Replies

From where I sit registration is an infringement.

If the Court would permit a registration list of all those who attend a house of worship - with a user fee to be paid for the privilege - then I'll believe you're wrong. Same goes for buying a newspaper, magazine or book. By my way of thinking (and, obviously, yours), those things are infingements and so is any registration of gun owners or their guns.

The ONLY way I could accept it is if the gov't wants to register me as a member of the militia, and to find out what (full auto) weapon(s) we own, so as to draft contingency plans for a joint Russo-Chinese invasion. Otherwise, the government can fo guck itself.

When and if the time comes that I would need one then I imagine I’ll deal with the situation at the time.

I have heard more than one old, crusty veteran state words to the effect that "just because you don't have a full auto and plenty of ammo before the fit hits the shan, doesn't mean you won't end up with one. Mere possession of a full auto can't stop a bullet from a 100-year-old boltie."

That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers enacted via the Militia Act of 1792, promptly after passing the 2nd Amendment: registration WAS required, but it was designed purely to let the gov’t know who was available for service, and what equipment they would bring, so suitable plans could be made for contingencies.

Today, it is manifest as the Selective Service System: you sign up as an eligible-for-draft 17-year-old, but the assumption is that they’ll have suitable equipment to give you when you show up. I’m not so sure ... with the Congressionally-mandated militia age being 17-45, and me at 40, if I’m called up I’m assuming there won’t be any suitable equipment available, so I’m planning to bring my own. Ok, so I probably won’t be called up by Uncle Sam - but immediate short-notice circumstances might dictate the same need, and surely nobody would be equipping me then.

the ONLY way I could accept it is if the gov't wants to register me as a member of the militia

I believe that once we begin reviewing the Militia Act, along with historical letters of marque, we're going to find that a graduated registration requirement will not be that unreasonable.

I don't have to remind everyone here that 'well-regulated' does not mean regulated in the current sense. Rather, it means that one is proficient in carrying out whatever militia duties they may have.

That's why it will not be necessary to register machine guns, since, in lieu of current prohibitions, they are simply common arms.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with Bill Gates registering his aircraft carrier, along with other various hi-tech billionaire pilots being checked out on their F-22s to make sure they can adequately support/complement standing air forces.

I like the way you think. I also hope to heck that this decison comes down the way it should - i,e, an indivdual right subject to strict scrutiny. From a ruling like that we can go after a whole host of federal and state laws over the next decades. I would also like to think that your analysis of Ginsburg is correct. As former lead counsel to ACLU, she really ought to recuse herself from voting on this case - since ACLU has a position paper supporting the "invented" collective rights BS.

Kennedy is the key; its a nail-biter.

Also, an individual right ruling without strict scrutiny will essentially mean that the 2nd is without teeth.

Here in the once-great Golden State, we have a total ban on AR's and an unconstitutional registration of those possessed before 1991. The 9th Circuit ruled against the challenge to those laws (in Sylveira) stating that the 2nd "does not refer to an individual right." I also hope to hell that Heller comes down without major reference to the "militia".