• Home
  • Blogs
  • Taking Liberties
Taking Liberties
August 19, 2009 7:44 PM

Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

Posted by Declan McCullagh
(AP)
An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.

The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.

Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.

"There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.

What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."

The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.

I haven't been able to find the full text of Section 62-260 online (update: I've found it and attached it below), The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.

Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."

There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).

David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)

I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."

Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.

But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.

Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.

It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.

Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at . You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags:
second amendment
Topics:
Gun Rights
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More from Taking Liberties and Opinion on CBSNews.com

Add a Comment See all 209 Comments
by alliberty August 25, 2009 11:21 PM EDT
seataffer
Thank you for the correction, unorganized not disorganized as defined in US Code Title 10 section (311)chapter 13
" (a)The militia of the Uited Staes consist of all able bodied
at least 17 years of age and,except as provided in section 313
of title 32, under 45 years of age who are or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United
States and of female citizens of the United States who are
members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consisit of the National
Guard and Naval Militia; and

(2) the Unorganized Militia, which consist of members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or
Naval Militia.

The Federalist#29, true, speaks of the organized militia as far more effective in "public defense" but that speaks of Hamilton's definition of Article One section (8) of the US Constitution " This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of national authority. It is therefor....proposes to empower the Union" to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia... reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers...."

On the same paper, Federalist#29, Hamilton spoke of the training of the whole population of citizens as well trained militia members to be impossible " The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution." This shows Hamilton was well aware of the difference of the organized militia like the National Guard who are well trained and the "unorganized militia, consisting of the whole population", who are ill trained. Hamilton knew training the whole population was difficult if not impossible " a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Hamilton calmed the fear of standing armies and the organized militia by reminding the people it was they with their inferior training that keep oppression in control " circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be forminable to the liberies of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and their fellow citizens." The numbers overcome the weakness in skills which generals must evaluate in determining when war is winnable such as the time Hitler was adviced by his generals not to invade Switzerland with it's small population in comparison to France or Poland who had larger armies with more tanks and artillery but did not arm its whole population to defend the country.

You say the militia was so ineffective that Teddy Roosevelt revamped it, is true. That is the same reason the NRA was created to improve the markmanship of citizens so when drafted for war we would all be better shooters. The organized militia was what was Teddy talking about not the unorganized militia that Teddy commanded which be called the Rough Riders. There is still that government body created to improve markamnship, the CMP. But that did not mean the citizen should be denied arms to train.

The Japanese in WW2 did not immediately invade the US with it's equipped military with it's outdated tanks for one reason was that the US educated Yamamoto knew fighting every house with a gun in america would be costly based on the vaste number of gun owners. Remember these "fraidy caitz" are the same ones that joined the army.

You look down at the abilities of the unorganized militia. Well, you might not know that the US soldiers who are good with guns had previous experience with shooting early in their civilian life. In fact the US Army Marksmanship Unit recruites are all from the civlian championship shooting sports. These talented army recruites got their skills from training early in their youth. No one can attain the skills of the Army Markmanship Unit in two years. Civilian shooting champions are sought both by law enforcement and the military in training their elite unites in gun handling skills. The developement of dot sights and 1913 picatinny came about in civilian shooting competitions so is the longer range of sniper rifles of the military thru the developement of long range civilian shooting competitions.

To portray all unorganized militia as fraidy catz and bungling fools only reveals you've never been to any civilian shooting competition. Then again, maybe you shouldn't, it might frighten you to see civilians with such skills.
Reply to this comment
by seataffer August 25, 2009 1:27 PM EDT
allib: The disorganized militia, defined by Hamilton..

.. hamilton espoused a select militia, & g-washington favored a select militia & thought a citizen's militia was generally a disgrace during the rev-war. A select militia was a viable counter to a citizen's militia (2 trains of thought), & in retrospect, as awful as the citizens' militia turned out to be, the select militia likely would have done much better. Select militias would've rarely fit the corrupt picture scalia & rightwing modernists paint them; they would've consisted of more willing volunteers rather than lethargic citizens who'd rather be home drinking whiskey.
.. and I'm talking about the WELL REGULATED MILITIA defined by the 2ndA in 1791 & described by the militia act of 1792. THAT, was for a compulsory militia which was given RKBA to serve in militia, & members were asked to bring a firearm to militia duty (only a small percent could). It is absurd to think RKBA was granted individually with no further duty to serve in militia.
.. there were ~10,000 americans who did not serve in the war of 1812, went absent without official leave, they were in violation of the 1792 militia act; were those 10,000 scofflaws still granted an individual RKBA by the 2ndA? Scalia says yes, in his concocted ruling.. I think those militiamen who served in war of 1812 (as inept as they generally were), would have disagreed that their 10,000 scofflaws had the same RKBA.

allib: You said the militia in 1827 was called by Congress as ineffective yet.. 1861-1865 most states sent their militia to fight for the Union or Confederacy..

.. & those civil war militia performed well, moreso the south since they were more fervent; but prior to 1850 abouts, the militia system was generally scorned & abused & ineffective, as well as post civwar.
.. & you do realize 1861 was 34 years after 1827, yes? .. again in 1903 teddy roosevelt called the militia system (from 1792) worthless & obsolete, & revamped it with the charles dick militia act, which created the national guards & unorganized militia. The UNorganized milita was not officially recognized until this early 1900, & didn't come into existence until about 1830, so hamilton couldn't have been speaking of the unorganized militia concept (not disorg'd).

allib: In WW2 many of the shore watch volunteers used their own guns..

.. ~5,000 members of the unorganized militia showed up in oregon at fort stevens in light of wwII hysteria that the japanese were going to invade west coast. They never fired a shot at the japanese (even tho they had a chance at cannon fire at a ***. sub they didn't fire, they thought it was an invading force & they'd give away their positions! fraidy catz! what a showing in the ONLY time the unorg'd militia ever showed up for anything since ~1903. And those 5,000 were mostly wwI veterans. (a west coast invasion was an impossibility anyway, they didn't even invade hawaii, supply line too long, an invasion of west coast continental US was suicide... yes I know, attu or adak/kiska aleutians).
Reply to this comment
by alliberty August 28, 2009 7:00 PM EDT
seataffer
Sorry! I missed your question on "Well Regulated Militia" as applied to the 2ndA. The Federalist #29 states "If a Well-Regulated Militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought to under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." The word " well regulated" as applied to the 2ndA under the federalist #29 definition applies to how the unorganized militia can be called to service in defense of the country such as when the draft is initiated where the militia is to obey the commands of state or federal appointed officers. The " well regulated" in the 2ndA applies to standards of training and what arms are permitted in common use not total prohibition on guns as interpreted by gun haters.

The definition of "state" under the Federalist #29 is the United States as defined in paragraph three since it is " guardian of national security" not the definition of state such as New York or California. It would be logical then to conclude the definition of " state" on the 2ndA to mean the Federal government, the whole United States. Therefor, the states have no power of regulation under the 2ndA to determine what arms the Unorganized miltia can have but only in how the guns are stored, displayed or where to discharge.

As for the 1892 Militia Act, that again applies to Article One section (8) of the US Constitution since the militia in the 1792 Militia Act have to be "enrolled". No one in the Unorganized Militia is required to be enrolled since a US citizen is automatically in the unorganized militia once they are born and only lose that right when they are criminals or go crazy.
by seataffer August 24, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
son of liberty: [2ndA] a deterrent to keep tyranny in check.
.. [~1790's] there was no standing army or national guard.
Males .. were required to serve in their local militia,

.. son of lib contends these were reasons for 2ndA; explain then why the 2ndA isn't obsolete & worthless, since TODAY, we HAVE a standing army (plus a floating navy & a flying air force), AND, we HAVE a 'select militia' called the national guards.
Both of these tyrannical entities were what the founding fathers (by rightwing logic) were trying to prevent from corrupting govt.. Both of these entities are in existence today, & LARGELY ADMIRED.
.. TODAY, we have NO compulsory citizen's militia, nonesuch; there is an 'unorganized militia' which by definition fails the 2ndA litmus test since unorganized cannot be well regulated.
.. most all rightwing 2ndA arguments have been turned upside down, yet they still contend they've an RKBA (rt keep bear arms), even tho all their arguments are obsolete.
.. where did you serve in the unorganized militia, son of lib? who was your commanding officer? what was your pay? your rank? where did you serve? see? it's a joke, nobody serves, & so is the gunnut argument a joke. They want military style weaponry by right, without ever having to serve one single day in the military or militia.

son of lib: If the people were not allowed to keep and bear their private arms, there could be no militia, and thus, no security.

.. uh son of lib, there is no compulsory militia today, there IS a standing army & a volunteer select militia, & we are the safest most secure country in the world. Your argument is obsolete & worthless.

.. & pray tell how would the founding fathers have condoned an RKBA for private ownership, without having any connection to a well reg'd militia? By you, even tho 2ndA was written in 1791 & a militia law immediately followed in 1792 describing COMPULSORY militia requirements, there was NO CONNECTION to serving in a well reg'd militia?
.. militias did not need private hunting to sustain themselves, food was ample, farming fishing trapping was sufficient; a militia at war could depend on hunting, but then it was an org'd fighting unit not private individuals.
.. 3/4 of firearms were provided by state or feds, & the militia law of 1792 I cited became worthless & disregarded in a few short decades; circa 1827 congress called it worthless & ineffective, people shunned militia duty or paid others to serve for them, & thus the individual rkba concept was born, by disobeying the law of 1792. Of this you are proud no doubt.
Reply to this comment
by alliberty August 24, 2009 11:42 PM EDT
seataffer
If you are not so fearful of the absolute power of the president use the military then tell your liberal friends to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. Why is the ACLU eager to ignore the 2nd Amendment but are fearful of repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights? If you gun grabbers are willing to get us gun nuts to register in the name of fighting crime why are you not willing to have everyone finger printed and DNA registered to the police in the name of fighting crime? Once you pacifist are as willing to take the first step in intrusting all your rights to the State I will continue to resist your demand I register my gun.

Since founding the the Nation under Article One of the Constitution, Congress has had the power to raise Armies and arm the organized militia and for calling such in the service of the country. There has never been compulsary training not like the Europeans. Congress has the power to draft every able bodied man for defense of country that is why the 2nd Amendment gives the right to keep arms for training in case the draft is activated. I don't where you get compulsary training?

Article One section(8) of the US Constitution defines the organized militia like the National Gaurd who are commanded by officers appointed by the governors of their state. The 2nd Amendment defines disorganized militia which applies to all US citizens who are not prohibited persons by the court or have a criminal record.Since the governor or only Congress can appoint officers the disorganized militia has no officer and the disorganized militia can't legally appoint one. The regulation only applied to the restriction on who is lagally able to have a gun and what is the gun in common use at the time that is protected under the 2nd Amendment ( 1939 US vs Miller).

The intent of the founding fathers for disorganized militia was to protect the US Constitution. The disorganized militia, defined by Hamilton under the Federalist Papers, is not loyal to a leader but only to the Constitution. That might sound complicated but when the time comes that a leader tries to be a tyrant he can't legally claim the loyalty of the people giving those who resist him the legal right to revolution. Armed resistance is the last resort after all non violent means have been exhausted.

You said the militia in 1827 was called by Congress as ineffective yet during the American Civil War from 1861-1865 most states sent their militia to fight for the Union or Confederacy such as the New York 1st inf. regiment or the 4th Kentucky voluteer militia regiment. These volunteer militias formed the core of many fighting units. In WW2 many of the shore watch volunteers used their own guns because the countries military was under manned and under armed at the beginning of the conflict.
by seataffer August 24, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
somebody wrote: Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

reply: ..absurd suggestion that gun control led to holocaust; In 1938 germany enacted gun control legislation in germany, true, but it affected mainly german citizens & actually loosened restrictions for germans, extending license from 1 to 3 years, plus more guns available.
.. in jan 1939 there were only about 400,000 jews living in germany to be affected by hitler's gun control, & jews were already limited regarding guns via the nurmburg laws of 1935; half those 400,000 jewish were children & women, couldn't have resisted effectively nazi soldiers, most the others were fathers or had families & wouldn't risk gun ownership putting those at risk.

.. to contend that nazi gun control or registration in 1938 germany was a main cause of the holocaust is absurder than absurd; jewish could have left germany & obtained guns in other countries (barring sov union), there were fewer restrictions on buying guns in other countries & jews were not barred. They also could've joined the armies or home guards, some did.

... upon scrutiny, this gunnutted argument is absurd.
Reply to this comment
by alliberty August 24, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
Yes there was only 400000 Jews during Hitler's time because of licensing like registration it gave the local authority the power to decide who will get a gun just like the Black Laws passed here that prevented Blacks and other minorities from possessing a gun. The Jews had no chance to resist. Would you say the same for the Native Americans that they should give up since they were vastely out numbered by the whites. No, just like the Native Americans the Jews would have fought with guns if they access to it even if they knew they would not win the war. There are many instances of people fighting an over- whelming enemy( Warsaw Ghetto, American Revolution) knowing they might not live yet founght on because they beleive the dying for liberty is better then living a long life under tyranny.

If you want to join the state to take the US citizens guns away it won't be as easy as Hitler did with the Jews. We know registration is confiscation.
by pcfixer911 August 22, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
Reply to this comment
by pcfixer911 August 22, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
Mandatory Federal or State registration of ANY firearms I will consider an invalid law and unconsititional.
In addition, I affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular I oppose a renewal of the misnamed ?assault-weapons? ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).
Reply to this comment
by vadclawman August 22, 2009 1:52 AM EDT
To all the anti-gunners out there:
1) The U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document!! If that were the case then we wouldn't need one at all. The Founding Fathers made it to intentionally fight oppression and to insure that NO ONE would trample our RIGHTS. The Government does not grant rights, it grants privileges.
2) You are correct in saying that the Founding Fathers could not have predicted the type of firearms that would be in use today. Just as they could not have predicted the internet, illegal drug use, gangs, automobiles, airplanes, etc. That is why they wrote the Constituent in the first place. But they probably could have been smart enough to know that items of their day would probably be made better in the future. Just as the firearms of the period advanced from flintlock to percussion cap while they were alive.
3) You and you alone are responsible for you and your family's safety! Law enforcement has no duty to protect an individual; they have a duty to protect the public at large. The SCOTUS has ruled on this matter. (look it up) Police officers cannot be everywhere, every second of the day.
4) Registration of any type is bad. You say register your guns, I say why? I am a law abiding citizen, if I commit a crime I will turn myself in. Big brother does not need to know that I have guns or anything else for that matter. What if the government wanted to register your computer? Then they decide writing blogs and opinions will be illegal? What would you do?
5) It is not democrats, republicans, conservatives, or liberals we dislike. Its narrow minded thinking people that we dislike and people who try to push their own agenda. It always the one's who yell the loudest or have the most money that garners all the attention.
6) If you want to fix the crime in this country, then STOP coddling the criminals and ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS!!! If you commit a crime and continue to commit crimes, no one is going to turn that person around. If you kill someone, you need to be brought to justice. Our prisons are a joke. If we keep permitting gangs in prisons, we have done nothing but allow the criminals to gather with other criminals.
7) A gun is not an evil item. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. A person could kill another person with a Bible, does that make the Bible evil? Or the intent of the person? No inanimate object can think for itself. I've carried a gun on my hip for 20 years and not once has that gun ever jumped out of it's holster and shot anyone.
8) Banning anything is bad. If you want to ban guns, then I think we should ban automobiles and alcohol. Since more people die from drinking and driving, then common sense would dictate that neither one should be allowed in the hands of the common man.

There are 3 types of people in this world, the wolves, the sheep, and the sheepdogs. The wolves prey upon the sheep because they are weak and feeble. The sheepdogs will protect the sheep at all costs.

Which one are you?

I can say to all you anti gunners out there, I will protect you from the wolves and I will lay my life on the line for you so that you may sleep comfortably in your beds.
Reply to this comment
by sueted August 21, 2009 5:17 PM EDT
When I lived in the state of New York,I was an Armed guard,had to use my own guns,all my guns had to be registered with the county sheriff,everytime you sold one they had to know to who,everytime you bought one you had to tell them the serial numbers.None of my guns were ever taken away.One time one was stolden from me and through the serial number they got back for me,I still do not know how they did it.WE carried a permit from a Judge with Picture and all the above Information on it.I did not like it but thats the way it had to up there,Iam in now in Illinois now talk about gun problems...
Reply to this comment
by alliberty August 21, 2009 6:33 PM EDT
sueted
Your stolen gun can be traced back to you through the BATF database without having to register the gun to the state or local sheriff. Every gun produced and imported into the United States the serial number is first entered into the BATF database before the gun is sold to the police, military or the public. You apparently never bought a gun legally because every gun legally purchased by a civilian through an FFL dealer requires the purchaser to complete the BATF federal form 4473 which allows the federal government to do a background check on the purchaser if they're a prohibited person.
The form 4473 helps in tracing guns used in a crime but it does not give the government legal authority to arrest you for not turning in your gun if you refuse. On the other hand, gun registration gives the government legal authority to imprison the gun owner for refusing to turn in their gun to the state. They might not take it today but what about tommorrow. The government has not taken our freedom of speech yet but if we trust government on every thing why are we still in need of any of the Bill of Rights? But the liberals who want gun registration and repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not want any of the other Bill of Rights repealed for fear of government abuse. Doesn't that show the motive for gun registration is not fighting crime but a hate for a tool most effective in fighting tyrants.
by Goodolerebel August 21, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best ; "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.".....Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
Reply to this comment
by alliberty August 21, 2009 3:13 AM EDT
The liberals and pacifist who would call gun owners fools for not having us trust our government to register the most effective tool against the rise of tyranny could not bring in themselves the ability to do the same in the name of fighting crime. Just look at any civil liberty groups website like ACLU or Human Rights Watch will they give up their pivacy to fight crime; they loudly would say never. Would this gun control liberals and pacifist in order to fight crime better demand everyone give their fingerprints and DNA to the police. Would this gun haters demand , if technology is available, everyone have tracking device embedded in them so when a crime is committed the cops would know who was in the crime area. Would these gun haters allow warrantless searches and tapping of phones because they trust our government to always do the right thing.Would these gun haters register themselves in every city they go to so the police will know who is in town to better catch a serial killer. I gaurantee non of these gun haters would allow the government to intrude into their civil liberties to better fight crime because these same gun haters don't trust government. To deny government better tools to fight crime the gun haters will say that is the price of liberty.
These gun haters just beleive that writing their representative, and doing sit ins can make any oppressive government crumble to it's knees like Pol Pots or Stalin's. Ghandi knew these absolute idealism of non violence does not work in the real world. When asked why he used non violence against the British gov. Ghandi replied " The British Government has a conscience". When asked by a reporter why he was recruiting Indian soldiers for the British against Hitler, Ghandi replied" Sometimes you have to fight evil."
Every gun produced and imported to the US it's serial number is put into a BATF data base. The data base can be accessed by any law enforcement official to trace the owner. Registration is not necessary in fighting crime according to the BATF. The courts can order any suspect to produce all their guns and give law enforcement the power to search the suspects property. Registration's whole purpose is to give the government the legal power to arrest the gun owner who refuses to turn in their guns without the gun owner having committed any crime. As in this case the government made the citizen a criminal for an act that has nothing to do with fighting crime.
Those who know history, that a few years after a major conflict like WW2, Veitnam, 9/11 the Pacifist come out of their caves to anounce to the world there will never be another major conflict or tyranny so no need for guns until history again proves the pacifist wrong. It is not only the eternal struggle against tyranny that the American gun owner must fight.
Reply to this comment
by cptn747 August 21, 2009 12:45 AM EDT
afmcalax writes ?....I think the well regulated militia would be called the National Guard if the founding fathers came back today.....?
================= ==================
afmcalaz: Your first error is your first 2 words: ie, ?I think.?
That's your problem. YOU DONT! Thinking is obviously NOT your strong suit. You say you ?think? Militias would now be called the National Guard. Yes. And if my grandmother had 2 wheels she?d be called a bicycle. Fact is, you talk through your A$$hole and haven?t a clue what the founding fathers would think of a military organization able to placed under federal control at the discretion of the president. But the rest of us do. You?re obviously just a clueless twit who should be ignored. So F**K OFF!
Reply to this comment
by IrishWench01 August 21, 2009 12:31 AM EDT
gunownerdan August 20, 2009 7:59 AM EDT ....

Thanks for the link.
Reply to this comment
by chuckgcs August 21, 2009 12:09 AM EDT
How about a short English test. Which ONE of the following 3 statements accurately depicts the wording written in the U.S. Constitution?

1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
************
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia members to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
************
3. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Watch for the responses to this post. It is amazing how many head-in-the-sand, ignorant, subversive, illiterates won't believe that there is any difference at all between the choices. And worse yet, they will actually attempt to convince those of us who do understand English that all three have the exactly the same meaning.
Reply to this comment
by agsforever August 28, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
no apparent responses to your 8/21/2009 1209am EDT post chuck. may be some later. # 3 of course. same phrase as used in Amendment #1, Amendment #4, and Amendment #5.
by waypasthadenough August 20, 2009 9:53 PM EDT
And done by republicrat judges appointed by republicrats. When will we say "enough!?" They should all be arrested, tried for treason and executed. No registration without "Liberal" season needs to be our mantra.

It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.

Don?t understand? Start here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

Think globally, fight locally. Aim small, miss small. One shot, one dead "Liberal"(communist/fascist).
Reply to this comment
by cptn747 August 20, 2009 9:09 PM EDT
readyrat asks: ?....Who registers their guns...??
And he suggests ?Criminal? dont. Correct. But readyrat forgot the 3ed group of people: ?criminals? (spelled with a small ?c?), who also dont register guns. See my previous post re: why its smart to be this kind of ?criminal? and why tens of thousands are now proud to join the ranks of government manufactured outlaws.
Reply to this comment
by readyrat August 20, 2009 8:51 PM EDT
I would like all of you 2nd Amendment haters to answer a couple of questions, in fact lets make them rhetoric questions just so everyone gets the right answers: 1. Who registers their firearm? Law abiding citizens. 2. Who doesn't register their firearms? Criminals. 3. What good does registration do? None.
Reply to this comment
by cptn747 August 20, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
This decision will only effect those who purchase guns legally, in the naive belief government wont eventually confiscate them, despite clear indications it will. One IGNORANUS posting here, claims comparisons between the US and Germany or the USSR are exaggerated and inaccurate, as we?re in no danger of becoming a totalitarian state. ?It cant happen here?. Yes. Millions of others said those same sad words 70 years ago. This court decision wont effect those of us who?ve learned from history and have had the foresight to stock pile and hide unregistered guns & ammo. There are now tens of thousands of us doing this. And our numbers grow with each ominous indicator of where our government is heading. So dont be surprised that one day police, or the soon to be created ?National Security Force, will come to collect guns from those refusing to turn in Registered weapons. Then many of these unarmed sheeple will turn to sheepdogs like me for guns, which we?ll gladly sell ....... for a price. An unexpected side benefit our foresightedness is that our investment in guns has increased between 100% and 400% over the past 2 years, and continues to escalate.
So how?s your investments in the Stock market working for you?
Reply to this comment
by cptn747 August 20, 2009 8:38 PM EDT
This decision will only effect those who purchase guns legally, in the naive belief government wont eventually confiscate them, despite clear indications it will. One IGNORANUS posting here, claims comparisons between the US and Germany or the USSR are exaggerated and inaccurate, as we?re in no danger of becoming a totalitarian state. ?It cant happen here?. Yes. Millions of others said those same sad words 70 years ago. This court decision wont effect those of us who?ve learned from history and have had the foresight to stock pile and hide unregistered guns & ammo. There are now tens of thousands of us doing this. And our numbers grow with each ominous indicator of where our government is heading. So dont be surprised that one day police, or the soon to be created ?National Security Force, will come to collect guns from those refusing to turn in Registered weapons. Then many of these unarmed sheeple will turn to sheepdogs like me for guns, which we?ll gladly sell ....... for a price. An unexpected side benefit our foresightedness is that our investment in guns has increased between 100% and 400% over the past 2 years, and continues to escalate.
So how?s your investments in the Stock market working for you?
Reply to this comment
by cbrookfi August 20, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
If the government makes a decision to come and take my weapons and ammunition, it will be my decision as to how they will be delivered.
Reply to this comment
by waypasthadenough August 20, 2009 9:58 PM EDT
If we wait for them to come to each household we will be making a grave mistake.

It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.

Don?t understand? Start here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

Think globally, fight locally. Aim small, miss small. One shot, one dead "Liberal"(communist/fascist).
by hanko308 August 20, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
A lot of people need to wake up and start screaming about firearm registration! When you purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you need to fill out form 4473 which is provided by the BATF. At this point, the firearm is already registered with the federal government. Amazingly enough, this does not cost anything. Why do state and local municipalities want to register firearms again?? It's due to charging exorbitant fees for this service, like they already do in Chicago! Charging fees for a constitutional right is by all means unconstitutional!! 90 percent of the politicians in Illinois do not abide by the state constitution nor the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to do before accepting their office, so what's the point?????
Reply to this comment
See all 209 Comments

About Taking Liberties

Declan McCullagh's iconoclastic take on politics, the economy, and individual rights. (Iconoclast: From Medieval Latin "iconoclastes," and from Middle Greek "eikonoklast's," meaning image destroyer.) Sample topics: economy, politics, interviews, free speech, property rights, gun rights, lessons in economics, individual rights, interviews, technology, features.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn