Monday, February 25, 2013

QotD: Misdirection Edition

While an Assault Weapons Ban pounds loudly on the front door, keep an eye out for de facto Registration trying to jimmy the lock out back.

As Robb Allen writes:
Registration is confiscation. No criminal is going to register their guns, and they’re not going to report that they stole them either. I’ve yet to see a proposed law that will target criminals. Well, technically they’ll turn us all into criminals, so there’s that.
Actual criminals are hard to catch, but threatening to turn honest people into bogus paperwork "criminals" is easy.

Without some form of registration, a requirement for background checks on private transfers turns into a capriciously and randomly-enforced farce. Indiana apparently had a requirement that all handgun transfers had to go through an FFL from the mid-'80s through the mid-'90s and by all accounts the law was flouted left and right by good guys and bad guys alike; not so when a registration requirement ups the ante of good guys getting caught.

The bad guys? Well, they're going to break the law anyway, so what do they care?


Anonymous said...

But...but...but the "bad Guys" are just so hard to catch. "Good Guys & Gals" are so much easier.

Anonymous said...

Indiana's requirement ran from 1974 to 1998. In those 24 years I cannot find a single prosecution from one of Indiana's 92 counties (may exist, have not found it yet); it was a Class B misdemeanor not to run a transfer through a dealer (0 to 180 days, up to 1K fine).

The law was widely and openly flaunted, even in front of police at gun shows (even by the police who did not follow it!) and at my father's dining room table as I looked on as a boy.

The feckless law was mocked until the General Assembly had an excuse to repeal it in 1998 when Indianapolis implemented the "instacheck" regime for dealers in 1998.

The useless laws weaken the necessary laws. No better example than Indiana's experience.

Has anyone asked Holder, Biden or Obama how they think the feds can enforce such a statute? If they cannot enforce it will not the UBC undermine all of federal gun control?

Shootin' Buddy

Yrro said...

Not only that, but the SC has ruled that criminals *can't* be prosecuted for failing to register weapons that they aren't allowed to posses.

I'm sure Tam's read this, but if anyone else hasn't

perlhaqr said...

Yrro: Hunh. I wonder if having unregistered guns will be a felony... Immediate circular loophole!

Angus McThag said...

I fired off emails to the congress critters.

The best I can hope for from them is a draw. Bill Nelson is decidedly anti and Marco Rubio is showing signs of McCainism aka RINO.

Firehand said...

I've been, well, 'deeply disappointed' is putting it mildly, that Coburn is taking part in this crap.

I don't now if he's fallen for the "We have to do something" syndrome, or if he's lost his mind and thinks Schumer and Manchin and the others can be trusted.

Pakkinpoppa said...

Tam...what this will do is have another "grandfather clause."

After the date of "universal background checks"...anything you buy probably better go through a dealer.

Anything purchased prior to said requirement? Prove I didn't sell said item without a background check prior to the date.

Anonymous said...

Haynes v. US tells us that criminals (felons) don't have to register weapons... because they have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Done deal, SCOTUS case law, law of the land. Just like Roe v. Wade, the Holy Grail of con-law for liberals.

Windy Wilson said...

Anonymous 242pm, of course then the answer is to keep our mouths shut, as we have a privilege against self-incrimination, and as we saw in the Simpson trial farce, that privilege can be waived unless we assert it in response to EVERY @#$%^&*! question, against the cops' wheedling us into answering something they can gin up to "be used against you in a court of law." Identify yourself, and once questions get to weapons, ask for a lawyer and clam up.
Make the Sphinx look like the entire opera company at the New York Met.

Paul said...

James and Anonymous,

Yep, up here in Canada, we call them "paper crimes".

The .gov will give more grief and throw bigger "library" at the guy who let his license lapse, than at the gangbanger who is carrying illegaly in the first place.

Mostly because it is easier and makes the stats look better.

JohninMd.(HELP!!) said...

Meanwhile, back in Mordor, our Gov's proposal wouldn't grandfather any "Assault long gun"© not registered w/ Md. State Police by Nov.1. Wassat? ya got a Uzi pistol? It would have to have been _registered_ with MSP (it wasn't required then) back in 1994. Pay attention, folks. O'Malley thinks he's Presidential material...