Here is why "gun registration" is a freedom killer...

[desert dude]

This is an excerpt from an idiotic editorial in a Connecticut newspaper about the new idiotic "assault weapons" law in Connecticut passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook incident.

The only reasonable response to gun grabbers is: Fuck you. No.

"Register your firearms!" Fuck you. No.


But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.


A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.


If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons

 

[DNAprotection]

i agree dd, so shouldnt we be just as opposed to the WaCo cannabis laws then?
if not then we are saying to register plants but not guns right?
it boggles my mind to wonder how many folks think registering plants is crazy while at the same time supporting norml, mpp, dpa etc...
in other words the point is that if folks are going to go along with registering plants then no doubt guns are going to be required to be registered...

 

[desert dude]

i agree dd, so shouldnt we be just as opposed to the WaCo cannabis laws then?
if not then we are saying to register plants but not guns right?
it boggles my mind to wonder how many folks think registering plants is crazy while at the same time supporting norml, mpp, dpa etc...
in other words the point is that if folks are going to go along with registering plants then no doubt guns are going to be required to be registered...

DNA, I wish I could discuss the issue with you but I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

If you are suggesting that state and federal law should be utterly silent on cannabis, hence making cannabis completely uncontrolled and allowing anybody to grow as much as they want and do with it what they want, then I agree. I would prefer the drug war be ended immediately, the CSA abolished/revoked/ground-into-dust. I firmly believe the drug war is unconstitutional and illegal. That is why I am utterly opposed to the notion of a "living constitution", which means no constitution at all and governance by popular whim.

 

[jahbrudda]

Has anyone given a good reason why making law abiding citizens register their guns is beneficial to the public?
An similar argument could be made that permanent gps tracking devices must be worn by all US citizens. It may sound like a stretch now but give it time.

 

[desert dude]

Has anyone given a good reason why making law abiding citizens register their guns is beneficial to the public?
An similar argument could be made that permanent gps tracking devices must be worn by all US citizens. It may sound like a stretch now but give it time.

The gun grabbers, at least some of the honest ones, have stated that registration is the first step in the process of confiscation of guns from citizens.

 

[DNAprotection]

DNA, I wish I could discuss the issue with you but I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

If you are suggesting that state and federal law should be utterly silent on cannabis, hence making cannabis completely uncontrolled and allowing anybody to grow as much as they want and do with it what they want, then I agree. I would prefer the drug war be ended immediately, the CSA abolished/revoked/ground-into-dust. I firmly believe the drug war is unconstitutional and illegal. That is why I am utterly opposed to the notion of a "living constitution", which means no constitution at all and governance by popular whim.

it seems that we agree on everything (including gun reg) except the 'living constitution' part...i feel that everything in the document should be taken to mean what it says and so the 9th amen is self evident in its meaning imo and should be reachable for parties in court etc and in that way i see the document as 'living'...does that make sense in your view?

 

[NoDrama]

The law will be thrown out as the Constitution prohibits ex-post facto laws.

 

[NoDrama]

It says in the article that

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

They could use background checks database, but that database doesn't have information on what kind of firearm it is other than "long arm" or "handgun", which would not be enough to facilitate a warrant in my opinion.

The author of the article is somewhat ignorant about how background checks work, probably because they have never purchased one.

 

[desert dude]

it seems that we agree on everything (including gun reg) except the 'living constitution' part...i feel that everything in the document should be taken to mean what it says and so the 9th amen is self evident in its meaning imo and should be reachable for parties in court etc and in that way i see the document as 'living'...does that make sense in your view?

So, you are a textualist. So am I.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Yes, the 9th means that the people have all the rights spelled out in the bill of rights, and every other right as well, and the federal government can only do the short list of things that are laid out as duties for the federal government in the constitution. If the federal government complied with the constitution it would have relatively few duties, although some of them are sizable. This, of course, empowers the states to make laws that you and I might find distasteful.

 

[NoDrama]

So, you are a textualist. So am I.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Yes, the 9th means that the people have all the rights spelled out in the bill of rights, and every other right as well, and the federal government can only do the short list of things that are laid out as duties for the federal government in the constitution. If the federal government complied with the constitution it would have relatively few duties, although some of them are sizable. This, of course, empowers the states to make laws that you and I might find distasteful.

Most of governments real power exists in the latest interpretation of the commerce clause.

 

[DNAprotection]

So, you are a textualist. So am I.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Yes, the 9th means that the people have all the rights spelled out in the bill of rights, and every other right as well, and the federal government can only do the short list of things that are laid out as duties for the federal government in the constitution. If the federal government complied with the constitution it would have relatively few duties, although some of them are sizable. This, of course, empowers the states to make laws that you and I might find distasteful.

Most of governments real power exists in the latest interpretation of the commerce clause.

exactly what i was about to post...such is why the 9th needs to be exercised in court...if you dont have the 9th amen then you dont have much...

 

[desert dude]

Most of governments real power exists in the latest interpretation of the commerce clause.

I know. That's what a "living constitution" spawns. Thank FDR for that one.

 

[desert dude]

Me thinks the federalists have been proven correct in their fears.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84. Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, "declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision "against restraining the liberty of the press," Hamilton said, "afford the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."

 

[DNAprotection]

Me thinks the federalists have been proven correct in their fears.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

again we agree dd, but i am just as apposed to state powers trampling those 'held by the people'...and states seem to be right on track with the feds when it comes to the fundamental objectives...

 

[desert dude]

again we agree dd, but i am just as apposed to state powers trampling those 'held by the people'...and states seem to be right on track with the feds when it comes to the fundamental objectives...

I don't disagree with you. The states can be just as big assholes as the feds but at least they aren't violating a supreme law when they wrap their sphincter around us. So yeah, any individual state can make it illegal to grow parsley, tomatoes and cannabis. That is how the country is chartered. The federal government is literally illegal in much of what it does, though.

<edit> One legitimate counter argument that limits the power of states is the 14th amendment, which forces the states to at least grant the rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

 

[DNAprotection]

I don't disagree with you. The states can be just as big assholes as the feds but at least they aren't violating a supreme law when they wrap their sphincter around us. So yeah, any individual state can make it illegal to grow parsley, tomatoes and cannabis. That is how the country is chartered. The federal government is literally illegal in much of what it does, though.

<edit> One legitimate counter argument that limits the power of states is the 14th amendment, which forces the states to at least grant the rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

finally a place where we disagree
(not about the 14th*)
its here at this part:
"at least they aren't violating a supreme law"
in my opinion rights held in perpetuity by the people are the supreme laws being violated by both the fed and state authorities...
so in other words it is precisely the 'certain rights held by the people' that are missing from both state and fed equations...the way back to those rights (such as the natural born right to grow plants outside of commerce) is by definition through the 9th amen and that is my point...

 

[desert dude]

finally a place where we disagree
(not about the 14th*)
its here at this part:
"at least they aren't violating a supreme law"
in my opinion rights held in perpetuity by the people are the supreme laws being violated by both the fed and state authorities...
so in other words it is precisely the 'certain rights held by the people' that are missing from both state and fed equations...the way back to those rights (such as the natural born right to grow plants outside of commerce) is by definition through the 9th amen and that is my point...

I am tired so I am not gonna post a long response.

How would you about stopping a state from legislating against a particular activity? Personally, I am all for having the absolute fewest laws necessary on the books. I think an improved legal system would be one where a small subset of laws is permanently on the books (laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc), and every other law has a sunset of say five years where it goes away, with a requirement that each renewed law has to be publicly debated and voted on individually.

 

[NoDrama]

I am tired so I am not gonna post a long response.

How would you about stopping a state from legislating against a particular activity? Personally, I am all for having the absolute fewest laws necessary on the books. I think an improved legal system would be one where a small subset of laws is permanently on the books (laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc), and every other law has a sunset of say five years where it goes away, with a requirement that each renewed law has to be publicly debated and voted on individually.

The problem is judicial precedent is used instead of common sense. I don't think we need to sunset any laws, that would create a great deal of need for more government to manage the laws.

 

[desert dude]

The problem is judicial precedent is used instead of common sense. I don't think we need to sunset any laws, that would create a great deal of need for more government to manage the laws.

You might be right. I would think that the sunset would make a lot of laws disappear and cause the workload of government to shrink, at least I would hope that would be the effect.

 

[DNAprotection]

I am tired so I am not gonna post a long response.

How would you about stopping a state from legislating against a particular activity? Personally, I am all for having the absolute fewest laws necessary on the books. I think an improved legal system would be one where a small subset of laws is permanently on the books (laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc), and every other law has a sunset of say five years where it goes away, with a requirement that each renewed law has to be publicly debated and voted on individually.

well im not for that when it comes to naturally inherent rights, dont trust all yall to recognize yours enough to protect mine from the mob rules equation...
dd you made over 7,000 posts here so its no wonder your tired, i'm tired after posting 1/7 the number of posts (of course we both have other reasons for being tired, just sayin), but as many words and energy it took to post 7,000 times here you could of written and filed probably 7 different law suits reaching for simple human rights on a multiple of issues...
use the 14th or use the 9th i dont really care how we get there we just need to get there quick...
no one goes to court on the fundamentals dd, the closest anyone comes in the modern day is over same sex issues and yes there is a good example of 14th amen at work...