Dilan Esper: The thing is — what is a registry of firearms good for, except for confiscation?This confuses legislative purpose with legislative result.There are many legitimate purposes why one might have a registry (most importantly that it could assist in crime investigation, also because it theoretically makes it easier to recover stolen weapons and/or prosecute people who possess them, and it makes it easier to tax gun sales and/or ensure that licensed, regulated vendors conduct the sales). I know gun rights advocates have their responses to all of these, but those are debating points. It isn’t an objection to an otherwise constitutional legislative purpose that there is a debate as to whether the legislation will actually work. That’s a call the legislature gets to make.I should also say that even on the merits, gun rights advocates are way too smug on these questions. There’s absolutely no way anyone can claim with a straight face that having a gun registry will never, ever help solve a crime. Of course it will, if you give it enough time.

In Canada we have had a national registration of handguns for 75 years. We are still waiting for that first case conviction! Programs such as the gun registry have stated goals. The Auditor General has said a busy registry still shows no evidence of effectiveness. Wishing it so does not make it so. The registration of long guns has failed on every level. Denying reality does not change it. The program has failed to show a positive cost/benefit. At two billion dollars it is an albatross and must go!

Rob:
The right to bear arms isn’t being overridden, democratically or otherwise. It simply doesn’t exist in Canada. We wrote our constitution to enumerate our rights and bearing arms simply isn’t among them. The fact that the US included a right to bear arms in their constitution is lovely, but irrelevant.

Rob’s comments are common among younger Canadians and those newly immigrated. They give life to the myths surrounding firearms in Canadian society. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not definitive statements. These are living documents that do not exclude the unwritten rights of Canadians.

The right to own firearms was listed first as a right in the English Bill of Rights, 1689. Prior to then it had only been an obligation. That right passed to Canada with the British North America Act in 1867. Only in the last 40 years has that right been attacked by successive Liberal governments. Liberals have denied the history of gun rights, denied the historic record of a Canadian gun culture and vilified those millions of Canadians that are part of that culture of firearms ownership. Liberals quickly learned to milk votes from the ignorant and fearful among us

After 75 years of firearms registration we have yet to see one criminal conviction for violent crime that is a direct result of the Firearms Act or handgun registration.

The Firearms Act has not been proven to reduce suicide or result in a safer society. The Meyerthorpe killings and the Montreal massacre would not have been prevented by the Firearms Act. Nor has the Act done anything to curb gun violence in our large cities or to reduce the availability of illegal firearms to criminals.

Statistically, gun crime has always been rather insignificant overall. In the 60s we were awash with surplus World War II arms, including fully automatic Brens, and endless cheap surplus ammunition. Yet, there were no instances of mass killings and rampant gang warfare. All this and NO SIGNIFICANT GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION!

What has changed is the fact that police no longer control the urban gangs, smuggling or drugs. Politicians use isolated outrages with firearms to pursue what amounts to cultural cleansing. Media give the perpetrators their place in history thus encouraging copycats. Politicians of the left rather than tackling the real problems of crime and the underlying social problems have targeted the law abiding in their rush to appear to be doing something.

The result is a Firearms Act that prosecutes citizens for lapsed licenses while confiscating their firearms. The Act is powerless to prevent gun crimes, reduce the suicide rate or produce a safer society. Fortunately, the majority of Canadians see the Firearms Act for the boondoggle it is and have called for the end to the long gun registry.

Preventing the tyranny of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority is always a challenge for a democracy. Judging from history and current statements the Liberal Party, their political allies and lobbies cannot be entrusted with that task.

Don’t Tread On Me.

Dilan Esper: I would expect Strict Scrutiny for regulations pertaining to an individual right (9–0 at SCOTUS).SCOTUS barely (5–4 margin) recognized the existence of a meaningful right. And the constitutional language itself discusses the right in the context of regulation / discipline of the militia.I will assure you, you are more likely to see a gay president in your lifetime than you are to the Supreme Court apply strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment rights.Using your terms, type 1 crimes do not justify registration (especially since they are, contra most TV shows, not hard to solve. Most domestic violence offendors are easily tracked down).True enough, but not all type 1 crimes are easy to solve domestic violence cases. For instance, there are the cases of junior taking daddy’s registered gun and shooting someone in a gang dispute or during a liquor store robbery.Again, I don’t deny that there are plenty of gun crimes that registration won’t help solve in any way. So stipulated. But there are significant numbers of gun crimes where gun registration evidence has been admitted as relevant evidence in the trial (and surely many that did not go to trial).

Ian Argent: I have yet to actually be shown a case where the various gun/bullet registries have been the critical evidence in a prosecution. In fact, I’m given to understand that one of the reasons that Canada is attempting to scrap their long-gun registry is that it has not produced ANY convictions (outside of violations of the registry), making the upkeep a waste of money.As long as it is a violation of a criminal’s 5th amendment rights to be forced to register an illegal firearm (US v Haynes 1968 — See Clayton Cramer’s article on the subject, there is little point to a registry of firearms.Until that decision (8–1 at SCOTUS, mind) lack of registration cannot be used to prosecute a firearms offense. Thus, a firearms registry only tells you who had the legal firearm when it was registered.For a registry to be at all effective at tracingfirearms, all transfers must go through it. This would cripple private sales.Since I postulated that any firearms regulation is subject to strict scrutiny, a firearms registry would fail Least Restricive and Narrowly Targeted — making it … unconstitutional.Fails least restrictive — the firearm owner can register their weapon with the manufacturer for warranty purposes and keep records of their firearms to turn over to law enforcement if it is stolen — at which point it can be databased like any other stolen serialized item. Fails Narrowly Targeted since only law-abiding citizens are affected.And I still don’t see the Compelling Government Interest; we don’t register any other common weapon (knives, baseball bats, swords, bows, crossbows) and I would submit that we can’t.

In Canada crossbows are registered like a firearm. We had one instance of a female lawyer being killed by her husband with a crossbow. You can immediately see how this contributes to increased public safety! The Canadian registry is incomplete, rife with errors, is easily hacked, does not result in any convictions and is ruinously expensive. As America is a friend, we would be willing to give you the program for a small consideration. We would want it kept in New Brunswick as it means Liberal Party votes. Think of it the same way as outsourcing call centres to India. Call Prime Minister Harper today and ask that it be part of NAFTA.

Sybil: I don’t understand why guns (of any type) should not be registered.I need a licence for my car and dog but I can have a weapon with there being a record of THAT ????I have no problem with hunting. I just think guns should ALL be registered.Who is “being denied the right to have guns” ?

Registration must have a purpose. It must contribute to greater public safety. The proof of improved public safety remains a wish with NO legitimate science to support the claim. Expensive public programs like a universal gun registry should only be continued if they pass a cost/benefit analysis and if it proves to result in greater public safety. The Canadian registry has failed on all counts. Only the anti-gun zealots hold to the line that registration is useful. Using your logic we would go back to licensing radios and televisions.

As to the reality. You can purchase a car without a license and use it on private property. A Canadian cannot purchase a firearm legally without having a valid license. He cannot possess a firearm without a valid certificate for the firearm. So you see it is not the same. One has a choice to obtain a license while the other MUST have a license.

Abdul Abulbul Amir:
From a political point of view it may not be the failure you suggest.Many jobs depend on the registry.Having job holder’s livelihoods dependent on the cause you champion is not political failure by any stretch.

Wow what a deal, 200 jobs for two billion dollars and counting. We could retire them for $50,000 per year each and get the annual budget down to Ten million dollars with no hidden costs. This program would not survive a cost/benefit analysis and that tells the whole story of this boondoggle.

SCOTUS barely (5-4 margin) recognized the existence of a meaningful right. And the constitutional language itself discusses the right in the context of regulation / discipline of the militia.

I will assure you, you are more likely to see a gay president in your lifetime than you are to the Supreme Court apply strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment rights.

Using your terms, type 1 crimes do not justify registration (especially since they are, contra most TV shows, not hard to solve. Most domestic violence offendors are easily tracked down).

True enough, but not all type 1 crimes are easy to solve domestic violence cases. For instance, there are the cases of junior taking daddy’s registered gun and shooting someone in a gang dispute or during a liquor store robbery.

Again, I don’t deny that there are plenty of gun crimes that registration won’t help solve in any way. So stipulated. But there are significant numbers of gun crimes where gun registration evidence has been admitted as relevant evidence in the trial (and surely many that did not go to trial).

As for criminal use of legally-owned firearms; that’s an fraction of the criminal use of illegal firearms; and there is a vastly larger pool of legally owned firearms than there is illgally-owned firearms. Using your terms, type 1 crimes do not justify registration (especially since they are, contra most TV shows, not hard to solve. Most domestic violence offendors are easily tracked down).

This is stacking the deck. Evidence is cumulative. Rarely is any one piece “critical”. Gun registration evidence is, however, used all the time in jurisdictions that have it.

As long as it is a violation of a criminal’s 5th amendment rights to be forced to register an illegal firearm (US v Haynes 1968 — See Clayton Cramer’s article on the subject, there is little point to a registry of firearms.Until that decision (8–1 at SCOTUS, mind) lack of registration cannot be used to prosecute a firearms offense. Thus, a firearms registry only tells you who had the legal firearm when it was registered.

You know, there isn’t this sharp division in the world between “criminals” and “non-criminals”. Lots of people commit crimes with legal, registered weapons. Lots of people use illegal weapons too– gun rights advocates are completely correct about this. But the fact that a registry might not help investigate category 2 crimes doesn’t say anything about its value with respect to category 1 crimes.

For a registry to be at all effective at tracing firearms, all transfers must go through it. This would cripple private sales.

Boo hoo.

Since I postulated that any firearms regulation is subject to strict scrutiny

You can posit it, but I can also posit the existence of unicorns. In the real world, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to traditionally accepted regulations as described in Scalia’s Heller opinion.

Once is too much, in my book

One abuse does not make something unconstitutional.

“Often” lead to confiscation? How often is often?

Once is too much, in my book.

As long as it is a violation of a criminal’s 5th amendment rights to be forced to register an illegal firearm (US v Haynes 1968 – See Clayton Cramer’s article on the subject, there is little point to a registry of firearms.Until that decision (8-1 at SCOTUS, mind) lack of registration cannot be used to prosecute a firearms offense. Thus, a firearms registry only tells you who had the legal firearm when it was registered.

For a registry to be at all effective at tracing firearms, all transfers must go through it. This would cripple private sales.

Since I postulated that any firearms regulation is subject to strict scrutiny, a firearms registry would fail Least Restricive and Narrowly Targeted – making it … unconstitutional.

Fails least restrictive – the firearm owner can register their weapon with the manufacturer for warranty purposes and keep records of their firearms to turn over to law enforcement if it is stolen – at which point it can be databased like any other stolen serialized item. Fails Narrowly Targeted since only law-abiding citizens are affected.

And I still don’t see the Compelling Government Interest; we don’t register any other common weapon (knives, baseball bats, swords, bows, crossbows) and I would submit that we can’t.

This confuses legislative purpose with legislative result.

There are many legitimate purposes why one might have a registry (most importantly that it could assist in crime investigation, also because it theoretically makes it easier to recover stolen weapons and/or prosecute people who possess them, and it makes it easier to tax gun sales and/or ensure that licensed, regulated vendors conduct the sales). I know gun rights advocates have their responses to all of these, but those are debating points. It isn’t an objection to an otherwise constitutional legislative purpose that there is a debate as to whether the legislation will actually work. That’s a call the legislature gets to make.

I should also say that even on the merits, gun rights advocates are way too smug on these questions. There’s absolutely no way anyone can claim with a straight face that having a gun registry will never, ever help solve a crime. Of course it will, if you give it enough time. It may not solve enough crimes to justify whatever one thinks the intrusion is on law-abiding gun owners, etc., but anyone who says “it’ll never solve a crime” is either not thinking clearly or is someone who is so paranoid about the government taking his guns that he won’t admit to himself what the government is actually doing.

“Often” lead to confiscation? How often is often?

The ONLY claim you can make is that several governments have used gun registries as a tool to confiscate guns. That’s it. You can’t even establish that confiscation wouldn’t have occurred anyway even without a registry. Indeed, many, many governments have confiscated guns without any registry (far more than which have used a registry).

Meanwhile, many, many governments have gun registries and have never confiscated.

This is black helicopter stuff. Gun rights are a wonderful and important thing, and the Second Amendment means what it says, but there is, unfortunately, a certain type of gun rights advocate who really and truly has convinced himself that the jackboots are going to come in and take all their guns if even one inch is conceded on any gun control measure. It is stupid, it is delusional, and it makes the entire gun rights movement look like a bunch of cranks (which is quite unfair).

If you get to the political conditions necessary for gun confiscation to occur, the lack of a gun registry isn’t going to be a very big hurdle.

You can’t claim the gulf between two extreme ends of a spectrum and yet push me to one end of it.

Don:

There’s a wide gulf between “not problematic” and “always leads to confiscation”. Gun registration occupies a space somewhere in that gulf.

On the other hand, the fact that the Constitution does not forbid a policy doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea, and after all, we’re talking about Canada here. I doubt they care whether our Constitution forbids their registry. :)

As for your dismissal of the demonstrated link between registration and confiscation, we may just have to agree to disagree. If you can look at the history on that one and conclude that registration is not problematic, you’re seeing something I’m not.

There is no doubt, though, that the framers would not have thought that the commanders of the militia had a right to know who had what weapons if they wished to know it. That, after all, is part and parcel of regulating a militia.

As for assertions about “registration followed by confiscation”, this is complete and utter BS in any number of ways. Many, many societies have gun registries and have not confiscated weapons. Further, the fact that a government power might be misused is NOT an argument that it is unconstitutional, absent actual misuse. The fact that some arrests are arbitrary does not mean that the constitution prohibits all arrests. It does prohibit arbitrary ones.

Similarly, the Constitution prohibits mass confiscation of weapons, and it prohibits registration as a pretext for mass confiscation. But it doesn’t prohibit registration which is not a pretext for mass confiscation.

Part of the problem here is that some gun rights advocates are simply paranoid and delusional. They think it is impossible for a government to register their weapons and NOT confiscate them. But whatever the (little) merit of that view as a political or sociological matter, it has NOTHING to do with interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution permits many things, including gun regulation, that paranoid delusional people think will lead to inevitable abuse.

I don’t really disagree with this, but it can mean a couple of things.

If it means that registration requirements that effectively prevent people from keeping and bearing arms are unconstitutional, that is correct.

But if it means that otherwise not-particularly-burdensome registration requirements might be unconstitutional because deep in their hearts, the legislators really were not intending to regulate the militia but were rather motivated by other motivations, that’s not correct, because it requires a level of mind-reading that courts don’t possess.

Registration is constitutional as long as it doesn’t prevent people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, BECAUSE the framers fully understood that gun registration did not impinge on the right to keep and bear arms, as evidenced by their own registration requirements for the militia. But registration as a pretext to prohibit is unconstitutional.

I am a supporting member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters, my local gun club and two national umbrella associations. How does this stack up to your situation with a car?

I support personal licensing to ensure competency, safer sport and to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally incompetent. I oppose long gun registration because it does not provide a safer society and has in fact failed on all fronts. Wishing it so does not make it so. Registration has yet to result in one conviction and we have registered handguns for 75 years and long guns and crossbows since 1996!

Rank and file police do not support the registry as opposed to their political bosses, the Chiefs. What law officer would risk their life on a registry that lists perhaps half of all firearms, is rife with errors and is outrageously expensive as well as having NO PROVABLE worth?

If firearms registration does not result in a safer society then we must examine the real motives of the political parties that promote the idea. It seems to have more to do with control of citizens than it does public safety and the protection of minority rights!

Registration IS the prelude to confiscation. That is the Canadian experience. The Firearms Act at a stroke listed as prohibited about 58% of all handguns as well as semi-automatic rifles of a ‘military’ appearance. The intent was to grab as many firearms as possible. The Liberal platform states they will further limit private ownership by extending the prohibited list, outlawing ALL remaining handguns, by outlawing ALL semi-automatic firearms (probably also ALL pump actions) when next they form the government. So much for the claims that registration DOES NOT lead to confiscation. The Liberal platform can be carried out via Orders in Council thus bypassing Parliament.

Suffice to say, the Liberal leadership have learned nothing from the Registry boondoggle. They have not acknowledged their sins and continue to offer Canadians more of a failed program as the only choice.

We have yet to see a national registry of those barred from firearms ownership by either felony convictions or mental incompetency. Nor is there a national registry of sexual deviants. Surely these registries would contribute to a safer society.

The question of child soldiers has nothing to do with this issue!

I am American, and see the right to bear arms as a fundamental American right – but one which, like other rights, is for better or worse subject to Constitutional amendment (I’m not saying I want that, I’m saying it’s possible, just as with Prohibition). I see the right to bear arms as requiring the right to own arms. I don’t see it as requiring a right not to register (registration may be objectionable for other reasons, but it’s not fundamental).

I don’t, however, see the right to bear arms as a fundamental human right in the sense that any society without such a right is morally objectionable. I think it makes sense as a check on government power, but a country without that right is not ipso facto repressive.

I do see freedom of religious belief (NOT necessarily religious practice, e.g. the horrible things some people do to female children), speech, etc. as fundamental human rights. The right to self-defense is NOT synonymous with the right to bear arms in my view (incidentally, read EV’s prior post about U.S. jurisdictions banning/restriction non-lethal weapons, i.e. it’s okay to kill but you can’t choose to do less, and then tell me how “free” the U.S. is re weapons).

I (and others) have made the spectrum argument, e.g. with some exceptions most people (including me) would consider nuclear and biochemical warfare weapons, even if usable by one person and not a crew, as not protected, because of the mass murder (or accident) potential. High explosives and machineguns a similar argument (though I’m not sure I agree, it’s further along the spectrum of mass harm possible than a handgun).

As for registration and confiscation not being synonymous, they aren’t, use some logic. If you’re afraid that registration is a first step, and you object for that reason, or object to registration itself, or whatever, say so (and that may be a rational objection in some circumstances). Don’t falsely claim that non-equivalent things (registration and confiscation) are equivalent, because they’re obviously not.

1. First, they’re not adults, and any time you try to have a discussion of the rights of adults and someone comes along with a sob story about children who went wrong supposedly by exercising that right, there’s a problem. Apples are not oranges.
If you were limited to the rights that could be safely and wisely exercised by an uneducated African child from a broken home, even the Canadian gun-control apologists would be howling in outrage.

2. Second, they’re not civilians. They’re soldiers, usually conscripts. They’re stuck in a horrible situation, but they’re not civilian gun owners by a long shot.

3. Third, they’re not gun owners. I notice that the person who brought this red herring out for display was careful to say “possession,” but that doesn’t get you a free ride. These are children conscripted into ragtag “armies” and issued weapons only when it’s certain that they are too fanatical, too frightened, or too wasted to be a threat to their masters. They’re nothing like American or Canadian soldiers, much less American or Canadian civilian gun owners. There’s no valid comparison to be made here.

Today that would translate to every able-bodied adult being required to own an M16 and 1000 rounds, paid $2000 compensation for that cost, and registered a la Selective Service with an additional checkbox indicating “yes, I’m armed as needed and available for service”.

Personally, I think the obsessions of some Second Amendment supporters with bright lines and natural rights could kill the right to keep and bear arms.

A much better approach is to posit that the Second Amendment permits regulation of arms, but does not prohibit regulations that are tantamount to prohibition and thus abridge the right to keep and bear them. This is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text. Then, courts can draw lines where needed to ensure that overly-intrusive regulations are struck down. That’s a lot more mundane than lofty talk about natural rights, and it requires entrusting the courts to protect our rights (as we do with speech and other rights), but it’s much more likely to result in actual, substantive protections of people’s right to arm themselves.

The problem is that most of those child soldiers are being armed by the government or groups being supported by the government. The IANSA is trying to ban civilian ownership of firearms. This does nothing for the child soldier issue and leaves the rest of the people disarmed and told to ‘trust the government’. Sorry, governments don’t have a very good track record.

Read this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/h1n1-swine-flu/private-clinic-patients-jump-the-line-for-flu-shot/article1347746/

In Canada it seems that using the fruits of your labor – let alone a gun, to protect yourself & family is cause for the government’s concern.

We are well past any thought of ‘self defense’ if the government decides who can, and cannot, get a (potentially) life saving injection. Cling to your (Canadian) gun all you want, you are a slave, albeit armed…

I think you are generally right, except that I disagree that IANSA is not concerned about child soldiers.

I understand it’s not a gun “rights” issue. That wasn’t my point. My point was that we should test our assumptions underlying the oft stated equation that gun possession is merely an extension or express of a greater self-defense principle. Oftentimes, and especially in the case of child soldiers, gun possession endangers rather than protects the gun possessor, and gun possession restricts rather than expands the gun possessor’s liberty.

And not just child soldiers, but children involved in drug cartels as well, in Jamaica and Columbia. They are better off – in terms of safety and freedom – by refusing to take the guns handed to them.

I just think guns should ALL be registered.Who is “being denied the right to have guns” ?

A partial list, off the top of my head:

1. Everyone who was trusting enough to register their firearms in the UK before they were told to turn them in.

2. Everyone who was trusting enough to register their firearms in Australia before they were told to turn them in.

3. Everyone who was trusting enough to register their SKS rifles in California before being told to turn them all in–despite the fact that they had been publicly, explicitly promised that the registry could never be used for confiscation purposes.

The better question is: What benefit, other than a warm fuzzy feeling inside, does gun registration accomplish.

Sybil: I don’t understand why guns (of any type) should not be registered.I need a licence for my car and dog but I can have a weapon with there being a record of THAT ????I have no problem with hunting. I just think guns should ALL be registered.Who is “being denied the right to have guns” ?

There IS a simple and logical place to draw that line… Crew served weapons.

Nope.

The 2ndA spends half its words referring to the right applying to a militia, to wit those citizens who can/will act on behalf of the community/state/nation. Those militia members are expected, insofar as practical, to be organized & equipped for defense of whatever scale of “state” needs defending. The 2ndA isn’t just about individual defense, it’s about corporate defense as well – a service provided by individuals pitching in. Ergo, “crew served” arms are applicable; if several members of the militia (that’s us common folk, expected to serve if need arises) choose to pool resources to buy a crew-served M2 or other realistic tool, what could possibly be wrong with that?

My suburban subdivision is a contained community, complete with elected leadership (HOA) & taxes (dues), which in a large-scale crisis would have to draw its defense from those who live there. In a major crisis (as we see every year some form of devastation visiting some area in this country) where local police/military are overwhelmed or stretched too thin, it would not be unreasonable for some members of the community to arrange community patrols and set up a roadblock controlling access – activities that operate with crews, not independent individuals. Would be nice if the HOA board knew that a couple homes stored M2s and a few others were ready to help out with it. 99.9999% of the time the crew-served arms would be quietly & harmlessly locked away, taken out a few times a year for the crew to practice with.
BTW: the emphasis would be on community members voluntarily choosing to buy/support such arms at their own cost and notifying local leadership of availability, NOT on the leadership having to manage & assign such tasks & expenditures as though they were somehow superior beings, lording over subjects who must beg permission to serve their community.

An individual is part of a nation. Armed self-defense IS “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” at a sociopolitically atomic level. There is no difference between self and national defense save for scale.