tax to own or transfer my chainsaw, my couch, my wide screen TV, my riding lawnmower, etc.? Where is the consistency?

 

Why would legislation restricting the transfer of guns be any less onerous that restrictions on the transfer of knives, fertilizer, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, etc., etc.? Or are you advocating that restrictions on the private transfer of those items should also be enacted?

 

It comes down to common sense and priorities IMO.

 

Someone earlier stated that any gun owners who are intelligent already notify police of a lost or stolen gun. I want the police to be able to look at a gun that has been found and/or used in a crime and be able to see if it's on the registry. Yes, I know that there will be many guns who were not registered and that many will not be on any registry. Irrelevant. Requiring that guns be registered allows for the chance that linking a gun to a crime and a criminal is easier. The downsides of registry ( I don't see any) are far outweighed by the potential benefit.

 

IF a citizen chooses to not comply and then are found to have an unregistered gun they are charged with a crime. Simple solution to the "they won't comply" argument.

The Constitutional right comes with responsibilities and requirements.

 

Registering a gun would not preclude anyone from owning a gun and would not preclude anyone from protecting their family.

 

Gun registration would come with a renewal process. At that time a background check can be made to make sure something hasn't changed that would prevent that person from owning a gun.

 

Police responding to a scene could benefit from knowing what guns are registered to the owner.

 

It would make it more difficult (note I didn't say impossible) for those that shouldn't be able to buy guns from actually purchasing them.

How does anyone argue against a background check in order to buy a gun?

So, because there is the potential a gun may be stolen, and then a chance its used to commit a crime is THE common sense solution? :lol:

 

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution recognizes our rights and guarantees their practice without infringements, unless our exercising those rights means harming another person's life, liberty, or property. It also places limitations to what the government is able to do. Not what the individual is allowed to do.

 

Government that is subservient to the people cannot take away a a natural right, let alone one that is in the Bill of Rights, by demanding they forgo their right to due process, their privacy/property rights, and search and seizure without a probable warrant. There is a process if you want to do that.

 

'chance' and 'potential benefit' don't hold.

How does anyone argue against a background check in order to buy a gun?

 

 

Because it serves no purpose.

 

If you know of one, please do tell.

 

Something of substance. Not hypothetical scenarios.

 

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution recognizes our rights and guarantees their practice without infringements,

 

Are you saying the SCOTUS has never placed an "infringement" or limitation on gun owners?

Because it serves no purpose.

 

If you know of one, please do tell.

 

Something of substance. Not hypothetical scenarios.

 

From a quick Google perusal:

 

A 2001 study analyzing the firearm tracing data of crime guns recovered in 25 U.S. cities revealed that states with some form of both registration and licensing have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such systems in place.4 This suggests that licensing and registration laws may make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns, and help ensure that firearm owners remain eligible to possess their weapons.

 

Daniel W. Webster et al., Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns, 7 Inj. Prevention 184, 188-89 (2001). The study included jurisdictions with concealed carry permits and dealer sales reporting, which have elements of licensing or registration but are not comprehensive licensing or registration systems. [↩]