Registry would treat gun owners like criminals

Post Reply New Topic

Registry would treat gun owners like criminals

The Morning Call | April 11, 2007
Christian Berg

If someone told you he had been forced to provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their fingerprints, photograph, Social Security number and a host of other personal information, you'd probably assume they were arrested and charged with a crime.

Well, that kind of police ''booking'' process could be in store for Pennsylvania's roughly 3 million firearms owners if gun-control advocates in Harrisburg have their way.

Last month, a group of six state lawmakers introduced legislation that would require the annual registration of virtually every privately-owned firearm in the state. Those who would refuse to register their guns would become criminals, and those denied registration certificates for any reason would have their guns confiscated by the government.

''There's nothing more slanderous to our Second Amendment rights,'' said Melody Zullinger, executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. ''It's scary, and it should be a wake-up call to sportsmen.''

The gun registration proposal, known as House Bill 760, is co-sponsored by Reps. Lisa Bennington, D-Allegheny; Angel Cruz, D-Philadelphia; Lawrence H. Curry, D-Montgomery and Philadelphia; Cherelle L. Parker, D-Philadelphia; Jake Wheatley, D-Allegheny; and Rosita C. Youngblood, D-Philadelphia. In addition to providing the information mentioned above, gun owners would be required to undergo an annual criminal background check and provide police with the make, model, caliber and serial number for every gun they own -- along with a $10-per-year, per-gun registration fee.

Private gun owners whose applications are approved would receive registration certificates for each firearm. The certificates, which would include the gun owner's name, address, date of birth, photograph and other information, would have to be carried with the associated gun at all times and presented to police on demand.

It gets worse.

Gun owners also would be required to notify state police within 48 hours of any gun that is lost, stolen or destroyed. And gun owners could not sell or give a firearm to anyone else without notifying state police at least 48 hours in advance.

Finally -- and this one is really the icing on the cake -- gun owners would be required to keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled (or bound by a trigger lock or gun safe) unless the firearm is in the owner's immediate control and possession at the owner's residence or business or while being used for legal recreation.

So, the government would not only decide whether you deserve to own guns, but also how and where you could store and use them. Hard to believe that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they declared ''…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

Naturally, there is an exemption for law enforcement officers, corrections officers and for any guns owned or under direct control of the federal, state or local governments. Collectible firearms, along with flintlock, match-lock and percussion firearms manufactured before 1898 (including replicas) also would be excluded.

The rules I mentioned so far are only for those whose registration applications are approved. If your registration application is rejected for any reason, and your appeal is denied, you have three days to turn over all your guns to the state police.

So, if the government screws up and denies your application because of its mistake, you lose your guns. There's nothing in the bill addressing what happens to seized guns or when, if ever, you can get them back.

Needless to say, House Bill 760 hasn't exactly been embraced by rank-and-file gun owners or gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Association, which issued a statement calling the proposal ''misguided.'' A gun-owning colleague here at the paper said the proposal reminded him a lot of the Big Brother government in George Orwell's ''1984.''

Before I go any further, it's important to point out that House Bill 760 doesn't appear to have anywhere near enough support to win approval in the General Assembly. Still, the mere fact that six House members are proposing it serves as evidence that gun control is an issue alive and well in the halls of state government.

It's also no surprise all six of the lawmakers pushing for gun registration represent either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Both those cities struggle with more than their fair share of violent crime -- many of them involving the illegal use of firearms.

While I sympathize with the crime victims, and the lawmakers' desire to address the problem, a statewide gun registry simply is not the answer.

You can bet your bottom dollar that criminals will not register their guns. In fact, the NRA noted the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that since felons are prohibited from owning firearms, compelling them to register them would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Firearms registries also happen to be terribly expensive.

Canada's national gun registration program, in place for more than a decade, was initally projected to cost $119 million to set up. However, it ended up costing more than $1 billion and is widely considered a boondoggle by Canadian citizens. Some political leaders are pushing a plan to eliminate hunting rifles and shotguns -- which were added to the registry program five years ago -- to slash costs.

A recent spate of high-profile shootings in Canada also is causing renewed debate over the effectiveness of the program, with groups on both sides of the gun-control debate offering reports and statistics to support their point of view. Depending on which ''expert'' you ask, the Canadian registry has either been a colossal success or a colossal waste of time.

At best, Pennsylvania's proposed registration system is a duplication of government oversight already in place. For example, instant criminal background checks already are required every time a person buys a gun. And existing gun owners who lose their right to own firearms because of a felony or domestic violence conviction have their guns seized through the court system.

At worst, the registration proposal is an overbearing, unconstitutional invasion of privacy. You have to ask yourself, why does the government need a list of guns owned by honest, law-abiding citzens anyway?

I can think of several reasons, but none that make me feel more secure -- either in terms of my personal safety or my Second Amendment rights.

I'd like them to even hint of something like this in Texas. I can assure you there'd be one Hell of an uprising, one I'd believe that would make public news. No wonder I vote Republican. I may not agree with everything the party stands for, but at least I know the majority of Republicans won't try to snatch guns away from law-following people like myself, my parents, and my extended family.

...How dare the Big Brother nanny state ask us to register our cars and have driver's liscences ! !! !! !! !!
It's Unconstitutional , that's what it is ! !! !! !! !! !!
Cars , bars , and guitars made America great...let's keep all three ! !! !! !! !! !!

...How dare those stinkin' Hillary-lovin' liberals interfere with my right to keep my car WHEREVER I WANT IT ! !! !! !! !! !!
You can have my car when YOU PRY THE WHEEL OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS .
While I sympathise with people run over or otherwise injured by cars , a statewide car registry is simply not the answer .
You can bet your bottom dollar that criminals will not register their cars .

People who are eminently unqualified to clean their own backsides wish to tell me what to do with my weapons. My my my. To the devil with them.

...YEeaaahhh ! !! !! And besides , what about Jessie Jackson . And Barbra Sreiesand ? And Hillary again ?????????
AND MICHAEL W. MOORE IS FAT ! !! !! !! !! !!

I, personally (and with a VERY clean backside) would tell you to put that weapon right up your backside (cleanness optional). The last few points are extreme in some cases: notifying the police with 48 hours advance about selling, although notifying local police about lost/stolen guns within 48 hours is reasonable. Disassembling certain guns, well it depends. Guns on display should have firing mechanisms removed if possible, and any you're unlikely to use within the next year should be disabled, if not disassembled.

Hoo boy, if Litigious were here, he'd have a field day....

you just watch yourself

We have this BS in Australia. In 1995 the political party in power promised to abolish gun registration (rilfes and shotguns) because it was recognised as a waste of money and police resources. In 1996 there was a massacre in Tasmania and in a premeditated knee-jerk reaction, all states were forced by the Feds to introduce registration and ban semi-autos and pump action shotguns. Yes I am serious, pump actions are banned ! !! !

Our application for a gun licence runs to about 8 pages.

A lot of the laws are disregarded. For instance you are not allowed to buy a gun (22 rifles even) until after a 28 day "cooling off" period. But gun shops will "lease" you a gun, pending purchase.

I have "sold" guns to people I know in my club without doing any paperwork. I'll get around to do the paperwork one day, but its too much of a hassle. (Don't worry Quatermass, its legal under the law, we just haven't transferred the registration )

The laws are just stupid.

PS - Remnant - I hate seeing people call firearms weapons. An axe handle can be a weapon. Its all a matter of intent. A gun is a gun or a firearm. I'm sure you don't own any with an intent to use them as a weapon. Self defence possible, or for recreation more likely. Farmers need them as a tool. Calling them weapons just gives the anti-gun people more "ammo" to use to ban them.

*** WARNING ***

This subject is some members (me) special interest/obsession. Others have very strong held contrary opinions.

Its easy for this subject to get nasty.

Keep it nice.

I can't help feeling that Australian sporting shooters are loosing the PR war and that your opinion of guns is based on a feeling of being unsafe.

TV images (local made cop shows like Water Rats) have lots of misuse of guns by cops as well as bad guys. This I think colours peoples perspective based on fiction. It makes people afraid we may adopt a bad "gun culture" while it (I suspect) makes "bad guys" want to get illegal guns. Legal guns are not the problem.

Hunting/shooting is a safer sport than football (I say that based on US participation rates and statistics).

And no, I'm sure my shotguns will not be passed on to bikies. They are shotguns with shortened stocks being used by a 12 y.o. kids (under supervision I am sure).

I've had my say. I will try to resist any temptation to post on this topic again.

This is exactly why an idiot like George Bush can win a presidential election (with a little help from the supreme court and electronic voting machines). Because the Dumbocrats push idiocy like this. We need another party.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. www.ronpaul2008.com

The right to bare arms...arm bears....hmmm....
I think you fella's may have lost the flavour of your forefathers thoughts and meanings.....
But I do agree that if some SOB steps on my property.........
But I digress....
In Canada we have a gun registry that has done NOTHING to stem the use of illegal weapons and death. Wasted BILLIONS of dollars .
What he F... did the Government think would happen? Sooo many shootings happening with .306 hunting rifles? IDIOTS! Oh, yeah, think..... Kneejerk reactionist BS...OMG...stop me.....I don't suffer fools well.............

You know, gun owners do not interfere with other people's right to decide whether or not to own a gun. They would probably earn more respect if they did go around interfering with other people's rights, though. These days everyone seems to think you're a wuss if you're not messing up someone's life.

How about that. My spell checker knows how to spell "wuss."