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

[Zon]

Thanks.

Tom Lyons article was good right up to the end where he stumbled. Choosing to burden 98% of gun owners that are law-abiding citizens in the hopes, wishes and possibility that a tiny fraction of the 2% of gun wielding criminals will be caught.

Your op-ed article was very good.

[robmaki]

how is it registering a gun different from registering a car? well simple,,the constitution doesnt say we cant or can have a car,,, but the second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,, and if i choose to not allow my guns to be registered,, what remedies does the government have to correct my behavior? take it away,, not let me have them? is that not infringing on my right when the constitution expressly forbids them from doing so?

[robmaki]

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,,

[markshean]

Firearms are the only consumer product protected by the Constitution, cars are not, so your mixing apples and oranges.

[dirtboy]

This is a ten-year-old thread. And if you go to my original comment, I was playing devil’s advocate for the sake of honing the debate.