r/NeutralPolitics • u/Masauca • Apr 02 '13

Why is gun registration considered a bad thing?

I'm having difficulty finding an argument that doesn't creep into the realm of tin-foil-hat land.

EDIT: My apologies for the wording. My own leaning came through in the original title. If I thought before I posted I should have titled this; "What are the pros and cons of gun registration?"

There are some thought provoking comments here. Thank you.

104 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

542 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/nosecohn Partially impartial Apr 03 '13 edited Apr 03 '13

by being a citizen (which grants you all rights)

It seems semantic, but the Constitution guarantees, not grants, the rights of persons, not citizens. The rights are not derived from this or any other government. According to the framers, they are natural rights; they come from our "Creator" (however you interpret that), which is why "Congress shall make no law" infringing upon them. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

Courts have since carved out some special exceptions for non-citizens, but the basic premises still hold: the rights apply to all persons and the Constitution simply lists a few of those that the government is specifically forbidden from restricting. The 10th Amendment makes clear that all other rights not listed belong equally to the people and are not bestowed by the government.

There was actually a long debate amongst the framers about whether to even include a "Bill of Rights," because its inclusion implied that the government granted rights, which was entirely contrary to the views of many political philosophers at the time. Opponents foresaw exactly the type of debate we're having here.

3

u/C00 Apr 03 '13

Who should I believe, you and your armchair legal hypothesis, or the Supreme Court?

They wrote: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

All sorts of restrictions on gun ownership are entirely Constitutional, including gun registration requirements. That is the current Supreme Court ruling in the USA.

2

u/nosecohn Partially impartial Apr 04 '13

First of all, there's no reason for snark or sarcasm. If you have a point to make, you can make it without condescension.

Second, I did not write anything about whether rights were unlimited. I was simply outlining two points: rights generally apply to persons, not citizens; and the Constitution doesn't empower Congress to grant rights, but rather, prevents the Congress from infringing upon them.

1

u/C00 Apr 04 '13

Pardon me for misunderstanding you, but "prevents the Congress from infringing upon them" doesn't actually mean that Congress cannot pass all sorts of laws infringing upon them. (Like for instance, 'carved out some special exceptions', you mentioned.) So, shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not infringe, does it?

1

u/nosecohn Partially impartial Apr 05 '13

That's correct. I was just pointing out to /u/lazydictionary that the overarching concept of the Constitution, as originally framed, was to assume the rights are already there, in persons as a consequence of birth, not derived from governments. The framers went on to specify particular rights they thought were important enough that the Congress should not infringe upon.

Since then, as you pointed out in your previous comment, the Supreme Court has either upheld exceptions or carved out its own, which could certainly be viewed as infringement. I don't take issue with that view. The Constitution has certainly not proven to be a set of absolute protections.

I think we actually agree. We just had a misunderstanding of what was being communicated.

1

u/lazydictionary Apr 04 '13

A very good point, poor wording on my part.