The Right To Bear Arms & The Spirit of Law (Registration is Counter to the Purpose of the Right)!?!

I was just remembering school history and seem to remember that one of the core purposes of the founding fathers "Right to Bear Arms" is to ensure the safety of the citizens from the government, as well as the quality of life for those living under it (something about if it's not good government than they can reform it, forcibly if necessary.I think that's in the constitution somewhere) AS SUCH, any requirement to register weapons, is contrary to the spirit of the law! --- If my understanding of things is correct, there should be legal recourse that gun-owners can take to demonstrate the reasoning behind the right to bear arms, (a.k.a. what the spirit of the law is)... and to have the regulations requiring registration revoked.

In other words. It appears to that the NRA could make a case (if it hasn't already) that it could win.

Why is weapons registration "contrary" to the spirit of the law?
Because if you are meant to have weapons to protect yourself from bad governance... than the government requiring everyone to tell them who has guns, how many, and what kind -- is like telling the enemy what strategy they need to formulate an attack on any group or person they choose. Right?

Are any of you in the NRA? Have you ever heard about this?
Did the NRA ever realize this and try to have registration revoked on these grounds?
If so, what arguments are there to the contrary?

while i cant answer any of your questions, i have often
thought that the act of gun registration went against
the idea of the amendment.

i am sure it started as a way to help track weapons that
were stolen, but seems it has gone way past that.

Not sure about NRA or if they have looked into or considered
this, but i will watch this thread for someone with more
knowledge than i have to advise us.

of course you could also apply this to the requirement for
concealed permit to carry.

The 2nd amendment is the peoples tactical amendment. Registering guns is to suggest that the government has power over this right. The right to "keep" cannot be attached to a manditory registration.

I don't have the reference at my finger tips, but I seem to remember the SCOTUS has ruled that regulation does not impinge Second Amendment freedoms as far as THEY are concerned - so really, there's no recourse to get those regulations overturned as SCOTUS only rarely even considers any reconsideration of past rulings. Maybe the Dred Scott decision is an exception.

Having been an NRA member, you can rest assured their lawyers are aware.....

ganjoa

Agreed, but just holding on to our weapons might become a more realistic focal point in the near future.

We have to register pistols here in michigan. Not long guns, unless theyre deemed to be pistols (folding stocks, short stocks, etc, are pistols). Screwy thing is if they deem it a pistol you can carry itvwith a concealed pistol license. Infact, you have to carry registration with the gun until the state gets it in the system......on one gun they even made me come back and confirm the serial number lol.

Cant even borrow a pistol!

And if i get pullee over for speeding they can check my gun too...

Heres the thing though. Maybe my gun was stolen yesterday. Infact i havent been home in two weeks, who is to say my house is even still there?

Maybe i went fishing yesterday and my gun fell out of the boat? (i was concerned about pirates)

Get what i mean?

Also, our state constitution has a much better worded arms clause. It says we have the right to arms for self defense and defense of the state

If the feds stomp on the michigan constitution what will the state do hmm?

Originally posted by ganjoa
I don't have the reference at my finger tips, but I seem to remember the SCOTUS has ruled that regulation does not impinge Second Amendment freedoms as far as THEY are concerned ....

And we live in strange times my friend.

Originally posted by NJoyZ
I was just remembering school history and seem to remember that one of the core purposes of the founding fathers "Right to Bear Arms" is to ensure the safety of the citizens from the government, as well as the quality of life for those living under it (something about if it's not good government than they can reform it, forcibly if necessary.I think that's in the constitution somewhere) AS SUCH, any requirement to register weapons, is contrary to the spirit of the law! --- If my understanding of things is correct, there should be legal recourse that gun-owners can take to demonstrate the reasoning behind the right to bear arms, (a.k.a. what the spirit of the law is)... and to have the regulations requiring registration revoked.

In other words. It appears to that the NRA could make a case (if it hasn't already) that it could win.

Why is weapons registration "contrary" to the spirit of the law?
Because if you are meant to have weapons to protect yourself from bad governance... than the government requiring everyone to tell them who has guns, how many, and what kind -- is like telling the enemy what strategy they need to formulate an attack on any group or person they choose. Right?

Are any of you in the NRA? Have you ever heard about this?
Did the NRA ever realize this and try to have registration revoked on these grounds?
If so, what arguments are there to the contrary?

edit on 16-11-2012 by NJoyZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2012 by NJoyZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2012 by NJoyZ because: (no reason given)

Of course it would. Do you have to register typrwriters?

Originally posted by severdsoul
while i cant answer any of your questions, i have often
thought that the act of gun registration went against
the idea of the amendment.

i am sure it started as a way to help track weapons that
were stolen, but seems it has gone way past that.

Not sure about NRA or if they have looked into or considered
this, but i will watch this thread for someone with more
knowledge than i have to advise us.

of course you could also apply this to the requirement for
concealed permit to carry.

90% of guns arent even required to be registered. Atf form 4473 is not registration

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by severdsoul
while i cant answer any of your questions, i have often
thought that the act of gun registration went against
the idea of the amendment.

i am sure it started as a way to help track weapons that
were stolen, but seems it has gone way past that.

Not sure about NRA or if they have looked into or considered
this, but i will watch this thread for someone with more
knowledge than i have to advise us.

of course you could also apply this to the requirement for
concealed permit to carry.

90% of guns arent even required to be registered. Atf form 4473 is not registration

Isn't it? In Penn. a few years back, the ATF was caught scanning 4473's into a database. The dealer has to keep the 4473's in his bound book for the duration. 4473's are a form of backdoor registration.

reply to post by Logarock

Originally posted by Logarock
The 2nd amendment is the peoples tactical amendment. Registering guns is to suggest that the government has power over this right. The right to "keep" cannot be attached to a manditory registration.

I think the key here is the legal aspect of "the Spirit of the law". To rest on the key word "keep" is to ignore the spirit of the law, but the law is, that the spirit of the law must be respected. My legal expertise is not... in any way expertise; but it is my understanding that the spirit of the law overrides the letter of the law? (is that true?)

How do they determine the spirit of the law? Is it by the letter of the law, or the circumstances and context in which the law was formed (the lives of the founding father for instance & the reasons they had for making it).

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by Logarock

 

Originally posted by Logarock
The 2nd amendment is the peoples tactical amendment. Registering guns is to suggest that the government has power over this right. The right to "keep" cannot be attached to a manditory registration.

I think the key here is the legal aspect of "the Spirit of the law". To rest on the key word "keep" is to ignore the spirit of the law, but the law is, that the spirit of the law must be respected. My legal expertise is not... in any way expertise; but it is my understanding that the spirit of the law overrides the letter of the law? (is that true?)

How do they determine the spirit of the law? Is it by the letter of the law, or the circumstances and context in which the law was formed (the lives of the founding father for instance & the reasons they had for making it).

edit on 16-11-2012 by NJoyZ because: (no reason given)

Well there are zero conditions attached to the word "keep". Any conditions placed thereafter by "law" is a violation of the spirit and the letter. It is an intrusion by condition i.e you must register weapons means that the "keep" part has been infringed by conditions that are not suggested in the original document......thus the meaning is changed from "keep" to "keep if you obey subjective laws".

To apply this reasoning to another amendment it would be the same as having an approved speech pass, after you pass a test to make sure you are not a radical. Speech with condition. Only certain approved are allowed to redress the government in that case.

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by Logarock

 

Originally posted by Logarock
The 2nd amendment is the peoples tactical amendment. Registering guns is to suggest that the government has power over this right. The right to "keep" cannot be attached to a manditory registration.

How do they determine the spirit of the law? Is it by the letter of the law, or the circumstances and context in which the law was formed (the lives of the founding father for instance & the reasons they had for making it).

edit on 16-11-2012 by NJoyZ because: (no reason given)

If this sort of subjectivity cant rest on the whole, it cannot rest on any part thereof. Otherwise you could scrap the whole Bill of Rights as a product of its time and context as a pretext to subject the whole thing.

Just as you have to study the hadiths to fully understand the Qur'an you have to study the federalist papers to fully understand the second amendment.

The founding fathers were very specific in the federalist papers about why they included the right to bear arms in our constitutional bill of rights.

With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

Even so, if you have seen the number of gun owners in this country and the number of guns they own, I pity the poor federal agents who try to take all of them away from the citizens. This country, in many areas, has a history of shooting federal agents who try to interfere with their rights. remember the moonshiners and the number of revenue agents who died trying to shut down their stills.

reply to post by happykat39


Would you be so kind as to summarize or quote their explanation for the amendment?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by severdsoul
while i cant answer any of your questions, i have often
thought that the act of gun registration went against
the idea of the amendment.

i am sure it started as a way to help track weapons that
were stolen, but seems it has gone way past that.

Not sure about NRA or if they have looked into or considered
this, but i will watch this thread for someone with more
knowledge than i have to advise us.

of course you could also apply this to the requirement for
concealed permit to carry.

90% of guns arent even required to be registered. Atf form 4473 is not registration

Isn't it? In Penn. a few years back, the ATF was caught scanning 4473's into a database. The dealer has to keep the 4473's in his bound book for the duration. 4473's are a form of backdoor registration.

Not even closse to registration dude. It doesnt track current owners. I have several guns that cant be traced to my name. And millions of people have guns on 4473s they no longer own!

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by happykat39

 

Would you be so kind as to summarize or quote their explanation for the amendment?

Here is a small excerpt from a website that explains more than just the federalist papers position on gun ownership rights.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. "A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

read the full article here

BTW - All I had to do was to Google the phrase "federalist papers second amendment".

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by severdsoul
while i cant answer any of your questions, i have often
thought that the act of gun registration went against
the idea of the amendment.

i am sure it started as a way to help track weapons that
were stolen, but seems it has gone way past that.

Not sure about NRA or if they have looked into or considered
this, but i will watch this thread for someone with more
knowledge than i have to advise us.

of course you could also apply this to the requirement for
concealed permit to carry.

90% of guns arent even required to be registered. Atf form 4473 is not registration

Isn't it? In Penn. a few years back, the ATF was caught scanning 4473's into a database. The dealer has to keep the 4473's in his bound book for the duration. 4473's are a form of backdoor registration.

Not even closse to registration dude. It doesnt track current owners. I have several guns that cant be traced to my name. And millions of people have guns on 4473s they no longer own!

Easy. Gun is found. 4473 goes to the first buyer, first buyers tells who he sold it to. Next one does the same. Then you get a knock on the door. The only guns you have that are nontraceable are the pre-4473 guns that were passed on to you by someone not connected to you by someone who has subsequently died.

"Dude."

I agree that we should not have to register our guns.

Luckily I live in a state where I don't have to register my gun - a gun that is the most popular gun to use in assassinations. A 22 long pistol with a 6 inch rifled barrel and a 12 shot magazine. I can openly carry it in my hip holster too with no papers. The state doesn't even have my name on a bill of sale.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Theres plenty of ways to sell guns to people and not actually know them. Gunshows for example. Also what if i say the gun was stolen or i sold it to some guy when i really didnt?

I also own a pre 4473 gun. Doesnt even have a serial number. Its a 12 gauge sears and robuck/jc higgins model 20 with a 28" barrel and mod choke, 5 shotppump, made my high standard.

Unrelated but i love when people call for gun control and have no clue what theyre talking about. A guy told me sniper rifles should be illegal, talking about the washington dc sniper, who used a bushmaster xm15 carbine. A very piss poor choice of a "sniper rifle". I pointed out to this guy that its only a sniper rifle because a sniper used it....infact its one of the worst choices there is for a sniper rifle. No excuse for stupidity. *any* rifle can be used for sniper attacks.