Reply With Quote
The argument could be made that gun registration laws would discriminate against minorities in the same way the crack laws did. How can you make the argument that voter registration laws discriminate against minorities and gun registration wouldn't?
Oh? We're now defining reasonableness categorically? If so, where do you draw the bright line that separates what is and is not a categorically reasonable real life condition on the Second Amendment?
For my own sake, I agree that a registry isn't unreasonable; it might not be effective and it may be intrusive, but it doesn't actually infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment -- any person who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights would continue to have that prerogative, only with the precondition of registration which is arguably a valid exercise of the police power with respect to the broader society.
I'm still struck by the absolutist notion of a Second Amendment from people who, by and large, don't seem to place much nearly as much value on the unconditional protection of other fundamental rights.
The argument could be made that gun registration laws would discriminate against minorities in the same way the crack laws did. How can you make the argument that voter registration laws discriminate against minorities and gun registration wouldn't?
Well, for one thing, I don't have a problem with voter registration laws. I have a problem with racially disparate voter id laws that limit the right to vote to those who've been able to obtain an ID, which empirically has a disproportionately negative impact upon the rights of minorities in the exercise of a fundamental right.
As for your hypothetical, you can allow a person to register at the time they purchase the gun. If you allowed people to obtain a valid ID at the time that they voted, you'd have something resembling an apples-to-apples comparison.
For the record, the registry idea isn't actually mine. I do think a registry is a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment, but I'm not sure that a registry would be my preferred choice for regulation. I'm not really here to argue the merits of any particular approach; I'm here to argue that regulation of Second Amendment rights doesn't threaten those rights. By way of examples, exceptions to the warrant requirements don't wholly jeopardize the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements and limits on speech that would threaten public safety don't wholly jeopardize the First Amendment's Free Speech clause.
Second Amendment absolutism is simply a matter of preferring that right to others and not a principled approach to applying the Cons ution to our society (in my view).
I don't need to draw any line since I wasn't the one who tied "not unreasonable" with "real life conditions". Instead, it has to be shown why it's not unreasonable and how, because other rights have instances where some regulation is happening, the reasonableness of a gun registry becomes apparent.
Sure, any part of the slippery slope seems reasonable individually, but the registry historically is a precursor to confiscation. Knowing that, how can anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment think initiating that precursor is reasonable? Knowing that 2nd Amendment rights folks know that, how can you expect them to think initiating the precursor is reasonable?For my own sake, I agree that a registry isn't unreasonable; it might not be effective and it may be intrusive, but it doesn't actually infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment -- any person who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights would continue to have that prerogative, only with the precondition of registration which is arguably a valid exercise of the police power with respect to the broader society.
Ok, let's attack your right to be secure in your person. We are going to get DNA databases going on your children. Don't worry, we're not going to do anything with it. We also want to put a tracker on them so we can know where they are, for their own safety of course.I'm still struck by the absolutist notion of a Second Amendment from people who, by and large, don't seem to place much nearly as much value on the unconditional protection of other fundamental rights.
How can the minority sans ID purchase a gun?
Since you want the transaction to include registration, it has to be registered to someone. If you cannot identify who you're selling to, then you have to take their word that "John Smith" is buying a gun. So you close the gunshow loophole and now everyone gets a background check. That requires an ID. Now you've created a situation where a disproportionate number of minorities will be unable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
As for your final sentence, the 2nd Amendment is maybe the only one in the Bill of Rights that doesn't apparently apply to everyone, since a lot of people have never owned a gun and don't want to. They don't see it as relevant to modern times. I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment, or the 3rd, or the 5th. We all use those and rely on them. So someone says "the 2nd Amendment doesn't really even apply today" to which I could respond with "then neither does the 1st" and of course their response would be "but we still use that one".
If it seems like 2nd Amendment folks don't care about the BoR you've not been around enough of them. In fact, how many 1st Amendment folks are there? Never heard of one because no one is trying to infringe on it officially.
Last edited by DMC; 10-17-2016 at 10:35 PM.
On a personal note, I don't expect them to find it reasonable. That doesn't mean that applying such regulation would necessarily be illegal though. The opinion that you would or wouldn't like that to happen is certainly respectable.
In addition, I can certainly vouch there's a few 1st amendment guys here, especially when it comes to the topic of secret gag orders from national security letters. I know I'm one, and I believe we've touched on that before with, at least, Winehole23.
You'll find everyone gets upset when an attempt is made to stifle their protests. Imagine 2nd Amendment folks got up in arms (pun) because one type of gun was only being sold to government and police admins.. oh wait, that happens already. Now imagine your 1st Amendment rights as a whole are being challenged, saying it's too dangerous to allow folks to say anything they like, or to print and distribute things from people like Assange. Imagine folks start going to prison for doing so.
If by "legal" you mean cons utional, perhaps. However the same could be said regarding other rights. The Patriot Act comes to mind. Do you think the Patriot Act is a precursor to losing cons utional rights? I do.
When someone parks on the curb in front of your home, they have a legal right to be there. It doesn't make you comfortable knowing they are there, because perhaps you've been robbed a few times. Many 2nd Amendment folks do not trust the government, either side. History has shown it's not a good idea to let your guard down and that's what the framers of the BoR had in mind with the 2nd Amendment. Could we do anything about a military law order where doors are being kicked in? Probably not, but don't you think they'd like to take the guns first?
Now I don't think any of that is going to happen, and I don't consider myself a gun rights person. I own a few guns and have a CHL but rarely carry and have never open carried even though I have the legal right. I just know that those who are ignorant of existing gun laws seem the most concerned with enacting new ones.
I completely concur. My admission that I know full well that such regulations are largely legal and there's a long precedent for them, doesn't automatically make me a fan of them (in all cases anyways).
This whole conversation was triggered over this comment: "It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners."
The government unequivocally has that right, and has exercised it throughout history with many rights granted by cons utional amendments. Agreeing or disagreeing if we like this or that regulation is a different matter altogether, and certainly a valid opinion either way.
How can you say it's legal when the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 specifically prohibits it?
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
This is, of course, a federal regulation that doesn't affect state's rights. Texas is a 2nd Amendment state, and likely will not create a registry.
Because it's a federal law, that overrode aspects of a previous federal law (The Gun Control Act of 1968), and can itself be overridden/amended by Congress.
That's why I said "such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter."
At least with the current composition of Congress, it's unlikely such a law will come to pass.
Your argument is that the government can change anything given the right number of cir stances. Using this reasoning (which I don't disagree with) they have the right to do anything they like if they change the laws to reflect as such. However they currently do not have that right. We were, after all, talking about the federal government.
So it's all about you? You don't read through the thread? Just check direct responses?
Posts are short...would cost little time, if you really want to discuss...if not, what are you doing on this bulletin board?
Yeah, except for blacks. you forgot to mention that after I pointed it out for you. The black codes were real.
They still are, except they're unspoken now, and apparently rude to bring up...the police and the justice system might get hurt feelings having to own up to how they still over non-whites and poor people.
On the bolded, technically speaking, not anything. When it comes to laws, only those that pass the scrutiny of the Judiciary, if challenged.
Congress certainly has the right to enact such regulations, if they choose to do so. Would that involve amending other laws, etc? Sure, that's part of the process, as seen in the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the Patriot Act, etc.
The genius of the legal system is that it's vendible...for everyone who can afford it. Helps to be white, too.
Reading is fundamental.
have you never heard the term "Free Man" in that context? I addressed your unwarranted criticism in the original post.
Fear-mongering is another way the Repugs/VWRC destroy the social fabric, destroy solidarity among citizens. "... divided we fall"
When you are afraid, your only concern is for you own safety, you world is compressed to yourself, and your family.
"Everybody can go get ed, I'm saving myself and mine."
I read the entire thread. I responded to what I felt compelled to respond to. If someone responded directly to me I answered.
It's my prerogative.
Your idea of the "common good" is not necessarily everyone else's idea of the "common good" since yours is so oriented towards taking from others to acquire unearned benefits for yourself.
So back to the FOPA, do you agree that a federal gun registry is currently illegal?
Currently illegal, but not necessarily uncons utional.
Not saying it cannot happen, but I don't see the FOPA being repealed anytime soon. As long as it's a law, a federal registry can't happen, not officially. They can still take the information from retired FFLs however, since the FFL is the one required to actually do ent and maintain the records (which gets the feds around the FOPA clause).
"yours is so oriented towards taking from others to acquire unearned benefits for yourself."
You Lie, but you'r a rightwingnut, so it's automatic in your alternative reality of rightwingnuthood.
I don't see it being repealed either. The NRA has a firm grasp within both parties of the legislature. The fact that they were unable to pass the weakest of gun control measures after Sandy Hook is an obvious indication of where we stand from a legislative perspective in appe e to curb gun rights.
Knee jerk legislation is dangerous. It's a time when Americans are more likely to let go of their rights in exchange for a sense of security. The Patriot Act is a good example of a knee jerk response that infringes on rights. So if we're attacked again, will there be another department created and more freedom fries and more patriotic bull naming of rights infringement laws?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions