Why the paranoid obsession with a national gun registry?

[Capt. Obvious]

Biden: There Is No National Gun Registry

During a roundtable discussion that aired Thursday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Vice President Joe Biden said the White House's push for tougher gun control will not create a national registry of gun owners. Biden also stressed that background checks for gun sales are not intrusive. "They don't say what kind of gun you're buying," Biden said. "They don't say where you're going. They don't say what it is, what the transaction is and when denied, they don't say denied because of mental health. Nothing. And the record, even the notice that you picked up the phone at Dick's and called and asked about Joe Biden, is, has to be destroyed within 24 hours."

Biden added, "So this idea that there is a national registry, there is no place in the federal government where you can go, not a single place, and find out everybody who owns a gun."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/biden-there-is-no-national-gun-registry

I keep hearing this delusion espoused by gun nuts and those that carry their water. When it makes the email rounds it is usually attached to a very loose retelling of 1938 German Weapons Act and that of course, this is all part of Obama's evil plans.

But let's say that there was a national gun registry. How does that differ from local registration?

Aside from the Godwin argument, is it that criminals will know nationally where to steal guns?

If guns are registered only registered gun owners will have guns.

[Honeycombe8]

1. There is no local registration for guns. At least not in my area.

So asking how a national registration list differs from a local one doesn't mean anything, since neither exist. There may be local registration in some areas, I guess.

I see why some don't want a national list. Personally, I don't think such a list would be meaningful, since criminals won't register their weapons in the first place. But I can see why some don't like the idea of a national list. Don't you?

[Capt. Obvious]

2. Local registration in more areas than you think is my guess

Although registration laws vary, they typically require gun owners to record the ownership of their firearms with a designated law enforcement agency. The ownership record should include a full description of the firearm and identifying information about the registrant. In addition, the firearm should be re-registered whenever title to the firearm is transferred, and law enforcement should be notified whenever the weapon is lost or stolen.1

A comprehensive registration law would require gun owners to renew their registration annually or explain why they should no longer be legally responsible for the weapon. During the renewal process, owners would undergo an additional background check to ensure that they have not fallen into a class prohibited from owning firearms.

http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/

So let's say everyone lives in Texas. What is the paranoia of registering your firearms?
Do Texans not register their cars?

I don't want the government knowing I drive a Honda. Besides, criminals will never register their stolen cars.

[Honeycombe8]

36. If you don't understand it, no explanation will suffice for you. Besides, you know why.

It would be like me sarcastically asking why people are paranoid about The Patriot Act? You know, I know, and others know....that I DO know why people are paranoid about The Patriot Act. I'm only asking so that I can disagree.

So...you know why people don't like the idea of registering firearms. You know very well. You don't have that concern. Fair enough. Others do. Fair enough, again.

[Capt. Obvious]

3. I thought this topic could have more discussion

[hack89]

4. Criminals cannot be punished for not registering their guns

Haynes v US and the 5th Amendment.

There is no deterrent for illegal gun owners to not register.

There is no mechanism to ensure that all of the 300 million presently unregistered guns will get registered.

So we have criminals that don't have to register their guns plus a huge pool of existing guns for them to choose from.

So no, "If guns are registered only registered gun owners will have guns." is not a true statement.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. Ah, so it's the criminals will take law abiding gun owners guns reason

interesting tack. That happens all the time in states with gun registration.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3]

Self incrimination only applies to people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun.
It's a pretty low bar in many states to legally obtain a firearm. Much harder to vote than buy a gun in some states.

[hack89]

10. The NFA was modified such that buyers could not register guns

then they made it illegal for felons to own a registered gun.

Using the NFA as a model, existing guns cannot be registered - in the NFA model, only manufacturers and importers can register guns.

Self incrimination only applies to people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun.

Since a large preponderance of gun violence is done by people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun, this is a huge issue that can't be hand waved away.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides - which registration has no impact on. Criminal violence will not be impacted because of the vast pool of unregistered guns. And mass shootings will not be impacted because they are a form of suicide - it is easy to find the owner of the gun since it is usually lying next to his dead body.

[frylock]

18. which makes the argument that the govt would use a national registry to confiscate guns..

utterly ridiculous. the government KNOWS that there are X amount of guns out there that are not on the books, so any confiscation that took place would not be done by accessing a registry of gun owners. it would be door-to-door.

[hack89]

26. But if they were inclined to confiscate guns

they would start by sending letters to those gun owners that did register their guns. Why go door to door when you can compel them to come to you?

As we hear constantly regarding why any given gun control proposal should be passed, "it's a start". Especially since we know that any gun owner is potentially a threat to public safety. Just disarming the legal gun owners would make America significantly safer - right?

[krispos42]

5. If it was the Bush Administration making this argument

Would you believe them?


You can do background checks and not have a permanent record of the sale. We are suppose to be doing that already. But absent that, with the government's known obsession with archiving and cross-indexing EVERYTHING (including social media), this information WILL wind up in a database.

Could even be an illegal database... maybe the NSA secretly taps the ATF's servers or something. Officially the records get dumped, but the NSA keeps an illegal copy of the database. Just stamp it "national security" and it's locked away forever. The NSA will use it, unofficially, and nobody will ever, ever, ever be prosecuted or investigated or even given a slap on the wrist.



Put it his way... if every time you withdrew cash from an ATM or a bank teller, the Treasury Department got a list of the serial numbers of all the bills you were handed, would you be okay with this? Especially if President Rick Perry said "They don't say what you're buying, or where you're going, so what's the big deal?"

[Capt. Obvious]

6. I suppose I'd be okay with the Treasury Dept getting serial numbers of bills

if those dollar bills were capable of killing. More so if they were capable of mass murders.

[krispos42]

13. Just as a general crime-prevention measure

After all, money is what people are killing for, yes? And committing other violent and non-violent crime for, right?


Would you support it as a general crime-control measure?



You're also not debating the effectiveness of gun registration as a crime solving tool. I agree that a background check for all purchases is a good idea. I don't know if it can be done at the federal level; there may be constitutional issues that prevent it from taking effect.

But the issue is "how will the burden and cost of gun registration prevent crime?"



It is simply a way for the government to make owning a gun burdensome? Complex forms, affidavits, waiting periods, middlemen, understaffing, inconvenient locations, inconvenient hours, multiple trips, multi-month processing times...

These are all accepted, tried-and-true methods used by government officials that don't want a nominally legal action from occurring. Popular examples: voting, registering to vote, and abortion services.

So what's the real goal?

[Capt. Obvious]

14. The real goal is FEMA camps

it's always been FEMA camps

[Oilwellian]

7. Ironically...

The NRA is in general, a list of gun owners.

[CokeMachine]

15. Nope

Not all members are gun owners and not all gun owners are members. Please try again.

[backscatter712]

11. Even the history part of this is bullshit.

The Nazis loosened gun laws in Germany (except for Jews).

Personally, I think guns should have a robust paper trail - every transaction tracked, linked with background checks, so if a gun is used in a crime, either the owner can be held responsible, or the person committing the crime could be prosecuted for using/possessing an unregistered gun.

We register our cars. Why is registering guns controversial?

[Orsino]

12. Re-read it as "National Penis Registry."

Some questions nearly answer themselves.

[The Straight Story]

16. Hmm paranoid

Why does someone have to be paranoid if they believe they have a right espoused in the constitution if they complain that the very government which is supposed to be reigned in by that document as far as it's powers go now wants citizens to register to exercise those rights?

Hey, we are the government, here is a document that enshrines your rights and limits our powers. Oh, well, actually, we need you to give us your papers and list which rights you are exercising, how, when, etc. We just want to keep track of it all for your safety.

I don't own a gun. But on the face of it I would tell the government to butt out of my personal business until they themselves start being more open about things themselves.

Why is it we are expected to be more open and transparent while they get to be less and less so over time?

[frylock]

19. does 2A even address a national registry?

pro or con?

[The Straight Story]

23. Does any amendment?

I think the whole constitution addresses the limiting the power of government.

There are, of course, laws that limit how a freedom is used. But that is different than having the government collect data and store it on those who exercise their basic rights.

On the internet we are the 'press' and protesters as well. Should we have to register with the government each time we sign up for a new forum/blog/etc with our real names and locations? Just so they can track us if we break the law while doing so?

Yes, they have other means of finding out things, but would you feel comfortable filling out a form every time you signed up to post somewhere?

[The Straight Story]

31. We already have laws to deal with it. Tell me this:

How would the government having a registration of you owning a gun prevent you from using it to harm others?

[jmg257]

34. It wouldn't. But it would help slow the flow of illegal guns criminals

use to harm others. Combined with UBCs, it would help keep guns out of the hands of others who shouldn't have them.

[Macoy51]

17. Just Another Feel Good Law

I am going to step out on a limb and predict not many would support background checks before you can exercise your Consitutional right to vote, so why are we willing to do so for other Consitutional rights?

If you want to stop violent criminals from using guns, then make it against the law for them to do so. O, but wait, violent criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. So what makes you think any one but a law abiding citizen would follow a background check law any way?

Show me a gun control law that will have any effect on the killing, then we can talk. But passing feel good laws just to brag about “getting tough on guns” is counter-productive.



Macoy

[frylock]

20. adam lanza was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point that he wasn't

[Macoy51]

22. And a Background Check Would Help?

He stole his guns from his Mom, so how would having her pass a background check stopped the killing? Are you avocating including family, room mates and friends in to a background check?


Macoy

[WinniSkipper]

33. Was he sane?

I have heard him called insane by a number of folks on each side. Should he have had a gun at all?

[frylock]

21. one must also register to vote

[Macoy51]

24. Is a Background Check Done to Vote?

Are you required to show ID and have the background check done every time you vote? No, and it would be laughed out of court if they tried.

However; a compromise I can agree to is a firearms card. I pass a test and a background check and get my gun license. Make the license good for 10 years or so. This license would allow me to buy as many weapons as my small wee-wee desires, with no intrusion from the Government. Any one caught with a fire arm, and no license gets sent to the big house.



Macoy

[frylock]

35. you're against background checks? really?!

any particular reasoning for that?

[Macoy51]

37. Two Reasons

1) They do not work. A criminal has no problems getting a gun. Background checks mainly affect law abiding people, no criminals.

2) They create a registry of who bought a gun and where/when. Again, this only affects law abiding people. Criminals do not register thier guns. And no, I do not trust our government when they say they do not keep a record of background checks.

I am all for gun control laws that actually lower crime, but most of what I see are "let's pass some thing so we can feel good" laws.


Macoy

[frylock]

41. it affects them how? by being mildly inconvenienced?

I own guns. at no point have I ever had issue with a background check. and again with the registry? when Obama's black panthers come to take your guns, they're not going to rely on some damn registry. it will be a door-to-door sweep.

[Orsino]

45. Randi Rhodes debunked this last week...

...when another belligerent right-winger called in with the same talking points.

Background checks will be done in the state where the purchase is made. "Our government" isn't involved, and no national gun registry is created by this legislation.

Criminals have "no problem" getting a gun because so many sales are allowed to go through without background checks. Institute background checks universally, and you make guns very difficult to get. Just institute background checks in more sales, and guns get a bit harder to obtain.

Advocating against checks because checks haven't yet been fully implemented is nonsensical. Work harder.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. Oh yeah, I remember that one time I voted and it literally and physically killed 27 people.

No, wait, actually I don't.

And call me stupid, but doesn't one *register* to vote?

[Thor_MN]

32. Last time I checked, there has never been a case of a ballot killing school children

My polling place is the local elementary school. I suppose it should be moved as a school should be a ballot free zone, correct?

Swing and a miss on an analogy, I wouldn't get out too far on that limb if I were you. When gun fetishists come up with a way to regulate themselves, then we can say that there is no need for the Government not to do it. Show me how gun owners are preventing their fellow gun owners from becoming mass murderers, then you can start whining about government oppression.

[Skip Intro]

27. Trusting Biden on guns is like trusting Obama with SS?

I say enforce the laws we have, focus on getting the guns out of the hands of criminals, like gangs, and quit trying to push more and more invasive gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens, hypocritically exploiting the victims of Newtown in the gun-grabbing PR effort.

[Macoy51]

38. What?!?!?!

Who do you think you are proposing ideas that will actually lower crime? Guns are evil and only our beloved Overlords in the police can be trusted to possess such weapons.


/think of the children!!!!!
/sarcam off


I think you are right on the money, enforce the laws that actual keep guns away from criminals and leave me alone.


Macoy

[bossy22]

39. it would be a waste of time, money, resources

Our neighbors up north learned that the hard way. The compliance rate was under 30% in Canada...I can't see it being better here

[Pointy_n_sharp]

40. Usually I hear the Katrina reference...

No one takes anything while everything is ok and calm...

Big disaster and then they are coming door to door...

[Recursion]

44. You don't need a registry to go door to door, as we saw in NoLa

Meh.

[petronius]

42. Another real concern would be the question of cost - registration fees

and renewal requirements could easily be used to discourage (limit, restrict, interfere with, infringe on) gun ownership by arbitrarily making it expensive and inconvenient. I would oppose that sort of 'back-door' gun control, just as I oppose any other fees, taxes, or requirements motivated by the desire to make the exercise of a civil right/liberty less attractive.

There are valid reasons to support registration, but it's equally possible that a registry could be misused to erode rights. I think any plan for national or local registration should include serious and toothy protections regarding privacy, and misuse of the data...

[Recursion]

43. I'm a "gun" person and I just don't get that paranoia

Automatic weapons have been registered for 30 years; nobody's confiscated them.

*shrug*

I just write that off as an inexplicable political fact of life. We could conceivably get operator licensure, but registration isn't going anywhere

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. "If guns are registered only registered gun owners will have guns."

If that were even remotely true, I'd probably support registration. But since it's obviously nonsense...