Posted on 12/11/2007 3:07:30 PM PST by george76
Former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey is shifting his position on Washington's 31-year ban on handgun ownership as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the issue.
Ramsey says there needs to be reasonable control over guns, but he says handgun registration can provide that control.
The former chief, who is set to take over Philadelphia's police department in January, says the nation is not going to ban handguns and he's taking a realistic approach to the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at wjla.com ...
Not this idiot again.
I wonder if he registered his mouth before uttering his comments. Just a reasonable restriction on a right, you understand.
A phony and a fraud.
May God watch over and protect the good citizens of Philly...
Until that time ownership lists are the next confiscation lists.
Living proof of how a dunce can be a police chief, but I think that is probably the norm.
So does this mean he’s worried what the SC will do and is trying for damage control?
Exactly and working on their next end run around the 2nd amendment. Onerous registration and infinite denials.
Proof positive that the new mayor of Philly is a fraud.
I live in Philly and we are in the midst of a crime wave - murders are through the roof here and the best our city govt can do is demand a one-gun-a-month law from the state.
Somehow, bringing in someone from another crime ridden city doesn’t fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings.
He has a wide stance now.
On a serious note, I don't know how these people can live with themselves. They know the score, I'm sure, so all these proposals they float are just window dressing that does nothing to address any real problems.
They are the worst kind of political hacks, since they get people killed.
So what part of "shall not be infringed" does this yahoo not understand?
Registration doesn't keep guns out of criminal hands, and often leads to later confiscation when it doesn't work and criminals continue misusing firearms. Which of course *they* don't register.
ROTFLMAO! Thank-you!
Don't the people of Philadelphia have enough trouble without importing it, in the person of the former police chief from DC?! God Help and Protect the good people of Philadelphia. They are going to need it when Ramsey comes to town.
Courts have consistently ruled that our rights are not absolute, but for the government to infringe on the people’s rights, the government must show a specific and important need. Thus, the intent of registration is needed to justify the infringement. Registration may not be an onerous infringement, but it is an infringement and must be measured against the need to infringe on the people’s rights.
So what is the intent of registration? Keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Cut the crime rate? Maybe help police solve crimes?
Understand that the US Supreme Court has ruled (U.S. v. Haynes 1968) that requiring an individual who is restricted from owning firearms to register their firearms violates their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. So, by law, any gun registration will only contain the names and guns owned by law abiding people.
Gun registration will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
OK, now you’re a big city cop. Last night there was a crime committed with a gun, it’s your case. On your desk you have the gun registration files with the names of 80 million, law abiding gun owners and their perfectly legal 250 million guns. Remember criminals can’t be required to register their guns.
How does the gun registration list help you solve the crime? It doesn’t.
If gun registration will do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, and it won’t help solve crimes, what is the intent of gun registration?
The only rational explanation for gun registration is that guns can’t be efficiently confiscated unless it’s known where the guns are. Confiscation is the only reason for gun registration.
This gun registration version of “which was first, the chicken or the egg” is a lot of fun too. If I am required to register my guns, as soon as I don’t register them, I’m a criminal restricted from owning guns, but as soon as I am forbidden to own guns, I can’t be required to register them. If I can’t be required to register my guns, how can I be a criminal for not registering them…?
The US Supreme Court has ruled (U.S. v. Haynes 1968) that requiring an individual who is restricted from owning firearms to register their firearms violates their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. So, by law, any gun registration will only contain the names and guns owned by law abiding people.
Gun registration will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it's only purpose is to facilitate later confiscation.
ping
Too many doughnuts.
Bingo.
Ramsey is a police chief. Police chief’s spout the party line of their political bosses. They are whores.
Key word, "control"
Registration makes it easy to find gun owners when they finally decide to confiscate them.
“Registration makes it easy to find gun owners when they finally decide to confiscate them.”
They’ll only confiscate the evil ones at first.
translation, it has been telegraphed that the second amendment will be a personal right.
AND
The government will have the right to regulate your right...
Bttt!
How about a death penalty for all criminals in posession of guns they are forbidden from owning?
“Too extreme”.
So meanwhile good citizens who’ve committed NO crimes have lost their constitutional rights and criminals continue to violate law.
As determined by comparing against Party affiliation, maybe?
“I wonder if he registered his mouth before uttering his comments. Just a reasonable restriction on a right, you understand.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.