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 following exchange emerged in a discussion on Assault Weapons and I thought it might be worthy of its own debate:

Apart from the astronomically unlikely event of a Constitutional Amendment which would permit the confiscation of guns (which is what would be required to effect DTOM's nightmare vision), I fail to see how simple registration has any impact on the right to "keep and bear arms". There's nothing in there about the right to "keep and bear unregistered arms" and, again, the prospect of confiscation would require repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety anyway.

So: Is registration of guns - national registration - an infringement of the Second Amendment? (And let's try not to bring in additional arguments regarding the Second Amendment, state militias, safety regulations, the NRA, or any other extraneous discussion. Thanks.)

Just my rather uneducated opinion - since there are more than a few items of private property which, if I own, place me within a 'grid of identity,' I see nothing in the Constitution which bars that grid extending to deadly weapons.

In other words, try and buy a house or a car or a plane. The ownership of items like this all place you into public registers.

Perhaps one could argue that none of these things should be registered - that all ownership of private property should be anonymous. But as long as that is not the case, heck yes I think guns should be registered! The ownership of land must be registered, and it is possible for the government to seize land in certain cases. While there are surely individual cases where the exercise of eminent domain was abused, the registering of land by private owners has not led to massive universal eminent domain grabs by the government - and I see no reason to believe that the act of registering guns will somehow lead to massive gun-grabs by the federal government.

Personally, I think that gun registration should not only be mandatory - it should be completely public. I should be able to get on the internet and pull up a list of who in my neighborhood owns an arsenal of weapons.

As an aside on this issue, I strongly urge parents to talk to the parents of their childrens' friends about gun safety. It may seem kind of uncomfortable to ask but not everyone is as safe with their weapons as I am. When my kid is going to spend time at someone's house, I ask what kind of safety precautions they use for their firearms. I've managed to do this without offending anyone (so far).

Quarkhead, you're right, to an extent.

We are required to either register or license nearly all major aspects of our life with the government now: Our real property, our cars, our businesses, etc.

I would have no problem myself, with registering my firearms, although I can see why some people would not be.

As far as a public database on the internet goes, however, so you could see what kind of arsena I have? No, sorry. Seems to me that would be way too much, and place my safety in jeopardy by someone who wants to steal my weapons.

What I would propose instead, would be more like a drivers license is today. You study the applicable laws, clear a criminal background check, complete a series of range safety tests, and obtain a license to own a firearm, of whatever legal type you desire. The license could even be used to show valid "classes" for what you are tested on, just like the difference in classes between motorcycle, auto and commercial trucking licenses. For instance you could have license classes that verify your proficiency in shotguns, rifles or handguns. or all three, assuming you passed all of the training involved.

As any student of history knows, gun control figures prominently in the designs of totalitarian states. These features recur:

1. Centralization of the police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on citizens;

2. National identification cards for all citizens;

3. Civilian disarmament via gun registration, and licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms.

Throughout history we have learned that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations, first disarmed their citizens.
The recipe for accomplishing this goal was: demonizing of guns, registration, banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament.
Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

And Quark.....public internet database of firearms ownership? '''''Shuddering'''''
From the misnamed anti-gun site Americans For Gun Safety:

Link

Firearms are an enticing target for home burglaries. Would you care to list an inventory of your high dollar value items on the internet?


A fact that we need to understand is that registration is directed at law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are also constitutionally protected against any registration requirement.
In Haynes v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that requiring registration by those who unlawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. The court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.



I assume you view the Patriot Act as a nightmare come true, but it passed didn't it?
Call me paranoid..I don't care. There's nothing wrong with NiteGuy's, on the surface. Hey it seems safe right? That process could never be abused in our own good ol' USA, right?
It seems that many of the same concerned citizens railing against the erosion of civil rights with the passage of the Patriot Act, can't see the folly of gun registration through the same lens.

But, on this, I could not agree more!

Let us focus on the issue. Unlike automobiles, gun ownership is protected from infringement by the Constitution. What does infringement mean? From bartleby.com



What does it mean to encroach? Same source.

1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land.
2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland.

To be honest I am not sure on this issue. Certainly licensing and registration means the gunowner must pay a cost in time and/or money to own a gun. Does this infringe on his right to bear arms?

Edited to add. How the heck did I write that? The living constitution people must be getting to me. I need to stop drinking so early in the day.

Is registration of guns - national registration - an infringement of the Second Amendment?

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the areas in which Congress has the power to legislate. As there is no clause for a ‘national registration database’ of gun ownership, such regulations belong with the states and their localities. Registration is more of a privacy issue than a second amendment one.

Incidentally, Clark county (my county) requires the registration of firearms with the local police department. I would fight tooth and nail against such a policy at the government level. There is no need for a new constitutional amendment for the potentiality of confiscation of nearly all firearms (although it would under a strict constructionist interpretation), with a current database of registered owners and their weapons. Selective confiscation of certain firearms is the only necessary step. First one type, then another, and another, ect.

One need look no farther than Ruby ridge and the fate of the Weaver family (or Waco, for that matter)to see such a threat is very real.

Mrs. P is correct. There is no authorization allowing gun registration in Article I Sec 8 of the constitution. The words of the second amendment do not matter.

I would take this all a bit further: although there's no national database of drivers -- driver's licenses being a state function -- there is cooperation between federal and state agencies to share that driver's license information. So... if you have a state database, you might as well have a federal-level database.

Is a state-level registration database of guns necessary? No. Is a state-level registration of gun OWNERS necessary? No, not really. But requiring training and certification for all gun owners on how to safely use, maintain, and store guns is a worthy goal.

• I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me that the parallel to totalitarianism is being made. People who argue as dontreadonme has are merely choosing the totalitarian comparison for its emotional appeal. One could just as easily choose as a comparison countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, etc. Stricter gun control in these nations has not led to totalitarianism.

Mrs. P, I disagree. True, it is not specifically enumerated - but it's not the 18th century any more, either. Would you be willing to get rid of national parks? The Smithsonian? The CDC? The NIH? Maybe that's all part of your larger libertarian dream, but I would be soooooo out of here! I realize that's really addressing a different, larger issue - but how we view the Constitution is somewhat germane here. I have to see it as a living document, because society has grown and evolved in unexpected ways. Perhaps it could be under the "general welfare" clause? That one is sufficiently vague!

Well, since one of them living constitutionists showed up (ignoring the fact that amendments are the proper method to adjust the Constitution to changing times), let me go back to my earlier post that infers the general welfare clause means the government can screw us any way they want providing they don't violate an amendment. Doesn't registration infringe on the right to bear arms?

I told the guy leasing my rental house that times had changed and that our lease agreement stating he should pay $1000 a month would now be $1200. He told me where to stick it. I am depending on a court to recognize our contract is a living document.

I do see what you are saying, Hugo. I do not pretend to be an expert on Constitutional law. But looking at this from the perspective of your own quoted post, is requiring a gun owner to register his or her gun truly an infringement? If it is perfectly legal to buy a gun, and registering it does not keep you from this, how does registration infringe second amendment rights? After all, if having to register one's gun is an infringement, then perhaps the fact that guns cost money is also an infringement. I don't see where in the Constitution it says that our rights are contingent upon our ability to pay, so if I cannot afford a gun, my right to bear arms is being infringed - right?

The second amendment does not stipulate that arms may be borne anonymously - it says nothing on the subject.

In another second amendment thread, I presented a line of reasoning about the meaning of the phrase 'to bear arms.' I showed that given the historical context of the phrase, it would be an interpretation of the phrase to bring it out of a military context. Nowhere have I found reference to 'bearing arms' against rabbits or bears. To say that your position is one of strict construction whereas mine is in the evidently mockable 'living constitutionalist' dimwitopia is merely an attempt to slap black and white paint on something which is not so easily made clear. What does the phrase 'general welfare' mean? Perhaps it could be argued that strict gun control measures fall under that statement. It never fails to puzzle me that people who consider themselves literalists in regard to the Constitution often accept an interpretive understanding of 'to bear arms' and yet a very restrictive understanding of 'general welfare.'

Misconceptions abound: Cars are not required to be registered. You are only required to register a car IF it is going to be used on public roads. (Ever see a license plate on an Indy car? ) A gun intended for use purely on private property...

Houses and other real property are "registered" precisely because they are real property. Not only is real property the foundation of economic activity, but it is also NOT MOVABLE, and hence simple "possession" is a remarkably impractical means of even crudely determining ownership. Do you lose the ownership of your home to a squatter when you go off to work?

Registration is both impractical (simply look at Canada's experience) AND unconstitutional. Simply replace "guns" with "printing presses" and see how far the argument for registration flies. Requiring registration DOES infringe upon the right for this simple reason: what happens when the Gun Bureau refuses to register your gun? Perhaps you can't pass the 'test.' Hmmmmmm, what did SCOTUS have to say about applying tests to voting? Why should you be required to INFORM the government that you are excercising a basic right?

"When only the police have guns, its called a police state" - Robert A. Heinlein

Good point bikerdad, about the printing press...

edited to include:

Though I think that there's nothing preventing states from requiring registration.

Likewise, we all have to register to vote. What happens when the board of elections refuses to accept your registration?

Jaime: sorry about the 1-liner, I had to do something else in the middle of a thought.

What the Constitution does is limit the authority of government. The fact that you may not be able to afford a gun is not an infringement of your right to own a gun by the federal government. A registration fee might well be. I am betting our current courts would rule registration constitutional providing any fees were not seen as being prohibitively high under a loose construction view of the Constitution. Federalist Paper 41 made pretty clear what the meaning of the general welfare clause should be. Those who ignore #41 obviously believe our Constitution was ratified due to lies and deceit.

I see what you’re saying, and the next time I hear about someone getting killed with a printing press I’ll be on your side.

As long as I can purchase a gun I don’t see where my rights are being infringed. Sorry I couldn’t find the statistics, but I’m sure when the Constitution was written buggy jackings and pub robberies weren’t a major concern. At that time guns were primarily used to put food on the table and on occasion to protect ones self against hostiles.

And several books written by and about our founders clearly state that this was also put in to protect citizens against our own government.

If I have the right to ‘bear arms’, why can’t I walk around with my gun belt? After all, it’s right there in the Constitution and at one time it was very common.

Ask those who have to deal with the fall out of people who don’t responsibly use their ‘right to bear arms’. Talk with a policeman or detective and most will tell you that gun registration has played a significant role in solving crimes.

Once again on a critical issue like this our government has failed to set a proper balance in the justice system. Sentencing. I personally think if a person uses a firearm to commit a crime, whether they actually fired it or not, they should never walk the streets again.

Really, no misconceptions, at least here on my desk. If you would like to build a gun from scratch on your private property, be my guest. If you want to drive it home from the store across our public roads, on the other hand...



I see your point. Since guns are not 'real' property, if someone breaks into your home and steals your gun, they may be charged with trespassing, but not theft - because possession is nine-tenths of the law, right? Once the gun is in their hands, it belongs to them. Or perhaps guns could be registered precisely because they are dangerous weapons.



It's not that I don't see your point about the printing presses; however, the first amendment does not start off with "A well regulated press..."

Secondly, it is you that has posited a 'test' and failing or passing. I have never advocated the particular form which gun registration might take. You can't invent something out of whole cloth and then use it to prove the very unconstitutionality of something. Rather, I suppose that you can, but it is not very convincing.

You do have to register to vote. No right is more basic than that.

Is there something these people have to hide that they don't want people knowing they have a gun? Registration doesn't keep these people from getting guns. As long as they get the gun in the end is it that bad that someone has a file of them owning it that bad?

And without registering the gun the consequences could be terrible. Imagine it. Someone could commit any number of shootings and whatnot with let's say a .45 Magnum and the police wouldn't know where to start because they don't know how many or which people in the area have that particular type of gun.

I don't see gun registration as an infringement, it's more like a safety precaution. Just like the DMV makes you register your vehicle for use on the road. It's just better for the common good.

Yes. I have something to hide. I don't want strangers to know that I have two guns which are worth over 3000 dollars in my house. I wouldn't want to advertise my jewelry either. Furthermore, registration would provide a record of ownership by law abiding citizens only. Those who (really) have something to hide need not apply (as cited by DTOM in his post on this thread):

You are quite misinformed. Did you read through this thread before responding? Guns are currently not required to be registered almost anywhere in the country. How would registration help in any way? Criminals don't register their guns, and steal them. The gun could only be traced back to the person it was stolen from.

We live (thankfully) without gun registration now. Criminals do not register guns! That seems to be a no-brainer to me.

Interestingly The Fraternal Order of Police oppose:
H.R. 124 (Holt, D-NJ), the "Handgun Licensing and Registration Act," would require the licensing and registration of all handguns with the Federal government;
FOP Link


Again I may be labeled as paranoid, but I don't necessarily fear our government now, I fear the government we one day could have.
Especially when you have officials who say the following:

The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take a step at a time and go for limited access first.--- Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., Deputy Commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993

Additionally some thoughts:
Registering 70 million American households is extremely expensive.
Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.
Registration, if enacted, will create an underground market for unregistered guns bigger than the drug trade.

Gun registration is a feel-good deception that passes unquestioned by the media, engorges the federal bureaucracy, and undercuts the linchpins of American freedoms

Why are you required to register to vote?

1) In order to establish the jurisdiction you are voting in.
2) In order to insure (theoretically) that only one vote is cast by each voter, and that the voter is still alive. Of course, they do have some problems with this in Chicago.

In short, voter registration SERVES the purpose of voting itself. If one accepts that the purpose of "keeping and bearing arms" is to provide for personal and communal protection against oppressors, whether criminal or governmental, then how does registration advance that aim? It doesn't.

Incidentally, I disagree with your construction that "no right is more basic than the right to vote." Both life and liberty are more basic, and the right of self-defense is implicit in the right to life. Just thought that was worth clarifying for our gentle readers.

sigh... You know that there is a specific legal meaning of "real property", and that meaning is LAND. If it ain't land, or stuck to the land, then it is "personal property." Physical possession of personal property is a crude indicator of legal ownership, but such possession fails as an indicator for real property due to both the fact that the "legal owner" may, as a practical matter, not be able to always physically be on his property, and the fact that more than one person may physically be on the property. Practically speaking, if I have an object of personal property in my possession, nobody else can have it in theirs. In contrast, how many people can occupy 40 acres? So, we record ownership of real property.

My apologies, perhaps the allusion wasn't clear enough. During Jim Crow, a "literacy" test was often required of black voters. Surprisingly, many of these blacks, often informed of the vote via printed material, failed the test, and were denied their right to vote. Gee, do you think perhaps that the testing was a sham? SCOTUS did, and struck down the tests precisely because they were a sham.

However, rather than sparring with you on this, I'll simply let the Supreme Court itself speak to the issue of registration:

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.--Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]--Although neither decision is related to firearms, they nonetheless settle the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation, or registration of any constitutional right. Laws requiring persons to obtain permission from states to carry concealed firearms are unconstitutional. Seeking permission to exercise a right is absurd. Unconstitutional laws lack legitimacy and should never be obeyed by a free people.

Of course, you could make the argument that the 2nd Amendment is a "state's right", not personal. Hey, lots of gun grabbers make that argument. Too bad that the SCOTUS has declared, mutliple times, that the first 8 amendments are "personal" in nature. Here's just one example:



Perchance you'll fall back on this gem: Go for it, but realize that unless you read the full decision containing that beauty, you'll also be tossing out freedom of assembly and the right to petition. Suggest that you read US vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) The upshot? Both the rights in question predate the Constitution.

Grab the guns if you dare, but realize that you'll find NO cover for doing so in the Constitution. Not that such deficiencies have ever bothered civil totalitarians.

Well... Here is a line from the Rhode Island Constitution...
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged." Go to the discussion on The Second Amendment for an explination of the grammar construct called a nominative absolute!

By the way, can you tell us who is allowed freedom of the press in Rhode Island?

When the Four Fathers were drafting the Constitution they were not able to foresee the gang violence or the crimes U.S. citizens commit on other U.S. citizens with gun use. Nor did they take into account the people who have or fall victim to mental problems. The Constitutional writings were to protect us from foreign invaders.

Some two hundred odd years later we are faced with the above mentioned problems. I do not own a gun nor will I ever. I do support people who choose to own guns and go through the steps of legal ownership and registration.

What registration does.
1. Identifies gun and owner
2. Creates a ballistic database identification system
3. Aides law enforcement officials in identifying particular gun used in a crime thus identifying owner whereby crimes are solved.

IMO anyone who wishes to own a gun and not have it registered is too paranoid about government taking guns away from everyone (which won’t happen) OR intends to use with criminal intent. In both cases these people shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

It is my right as a citizen if a gun crime is committed against me the government should be able to investigate case completely using all information available, including registration info to bring that criminal to justice.

So, after witnessing the registration and confiscation of guns in Canada and Britain (just for starters), if I can envision that same thing happening here in the US, Then I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun? Can you guarantee that it wouldn't happen? I didn't think so.


I would suggest that you take a look at some of the writings by the founding fathers, and see that indeed, there was the fear of a tyrannical government if citizens weren't armed.

Ok, I've seen this charge before, but I need to call you on it.

Please post some evidence (please, not from the NRA ) that shows that the people of Canada and GB didn't actually want to have guns removed from their society, that they are now somehow worse off for it, that their crime rates are higher/lower than ours, etc. It's one thing to be worried, it's another to be worried over something tangible. Do I really have something to be worried about? Don't know until I get to see the evidence.

Here is some data for you:


it does seem that strict gun control increases crime because of increased rates of victimization and/or more confident criminals. (If you have a gun and know that most others don't you will likely get cocky)

Australia had a big jump in crime rates after they banned handguns <--- Adobe Acrobat needed

Here's a shorter version on the same theme

I think it is nonsense to equate gun ownership by citizens with crime.
Anyone who has ever carried a gun (particularly in public), and who is not even slightly sociopathic, knows the feeling of humility and responsibility that comes with toting a deadly weapon. Someone who will react differently (perhaps with aggression) because they carry a gun is a loose canon (pun!) no matter if they are armed or not. We have to stop blaming objects for the actions of people.


I do, however, support a stricter control on handgun ownership as far as having a national license system and other measures....

EDIT : Can't type

As being both Mom and Dad seems to limit my evening AD time, here is two links concerning the gun ban and crime rates in Britain.

The Unnatural Death of a Natural Right


Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain

Ok, thanks for those links. It sounds like -- from both postings -- that the people of (at least) Australia and GB chose to ban sale and possession of handguns. And that after, the results were worse than what everyone has expected.

Here's the thing, though: the people chose this course of action, and not the government just deciding to do it on their own.

So registration doesn't necessarily lead down the slippery slope to more crime... unless the people decide to choose that subsequent path. In which case -- like voting Bush into office -- we get what we deserve.

I am just curious: one common argument is that in the UK and Australia, the banning of certain guns led to an increase in Gun crime. I am curious to know if, the fact that owning these guns is now illegal, meant that more people were charged with owning a restricted firearm? Was that "gun crime" part of the gun crime statistics?

If so, then that supposed increase means nothing at all. I would be curious to see the rate of comission of a felony while using a firearm, before and after the law passed.

Oooooookkkkkkk...

I thought the government was made up by people

So are you saying that if the government(which is made up by people) banned handguns then the results would have been different?

I don't agree. The right to self-defense is about the most inherent right there is. That is why the right to bear arms is provided for under the Constitution. Registration, if used as an eventual means to disarmament (and I believe it is), would be a violation of that inherent right, which should never be removed in a free state...even by the will of the majority.

So does this right of self-defense can be carried to a logical extreme and allow me to own ANY weapon just so I feel safe, huh? I think not.

Again, you're mentioning that registration will mean an eventual disarmament, but you're not saying who will disarm us. In GB and Australia, it was THE PEOPLE who chose to disarm, not the government trying to steal your weapons. Don't know about Canada, but I expect it was the same there. The paranoids on this one are thinking that the government will just up and take away our guns in the middle of the night without a vote and using Canada/GB/Australia as examples where that happened, but that's not quite what happened, is it?

And the the second amendment doesn't mention anything about not being able to register guns. And "arms" doesn't necessarily mean "guns" either, although we've chosen to let it mean that for now. Could mean knives, baseball bats, sporks (you know, those fork/spoon hybrids), whatever.

Did you read the articles?





Could you please provide a source showing the people of Britain voted for the banning of handguns and not British Parliament. Edit: This is referring to the 96-97 Ban.

Yeah, but I don't think that the "Clairemont Institute" is anything other than a right-wing entertainment site, so I went looking elsewhere for unbiased reporting. The other article didn't have EITHER of your quotes.

Anyway, as to the source: I don't have one, which is why I asked. Do you have one showing that the British citizens didn't SUPPORT this ban in 1997? Based on what I've read, it looks like BOTH parties in Britain were FOR this ban on handguns -- not rifles, just handguns. You can still purchase guns, just not handguns.

And, again, Parliament is VOTED into power (now; not back in 1903, by the way). If the British clearly wanted to have handguns, they could VOTE differently next time and have the new parliament vote out the ban.

They don't need to revolt. They just need to vote a different party into power, if that's what they want. By the way, the Prime Minister at the time that the ban was put into place: Tony Blair.

I just spoke with a friend of mine who is from England(moved here in 2001). I asked about the gun ban in 96-97, and was told it was in fact passed by Parliament.

Your tune has changed tremendously since:



Let's review the points:

1. British citizens may or may not have agreed with the Parliament's decision to ban hand guns, but they are suffering the consequences now.

2. From numerous google searches using 'britain banned handguns' you will find report after report showing the same numbers posted by DT. Clearly worse off.

3. Crime rates, especially robbery, are much higher now after the ban of handguns.

It is convenient to shout the slippery slope argument but it seems British citizens are sitting at the bottom of that slope right now.

Are you going to conceded the point, or are you going to argue over Parliament election semantics now?

Actually, my earlier post that you quoted was truly a request for information. I hadn't done any research on the issue, but someone was making a claim without providing any evidence, so I wanted to know more about that evidence.

As for the "slippery slope" argument, I'm not the one espousing that one. I don't think we need to travel the slope from registration to outright banning. I don't think one has to necessarily follow the other.

And I think that the British DO HAVE the means to reverse the ban that Parliament enacted (and I expect that it was with their constent, since it was an election year and the governing party stayed in power). If they wanted to, they would. Perhaps they don't want to? I haven't seen any evidence to say that they've tried to repeal the ban in the face of this sudden increase in crime.

So, I don't think the paranoia of "registration now, banning later" that I've read here is truly warranted.

That's a very good point Quarkhead.

I think constitutionally, registration does not prevent citizens from bearing arms, but instead holds them accountable for owning said weapon and the responsibility that comes with it.

IN other words, if someone were to bring this issue before the supreme court and claim that they being forced to register a handgun was unconsitutional, I firmly believe they would lose. This would probably explain why I can't remember there ever being a case questioning the consitutionality of registration (because if there was some sort of legality to it, someone definitely would have tried). That case could have been before my time, however, considering how long states have been giving out gun licenses (which is a form of registration, I believe).

That said, whether one supports gun registration because it is as DTOM put it: "figures prominently in the designs of tolitarian states" is another argument which I don't believe has anything to do with the consititution.

From the ACLU site, explaining why they don't take 2nd Amendment cases:

This is what the ACLU SAYS, but it is not necessarily what the 1939 Miller decision means. The reason that the statment:

sounds like a final judjment is because no one reads the Miller text or does research into the particulars of the case.
Miller and Layton were charged with the transport of a shotgun with a barel under 18 inches across state lines. They won on Second Amendment grounds in the lower courts and so the govt. apealed to the SCOTUS. Here is where the understanding breaks down. Miller was killed in a shootout and Layton skipped bail. The Lawyers for the defendants, since they had no clients to defend in the proceedings, did not show up, either. Had a defence been presented, it would be easy to prove that a sawed off shotgun was indeed used in the trenches of WWI and was part of regular military equipment.
The full quote is:

The decision was remanded back to the lower court for re-trial... but the defendants were not available... so Miller was a NON-decision.

You focused so hard on the Supreme Court case that you missed the important point of what I included: since that point, the Supreme Court has stayed out of these cases for the most part. Why?

Because they're leaving the states' right to regulate their militia up to each state. In present circumstances, anyone who owns a gun could be considered by that state to be part of their "militia".

Note that any municipality can pass complete bans on guns, waiting periods, licensing requirements, etc. They already have and some still do even after the "Brady Act". The Supreme Court upholds whatever the state court rules in these matters for the most part, because they've chosen to leave these issues up to the state.

So if a state wants to require licensing and training for gun owners, it won't be "unconstitutional", since the Supreme Court isn't going to get involved in whatever the state wants.

Not really. As part of the 1907 hague conventions (which the US signed) the shotgun is by international treaty not a legal weapon of war. While they were used occasionally in trenches of WWI and again occasionally in the Jungles of Pacific WWII, they were not issued by the US government, but rather found and used by soldiers on their own initiative.

They were used in Vietnam, but then again the US violated a lot of the articles of war in Vietnam, so thats hardly surprising.

Regardless, as of 1907, the US signed a treaty agreeing that shotguns were not weapons of warfare.

A shotgun is STILL part of regular US military equipment.

The laws that define the Militia are as follows:

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

• (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  
  
• (b)The classes of the militia are -
  • (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    
  • (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

US Code on the Definition of the Militia

We are ALL (if not aged out) members of the militia, armed or not.
Besides, no law abiding citizen has brought a legitament case to the SCOTUS (Emerson was questionable in the fact that there was, valid or not, concerns over the domestic issues involved) and if a good case ever comes up, the 14th Amendment will incorporate the Second Amendment onto the states.

By the way, the 1934 firearms act is a tax law, NOT a gun control law.

The Second Amendment

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of a people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Emphasis mine.

I think the registration is well within the scope of the Second Amendment and it is an essential part of protecting the public safety. I only wish that we enforced existing gun laws more vigilantly and went after people who used guns illegally or used illegal guns with as much severity (or more) that we do when they use or sell drugs.

I think gun registration is clearly Constitutional and I think registration has been around long enough that it is not part of a slippery slope with the intent of rounding up all guns and taking them away.

I do agree that the right to bear arms should not be able to be stripped by the tyranny of the majority, but that does not mean I support the right to bear any arms.

The choice to emphasize the part about "A well-regulated militia" is significant.
I hardly think that any court in the land would determine that a sprinkling of gun owners in a community, mostly unaware of each other, entails what it means to be a well regulated anything....


I grabbed this form dictionary.com:



Seems clear to me that the Constitution wants an organized militia at the state level, not a nation of Rambos. Such a militia would be equal in training and effectiveness to the national army and yet be loyal to the state...


I think the problem here, expressed by Mrs. Pigpen and Bikerdad, is that the present government is so large and all-encompassing that there would seem to be no chance for states to assert themselves. Any attempt by the central government to control idividuals in their states would necessarily be a conflict and an over-extension of federal authority.

However, I know people who carry their "no gun control" argument to their states too. They want no picture ID.'s, no state registration, no restrictions.
It makes sense that people would start to ask the question, "For what reason are these people so paranoid? What have they done?"

The reality is that it is not beneficial to the society at large for anyone to own a gun completely in secret. Some sort of registration is necessary for reasons already stated (crime investigation being a big one. I know someone whose handgun was stolen and then used in a murder. The police needed him to help establish the criminal's activities and whereabouts....two years later he was given the gun back)


In our society people have ZERO constitutional right to own and drive a car and yet we hand out drivers licenses far easier than pistol permits. I was witness to two near accidents today; one involved a man talking on the phone while driving, the other a woman applying make-up while driving. (no joke, both nearly hit me today) When one mistake can lead to the death of one or many other people while driving one would think we would regulate it more. Instead we allow people the chance to NOT make a mistake and we punish them if they do.

The same should apply to guns. They are not only (if not vaguely) refered to in the constitution, but they are safe enough for responsible adults to own and use. Still, I can't imagine a world where drivers are not passively coerced into good driving behavior knowing that they can be traced as the owners of the car they drive. Gun registration, at the state level, makes sense.

Maybe because I live in Connnecticut, US I am skewed. It is the policy here for people to carry a picture ID while concealing a weapon. In order to purchase a pistol one must register that purchase with the state police (it is done by paperwork at the gun shop). I know of no abuses under this system...

That "unorganized" crap is too bogus for words. It's impossible to have a well regulated unorganized militia.

Besides, with this literal meaning, the second amendment would be unconstitutional because it would exclude females, males not "able-bodied" (i.e. physically disabled and/or impaired), anybody under 17, and anybody over 45.

This is a lame attempt (albeit, nothing new) to try to circumvent the intent of the second amendment so we could have mob rule.

The Supreme Court, with both liberal and conservative benches, has concluded that the second amendment does NOT ptotect an individual's right to bear arms. This conservative Supreme Court (the ones some suggest "selected" Bush) could have taken the latest Emerson case which appeared to be a legitimate challenge to the US v Miller ruling). And they punted.

Legal scholars from Chief Justice Warren Burger to Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork have concluded that the second amendment protects the collective right of the states to protect themselves.

So yes, registering guns is completely constitutional because you do not have a RIGHT to own a gun outside of military service unless the STATE gives it you. So, if they say you need to stand on your head naked, sing "Beer for my Horses", and sign a dotted line with the appendage of your choice before you can own a gun, that's what you'll have to do. And the federal government cannot stand in the way of that. THAT is what the second amendment does.

A well-regulated, unorganized militia...sheesh...sounds like military intelligence. A complete oxymoron.

Great topic Wertz.

I agree with much of what's been said here...so I won't repeat it.

I do think, however, registration is inherently unconstitutional as it is unpractical. There are undoubtedly fees associated with that whole registration process.

What about poor people? Those that cannot afford the fees (gun locks, FOID fees, etc) of registration are usually those who need the protection of a firearm the most. One could argue that having to register what is a basically a form of self-preservation is a racist policy designed to leave the poor, which are often minorities, defenseless while the more financially able in society, often non-minorities, are able to afford those fees.

What I am saying is that one has to look at the consequences of the registration argument. It sounds reasonable on its surface......most measures do.....but the ripple effect can be disasterous.

The Constitutionality of registration differs depending on one's vantage point.

If you are a criminal, then registration is UN-Constitutional. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination.

For the law abiding citizen, in the Kastigar vs. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) decision, the court has ruled that registration of firearms only applies to lawful citizens, not to felons.

A felon can not be charged with possesing an un-registered gun!

How weird is that?



Oh, yes... "Well Regulated"... To understand the context of usage, one needs to go back to the time and place of usage to find intent. In dictionaries of the early 1800's, the term meant properly functioning as in a "well regulated clock", one that keeps proper time... Something or someone or a group that does it's job well.

And "unorganized" is a term from the 50's... That's when the US Code for the defination of a militia was last updated.