Exactly what positive effect could come about from what is being proposed? Is a registered firearm somehow unable to be utilized in the commission of a crime? Did background checks stop Stephen Paddock, or any number of other mass shooters in recent history? Would background checks on private purchases be immune to straw purchases?
Your arguement is the same old because what is proposed isn't perfect and doesn't solve every problem we should do nothing. A foolproof, almost totally effective registration system could be easily designed but of course it won't because of politics.
That is just nonsense. Where do you find in the Constitution that laws that restrict the rights of Americans who have committed no crimes is against the spirit the nation was founded on. Be specific instead of just babbling.
The very question you ask above demonstrates how thoroughly you have missed the point of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the very words of the Founders. In my opinion you should be examining the totalitarian bent of your position. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty...The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...Wherever standing armies are kept up and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” - St. George Tucker As for the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment (Emphasis Mine) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment (Emphasis Mine) 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. - Tenth Amendment Recognize the pattern?? Go through and read the words of the Founders (I can sit here and post a textbook's worth of quotes), look at the structure of the Constitution, and recognize that the intent from the outset was to protect the rights of people to live their lives as they chose, so long as what they chose to do did not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. In the matter of Constitutional rights, government cannot impose upon those rights in any way; not without the citizen being guilty of an offense suitable for the government to have probable cause to impose upon those rights via Due Process. In regards to guns, we have a Constitutional right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed." That's pretty unequivocal. If I, as an individual, exercise that right responsibly, then there is no just cause to infringe upon my rights. Plain and simple.
A rational reasonable government would have urged everyone w/o a felony conviction to arm themselves long ago. Especially before going outside in Hell Holes like Baltimore.
Then address the shortcomings that have been raised. Exactly what would nationwide registration of every single firearm in the united states result in, that would justify the expenses involved with such an undertaking. Then actually demonstrate and detail what such would look like if it were implemented. If it can be so easily done, then show how such is indeed the case. Rise to the occasion and demonstrate what actual competence looks like.
Easy. Mandatory registration. $100,000.00 fine and twenty years in jail for failing to register and $100,000.00 dollars for turning in someone who hasn't registered a gun. Takes care of the standard duck that criminals won't obey the law and eliminates any worries about gun transactions. Now tell me why it won't work.
Because such a course of action would never survive challenges pertaining to legality and constitutionality. Even murder does not result in a sentence as severe as what is being proposed. The united states constitution specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and twenty years for possession of an unregistered firearm could not be considered anything else. That matter aside, the proposal fails to address specifically how such a punishment would be enforced if tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals simply refused to comply, and actually dared the government to try and punish them for noncompliance. Each and every individual would have to be subjected to an individual trial, which would take months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for the state to make its case, and ultimately leave the matter up to a jury to decide, and conclude whether or not it wanted to lock up someone for twenty years simply for not registering a firearm. Prosecutors are not willing to seek charges in a case they are not confident they can actually win. Even if they were, why should finite resources such as prison housing be squandered on matters of paperwork, rather than on career criminals who do not belong in society? Beyond such, your proposal would never apply to prohibited individuals who are found in possession of unregistered firearms. The proposal would only ever be enforced against those who are not criminals to begin with, The united state supreme court has stated that a prohibited individual, such as a felon, cannot be punished for failing to register a firearm they cannot legally possess to begin with, as it is a violation of their right against self incrimination. To comply with the law, they must incriminate themselves by admitting to breaking another law.
On the basis of the severity of the punishment not being in proportion to the degree of the actual offense. Even unlawful possession of a firearm regulated by the national firearms act does not result in twenty years in prison. At most the punishment for such an offense is no more than ten years in prison.
Duh , you can change the law. You can't debate that my solution won't work. Solves the standard nonsense that if you make laws they only work for law abiding citizens. You just make it really profitable to rat out the criminals and you solve the most common gun lover objection to intelligent gun laws. Responsible citizens get to keep their guns and the penalties for the bad guys gets too high to ignore.
Such an out of hand dismissal is offered up anytime it is pointed out that a proposal will not work, as if doing such is the easiest thing in the world. It is not. A debate of the proposal presented by yourself is truly, honestly desired? So be it then. Let us say, for the sake of hypothetical discussion, that the proposal presented by yourself has indeed been implemented into law at the federal level. What then? What will have to be implemented for such a proposal to actually work? Will the federal government be required to supply funding and assistance to each of the fifty states in order to get the firearms within the state registered into a centralized database? Or will each state be tasked with coming up with the necessary funding to comply with the new requirement? Exactly what course of action will the federal government take if a state refuses to abide by the registration requirement? The number of states under control of those that oppose firearms registration is significant, so such a possibility cannot be ruled out. Several states have already declared that they will not comply with federal immigration laws, and have declared themselves to be sanctuary states. There is no logical reason to believe such a sentiment would not be shared with regard to firearms. So what will the federal government do if every state that does not mandate firearms registration, simply refuses to abide with the new requirement? What courses of action does the government have at its disposal? What resources can it utilize? Compliance levels of the states notwithstanding, exactly how long after the legislation is implemented, will the public have to comply with the law? What sort of grace period will be in place to insure that someone is not arrested for possession of an unregistered firearms, while they are in the process of attempting to register it? Will there be a period of years before arrests and prosecutions are made? Decades? How long would states be provided to actually figure out how to go about complying with the registration requirements? Just how long would it take to actually register the estimated three hundred to five hundred million firearms that are currently in private circulation, with another estimated forty one thousand being added to that number on a daily basis? The federal government cannot prosecute someone for violating a law they cannot possibly comply with. Are such logistical issues able to be clarified on the part of yourself? Except what is being proposed is not even close to intelligent. What is being proposed by yourself is nothing more than a system of distrust and paranoia. Exactly how is a private citizen supposed to know which firearms are registered and which are not? Are they going to personally inquire before calling in law enforcement to insure they get their reward? Or are they going to operate on the basis that all firearms are unregistered, and as a result waste finite resources by filing what is ultimately a false claim? Pray tell what will make such penalties any more enforceable than any previous firearms registration requirement, which cannot be enforced against those who cannot legally possess a firearm, but do so regardless?
You have not provided any reason why my solution will not work. Of course there will be logistical issues and time for compliance etc. will have to be worked out and there are always details and costs. But other than the objection of possible states that want unfettered gun maham you cannot provide any reason why my approach could not work. It meets every objection about gun regulations only working for law abiding citizens which is what every good gun advocate uses against any rational gun law. The reward system for turning in gun criminals defeats this standard objection. The system of rewarding informants is well established and widely used by law enforcement. And the reason the current system doesn't work is the penalties are minimal and there is no incentive for anyone turning in the criminals.
We could put it under Homeland Security since the have a hugh organization that is currently doing nothing.
Actually, homeland may seem to you as if it does nothing, but it has a staggering mission along with an enormous work force.
How? Again, who would enforce it? Would they come to rural America? Doubtful. Would their own people enforce it? NOPE.
And according to you nothing to do. How would they do this? Gun registration was dismal in the states that tried to do it. Are you willing to make millions of criminals by fiat? That would be the cause of a civil war with a lot of libs dancing on the end of a rope.
Why not prosecute the Felons committing crimes ? Do you realize criminals do NOT need to register firearms, as Registration of firearms is recognized as self incrimination and protected as a Civil Right ?
More accurately the reasons have simply not been recognized, or simply not acknowledged. Then work out the hypothetical details of the various logistical issues before presenting such a nonsensical proposal as if it is the greatest thing that has ever been considered. Widespread lack of public support, and overwhelming resistance from the individual states, are not regarded as reasons for why the registration proposal could not work? How exactly would the federal government actually make such a program work without to cooperation of the individual states? Read Haynes v United States before making declarations about the perfection of the proposal being presented by yourself. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/ How? Explain precisely how such would actually be done. Again, explain precisely how such will actually work. How exactly will someone acting as an informant to law enforcement be able to tell if a firearm is registered or not? Are they going to personally inquire about the registered status of a particular firearm, to know for certain about calling it in? Are private citizens going to be legally authorized to demand that those who own firearms present evidence of the firearms actually being registered? Will they be granted immunity from prosecution if the forcefully enter private residences to see if any unregistered firearms are present? Are these supposed informants simply going to proceed and operate under the assumption that every firearm seen is unregistered and let law enforcement sort the matter out after the fact? Will these informants be prosecuted for filing a false report if it turns out the firearms they reported were actually registered? How long will this supposed system work when informants are not paid on the basis that they reported already registered firearms? Again, work out the hypothetical details of the various logistical issues before presenting such a nonsensical proposal as if it is the greatest thing that has ever been considered. Explain precisely how ten years in prison just for the crime of unlawful possession amounts to a minimal penalty that does not even warrant pursuing such charges. As opposed to the current system that is in place, where those who actually work with law enforcement are labeled as "rats" or "snitches" and gets them killed for not keeping their mouth shut?
