Low compliance with Connecticut gun registration law

[Venix]

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/police_register_about_50000_assault_rifles

The article uses incorrect terminology--an assault rifle is a select-fire weapon (a machine gun, in NFA terms). Connecticut gun owners registered "assault weapons," a political term invented to describe weapons that are cosmetically similar to military weapons. Any rifle with a pistol grip, adjustable stock, bayonet mount, or flash hider is an "assault weapon." If those features are removed from a rifle, it's no longer an "assault weapon."

Anyway, only 50,000 rifles and 40,000 standard capacity magazines were registered out of an estimated stock of hundreds of thousands of rifles and millions of magazines. As expected, it looks like most firearm owners simply ignored this pointless law.

Australia had a similar compliance problem with its gun ban--of around 3 million estimated banned weapons, only 650k were surrendered. Australia's "solution" was to claim that the original estimate must have been wrong and to declare victory anyway. I wonder if Connecticut will take that route, or if they intend to prosecute the tens or hundreds of thousands of instant criminals created by this law.

 

[fskimospy]

Australia's gun ban worked remarkably well.

 

[Venix]

Australia's gun ban worked remarkably well.

It didn't (1, 2), but whether it worked or not wasn't the point. Compliance was low, and the government decided to ignore the issue rather than aggressively enforce the law. It will be interesting to see how Connecticut handles it.

 

[boomerang]

This is great news. The 'resistance' is forming.

 

[KB]

What does registration do? Nothing. It wouldn't have stopped sandy hook or the colorado theater Incidents. Registration costs money and is only useful for conviscation.

 

[schneiderguy]

237,000 NCIS checks were performed in Connecticut in 2012 (FBI). By the number of people I see at the range with AR15s, even in California, I'm guessing that 50,000 "assault weapons" were sold in 2012 alone in the state of Connecticut. I imagine that the compliance rate was probably not more than 10%.

In California the compliance rate for the 1989 AWB a little more than 2%. (link)

 

[Nebor]

So? That just means that when you get pulled over on the way to the range, or you're getting a divorce and your wife is mad at you, the police have a reason to send you to prison. The prison industry and statism win.

 

[Anarchist420]

Australia's gun ban worked remarkably well.

statistics should never be taken at face value. i mean, people used to use blades, then guns were invented. people would revert to blades or use something new if guns were banned. that is, if guns were banned, something new would be invented to take their place or something old would be used to take their place.

and dont forget that the sandy hook shooter couldve made a bomb and a lot more damage wouldve been done and the State's guns didnt stop it. the State's guns murder good people more often than not then it leave assholes like me alive and free. how is that fair? just wondering

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Gun registration is not mandatory.

See my example:

A gun registration law passes in a state. The law compels mandatory gun registration and list specific punishments. The people choose to not register their guns. They are willfully breaking the gun registration law, thus they become criminals by that same law.

At this point, they are protected under the 5th amendment and cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves. The registration law tells them to register their guns, but forced registration means forced self-incrimination to the government. The gun registration law becomes unconstitutional as it violates the 5th amendment and is automatically invalid.

Thus the people are not required to register their guns. Spread the word.

Haynes v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haynes v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 11, 1967
Decided January 29, 1968 Full case name Miles Edward Haynes v. United States Citations 390 U.S. 85 (more) 88 S.Ct. 722; 19 L.Ed.2d 923

Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

 

[Fern]

Interesting case law.

Fern

 

[rudder]

Australia's gun ban worked remarkably well.

Good for them...can we ship all gang members there so they will stop killing people?

 

[Venix]

Gun registration is not mandatory.

See my example:

A gun registration law passes in a state. The law compels mandatory gun registration and list specific punishments. The people choose to not register their guns. They are willfully breaking the gun registration law, thus they become criminals by that same law.

At this point, they are protected under the 5th amendment and cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves. The registration law tells them to register their guns, but forced registration means forced self-incrimination to the government. The gun registration law becomes unconstitutional as it violates the 5th amendment and is automatically invalid.

Thus the people are not required to register their guns. Spread the word.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's an entirely accurate analysis. Haynes just says that the state can't prosecute someone who fails to register an illegal gun both for owning the gun illegally and for failing to register it. He can still be prosecuted for illegal possession, and the gun can still be confiscated.

Basically, it means that registration laws are only enforceable against otherwise-law-abiding citizens. If you legally own a gun but don't register it, you can be tried for violating the registration law; if your gun is illegal, you can only be tried for illegal possession. In both cases you'll go to jail and lose your gun. Yes, that is as stupid as it sounds--gun registration laws can legally only be enforced against people who aren't criminals.

I'm honestly not entirely sure how this applies to Connecticut, since legal guns magically became illegal and forever unregisterable if they weren't registered by January 1. Anyway, here's a more in-depth discussion of this insanity.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Australia's gun ban worked remarkably well.

Actually it barely had any overall impact, with some of stats immediately following actually getting worse for a while.