The Gun Law Discussion

[A.Nonymous]

Because cars aren't guns.

This oft-used fallacy ignores the fact that it's the use of cars on public roads that is being regulated, not the cars themselves. You don't have to register a car that's never driven on public roads, so why should people who keep and use their guns in private places have to register them?

While confiscating everyone's guns might not be imminent, that's hardly the only reason to keep gun ownership private. The first and foremost is because the Constitution says so. Another might be police profiling. How would you like to be shot by a cop who saw that you were a gun owner, and overreacted?

Say it can't happen? Here in Madison a young man was killed by a police officer, and although he was unarmed and too drunk to be a threat to anyone, it was declared a righteous shoot. The cop got away with murder because the wife of a neighbor who was helping the young man home decided to call the cops and say there was a burglary. (There wasn't.) Because she used that magic word, the cop's use of deadly force was unquestioned.

If police agencies get gun ownership records, there's no doubt that they'll use them that way. They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions. In the age of the "Patriot" law it's a cinch that every gun owner would be greeted with lots of drawn weapons for something as innocuous as a traffic stop. That's just asking for trouble!

It's the same thing at the end of the day. Vehicles are all registered. They are registered for the simple reason that it's easier to track them to their owners if they are lost/stolen or used in a crime somewhere. It's a step that makes perfect sense. There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I guess I'm probably the only person who has no objection to weapons being registered. Our cars are registered. Why not guns? Both can be equally dangerous and a registered gun can be traced more easily by authorities just like a registered car. I don't see the issue with that one at all. The idea that the feds are going to confiscate every single gun in America is completely ludicrous and pretty much everyone agrees on that.

I think I do as well. That said, the constitution does not mention anything about registering guns. All it says is we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bob Maxey]

It's the same thing at the end of the day. Vehicles are all registered. They are registered for the simple reason that it's easier to track them to their owners if they are lost/stolen or used in a crime somewhere. It's a step that makes perfect sense. There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.

Here in Utah, the NSA is building the largest data center in the U.S. of A. So chances are, there is (or will be) a national database of police contacts. They will (apparently) store "the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails

 

[Bob Maxey]

just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.

The problem is this: so much stuff is copied and pasted from site to site, you can have vast numbers of hits to sites that agree with each other and still be wrong. What you need to do is look at the source data.

I have encountered manufacturer's web sites that cannot get their own corporate history or product lines correct and accurate.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Here in Utah, the NSA is building the largest data center in the U.S. of A. So chances are, there is (or will be) a national database of police contacts. They will (apparently) store "the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails

 

[A.Nonymous]

As for the German Weapons Act of 1938, a quick summary of it is easily found on Wikipedia (with primary sources cited as well for those wanting to vet the info)

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

• Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
• The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
• The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
• The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
• Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons

So, pretty much everyone who was aligned with the government was exempt. The permit restrictions otherwise didn't change at all from the previous law of 10 years earlier. It only applied to handguns and not rifles/shotguns and Jews couldn't own firearms as well. It required a sort of passive registration as vendors had to keep track of who they sold guns to and surrender them to the authorities.


So, some of the previous statements made are true. No background check was required, hunters in particular were completely exempt, and I find no record that guns were classified in any way other than handgun vs long gun. It is true that those under 18 were not allowed to own firearms, but this is actually a loosening up of the previous law that restricted those under the age of 20. So that statement, while true, is a bit misleading.

Edit: Just as an aside, many of those regulations are still in place in Germany today.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Once again, we have a question of what "could" happen and what "is" happening. At the moment, as I type this, there is no national database of police contacts. It does not exist. I spent 6 years working around a 911 call center. I can say definitively that said database does NOT exist. What "could" happen in the future is another question, but getting our panties in a twist over some purely hypothetical situation is silly IMO.

One could fall back on the favorite of conspiratorial nut-bars everywhere: "They" did not want you to know and so you were not privy to what those call centers are really up to.

Like the employees of Area 51 responsible for taking out the trash with super-secret information.

The truth is way above your pay grade.

 

[A.Nonymous]

One could fall back on the favorite of conspiratorial nut-bars everywhere: "They" did not want you to know and so you were not privy to what those call centers are really up to.

Like the employees of Area 51 responsible for taking out the trash with super-secret information.

The truth is way above your pay grade.

Well, if I wasn't privy to it, neither were the police officers on the street or any of their or my supervisors either. It certainly could've been useful to help solve some cases.

 

[Speed Daemon]

just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.

I appreciate it when someone makes a humble and thoughtful request. Bravo!

The source of much of my information came from many years of schooling, and learning history in the classroom and with homework. Back in the 1960s and '70s, World War II and related history was a big deal. Perhaps this was because many of my classmates' parents or grandparents escaped the Nazis...or didn't.

A lot of my own personal knowledge about the Versailles Treaty and its consequences came out of my own curiosity about Vietnam. (Ho Chi Minh actually went to Versailles, hoping to gain US support for Vietnamese independence.) The treaty that was highly punitive to Germany is something that must be first understood in order to understand how a former German army corporal could end up starting World War II.

I use Wikipedia a lot for double-checking my memory. It's important to understand that I rarely use it as a primary source of information; it's not a truly authoritative source. But it's good for other things, as long as its limitations are understood. There's no substitute for a good education, learned texts, and other documentary sources.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Vehicles are all registered.

Only ones used on public roads. I already covered that.

There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.

Yes there is. It's called the National Crime Information Center (NCIC for short).

 

[Speed Daemon]

I think I do as well. That said, the constitution does not mention anything about registering guns. All it says is we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"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."

 

[Speed Daemon]

So, pretty much everyone who was aligned with the government was exempt.

The situation was the equivalent of when George W. Bush said "you're either with us or against us". Those who fell into line were rewarded; those who questioned government were reviled.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Only ones used on public roads. I already covered that.

Which is de facto every single car in the US. I fail to see what the harm is in registering guns. It harms nothing. It infringes no rights. On the plus side it's a huge help to law enforcement. But that means nothing.

Yes there is. It's called the National Crime Information Center (NCIC for short).

The NCIC does not record every citizen interaction with police. Your statement was "They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions"

The NCIC is NOT such a database. I know. I interacted with it on a daily basis. When you call 911 it is not recorded in NCIC. When you make a police report it is not recorded in NCIC. When you are pulled over, it is not recorded in NCIC. So, your statement is factually incorrect if you're applying it to the NCIC.

*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"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."

And registration of guns infringes on that right how?

 

[copestag]

And registration of guns infringes on that right how?

lets get that started with a softball for you........ it violates my right to privacy for one....... I dont want my name, phone number, home address, etc published in the local newspaper and appearing on a public map stating how many and what types of firearms I own for all the world to see

the constitution doesnt grant me the right to own a firearm....... I already have that right....... the constitution restricts the government from violating my rights

and truth be told........ while I would agree common sense dictates we need certain laws limiting things like felons and mentally ill people from owning weapons..... I dont truly believe thats constitutional either...... if you want to take a hardline on it

the constitution doesnt say the right shall not be infringed unless youre a felon or mentally ill......... it says it shall not be infringed..... period

techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented

 

[A.Nonymous]

lets get that started with a softball for you........ it violates my right to privacy for one....... I dont want my name, phone number, home address, etc published in the local newspaper and appearing on a public map stating how many and what types of firearms I own for all the world to see

the constitution doesnt grant me the right to own a firearm....... I already have that right....... the constitution restricts the government from violating my rights

and truth be told........ while I would agree common sense dictates we need certain laws limiting things like felons and mentally ill people from owning weapons..... I dont truly believe thats constitutional either...... if you want to take a hardline on it

the constitution doesnt say the right shall not be infringed unless youre a felon or mentally ill......... it says it shall not be infringed..... period

techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented

First of all, no one said anything about publishing anyone's names in the newspaper. Your car is registered. That's not public information. That information is readily available to law enforcement, but it is not readily available to the guy next door. If you are John Q Public Citizen you have to jump through some hoops to get that info. Even if I do jump through those hoops I don't get a list of every car that is registered to you. I get one tag and who that's registered to. That's it.

So, again, if you have to register a gun when you buy it or if you do the de facto thing where where retailers keep track of who they sell guns to (which they do already in a lot of cases I'm sure) and give those records to the feds, how does this infringe on your right at all? You can still buy just as many guns and the same type of guns as you can right now. If registration went into effect tomorrow, that would not change in the slightest.

 

[sntaylor]

techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented

Some could argue that common sense changes with time, and is an individuals own perspective!

Surely SOME people would see registering guns as common sense, just the same as you see not allowing certain people rights to guns!

As for the term Assualt Weapon, i agree that there is no such weapon/s, but it becoming a reguarly used term, look at most video games, its pretty obviouse that it is high capacity quick reloading GUNS... Language changes, definitions change.... They should, of course define this if using this wording in any currently proposed weapons law!


Personally i dont see any issue with not being able to carry a gun about with me, i know that the majority of people i meet and see in and around the streets, do not have a gun...hell most do not have a weapon at all! This means im not worrying and fearing for the worst constantly, if i did have a gun and some one else started shooting up, what good is me having it, if i got shot first anyway?

Naturally things are different for me as i dont have any "Constitutional Rights" but then i dont fear that my government is going to go crazy and declare martial law etc

We live in different times from the times the constitution was written, the first speed limit was written around the same time, but i bet you dont drive at that same speed!?!?!

 

[psionandy]

*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"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."

Or... to put it another way...

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

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...

 

[copestag]

First of all, no one said anything about publishing anyone's names in the newspaper. Your car is registered. That's not public information. That information is readily available to law enforcement, but it is not readily available to the guy next door. If you are John Q Public Citizen you have to jump through some hoops to get that info. Even if I do jump through those hoops I don't get a list of every car that is registered to you. I get one tag and who that's registered to. That's it.

tell that to the fine citizens out east whos homes are being broken into now.......... after a newspaper EASILY obtained all of that information and printed it

Or... to put it another way...

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

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...

yes well regulated........... it doesnt say the government has the power to regulate....... self regulated militias are ideal.......... as stated earlier..... the constitution doesnt give me my right to bear arms........... it tells the govt they have NO power whatsoever to stop me

 

[psionandy]

yes well regulated........... it doesnt say the government has the power to regulate....... self regulated militias are ideal.......... as stated earlier..... the constitution doesnt give me my right to bear arms........... it tells the govt they have NO power whatsoever to stop me

it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.


Feel free to ignore the first half if you like (you certainly won't be the only one), but if you do you can't really use the second as a justification for you having the right to bear arms. (you are of course free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...)

 

[A.Nonymous]

tell that to the fine citizens out east whos homes are being broken into now.......... after a newspaper EASILY obtained all of that information and printed it

But owning a gun is supposed to deter burglars. I don't understand.

 

[Ibrick]

But owning a gun is supposed to deter burglars. I don't understand.

Believe it or not people do leave their homes at times.

 

[copestag]

it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.


Feel free to ignore the first half if you like (you certainly won't be the only one), but if you do you can't really use the second as a justification for you having the right to bear arms. (you are of course free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...)

you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: 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.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...

 

[A.Nonymous]

Believe it or not people do leave their homes at times.

Shouldn't matter. The argument has been made that if everyone had a gun crime would go down because burglars will avoid homes where they know someone has a gun. So, publishing the fact that you have a gun would be a good thing because burglars would avoid your home and knock over your neighbors house next door as they know that guy doesn't have a gun.

you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: 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.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...

I'll use a legal argument. The federal government does have the right to regulate guns. Not only are there currently existing federal laws regulating guns, but the ATF exists to enforce those laws. So, yes, the feds have the legal right to regulate firearms. The prohibition on felons owning firearms is a federal law (though some states have laws as well). The prohibition on having firearms on your person or in your carry on bag on an airplane is a federal one as well. So, the argument that the feds don't have the legal right to regulate firearms is bogus. The precedent has been set for hundreds of years. Individual laws may or may not be constitutional, but the feds have every right to pass and enforce them.

 

[Ibrick]

Shouldn't matter. The argument has been made that if everyone had a gun crime would go down because burglars will avoid homes where they know someone has a gun. So, publishing the fact that you have a gun would be a good thing because burglars would avoid your home and knock over your neighbors house next door as they know that guy doesn't have a gun.

Depending on what that individual was planning on doing. If they chose to break into a home knowing full well the owner was home and owned a firearm. They're either extremely brazen, stupid, or plan on the chance they may need to use a firearm of their own.

If they know the owner isn't home and know a gun/guns are inside that most definitely makes them a target for those looking to obtain a firearm illegally. This happened in my own neighborhood a few years back actually.

 

[copestag]

Depending on what that individual was planning on doing. If they chose to break into a home knowing full well the owner was home and owned a firearm. They're either extremely brazen, stupid, or plan on the chance they may need to use a firearm of their own.

If they know the owner isn't home and know a gun/guns are inside that most definitely makes them a target for those looking to obtain a firearm illegally. This happened in my own neighborhood a few years back actually.

exactly...... gun registration leads to public knowledge of where guns are...... leads to more illegal guns on the streets

if I didnt know any better I would say thats what theyre hoping for......... they want crime with illegal guns to increase........ at least thats what their efforts will accomplish