On that gun registry we don’t have
Federal law prohibits ATF from establishing “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions and dispositions.” Instead, ATF relies upon federal firearms licensee (FFL) records to trace firearms recovered in crimes through its National Tracing Center. Inaccurate or incomplete record keeping makes the tracing of firearms involved in violent crimes virtually impossible.
Isn’t that pretty much a system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions and dispositions? Just asking.
July 29th, 2006 at 12:35 am
I don’t see how that would qualify. If the licensees are the one keeping the records, and not the government, I don’t see how that’s a foul. It’s rather like saying the government has a system of tracking commercial transactions and dispositions because the credit card companies keep records. And it’s not even the same mufuggin sport as a “registry.”
The way I read it, the feds aren’t allowed to keep any such records, so they rely on records kept by the licensees. This gives the feds an avenue to investigate legitimate crimes, but with the records so massively dispersed (how many FFL licensees are there, anyway?), it makes it awfully hard to go on a fishing expedition.
July 29th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Tgirsch,
An FFL may dispose of his/her records if they are 20 years old. aside from that the FFL is required to keep records by law. If an FFL goes out of business do you know what happens to all those transaction records younger than 20 years? The FFL is required to turn them over to the ATFU.
Now if an FFL voluntarily kept the records then I don’t think any of us would be cryin’ foul. But since it’s mandated by law to keep such records & an ATFU thug can walk into any gun store during regular business hours & look at any records he/she/it wishes by uterring a few magic words (“we’re tracing a crime gun”) I’d say someone has either missed the point or is working hard on a work around.
So in essence since the ATFU can’t legally keep a working registry they use involuntary labor to do so & they inherit said paperwork anytime an FFL goes out of business. It’s kinda like someone telling me I can’t take pics of some lady so I put a gun to your head & tell you to take the pics & if you ever switch occupations you have to give the pics to me. In the meantime I can look through them at will as long as I tell you I’m looking for something in particular. (granted, a crude example but I think it captures the essence of the FFL records thing)
July 29th, 2006 at 4:06 am
Tgirsch, to give an example :
Imagine that credit card companies were legally required for all members to answer and sign a paper including their name, address, driver license information, background check, serial number and experiation date, and a short federal affidavit stating that they are not prohibited from owning a credit card and do not plan to use the credit card illegally, and keep this information for twenty years.
Disobeying or answering incorrectly to any of the above (whether you know it or not, or even if the government body knows) would be a federal felony punishable by five years in prison.
Then imagine that the same federal group that licensed credit card companies also had the ability to ask, at any normal business hours, to look through all of those forms, and any discrepancies (even those as small as putting “y” instead of “yes”) can result in loss of license, fines, or prison time. Refusing to give out the information on these papers is another crime. There is no law or even guideline against making copies of these forms, although they do need to bring their own copier. If you leave the business (say Visa buys you out), all the paperwork goes to the government, who gets to keep it forever.
If it’s a list of names, addresses, and identifying features, and the government can access it at any time, it’s a registry. Doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about printers, or credit cards, or modems, or guns.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about an organization with a slogan looks like it’s from the IRS, and a track record that looks like it’s from Soviet Russia. Ooops, shot your dog, wife, and two children while collecting taxes. Oh well.
On Lean – Left (which, for some reason, I’ve been marked as a spammer after less than four sucessful posts, and had an on-topic note or two about Clinton, Iraq, and Kosovo deleted), I’ve seen others you seem to support protect the ‘right to privacy’. On one of Saysuncle’s first Kelo posts, you called the ‘right to privacy’ well understood under the ninth amendment.
Why’s it so sacred when talking about a woman going into a clinic pregnant and leaving significantly less so, but not when we’re talking about sbuying a glorified slingshot?
July 29th, 2006 at 5:59 am
well, tom, i’d call that a loophole 😉
July 29th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
As already mentioned, the BATFE gets the records when an FFL quits the biz, goes belly up or dies. Add to that the Clinton era change to the FFL leading to 75%-80% of all FFLs disappearing.
July 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Not to change the subject but I want to let you know that I have changed my blog format a little. The direction I’m going towards may not suit your taste. The change is nothing too drastic, just a much higher ratio of adult related content. If you wish to delete me from your blogroll I respect your decision. At the same time if you would like me to remove your link from my blogroll please let me know by leaving a comment or by emailing me. I’m looking foward to remaining in your blogroll and keeping your link in mine.
Bullseye
July 31st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I understand that it’s far from perfect, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to call it a “system” or a formal “registry.”
Of course, if you have better suggestions of how you could balance the need to track guns used in crimes with the privacy concerns of the legal gun owner, I’m certainly open to hearing them.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I’m only concerned with the latter. The former not so much.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I’m not convinced we need to ‘trace’ guns used in crimes. To give an example, the Canadian gun registry had very little if any notable effect in reducing crime rates. If the further example of your cause doesn’t do anything beneficial, what’s the point of any middle steps but to encourage that same harmful example?
It doesn’t matter, in my mind, who a felon stole a gun from before committing a murder. Nor should a shop be charged for not being able to psychically predict whether an individual lied. We don’t require Home Depot to keep records of whoever buys chainsaws, or require a list of houses with pools to be accessed by a single phone call from the police.
And, finally, you’re argueing that rights – both those of privacy and of the right to bear arms – should be damaged because… er… you can? For the “Good of the people”? Do you really want to go down that path? I assure that regardless how ‘justified’ it is for them to come for the potential criminals and nutcases today, they come for you or I tomorrow.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Small upside is that the BATFE have been prevented from computerizing the paper records from all of those dealers that are no longer in business.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
I’m only concerned with the latter.
It’s refreshing to hear you admit it. Imagine the campaign ad fun we could have with that, though. SayUncle: Not concerned with crime. 🙂
Seriously, though, that’s a big problem for pro-gun types. The perception among non-gunnies is that they simply don’t care at all about crime. Sure, they’ll pay lip service to “enforcing existing gun laws” (even as they oppose most of those), but most don’t even acknowledge gun crime as a problem, much less offer any viable solutions.
gattsuru:
And, finally, you’re argueing that rights – both those of privacy and of the right to bear arms – should be damaged because… er… you can?
As the Scalia-worshipping strict constructionists like to point out, there’s no explicitly enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution. (Personally, I believe there’s an implicit right, but that apparently makes me an eeeeevil “living constitution” type — another discussion for another time).
Anyway, I’m not arguing that either of those rights should be damaged. You have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Unless and until someone starts doing the mythical “gun-grabbing,” that right isn’t threatened by the fact that a scattered group of people know some of what you have.
As to the privacy issue, I think it’s a non-issue here. If your car is used in a crime, you can bet the police are going to come talk to you about it. Maybe your car was stolen, and you had nothing at all to do with it. If so, fine. But they have to ask. It would be criminally negligent for them not to. And even if they eliminate you as a suspect, they may still get information that leads them to the actual culprit (e.g., Where was your car stolen from? And when was it stolen?).
I don’t see why it should be any different for guns, or anything else. If law enforcement officials use the information to investigate a specific crime, then there’s nothing “unreasonable” about them pursuing those leads, and thus, no constitutional foul. Not by the second amendment, and not by the fourth.
If, on the other hand, they start going on “fishing expeditions,” then that is indeed a constitutional violation, and one that raises legitimate privacy concerns. I don’t see that this is the case here, however. And, in fact, that’s precisely why a centralized registry is forbidden.
If you’re not even willing to let the authorities try to track a specific firearm in the course of investigating a specific crime, then I can’t imagine anything that you would be willing to let them do.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:19 pm
I forgot to change only to more. I forgot to edit after I went thru the whole thing.
I disagree. Well, OK, not on the perception part because that probably is how it comes across. But it’s not that I don’t care about crime. I’m concerned about people hijacking airplanes but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s fucking stupid to confiscate toenail clippers. It’s a matter of degree and if that degree is a choice between harassing lawful owners or letting some criminals get away, I choose the latter. After all, how many crimes are actually solved by gun trace data? I’m guessing a far lower % than are solved.
I disagree there too. We say enforce the gun laws, as long as they’re not stupid ones that we have issues with. for example (i’d have to google the exact number but I blogged it a bit back), something like 80+% of the gun crimes prosecuted by the ATF are clerical errors (which include things like writing a Y instead of writing Yes on some form). so, enforce existing gun laws that actually would lead a reasonable person to think such an act is criminal. That is to say, arrest people for shooting people; not because they didn’t dot an i.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I am not legally required to register my car just to travel on my own land. Nor are there any actual laws regarding the ownership or posession of a car : I can legally allow my kids to drive around a ranch in New Mexico by the time their feet can reach the pedal. Car licenses, and the resulting associated registry of them, are related to an additional capability, to use public roads and be entitled to specific legal support.
Meanwhile owning a gun that never leaves my house requires me to still sign and fill out a form that must be maintained for at least 20 years. Gun registration gives me nothing that isn’t already an enumerated right : ‘crime’ guns will still be destroyed or sold by the state, and I can already put out a notice for a stolen gun with the serial number identifying it.
Moreover, I am unaware of any car registrations that have lead to car confiscations, while gun registrations that have lead to gun confiscation have already occured multiple times in history.
Finally, there is no explicit “Right to Drive”, and few people would consider such a right implicit, given the time frame the Constitution was written in as compared to when cars were invented. A more apt comparision would be, say, a license to assemble (“your free speech stamp has expired, sir”), or to provide public speech (“do you have a license for this flyer, mam?”), or perhaps religion (“I’m afraid you can’t believe in god til you’re twenty one and have your ID, kid”). I assure you that all of the above have easily caused more damage than legally owned firearms have, and often with little benefit. May I bring up the sheer number of complaints against licenses to the “right to vote”, even when the licenses are free and can not be refused?
And let’s kick the “prosecute crimes easier” spiel. I am not required to do anything to make a policeman’s job easier, although I may choose to do so (and be required to leave an area if I choose not to). Nor, realistically, is gun registration likely to help. Legal gun owners are less likely to commit a crime than policemen, and much less likely to commit a violent crime (most suffer from unarmed DUIs or paperwork issues). Could you hunt down one or two of the exceptions to the rule? Sure, but you might also kill a good many innocents who can’t afford the extra cost of registration, or otherwise unable to register their gun.
Prosecute people that actually, you know, did bad things? The ones stealing guns, killing people, or committing aggravated assault? Instead of harassing legal owners and merchants?
Same as a blood sample or a bunch of fingerprints, if the government wants to know about me, they should be using a warrant, not throwing around the weight of law at business I work with. I’m not content with a section of the government – a section already known so well for abuses that congress and the judicial branch have already called for dismantalment multiple times – being able to look through my records, or the records of a business I run or work with, under the power of law.
You seem to have a problem with the government digging into the records of pregnant woman to detect crimes – IANAL, but that’s what it seems the Roe v Wade ruling stated. And this is a situation where you’re only harassing those who had commited a crime (regardless of your opinion on abortion, you can’t believe it was legal before RvW)! You’re fine with the government having the ability to regulate and search through the records of men and women who you don’t even have significant reason to believe fired a gun?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:21 pm
They already break this law through the NFA/Class 3 gun registry.
And as for trace data – if it is updated every time there is an FFL transfer then yes this seems to be a registry.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:04 am
Prosecute people that actually, you know, did bad things? The ones stealing guns, killing people, or committing aggravated assault?
Right. As long as in the process of trying to catch the bad people, you don’t hurt some gun owner’s feelings. 😉
Look, I’m not saying that a formal registry would be effective. I’m saying that exists now is nowhere close to a formal registry, doesn’t seem unreasonable, and doesn’t have much potential to lead to confiscation.
I’m a gun rights supporter and a CCW holder myself, so it’s not like I’m some anti-gun confiscation-happy dude. But it really, really, REALLY pisses me off that anyone who hasn’t drunk every single stinking drop of the Gun Nut Kool-Aid(tm) is chastized for not agreeing that pretty much everything the government does with respect to guns is morally equivalent to the repeal of the damn second amendment.
Even the most stauch First Amendment defenders generally agree that prohibiting you from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater (that is not, in fact, on fire) is not protected speech. There seems to be no second amendment equivalent of this. All gun laws are bad gun laws, apparently (I can’t think of any that any of the gun nuts I know support), and anyone who expresses anything other than rabid opposition to such laws is The Enemy.j
Frankly, if you want to keep that RKBA, you need me, and people like me. The NRA types you already have in your corner, and the DiFi’s will never come around, but there are a good many people, just like me, who recognize that gun crime is a big problem, and that while confiscation and prohibition are not the answer, neither is pretending the problem doesn’t exist (or making vague platitudes about “arresting the bad guys” without saying what methods you’d approve for finding the bad guys). The hard-line rhetoric may work with other gunnies, but it’s John Q. Citizen that you need to have on your side, and that same rhetoric makes him think you’re a Montana Militia type, not to be taken seriously.
If you care about having public opinion on your side, then you need to be willing to offer alternatives. If not, you’re just “that guy” who pooh-poohs everything and never offers solutions. If you don’t mind being that guy, so be it. But public opinion is hugely important in protecting RKBA, and the “anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” spiel doesn’t win you any friends (on any issue, still less gun issues).
You seem to have a problem with the government digging into the records of pregnant woman to detect crimes
Huh? I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Whether the issue is guns, or abortions, or anything else, I support allowing records to be searched to gain evidence of specific instances of specific crimes (specified in advance, as in a warrant), and oppose allowing “fishing expeditions” of any kind. Specific to guns, if a gun is used in a crime, and that gun is recovered, you’re damn right I expect the authorities to try to find the gun’s owner — legal or not. If you’re a legal gun owner, and you properly lock up your weapons, you’ve got nothing to worry about from allowing this.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:25 am
tgirsch Says:
The “second amendment equivalent of this” is that it’s against the law to murder. It’s against the law to rob people at gunpoint, etc.
Everything bad that you could possibly do with guns is already illegal.
“Gun control” laws are not like banning “yelling “fire” in a crowded theater” laws, they are more like forcing those unwilling to undergo a background check to wear muzzles upon entry. People who decide to watch DVDs at home instead are exploiting a “loophole”.
After all, we need those laws preventing people from manufacturing their own home theater systems. One percent of them just might commit a crime.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:12 am
tgirsch Says:
In Canada (where I will note there is no RKBA) the gun registry has cost, what, nearly $2 billion right? How many rape kits would that amount of cash process? Is it too much to ask that we get value for our tax dollars before we let one more law erode our freedoms?
The above link claims that the Canada system was estimated to cost only 2 million. That’s one heck of a cost overrun.
I shouldn’t need to give a second example, but I will. See what a complete boondoggle Maryland’s ballistic “fingerprinting” is and what it has cost. The NRA claims that 1 million dollars was diverted from community policing projects. Several gun manufactures have decided not to ship firearms to Maryland because of the hassle involved. Besides the danger to liberty, is scheme this worth the freight?
We’re trying to educate you “fence sitters”, but perhaps sometimes we do a less than perfect job.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:25 am
SM:
Not sure why “gun control” is in quotes, but while I generally agree that most gun control laws are more onerous than laws banning falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, it doesn’t follow that all are. Laws prohibiting all felons from owning guns for life are overly broad IMO, but a narrower law prohibiting violent ones from owning guns for a significant period of time – at least 10 years – would not be. And banning undetectable “plastic” guns – which thankfully do not exist today, but likely would if a legal market existed for them – strikes me as just plain common sense.
Another area where some gun nuts fail to persuade fence sitters is trying to make everything a constitutional issue, rather than limiting the constitutional argument to cases where the laws really do destroy (that’s what “infringe” means, in this context) the right to bear arms, as opposed to merely hampering it in the slightest way. It’s one thing to attack the constitutionality of Chicago’s handgun “registration” ordinance or the “registration” initiative they tried to pass in Cali around that time, both of which are (or would have been) de facto bans on any newly acquired handguns. It’s quite another to scream constitution over the point of sale registrations they have in Cali, which are nearly invisible to the purchaser. And I’m saying this as one who, for reasons unrelated to the Constitution, opposes most of the same laws my fellow gunnies frivolously describe as unconstitutional.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Really?
So, what happens when the .50 cal weapons get banned, or rather “current ownership” (ex post facto and all)? Or ” Do you expect the BATF to suddenly
I think it’s worth noting that Schenck v. United States, the case where “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” was penned by Justice Oliver Holmes, was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
Like “know it when I see it” test for profanity, these have been overturned. Why am I the only one that knows that?
Anyway, the current test for free speech is “imminent lawless action”, that is an act which causes a violation of the law faster than a police officer could be summoned. Free speech is known for causing this,
If anyone makes a gun that actually causes lawless action, then I’d understand the limitations. If the gun requires a violation of law to produce, then I’d understand the limitations. In fact, thinking like this is what encourages most gun nuts to consider the registration of automatic weapons to be nearly reasonable (as they can encourage indiscriminate fire from those who aren’t qualified); even Kim du Toit supports those. But guns are tools. A reasonable man or woman isn’t going to shoot someone just because they own or have a tool, anymore than I’d build a house because there’s a bandsaw and some wood nearby.
The equivilant of gun bans would be to require registration for the ownership of fast internet connections (which have a direct correlation to the chance of being used for software and music piracy). Does that make sense?
No matter what the connection between spray paint and grafitti, we don’t outlaw the former. No, because it’s only the actions regarding freedom of speech which can abuse it.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Really?
Yes, really. I’m about as worried that gun registration would lead to the confiscation of my guns as I am that registering my car will lead to the confiscation of my car. In the latter case, I don’t even have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to own one, and I’m still not terribly worried that registering it will lead to confiscation. But perhaps that’s just me.
When did the topic shift to “limitations” and “bans?” I thought we were discussing record-keeping…
In any case, I’ve never been particularly impressed by the whole “a gun is just a tool like any other tool” line of reasoning. It’s like arguing that a pneumatic nailer is no more or less dangerous than an electronic stud finder, and in any case it’s usually not relevant anyway. I’ve always felt that these arguments just make those making them seem unreasonable and more than a little bit silly. (I can see the bank robbery scene now: “Oh my God! He’s got an alan wrench! Do whatever he says!”)
No matter what the connection between spray paint and grafitti, we don’t outlaw the former.
Again, we seem to have gotten into some topic drift here. Who said anything about outlawing guns? Just because you’re afraid a gun ban is forthcoming, and that a registry of some sort could enable some form of confiscation, does not mean that a registry and confiscation are one in the same thing. And it certainly doesn’t mean that federally-mandated but disparate record-keeping is the same thing as a searchable, centrally-located-and-maintained formal gun registry, which was really the only point I was trying to make here, before everyone panicked and assumed I had come to pry their guns from their cold, dead hands.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
The other point that I’ve tried to make here is that there’s a perception among the general public that gun rights activists cannot be reasoned with. I don’t think there’s anything at all in this thread, with the notable exception of Xrlq’s comment, that would do anything other than reinforce that perception.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Ever had a knife drawn on you? Ever seen what a saw could do to human flesh? Hell, do you know how much pressure is required to snap a human neck like a twig (hint : not enough)?
Why’s the ‘danger’ matter? Anything that can be done by a tool one way, can be done the other. Sure, a gun could kill an innocent, just like a knife or a saw or a guy with good grip. Hell, fire extinguishers are damned dangerous (contents under pressure, chemically dangerous, and usually heavy enough to use as a blunt weapon).
Should we ban fingertips, since correct application can easily cut off blood flow to a limb?
Or, if you’d prefer, should we license all of the above, ‘just in case’? I’m sure a right to privacy applies to medical records, but, hey, it’s not the it could do any harm for the government to search through your records on a regular basis just to make sure you haven’t done any improper home improvement. While we’re at it, why not on anyone who moves on the plumber’s union – lead pipe can be dangerous, after all.
Okay, since apparently past results aren’t a good indicator of future performance (it’s not like a gun registry has almost immediately led into gun confiscation in Australia, Canada, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, New York, New Jersey, and California), I guess relating it to confiscation isn’t accurate enough yet.
Would it somehow be better if spray cans were licensed, with the production number from the can taken and maintained for twenty years, perhaps attached to a bunch of names and fingerprints? Perhaps each printer should be legally required to put an identifying watermark on every part of every page it prints out.
Would either of the above be a significant damage to the right to privacy? How long do you think it would be before a political whistleblower gets taken down because his unsigned letter to the chief
I’ll be reasoned with when we’re dealing with reasonable things. I’ve personally been forced to escort a kid off of school grounds because he wore a shirt with the picture of a gun on it (our ‘zero tolerance’ policy earned him an expulsion that he was lucky enough to overturn into just a detention). I’ve been required to wait several months and pay hundreds of dollars to get a license just to practice plinking with a damned .22LR in bolt action, and I know a woman who could not buy pepper spray without the same.
We’re not dealing with reasonable beliefs. You may have been fooled into thinking so – after all, who could go against a “zero tolerance” policy, we don’t want guns or drugs or alcohol in our schools – but they are not – I doubt a ‘reasonable’ response to a shirt with a beer can on it is expulsion. Likewise, you may be fine with a legal search for a gun used in a crime, but I’m not content with BATFE officers walking down the rows at a gun show and marking down every serial number for traces that afternoon. Even though they never find anything, do you honestly believe that this is right?
If we were dealing with reasonable beliefs, we’d be debating how best keep machine guns well-regulated. Not how to best infringe the right to privacy to better harass gun shops and gun owners.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
TGirsch:
It’s not just you; it’s the political environment. No one wants to ban cars. If the overall political landscape is ever as universally pro-gun as it is pro-car, then I predict that gun owner paranoia about registration leading to confiscation will largely dissipate.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Xrlq Says:
Because gun control is hitting your target.
Xrlq Says:
I’ve never heard the “definition of the word “infringe”” argument before. Is this something you have whipped up or can you cite? I’ll defer judgment until I can check a 18th century dictionary.
way back early in the thread, tgirsch Says:
No, you are a bit confused here. Check the ninth amendment. As I’m fond of saying, I have about a billion unenumerated rights, including the right to shout “theater!” in a crowded fire (borrowed that from the Yippies), and the right to keep and bear pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (made that one up myself) The constitution limits the scope of federal government, such that even if Xrlq’s take on “infringe” is legit, it still doesn’t mean that the tobacco ninjas can get their nationwide database, no matter how many executive orders are passed or what kinds of appropriations congress makes.
Believing you have rights other than that were unenumerated does not make you a “living constitution” type.
Here’s a quick test. If you believe that somehow the part that says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”, really actually somehow allows the different departments of the executive branch, like say the EPA, or the IRS, or the TSA to create regulations, publish them, and then enforce those regulations just like any law that congress passed and the president signed, then you are one of those “living constitution” wackjobs.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:05 am
Lame. I’m as big on scare quotes as the next guy, but this is just lame. Any controls that affect guns are, by definition, gun control. Hitting your target is just one kind of gun control.
No need for an 18th Century dictionary; just consult a modern one, bearing in mind that a definition deemed “obsolete” in 2006 may not have been so in 1791.
No, but arguing that you have constitutional rights other than those that were either enumerated, does. The Ninth Amendment doesn’t constitutionalize anything; it merely precludes one from arguing that a right not secured by the Constitution cannot be considered a right on any other basis. There still has to be be another basis for asserting that right, e.g., a well-established common law right of the people to keep and bear pseudoephedrine hydrochloride.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Xrlq Says:
Err, not only no, but hell no. The total sum of my rights does not solely include those enumerated, and those set by precedence, or common law. I have more. I have rights no one has even thought of yet.
I have a right to privacy. I have a right to travel around the country, I have the right to express my political beliefs in a media that was never even conceived as a common law right. Don’t try to limit me to only established 18th century rights.
Habit. Get over it. Take it in context. Tgirsch was saying that there weren’t any gun laws equivalent to “yelling “fire” in a crowded theater”, and I was saying sure there is, you can’t murder random bypassers, etc.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Perhaps so – just not under the Constitution. And who ever said all rights were supposed to be constitutionalized, anyway?
August 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am
[…] said it before (here and here). Rustmeister concurred. Now, he notes: Now, from Red’s Trading Post comes this news […]