I’m still waiting to hear a logically valid argument as to why conscription isn’t a violation of the 13th Amendment. Unless, of course, you are only conscripting convicts as part of their sentance. After all, it has an exception for involuntary service as part of a criminal sentance — but I see not ONE exception that allows involuntary service for national defense.

To me, this is a case of the original meaning of the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule.”

(Still wouldn’t invalidate the militia — only the involuntary callup of the militia. And that could be gotten around by getting people to volunteer to be on teh callup list, in exchange for some priviledge. Student loans, welfare, government jobs — ALL could be restricted to “registered militia members” if a militia based involuntary callup system were desired. Any one else in the militia would be subject only to VOLUNTARY callup.)

Registration by model and serial number doesn’t actually yield any more useable data for the government than registration by vague description — because gun registration lists aren’t for tracking down stolen weapons, they are for confiscating guns.

Knowing that I have a militia class rifle is just as good for that purpose as knowing the serial number. The goon squad shows up and collects my “militia rifle” in either case.

What I would ADMANTLY oppose in a true militia accountability system is having to prove I have anything OTHER than a single militia weapon.

Let’s look at teh scenario, OK? Assume a traditional US militia system, uprevved to modern arms, and the government has a list (either by make/model/serial, or even just “Rick has a militia gun”). Now assume a confiscatory and nefarious government that sends out the goon squads to disarm people, based on the militia lists. (Further assume that I choose not to just start killing goons right there, for whatever reason. . .)

Goon squad shows up, asks for my “militia rifle”. I decide not to luanch a suicide jihad right there and then and I hand over a militia rifle. Maybe even the “one basic load of ammo, bayonet, and web gear”, if the militia law required me to prove that as well (as the early laws did) and the goon squad was collecting that support gear as well.

The other rifles I have stashed away (1, a dozen, a whole freaking truck load? God — and my wife — only knows) and ammo (cans, cases, or pallets?) would still not be listed — and would be just as safe from confiscation as if NO registration list for ANYTHING existed.

The fact that I have a registered militia rifle wouldn’t indicate I have more guns — since be its very nature, a militia accountability system like that assumes EVERYONE has a militia rifle!

How does the goon squad having the serial number of the ONE GUN I am required by law to prove I own change ANYTHING in the confiscation scenario? Or ANY confiscation scenarios? It doesn’t.

On teh other hand, such a list IS useful for keeping people from cheating on their militia duties by passing the same rifle around so that a dozen adults can claim to be armed — all with the same rifle. (I can easily see hoplophobes doing “time share” rifles to avoid having to pony up and keep the Evil Nasty Killing Machine in their own house.)

Does “prove” necessarily require registration though or merely reporting with the weapon in hand to a (yearly?) muster inspection with your unit? I believe that was the traditional method as weapons in the US weren’t required to be serialized until, what, the ’60s?

The only reason I can see to write down the serial number is to prevent people passing around one rifle to get around buying one themselves, which fraud is unlikely to be real common given the logistics of getting it from one person to another in a timely fashion.

If the militia duty is balanced by a purchase benefit like you mention (gov’t cost for basic M4′s is low) it makes choosing fraud even less likely, buy the thing and throw it in the closet.

Fines and such are nice, but a little late when you’ve called up the militia for service restoring public order or repelling invasion, and half of them show up unarmed.

Of course, it was also common to have legislation in place so that the truly indigent were armed at public expense, and the not quite indigent (or cheap, lazy, etc.) were armed at cost or cost-plus. I’ll write a check for my wife’s (since we can’t be sexist ) and my USGI M16, M4, or M14 at US acquisition cost (or even “cost plus”) right now. And those will be our registered militia arms. I’ll cop to being able to put together the web gear for both of us.

Upon becoming liable for militia duty (come of age) you simply affirm that you are in possession of one weapon acceptable for militia use and accept all penalties for responding to a call up without it.

If you prove to have lied (upon call up for training or war) you have committed fraud on the Federal level.

When you register for Selective Service you simply give good contact info and agree to keep them apprised of any changes in status, you don’t have to provide a physical or go through any inspections until such time as you are drafted.

Soronel Haetir: Soronel Haetir: The sad thing about registration, I believe it would easily pass muster under the Art 1 militia clauses.Far easier to perform a call up if you know who is already armed.Much as I would dislike it I have a hard time seeing such requirements as being an infringement of RKBA.

That’s an interesting thought. As far as I can see it, the militia requirement would be met by the registration of ONE firearm – the one specifically identified as required for militia use.
I can’t see why OTHER firearms would need to be on any register.

The problem with your childish comparison of support for the enforcement of the Second Amendment to support for personal nuclear weapons is a basic one.

Nukes are NOT “arms” in the 18th century meaning of the word.

Nukes would be considered “ORDNANCE”. 18th Century language DID distinguish between “ARMS” and “ORDNANCE”.

“Arms” are the weapons, tools, and accoutrements of an individual soldier, NOT the heavy weapons that support UNITS. (No, the Founding Fathers didn’t generally ban personal cannon use. . . but the Second Amendment isn’t what protected them.)

Arms would include everything a troop needs to be an individually effective combat soldier EXCEPT food and uniforms or other non-protective clothing items. If he is mustering in a specialist role (dragoons, artillerymen, etc.), it would include the tools peculiar to that role — but not the major items like horses or cannon.

“Ordnance” is large, unit-supporting weapons, like artillery pieces (and by extension, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons). The kind of things that are issued out to “units” for unit support moreso than issued to an individual for his own defense. (Intersetingly enough, a “piece of ordnance” could have it’s OWN “arms” — in the case of artillery, for example, that included the caisson, rammer, sponge, etc. needed to keep the gun functioning as an effective military piece.)

Of course, saying that something doesn’t have a specific 2nd Amendment protection DOES NOT equal that it is equally banned. It just means that those non-2A items can be more heavily regulated than 2A protected items, IF THE PEOPLE SO DESIRE. I don’t see any issues with criminal misuse of 155mm Howitzers. Nor do I see a huge safety issue with a howitzer — I’d be more concerned with controlling the AMMO for one than the GUN. The gun is a big hunk of inert steel not much use for criminal activity. 155 projos and propellant bags (the ammo) is dangerous to my neighbors unless I have proper magazines.

Same for nukes — NOT protected by the Second Amendment. Creates a huge public safety hazard unless tightly controlled. An “oops!” with a nuke (even if it stays subcritical) is a public issue of concern.

On teh other hand — the standard service arms of the American soldier (or equivalent arms)? Speciifcly protected by the Second Amendment, and thus ANY restriction on them needs to meet the “strict scrutiny” standards. For example, “Visitors cannot bring guns into prisons or mental hospitals,” would meet that scrutiny. “Gordo thinks it’s scary,” would not.

Don’t overreach.

I am unaware of any reputable studies that show a consistent stat. sig. decrease in crime with any loosening of possession and carry rules. By claiming that effect when it cannot be demonstrated in peer-reviewed science you lose credibility for your larger argument. Even Lott doesn’t claim an absolute drop, his unchallenged numbers merely show no change or slight decrease.

Remember, it is a fundamental Right we are talking about. The burden is on those who would restrict it to clearly show that gun control makes things safer, it is not incumbent on us to prove anything. The default for legal behavior is freedom from infringement.

So, rather than claiming an unsupportable drop, simply point out that the three largest studies over the past few decades (CDC and DOJ), as well as every other peer-reviewed reputable study done on gun control, have shown that no law restricting access and carriage by individuals has had any statistically significant positive effect on crime.

Therefore there is no justification, under any level of rational scrutiny, to restrict the RKBA. Gun control just doesn’t work as claimed, the science is damn near settled.

Here’s an idea, to save money, let’s just include a firearm “endorsement” code on the driver’s license. And like others have said, since my driver’s license is good in all 50 states, that endorsment to carry should be as well.

Bring it.

Gordo:
The reply of a 2nd amendment absolutist. Do you also consider it your “natural right” to own a nuclear weapon?

Gordo, with all due respect, now you’re just being flat-out foolish.

That might be one of the most over-used and foolish straw-man arguments trotted out by right to arms opponents. That you mentioned it speaks volumes.

Let’s get back to serious discussion.

There is a far greater link to %liberal population and crime than there is of %gun owner.

I think my state has a three-unicorn limit when they’re in season. They’re delicious–taste like veal. ;)

I bet the NRA-ILA feels like idiots for having endorsed Scozzafava — as they well should. Given the others pro-gun leanings, it was a wasted endorsement.

I’ll bet they don’t; nor should they.

The NRA is a single-issue advocacy organization. It rates candidates only on support for the Second Amendment. This is what I want it to do, and what I hope it continues doing.

Apparnetly, McDonnell, in his AG job, told Bloomberg to stuff it when he started sending NYPD investigators into Virginia to harrass Virginia dealers.

Bloomberg’s oppsition worked wonders against McDonnell—-NOT!!

Suck on that one Bloomberg!

A driver’s license is an operator’s license, it does not require you to give any information about your vehicle or even if you own one.

That said, if you really want to offer an exactly parallel “Firearm’s User License” and it meets Constitutional muster I think you might get some support from pro-2nd Amendment types.

Driver’s License requirements

1) Only required for use of vehicle in public

2) Does not record, reference or require ownership of any particular vehicle by any serial number or description (not a “registration”)

3) Allows use, in legal fashion, of vehicle everywhere open to public driving/parking (i.e. everywhere open to the public in the normal course of business)

4) Full license available at age 16, restricted use available at 14 with supervision

5) No/minimal fee for issuance

6) Liability insurance not required for license issuance

7) Valid for lifetime with no refresher test required

8) Revocable only for documented, non-arbitrary, mental or physical impairment or closely related (to the act of driving in public) criminal act

9) Good in every US state and territory

10) Requires only a free non-comprehensive (short) test of legal knowledge and demonstration of minimal safe usage skills

11) Good for all common vehicle types and transmissions from small cars to 28’ panel trucks (all firearms types and actions; though perhaps full auto would be considered more restrictive, like a commercial operator’s license. Still “shall-issue” though.)

So… a “Driver’s License” for guns would be a shall-issue, nationwide carry permit allowing carry everywhere open to the public in the normal course of business, available at 16, with absolutely no registration of firearms involved.

Write the bill and I’ll back it 100%.

NY-23: Winning Democrat Bill Owens was A-rated by NRA (as was Hoffman).

I bet the NRA-ILA feels like idiots for having endorsed Scozzafava – as they well should. Given the others pro-gun leanings, it was a wasted endorsement.

“Where does Mayor Bloomberg (NY) fit here?”

Here is the answer:

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/04/maig-in-pa-just-lost-16-more-members/

Gordo: I agree that Heller has not been applied to the states yet, but I would be very surprised if it isn’t in a future Supreme Court decision. Assuming that it is, then the actions taken by New York would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, and perhaps the actions taken by California.At that point, I would hope that we could dispense with the paranoia behind anti-registration efforts. Assuming also, that the “2nd amendment absolutist” position isn’t taken and registration isn’t found itself to be unconstitutional, we then get down to the real policy arguments for and against registration.To which I would argue that registration, and mandatory instruction (similar to the scheme every state uses to issue drivers licenses) would be a strong argument to oppose on policy grounds.

You really want to treat firearms the same as driver’s licenses?

Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.

Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes

Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.

Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No

If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No

Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes

Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No

Do I need a license to buy a car? No
(in most states)

Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.

Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes

Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.

Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes

Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes

In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No

In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No

Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)

Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No

Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No

Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes

Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?

Gordo: I agree that Heller has not been applied to the states yet, but I would be very surprised if it isn’t in a future Supreme Court decision. Assuming that it is, then the actions taken by New York would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, and perhaps the actions taken by California.At that point, I would hope that we could dispense with the paranoia behind anti-registration efforts. Assuming also, that the “2nd amendment absolutist” position isn’t taken and registration isn’t found itself to be unconstitutional, we then get down to the real policy arguments for and against registration.To which I would argue that registration, and mandatory instruction (similar to the scheme every state uses to issue drivers licenses) would be a strong argument to oppose on policy grounds.

A lot of “assumptions” and “maybes” and “shoulds” in that argument for you to be stating so strongly that those who disagree with you are “paranoid.”

Gordo: The reply of a 2nd amendment absolutist. Do you also consider it your “natural right” to own a nuclear weapon?

The fall-back position of a fundamentally un-serious poster. There are no groups agitating for the “right to keep and bear nukes” and there are no groups presenting a “keep nukes out of homes” position.

There is no long history of individuals owning nukes, or fighting for the right to do so. There are no scholarly papers supporting the right… no seasoned politician standing up for the right.

It is a total non-issue… but is the second most common deflection that those on the anti-gun side try to use to get people riled up.

What next? Are you going to ask if we believe in the inherent right to use our firearms to shoot unicorns?

Gordo:
The reply of a 2nd amendment absolutist. Do you also consider it your “natural right” to own a nuclear weapon?

OK, I’m invoking the 2nd amendment equivalent of Godwin’s law here.

“The first person to equate the unregulated proliferation of nuclear weapons (or crew served weapons) to civilians as a consequence of the 2nd amendment loses the argument.”

As my kids might say Gordo – Epic Fail.

… and to add to the list of “Registration leads to confiscation” examples, don’t forget to include Mayor Daley’s very own Chicago Police C.A.G.E. units (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) that conduct forced confiscations of semi automatic weapons that had lapsed registrations – after he permanently closed the registration.

jack burton: It did in New York City…. It did in California…. Heller recognized the RKBA at the very narrowest margins. As you know.It says nothing to the idea of registration/confiscation on federal or state levels.

I agree that Heller has not been applied to the states yet, but I would be very surprised if it isn’t in a future Supreme Court decision.

Assuming that it is, then the actions taken by New York would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, and perhaps the actions taken by California.

At that point, I would hope that we could dispense with the paranoia behind anti-registration efforts. Assuming also, that the “2nd amendment absolutist” position isn’t taken and registration isn’t found itself to be unconstitutional, we then get down to the real policy arguments for and against registration.

To which I would argue that registration, and mandatory instruction (similar to the scheme every state uses to issue drivers licenses) would be a strong argument to oppose on policy grounds.

limaxray: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if, now that the individual right to free speech is being recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right, if Gordo is opposed to registration requirements — since the argument that registration will lead to persecution is now nothing but paranoia.

The reply of a 2nd amendment absolutist. Do you also consider it your “natural right” to own a nuclear weapon?

Gordo: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if, now that the individual right to gun ownership is being recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right, if David Kopel is opposed to registration requirements — since the argument that registration will lead to confiscation is now nothing but paranoia.

It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

Heller recognized the RKBA at the very narrowest margins. As you know.

It says nothing to the idea of registration/confiscation on federal or state levels.

Soronel Haetir: The sad thing about registration, I believe it would easily pass muster under the Art 1 militia clauses.Far easier to perform a call up if you know who is already armed.Much as I would dislike it I have a hard time seeing such requirements as being an infringement of RKBA.

Perhaps you are correct, but there are many other considerations surrounding the idea of simply passing a registration requirement (similar, say, to what they have in Canada).

1) That we are not currently required to muster, or in other words because the militia clauses have not been given any modern effect, would probably detract from such an argument. At the least, it would inform the trajectory of the arguments.

2) It was clear that the Heller court shied away from dealing with the modern relevance of the militia purpose of the second amendment. Therefore, such jurisprudence may have to be developed prior to any registration requirements based on the militia purpose.

3) Such a registration requirement may be seen as absurd to the degree if would affect many sporting-type arms, or antique arms.

4) Registration requirements might be built around the existing NFA, and be relevant to true modern military arms (select-fire shoulder weapons, light automatic firearms, grenades, RPGs, and other militia-useful ordinance).

5) And finally, should a modern militia purpose be developed fully by the courts, that might argue in favor of registration requirements being coupled with armament requirement. And we are talking forced civil service here, opening up another can of worms. Those required to be armed may have to be essentially all people (except exempted classes based on age, physical capability, possibly demonstrable religious beliefs, etc.).

In other words, should the minority who wish to diminish the right to bear arms or their prevalence in society try to effect those wishes through a national registration scheme, they may be opening a larger can of worms than they had bargained for.

I have a right to own 10 AR-15s!

I think that some people may not actually realize that, for shooting enthusiasts, owning multiple AR-15s is the same as owning multiple pairs of skis, or multiple sets of golf clubs. All AR-15s are not the same. If one chooses to shoot Service Rifle competition, he needs an AR-15 that is visually similar to a 1970-era M-16. If he wants to shoot National Match competition as well, he will want an AR-15 with more modern features. If he wants to go hunting, he may require a rifle with a different caliber ammunition. And so forth.

Am I to be disallowed to have something just because my neighbor is afraid of it, in the absence of evidence that it will do him actual harm?