Registration: Does it Infringe Upon a Right?

[USAFNoDAk]

In arguing that the 2nd Amendment bars gun registration, because to register a right is to turn it into a priviledge, which infringes upon that right, someone brought up the point that voting is a right, yet 48 states require you to register to vote.

Anyone have any counter points for that?

Voting is not specifically protected by an amendment, however, the Bill of Rights also says that just because a right is not enumerated, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So how do we answer the above point regarding voter registration?

I would appreciate any thoughtful responses.

 

[boofus]

Just registration with no further hassles on the part of the owner is not an infringement per se, but gun registration is very nearly always followed by confiscation. Gun owners know it is the next step that is why we fight tooth and nail against it.

Sorta like jumping off a skyscraper... the jumping and falling don't really harm you. But the abrupt stop that most certainly happens next will hurt like hell. I'd like to avoid jumping altogether.

You register plenty of other property, like cars, planes, boats, real estate etc... No one here ever complains about that. The difference? There isn't some rabid drooling braindead liberal waiting to pounce on the registration data to take your car away.

 

[tyme]

Yes.

The voting fraud that plagues elections does not translate into firearm fraud, so there exists no need for any regulation.

 

[Walking Wounded]

I actually wouldn't have a problem with it if I was not positive that it would be followed by total prohibition of the registered guns.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

But wasn't there a court case that stated that to register a right, is to turn that right into a priviledge, one limited by government, and thus you cannot license or register a right? Maybe it was only referring to the licensing of the right.

 

[Graystar]

Maybe it was only referring to the licensing of the right.

That's right. The ruling was that government can't charge for the exercise of a right.

 

[Ktulu]

YES!

What right are we talking about?

The right to reproduce? Do I need to register my d#$@?

How about the right to defend myself against predation? What do I register? Tooth, fang, claw, baseball bat, steak knife, what?

How about the right to think and speak as I wish? What do I need to register here?

Who says one right is subject to registration while another is not? Carl Lenin and Debbie Stabmenow? No thank you.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Firearms ownership works just fine without registration.

Voting would not work without some process to ensure that each person only registers one vote. (That's LIVE people for those of you in Illinois).

 

[Ktulu]

Voting is not a "creator" granted right. In this country, it is a right given to the people by the people.

 

[ctdonath]

Of course it infringes. If you can't exercise RKBA without registration, then you can't exercise RKBA _until_ you have registered. That's infringement.

My vacations usually happen on 2-3 weeks notice, far too little time to "register" if I haven't already done so in that state. Ergo, I am officially forbidden to exercise RKBA during a period when I especially need to do so (tourist = target) - isn't that infringement?

 

[woerm]

voter registration (from elect judge perspective)

Unlike firearms registration voter registration serves to perserve a right.

ie make sure that we have the qualifications of voting in place,

age,

residence,

citizenship/resident alien etc

edited to add

Pulse,
Respiration
and brainwaves hmmm, not sure about that last one...

I have to deal every stinkin election with folks that can't find their nose with both hands and box of kleenex (r) and want to vote,

motor voter registration, same day all the other 'maximize' to franchise ploys are purely vote fraud magnets.

ps I'm from a place where Lyndon got votes from my greatgrandpa 24 yrs after his death?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'd reconsider my adamant stand against firearms registration if someone could explain the benefit of it. What, precisely, does it accomplish, other than giving government information to use against us. How is registration supposed to prevent or solve crime?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever answered those two simple questions.

 

[G1FAL]

How is registration supposed to prevent or solve crime?

Dont you ever watch "Law & Order"?

When someone is shot with, say, a .25 ACP, they (cops) look for people that have a registered .25, then go harass them. Nevermind the FACT that criminals dont register their guns, only the law-abiding do. Which could be part of why they are law-abiding, they actually follow the law, as opposed to criminals, who dont. Gee, wonder if the idiots that make up stupid laws like that ever think of that type of thing? (Probably not)

 

[boofus]

Just something to think about...

Whether you like registration or not it is already happening, first at the manufacturer with the serial number and then in the log book of your FFL and the 4473 yellow form. Then again at the manufacturer if you fill out the lifetime warranty card.

The only difference between that and the gun grabber registration is the gun manufacturer and your FFL aren't going bust down your door and repo your stuff.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

motor voter registration, same day all the other 'maximize' to franchise ploys are purely vote fraud magnets.

Tell me about it. In Minnesota, you need only show up with a driver's license or a utility bill with your name on it. You can then VOUCH FOR AS MANY OTHER VOTERS AS YOU WANT!!!!!!!!

Why do you think Minnesota cranks out so many Democrats?

 

[Stickjockey]

Nevermind the FACT that criminals dont register their guns, only the law-abiding do.

Am I wrong or is it expressly counter-Amendment 5 to require a convicted criminal to register a gun, given the fact that it is a felony for them to even have one?

 

[walker37]

Stickjockey,

I remember reading about a court case that came to that decision. It was a while back, so I don't remember all the details. I will post it if I can find it

 

[Michigander]

from: http://www.etymonline.com/i2etym.htm

infringe - c.1467, from L. infringere "to damage, break off," from in- "in" + frangere "to break." Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760.

from: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. &
vb. n. Infringing.] [L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere
to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .]
1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill
or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract.

If the first that did the edict infringe, Had
answered for his deed. --Shak.

The peace . . . was infringed by Appius Claudius.
--Golding.

2. To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to
infringe delight or power. [Obs.] --Hooker.

from: www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online)

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·fring·er noun

Notice how the "hinder" or "encroach" or "frustrate" definition has "become obsolete"? Yet when I hear the word "infringe," "hinder" or "impede" are the first words that come to mind (and always have).

I once found a reference to a dictionary from around 1800 and the "hinder/encroach" definitions were still current. I tried to find it again, but couldn't. If I do, I'll post it here.

Now, if someone goes to a modern dictionary, they may believe that the Founding Fathers meant "prevent altogether" or "stop completely" when they used the word "infringe" as opposed to simply meaning "hinder" or "impede" or "frustrate."

Keep your old dictionaries people!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Am I wrong or is it expressly counter-Amendment 5 to require a convicted criminal to register a gun, given the fact that it is a felony for them to even have one?

Thus have the courts ruled. In fact, I believe it was the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.

 

[Rebeldon]

someone brought up the point that voting is a right, yet 48 states require you to register to vote.

When did voting become a right? Provided by law--yes...but not a right. Democracy is not a right. Rights exist apart from any constitution saying that they exist. However, your so-called "voting rights" do not exist apart from the law.

The word "right" is so misused that it seems that it no longer has any meaning. The person on the street thinks we have a right to health care, or a right to education. No we don't! I believe that the left-wing, post-modern deconstruction of the meaning of the word "right" is intentional.

 

[Wildalaska]

Constituionaly speaking, registration would not violate the 2nd amendment (if certain factual scenarios are established)..

Its the facts that prevent it, not registration per se.

WildgoodthreadstartAlaska

 

[R.H. Lee]

The government's knowledge that the people are armed is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. If the government attempts to rescind that right for any reason, including failure of the people to "register" such arms (put .gov on notice of possession), THAT attempt is an infringement.

In other words, government can require that I "register" my pistol, ie give them notice that I possess it. They cannot enforce that requirement without violating my constitutional right(s).

 

[Graystar]

Am I wrong or is it expressly counter-Amendment 5 to require a convicted criminal to register a gun, given the fact that it is a felony for them to even have one?

Despite what might have been ruled by a circuit court, I'm sure that the Supreme Court would find that it does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The facts of one's life are evidentiary, not testament. As such, being compelled to present those facts does not constitute compelled testimony. The Supreme Court has already ruled this on a case involving an accountant that was compelled to hand over his books (which, of course, were used to prove that he was embezzling.) A Fifth Amendment claim was made and the Court said the books were evidence, not testimony.

 

[Zundfolge]

When someone is shot with, say, a .25 ACP, they (cops) look for people that have a registered .25, then go harass them.

They don't even need registration to do that. Ask those folk who purchased a Federal .380 Makarov barrel about the FBI showing up at their doors and demanding their Maks for "testing".

 

[Michigander]

I posted this in a similar thread:

Infringement is a hinderance, an impedement, a frustration.

All regulations are infringements by definition.

If any regulation is allowed, then all regulation is allowed. It can only be one or the other. It cannot be both. By allowing the government the power to regulate any, they have the power to regulate all.

Let's say the SCOTUS decides that this regulation or that regulation is not unconstitutional because we all still have the right to keep and bear arms. So what that would mean is that the government could basically regulate or restrict all firearms except .22 rifles. Hey, you still have the right to keep and bear arms, it just so happens that legally you can only a use a .22 rifle. The right still exists, right?

But the right has been INFRINGED!!! Amendment II does not state, "the people will forevermore have the right to keep and bear arms." NO. It states, "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" specifically!

Well, as far as Amendment II goes, that's how I see it.

Of course I agree with others here at THR, that the RKBA exists irregardless of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America or the Bill of Rights.