It is also just plain bad policy. Ballistic fingerprinting costs millions and does not deliver results. In Maryland, one of the two states to adopt it, it has led to exactly zero murders solved. I don't know anything about stats for New York.
If you want to commit a murder, it's just too easy to modify a gun and make the whole system worthless, or to buy a stolen gun or a smuggled gun that will not be fingerprinted. In the meantime, you're spending millions of dollars to keep the system going and probably not getting any benefit.
That the Feds shall not infringe on the Right to Bear Arms is absolute.
Also, if that Amendment is compromised, the rest of the Constitution will follow.
The RKBA is also the lynchpin guaranteeing (or at least encouraging) government's respect for the other rights. This is one of the few cases where use of liberals' vaunted "precautionary principle" is wise. The only amount of power KNOWN TO BE SAFE in freedom grabbers' hands is...none. The more hamstrung they are for funds as well as legal power, the more of their time they will be forced to spend fighting these limitations, as opposed to hatching rights-infringing schemes.
No. Why? Because then we could register jesse jackson's, al sharpton's, sarah brady's, etc. mouths. Their mouths have been proven to be more deadly than firearms.
5.56mm
You need my essay on the meaning of the word "infringe." A national gun registry is an "infringement" on the citizens right to keep and bear arms. It is the historical precursor to and the enabler of confiscation.
I have been honored and humbled by the wealth of wisom that you have taken the time to share with me. Your responses were too numerous to thank everyone individually, but let me just say you all came through for me in a manner more than I could have hoped. I have copied below the mini-essay I sent the newspaper editor I've been "conversing" with, for your perusal. I hope I've done you all, and the cause, justice.
Thanks again. Let Freedom Ring!
Joe Brower
Tom;
Yes, you're communicating with a reasonable person. You surely know this already or you wouldn't be bothering to email me. I'm assuming the same, despite your unfortunate attempts to put words in my mouth, and in the interest of "honest communication", will overlook your jabs and get to your valid questions. I didn't intend to write a novel here, but once I began, the evidence against the legality of "ballistic fingerprinting" turned out to be quite large. It has proven to be a worthy exercise., and you wanted an "honest answer", so here it is.
Your primary question, which can be summarized as "Is a national firearms registry unconstitutional", is a good one. There are a variety of ways the constitutional illegality of this can be pointed out, but perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate the blatant injustice of it's nature is to put it in the context of something probably quite dear to you personally. So, let's start with the…
First Amendment:
Ask yourself the question: How would you feel about having to register each and every book you own, every pen and pencil, every typewriter, every fax machine, every word processor, every printing press? How would you like to have to get a federal license in order to be a journalist? Wouldn't official government censure of journalists be contrary to the spirit of the first amendment? I think so. Do not say that they are not comparable -- they most certainly are. This alone makes it quite plain that, as soon as you take a fundamental right and license it, and compulsory registration is de facto licensing, a "right" then becomes a mere privilege, which can then be arbitrarily revoked at bureaucratic whim. You stated that "no right is absolute". How do you react, however, when the right in question is one that you personally hold dear?
Consider this, a restating of the first amendment in the manner of the first: "A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed." What do you have to say about this analogue?
Regulations, licenses, permits, and the like tend to have a detrimental effect on the rights they impose upon. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that even facially content-neutral laws have been struck down by the Court if they can be demonstrated to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the relevant right. An example of such legal precedent in this regard relating to a firearms database would be NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson.
Second Amendment:
It's interesting to note that, of all the amendments to the Constitution, the second amendment is the one that specifically states "shall not be infringed", and is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most infringed upon. This clause in the 2nd amendment alone could potentially be utilized to render it unconstitutional, depending on what judge was to review it. Any honest man could simply look up the word "infringe" in the dictionary and go from there, but unfortunately, honest men aren't that easy to find. Two hundred-plus years has spawned over 20,000 laws passed pertaining to this fundamental human right, the first law of nature -- the right to self-defense. Proof positive of the power of incremental erosion, aided and abetted by public apathy.
Fourth Amendment:
The fourth amendment could also be construed to be a prohibitive factor against such a registry, since such a registry goes against the standard of American law, which is presumption of innocence, thereby rendering such an invasion of privacy unwarranted and an over-reaching of federal authority. The only time the government/state has the right to look at your property, be it guns or whatever, is when you're a suspect in a crime that utilized one. Otherwise, it's much more preferable that the government respect the rights of the people, not spend their time finding creative ways to usurp them.
Fifth Amendment:
The fifth amendment could also come into play, since registration of firearms could be interpreted in the right circumstances to be in violation of one's right against self-incrimination. There are also legal precedents at the Supreme Court level regarding this, including a case specifically related to firearms: Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85 (1968)).
Tenth Amendment:
The tenth amendment would also serve as a prohibition against a national gun registry, since there is nothing specifically enumerated in the Constitution that allows the federal government to institute such a program. The tenth might allow the individual states to do such a thing, however, should they choose to (and a couple have, with little positive result), although powerful and substantive arguments could be made against this principle on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the federal government is specifically prohibited. This also negates your erroneous comparison to car registration, since vehicle licenses are specific to state, not federal, authority.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9
There is also Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no ex post facto laws can be passed. This would prohibit any "fingerprinting" of the over 250 million firearms that are already in existence in the United States. That's quite a selection of already-available weapons for the criminal element to choose from.
Prior Restraint
Another legal concept that could be brought to bear against the legality of such a national registry is that of "prior restraint". One precedent here would be the Supreme Court case Near sv. Minnesota. This goes back to my statements regarding the fourth amendment. When government intrudes into people's lives without any existence of wrongdoing, it shows that that government does not trust it's citizenry. What right, then, do they have to demand that they themselves be trusted? That's a most reasonable question. What's your answer?
Well, there you have it -- a variety of angles that could be utilized to negate the legality of a "ballistic fingerprinting database". This is by no means complete, either; there are many other ramifications and examples of unintended consequences that spring from this whole misguided concept, but I think you get the idea.
By the way, your comparison to voters needing to be registered is an incorrect one: Voting is, in its definition, one per person per balloting. Your right to vote is damaged if I vote 20 times. Your ownership of 20 guns does not effect my ownership of one, or of 100. Thus there is an actual need met by monitoring the balloting of the people. Without this monitoring, the virtue of the balloting is undermined. However, your ownership of firearms is not undermined by my firearms not being monitored.
Remember, the Constitution is a (supposedly) narrow and strictly-defined list of what the federal government is allowed to do. Over time, things like the "commerce clause" have been abused to the point where it has become the "anything goes" clause. Again, it's terrible to behold how two hundred years can nibble our liberties to death by duck bites. Conversely, however, the Bill of Rights is a list of pre-existing, inalienable rights that, unlike what the Constitution allows the federal government, is open-ended, and are not something the government gives the people; but rather they are things the government has been expressly told not to interfere with. Indeed, "We the People" would still possess these enumerated rights even if the government threw the whole Bill of Rights in the incinerator tomorrow. This is a fundamental point that too many people are not taught and do not grasp any longer, but this does not change the truth of it. The Constitution is a contract, or more accurately, a trust. What other contracts are you willing to engage in where you give the other party unilateral, and apparently unlimited power to add conditions and restrictions?
"Ballistic Fingerprinting" is a not the goal
In reality, the whole concept of "ballistic fingerprinting" is a ruse, and no one knows this more than it's loudest proponents. At best, it's just another "feel good" proposition that will only affect law-abiding citizens, while the criminal element will ignore it like they already do the 20,000-plus laws already on the books. In fact, this concept will result in criminals seeking to steal firearms, since this will provide them in instant and government-funded means of throwing law enforcement off the trail, just as readily as picking up empty casings at the local firing range and leaving them at the crime scene would.
The fact is that, in five minutes flat, anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of firearms can alter the bore, chamber, bolt face and firing pin of any firearm with tools found in any garage and render such a "fingerprint" useless. I can personally prove this at will. The state of California just completed a study of the concept earlier this year and deemed it unworkable. The whole term "fingerprint" is a misnomer, since true fingerprints (like those that grow on people) cannot be altered. As far as how effective such a program would be in actually solving crime, well, the state of Maryland has actually had exactly such a program in effect for two years now -- total crimes solved: Zero. That's a fact that you can personally verify easily enough. How much more proof do you need?
"Ballistic fingerprinting" is just a facade for what is truly desired by it's advocates: a national gun registry. A list of every gun owner in the United States, where they live, what they look like, and what they possess. Hardly a concept befitting a nation that professes to be "the land of the free". A blatant and unjust invasion of privacy that states bluntly an abject distrust and vote of no confidence in it's citizenry, and further drives a wedge between government and "The People" it supposedly serves. Is this truly what you want? As I pointed out before, a quick study of past events makes it plain: Every place throughout the world, America included, which has instituted such a registry has always, yes always, ended up using those lists for confiscation. Again, this is readily verifiable, but if you have trouble finding examples, I can provide them. And those who blithely think to themselves that "it can't happen here" are, unfortunately, whistling past the graveyard of history. Our own country has already proven that it can indeed happen here -- just ask any Japanese who was interred during World War II. And it does not take much imagination to envision what politicians such as Charles Schumer (D-NY), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), John Conyers (D_MI), etc., would do with such a list in the right set of circumstances. It's simply not worth the risk.
Oh, and by the way, it's not just the NRA that is against the idea of a national firearms registry, although they always seem to be the first target of choice. Many, many other organizations and individuals see this bad idea for what it is, many of which have no affiliation to that organization. They're simply Americans who still know what it means to be a free and self-governing people. How about this quote:
"I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record keeping procedure [gun registration] is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."
- - Charles Morgan, Director, Washington D.C. ACLU, 1975
It's a scary world when the director of the ACLU sides with the NRA, eh?
Last but not least, regarding your comments regarding murder laws; these are obviously far from useless, because they do provide a set of conditions for determining if, a) a crime has occurred, and b) what punishment fits that crime, if the defendant is convicted. But do not confuse this with being able to legislate morality or safety -- it does not. The effects of these laws in being preventive measures are, quite obviously, nowhere as effective as we would like. Ask any police officer, investigator or criminal prosecutor -- when the vast majority of crimes are committed, the perpetrator rarely considers the ramifications of their act if they are caught. This is particularly true in crimes of passion, but is also surprisingly prevalent in those that are premeditated. The all-too-human mindset of "it won't happen to me" (namely, getting caught) is in large part the reason for this.
Please feel free to share this information with your colleagues. Like I said, if your paper is looking for conservative columnists…
Best regards,
Joe Brower
----- Original Message -----
From: [tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com]
To: "Joe Brower" [joebrower3@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: If we put up with government registering our cars, why not our guns?
I haven't read the entire decision you suggested I read,...only about a third of it,,, and am still reading... but let me ask you a question that might save me from needing to do so.
I already agree with the reasoning that the 2nd amendment establishes an individual right to have firearms and bear them. As I've said, I support that right. and never said otherwise.
Obviously that would mean use them lawfully, not for murder and robbery and such, and I assume we agree on that.
(Maybe I shouldn't. I'm trying not to get distracted by your assertion that morality can't be legislated and that the proof is that murder happens even though it is illegal. In fact, all laws are sometimes violated, but many still help limit certain kinds of immoral behavior, and make it possible to imprison or execute those who murder or commit other seriously bad acts, which we call crimes. so they can't do them again. That's pretty basic to our system. You seem to argue that murder laws are useless and that it might as well be legal. I hope you don't mean that. If you do, I'll stop assuming that I'm communicating with a reasonable person.)
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?
Ballistic fingerprinting is more valuable than your NRA people say it is, I think, but let's pretend for the moment that this is beside the point and that the only issue is the constitution. OK?
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.
I don't mind you concluding that I'm wrong. But I'd like to hear an honest answer, and a real attempt to explain, without the insulting assertions that I'm dodging the constituional issue or being obstinate or whatever word you used just because I disagree with you.
Tom L.
As an alternative, ask him whether the mandatory fingerprinting and DNA-printing of every US resident (and every immigrant - that ought to catch his attention) on the theory that this would aid in the solving of crimes would be Constitutionally permissable. If these actions are OK, then so would be the registration of guns and gunowners.
Any regulation or tax that in any way hinders, makes more expensive or dissuades people from exercising a Constitutionally-protected right is an infringement on that right. Since the 2nd Amendment specifically forbids any infringement on the RKBA, a registration scheme that arguably dissuades people from purchasing a firearm would be an infringement upon that right.
Further, this acts as a prior restraint on the exercise of a right - definitely a Constitutional no-no.
As many others here have argued, the 10th Amendment also applies, though the courts have made a mockery of this part of the Constitution. Try to impress upon this guy the nature of the relationship between the People and the government, from the perspective of the Founding Fathers. They purposely gave it only limited powers and, further, divided those powers into 3 branches, so that the central Fedgov could never get too powerful. Several states required a further safeguard against the encroachment of Fedgov power in the future (i.e. NOW) in order to ratify the Constitution, and that is how we got the 2A. To give the Fedgov the power to register gun owners is to diminish the effectiveness of the 2A and its goal (preservation of the ultimate power in the hands of the People), and allowing the Fedgov to compile such a list would be to give power to exactly the wrong party.
The 14th Amendment would, logically, apply all of this reasoning to the States and their subdivisions, even though the 2nd hasn't actually been incorporated under this principle yet.
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.
a federal gun registry would mean people are compelled to register their guns or face penalty,,if we the people refused to comply and were in fact sanctioned for it,, it is an infringement,, I suppose if people voluntarily registered them,, thats one thing,, but the federal government would be violating our 2nd amendment rights by adding a condition when the constitution so clearly doesnt allow for one,, its not like free speech and we cant yell fire in a crowded theater,, because those peoples rights would be threatened,, no ones rights are threatened by not registering weapons,,