CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[2aguy]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

And again...it was the anti gun extremist paranoids who first thought they had a great issue...that guns are going to surpass cars in killing people in 2015...it was in left wing articles first....and then we responded..with the truth and they didn't like it at all...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505

Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....



So.....cars accidentally kill more people than guns kill intentionally and by accident......

Cars accidentally killed 35,369 people in 2013.....

with over 357,000,000 guns in private hands how many were killed by accidental gun death..... 505.

So the anti gunners hate those numbers and they start to hem and haw...but....but.....guns are designed to kill people...

And again.....cars kill 35,369 people...on accident...

Guns accidentally killed 505 people.... with over 357,000,000 in private hands....

Even when guns are used illegally to murder people....mostly criminals killling other criminals..with intent to murder....they only murder 8,124 people in 2014.....

Cars accidentally kill 35,369 people.....

Guns illegally used to murder... 8,124

So the whole car vs. gun meme....created by left wing anti gun morons....falls apart....

And then you throw on top of that that Americans, with gun, normal Americans with guns....stop violent criminal attacks 1.5 million times a year...and in that 1.5 million defenses, lives are saved.....with guns...according to bill clinton...the personal Jesus of left wing Americans.......and backed up by obama's CDC in 2013 with 10 million dollars in research.......

 

[Lonestar_logic]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

 

[2aguy]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun extremists think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

 

[jwoodie]

The OP claims that the goal is a gun registry. There is no reason to believe that other than a lot of whining from gun nuts.

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

Are you schizophrenic?

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't thin in substance already exist? About the only real difference between what exists now and a so-called national registry is that nobody has bothered to integrate the data held in the various state registries into one place. That basically means one must cull through data in 50 state registries of gun ownership rather than looking on one national one. It seems to me that getting the information is just a matter of how long it'll take and how much it'll thus cost to do so.

...
Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Read the OP again, slowly.

There today exist all manners of lists and repositories of information about citizens and residents. That information can be used for good or bad ends.

Red:
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

Blue:
Oh the wonders of information stored in integrated databases....

One purpose is that when a gun used in a crime is found, there's an immediate place to go to determine whether the registered and lawful owner of it reported it lost/stolen or transferred (gift or sale) to another individual, assuming that owner isn't the person who used it to commit a crime. Then persons who fail to communicate the mode of disposition of their firearms can be held accountable.

Another use, one that won't manifest immediately, but over a few years would, is that recovered guns can be identified and checked against the list of original owners. It may, it may not, be that there appears a pattern of one or several original purchasers' guns consistently make their way into the criminal sphere. Realizing that would give law enforcement officials a plausible basis for investigating further.

They tried to register guns in Canada.....just long guns.....and it cost so much, used up so much manpower....and no one was complying...they gave it up.....

 

[ogibillm]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't thin in substance already exist? About the only real difference between what exists now and a so-called national registry is that nobody has bothered to integrate the data held in the various state registries into one place. That basically means one must cull through data in 50 state registries of gun ownership rather than looking on one national one. It seems to me that getting the information is just a matter of how long it'll take and how much it'll thus cost to do so.

...
Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Read the OP again, slowly.

There today exist all manners of lists and repositories of information about citizens and residents. That information can be used for good or bad ends.

Red:
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

Blue:
Oh the wonders of information stored in integrated databases....

One purpose is that when a gun used in a crime is found, there's an immediate place to go to determine whether the registered and lawful owner of it reported it lost/stolen or transferred (gift or sale) to another individual, assuming that owner isn't the person who used it to commit a crime. Then persons who fail to communicate the mode of disposition of their firearms can be held accountable.

Another use, one that won't manifest immediately, but over a few years would, is that recovered guns can be identified and checked against the list of original owners. It may, it may not, be that there appears a pattern of one or several original purchasers' guns consistently make their way into the criminal sphere. Realizing that would give law enforcement officials a plausible basis for investigating further.

You are wrong....registered guns do nothing to solve crimes......

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government.

According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[2aguy]

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You don't need to register guns to do that....they already do it...it is called snitches......and they use them all the time..which is why Chicago gangs only buy guns from friends and family....they don't trust people they don't know....so you could register all the guns, all day long...and criminals will still get them......they will be bought and reported stolen..........and off they go into the criminal underworld....

Then you geniuses will have to make it a felony to have a gun stolen...........

How about just locking up criminals who use guns to commit crimes.....it works, doesn't require licensing normal gun owners who don't use guns to commit crimes, doesn't require registering guns of normal gun owners who don't use their guns to commit crimes......and actually targets criminals......

You can already arrest people who commit crimes with guns....today...without new laws.

You can already arrest felons who have in their possession a gun....you can arrest them on the spot....today...without new laws.....

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

 

[ogibillm]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun hacks think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

seriously?

a registry would not be perfect, you're right, but that doesn't mean it would be worthless

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You honestly believe black market guns will be registered? You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California

So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?

Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..

What pistol do you have that's banned in Ca.? It may be a Springfield XD or XDS and the reason is because Springfield refuses to pay the fee required to be able to sell in Ca.

Yeah....had one...sold it.......so they are banned in California by a Poll Tax.....

 

[ogibillm]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

this is the insanity spouted by idiots that keeps guns in the hands of criminals

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California

So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?

Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..

What pistol do you have that's banned in Ca.? It may be a Springfield XD or XDS and the reason is because Springfield refuses to pay the fee required to be able to sell in Ca.

Yeah....had one...sold it.......so they are banned in California by a Poll Tax.....

Yes a number of firearms are banned because the manufacturers refuse to pay the required fee.

 

[2aguy]

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun hacks think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

seriously?

a registry would not be perfect, you're right, but that doesn't mean it would be worthless

Did you read about Canada....it doesn't work....and does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....and it does nothing to solve crimes either...

Thug steals gun....uses gun to kill other thug, gets caught.......you can already arrest him without registering that gun.

Thug steals gun...uses gun to kill other thug....drops gun at scene...police follow it back to original owner.......dead end.

Registering guns has one purpose.....the future banning or confiscation of guns..........as they did in Germany, Britain, Australia and New York and California.....

 

[2aguy]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

this is the insanity spouted by idiots that keeps guns in the hands of criminals

You have still not explained how registering guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals...simply saying the words
"Registering guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals" does nothing to actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals...please explain the mechanics of how registering guns keeps a criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun.....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

this is the insanity spouted by idiots that keeps guns in the hands of criminals

Actually it isn't insanity....let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

 

[2aguy]

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun hacks think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

seriously?

a registry would not be perfect, you're right, but that doesn't mean it would be worthless

Do you know that criminals do not have to register illegally owned guns....? Do you know that....by Supreme Court ruling....Haynes v. United States....it is unconstitutional and violates their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.....

So the only people who would be legally bound to register their guns......law abiding citizens who don't use guns to commmit crimes....

Do you see now why we think you are silly?

 

[2aguy]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

this is the insanity spouted by idiots that keeps guns in the hands of criminals

Actually it isn't insanity....let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

Don't Forget Germany....and Britain....

We know what they want with registration.......if they say they don't want to ban or confiscate guns it is either because they are uniformed on the subject....or they are lying......

 

[2aguy]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

this is the insanity spouted by idiots that keeps guns in the hands of criminals

Actually it isn't insanity....let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

Thank you.....great points..........

 

[2aguy]

Here you go........criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background of the case[edit]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felonwho was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act.

Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion[edit]


In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

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 Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.