ACLU understands that the bill before the Senate next week is essentially a gun registration system

Harry Ried's bill that will be before the Senate this next week reads in part:
. . . shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph . . . .
A top lobbyist for the ACLU describes the bill to the Daily Caller this way:
“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” 
Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.” . . .
The point is that over time the bill will record a larger and larger percentage of who owns guns in America.  It will be a gradual gun registration bill.  As the ACLU lobbyist warns:
“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.” . . . 
He comes to the same conclusion that I have come to reading the bill.
“Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.” . . . 
Yet, Obama denies that the bill involves registration:
"We're not proposing a gun registration system; we're proposing background checks for criminals," he said Wednesday in Denver. . . .
Though his own Justice Department claims that background checks won't work without registration.
the NRA says the memo proves that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won't work without requiring national gun registration,” according to the AP. . . .
The problem with this information is that it means the polls on background checks are pretty useless.  91 percent may claim that they are in favor of some idealized version of background checks (partly because of the false claims the president has made about 40 percent of gun sales being made without background checks and 2 million prohibited people supposedly being denied from buying guns because of background checks), but how many people support gun registration?  Some news stories note: "Opponents says they fear that universal background checks will eventually lead to gun registration."  But that is wrong.  You don't have to wait for eventually.  The would begin the registration process immediately.

Of course, registration could never lead to confiscation of guns in the US, right?  Well, it has already done so in California.
Anyone who wanted to keep one of the named firearms must have owned it prior to June 1, 1989, and had to register it by March 30, 1992. Registration gave the state a list of owners. . . .  
In August 1998, however, a California appellate court held the Attorney General could not legally allow the gun owners to register their weapons after the March 1992 deadline. That ruling came after many owners had already identified themselves by registering late. The Attorney General had led the law- fearing lambs into a trap: citizens had voluntarily informed the state that they were felons. . . .  
Then California lawmakers passed SB 23. On January 1, 2000, any Californian who possesses a magazine-fed centerfire rifle or carbine may be guilty of a felony. The 1989 law banned weapons only by their names -- the 1999 law bans all such firearms by their features (e.g. pistol grip, thumbhole stock, flash suppressor). . . .
Other examples of registration being used to confiscate guns include:
(1921) New Zealand, registration of revolvers required -- ownership allowed in the name of personal defense. In 1974, this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
(1921) The United Kingdom instituted handgun registration. About every 10 years or so, they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
(1967) In New York City, a registration system enacted for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons."
(1989) California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and prohibited certain semiautomatic long-rifles and pistols. Upon the death of the owner, they are either to be surrendered or moved out of state.
(1990) Chicago enacted registration of long guns and used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns.
(1995) Canada prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. The guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner with no compensation to the estate.
(1996) Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump shotguns, then used its list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons. . . .
Some polling data is available here.

Labels: ,


Blogger Left Coast Conservative said...

Yes, it is a registration system, by the back door. But you, Mr. Lott, and the articles, assume that citizens will comply with the laws. There is ample evidence to show that when citizens disagree with some laws, those laws are flouted.

Read up on Prohibition.

4/07/2013 11:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home