Is a National Firearms Registry Unconstitutional?

Myself ^ | 10/22/2002 | Myself

[Joe Brower]

Is a National Firearms Registry Unconstitutional?
Joe Brower
10/22/2002

Gun folks;

My apoligies for the vanity post. I am currently engaged in a debate with one of the senior editors of the local "news"paper, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NY Times. I have been doing well overall. Today, however, I have been asked one question point-blank that I think is indeed a good one, and one that we all should have an answer to in light of the ever-louder screams from the gun-grabbers for a national firearms registry, er, I mean, "ballistic fingerprinting".

Basically, the question boils down to "Is a national gun registry unconstitutional? If not, why not?" I hold that it is not on it's face, and am forming my own arguments towards that end, but I am appealing to you for any wisdom, quotes, sources, etc. that will reinforce and back up this position.

Here is the quoted text below from this fellow's email:

Anyway, the preamble referring to the well regulated militia doesn't mean you would have to be part of some organization to have a protected right to own a gun. I'm with you there. But I'm not with you on the idea that regulating gun owners in some way is also banned.

Where does the 2nd amendment say (or where does that opinion SAY it says) that the state or federal governments can't keep track of who has guns, and what kind of guns they are, or what their ballistic fingerprints are?

Your worry that registration would lead to confiscation is understandable, but it does not follow that if confiscation is unconstitutional, then registration must also be. I don't see any basis for believing, let alone assuming, that registration is banned by the Bill of Rights.

No right is absolute. Your right to vote requires that you have ID and establish your address and age, for instance. That does not infringe on your right to vote.

Like I said, I could really use your input! Thanks in advance, and stay safe,

Joe Brower

[Taxman]

Any and all Federal, state and local laws which "infringe" on the right to KABA are unconstitutional.

It is a damn shame that the federal, state and local "government executives," the federal, state and local legislative bodies, the federal, state and local LEOs and the citizens of the United States don't understand and revere that one, simple fact.

If they did, the United States and all of its citizens would be a lot safer and far, far more secure.

[Travis McGee]

I think we're going to see national ballistic fingerprinting, it's just too easy of a ball for ABCNNBCBS to hit out of the park.

There's your national registration.

Then it will become illegal to change barrels or otherwise "alter tamper with or modify" your unique govt approved ballistic fingerprint.

[hosepipe]

[ "Is a national gun registry unconstitutional? If not, why not?" ]

simple...infringement...
Amendment II = 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.

in·fringe To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Bugbear]

I wonder if the Founders meant this to be the last Admendment, As in this is the final words of the Consitution any thing you have to add after this should be in state law or voted on by the people

[PoorMuttly]

From my cold, dead paws.

[freeeee]

I think the 10th Amendment summed up and reaffirmed the inherent design of the Constitution:

All powers are enumerated. All powers not enumerated are forbidden. Most decisions are left to the states.

This was spelled out specifically in the 10th, so there would be no mistake later. And we still didn't get it right.

[puddly]

Do you mind paying a tax to keep your gun? Who do you think will foot the bill long term.

[dirtboy]

Do you mind paying a tax to keep your gun? Who do you think will foot the bill long term.

I was playing devil's advocate to give participants in the thread someone to debate against.

[The Old Hoosier]

It would be compelling people to be a witness against themselves.

That's a good idea, but wouldn't the same reasoning eliminate license plates? What if you do a hit and run and someone sees your tags--suddenly, you have retroactively testified against yourself.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Simply ask these newspaper people if they should have to register their computers, typewriters, type setters, etc.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Oh, yeah, don't forget to mention that the second protects the first, not the other way around.

[teeman8r]

the "well regulated militia" is not a reference to its gov't mental restrictions, but regulated as in trained and supplied...

also, is a ballistic fingerprint equal to self incrimination?

[teeman8r]

ballistic fingerprinting unconstiutional on just about all the amendments.... won't be able to redress gov't for grievances, infringes right to bear arms, illegal search, self incriminating, etc etc

[DonQ]

Fingerprinting of fingers has been held to be not a form of self-incriminating testimony and therefore not a violation of the Fifth Amendment, nor of the Fourth. I cannot imagine how a ballistic fingerprint would be an infringement.

[teeman8r]

everyone is not required to submit their fingerprints to be kept on file to be used at the whim of lawenforcement... those being fingerprinted are criminals being arrested, or those volunteering for background checks... and just because they are being done, does not mean they are not unconstitutional...

t

[MileHi]

I would love a ping if you receive a reply. Really nice job, Joe.

[coloradan]

Putting aside questions regarding the historical linkage of gun registration to confiscation (which is part of the question here), how, from a 4th Amendment viewpoint, is registering your car different than registering your gun?

Car registration is used to collect money for the state to build and improve roads and to pay for street sweepers and snow plows; general day-to-day improvements for the benefit of drivers. But there is no ongoing day-by-day service that the government provides for the benefit of gun owners. Until such a time comes, any fees taken from gun owners can only be construed as a tool of law enforcement to use against gun owners, conflicting with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and unlike the case for cars. "We think you people, specifically, are potential criminals, and we will force you to disclose your possessions to us so that we can keep track of you and them - and we will make you pay us to do it."

[dirtboy]

Good points, and glad to see you chiming in. Don't worry, I haven't gone over to the dark side, I was just role-playing to keep the debate going.

[Zon]

Excellent response/post. What was Tom L's response?

[Joe Brower]

In response to my efforts and information, Tom Lyons wrote a follow-up piece to his initial article which prompted our correspondence, which can be found at post #99 on this thread.

Being called a "rational firearms advocate" sure beats being called a "right-wing gun-nut whacko". $;-)

I also got a guest op-ed printed in the SHT (that's "Sarasota Herald-Tribune"!) a few weeks later, "Ballistic Fingerprinting" advocates follow emotion, not reason., which fairly sums it up.