How Government Officials Doom Gun Registration Laws

The problem for gun control advocates is that they keep promising that no way will registration lead to confiscation of firearms, even as it does just that.

Winchester 94JanvalIn November 2013, Robert Farago of the Truth About Guns blog began publishing letters received by gun owners in New York City demanding the surrender of rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds. While New York state recently passed the controversial SAFE Act imposing registration and restrictions on "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines, the city law has been on the books for years, though apparently only intermittently enforced. Amidst the post-Newtown debate over gun control, though, Big Apple officials' new dedication to poring over registration records and weeding out forbidden weapons couldn't help but fuel fears of confiscation—and thereby spur defiance of already faltering registration schemes in New York, Connecticut, and elsewhere.

The problem for gun control advocates is that they keep promising that no way will registration lead to confiscation of firearms, even as it does just that. The Brady Campaign's Dennis A. Henigan accuses the National Rifle Association of peddling "fear" for even raising the possibility. In the New York Times, Charles Blow calls such concerns "cultural paranoia."

Yet gun owners seem to have legitimate worries. Hundreds of New York City residents are receiving, and publicizing, letters demanding the surrender, not of scary "assault weapons," whatever arbitrary definition may locally apply to that slippery term, but of target rifles and cowboy guns. Among the forbidden items gleaned from New York City registration lists and ordered to be surrendered or removed from city limits are the bolt-action Marlin 25N, and lever-action Browning 92 and Winchester 94 rifles. Semi-automatic rifles of the plinking variety, such as the AR-7, have been targeted, too.

Altogether, the news of the confiscation letters comes at an inconvenient time for politicians trying to convince gun owners in New York and Connecticut to register much more controversial "assault weapons"—and to take their word that nobody will try to grab the guns after they've been recorded.

California Department of Justice Special AgentCalifornia Department of JusticeCalifornia, too, has used its gun registration records to seize firearms. Under the Armed Prohibited Persons System, teams of state agents confiscate thousands of guns from Californians who have been disqualified after the fact from ownership because of "maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms," according to Special Agent Kisu Yo of the California Department of Justice.

A fair number of the people receiving visits from Yo and company might well be less than ideal gun owners. But those categories for disqualification are broad enough to lead many people to wonder if they might wander into them with little effort. "Some type of a misdemeanor conviction" is not hard to come by in modern America. Civil rights attorney C.D. Michel cautions, "For example, you can get in a fight, and plead guilty to being in a fight, and wind up having a statutory prohibition on possessing firearms get triggered for a 10-year period. But the courts haven't told them that."

Why take the risk of a nastygram in the mail, or armed goons at the door when you can avoid that fate by keeping your guns off government lists?

That may well be the thinking of those Connecticut gun owners who've been staying away from the state's registration forms—due by January 1, 2014—in droves. Estimates of affected weapons in Connecticut are hard to come by, though Scott Wilson, president of the pro-gun Connecticut Citizens Defense League, puts the number at 20,000 such weapons. That seems low, though, compared to the one million "assault weapons" that Governor Andrew Cuomo estimated to be affected by a similar law in neighboring (and admittedly much larger) New York, or even the 100,000-300,000 such guns targeted by a (widely ignored) New Jersey ban in 1991.

Whatever the number, though, only about about 4,100 registration applications were received by mid-November, creeping up to 6,315 in early December (along with 4,643 high-capacity magazines), with just weeks until the deadline. That led Michael Lawlor, Conecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s criminal justice advisor, to plaintively warn, “If you haven’t declared it or registered it and you get caught ... you’ll be a felon. People who disregard the law are, among other things, jeopardizing their right to own firearms. If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen.”

Then again, history has shown that people who abide by such laws are "jeopardizing their right to own firearms."

In neighboring New York, it's hard to know how many of Gov. Cuomo's forbidden million have been registered, because the state refuses to release the number. In a state where vows of defiance of the new law have been loud and well-organized, and many county sheriffs have refused to help with enforcement,  officials rely on a peculiar interpretation of a privacy provision intended to shield individual gun owners' information to keep statistics to themselves.

Confiscation letterTruth About GunsRobert Freeman, executive director of the state's Committee on Open Government, and the official responsible for overseeing transparency, told the Democrat & Chronicle, "If we're talking about statistics only, not the actual records that were assembled or collected, in my opinion they're public. I don't know why they would be reluctant."

Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R-Pittsford) thinks he knows why. He says the Cuomo administration doesn’t want to release the data because it would show little compliance with the new gun registration requirements.

That's almost certainly true. The record shows that gun restrictions of all sorts breed defiance everywhere they're introduced. About 25 percent of Illinois handgun owners actually complied when that state's registration law was introduced in the 1970s, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. Then, when California began registering "assault weapons" in 1990, The New York Times reported after the registration period came to a close that “only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered.”

Compliance figures are unlikely to drift upwards very far, when government officials promise that no harm will come to the law-abiding—and then use registration lists to snatch cowboy guns, or to send goon squads to the doors of people caught up in bar scuffles.

Bureaucrats can nag people all they want that "If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen." But policymakers have done their best to demonstrate that being a law-abiding citizen isn't always a good idea.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    I seem to recall some skepticism earlier by a few posters when I asserted that registration is nothing more than a prelude to confiscation.

    Here's hoping they have learned the error of their ways.

  • Mainer2||

    You are relying on the fact that in the real world registration has always led to confiscation. The skeptics have the words of people like Andrew Cuomo.

  • BSubversive.com||

    But we register our cars and they aren't coming for them amiright?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's because there's no Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence, even though automobile crashes kill as many people every year as guns.

  • Gray Ghost||

    But we register our cars and they aren't coming for them amiright?

    Set up a carbon quota and they just might be.

  • SQRLSY One||

    But they will ONLY confiscate your car if you are NOT Al Gore, so don’t worry! And if you ARE The Real Al Gore, you can burn BILLIONS of tons of carbon your your way across the Galactic Cluster, in order to go and RX yer obviously-Government-Almighty BLESSED-APPROVED award for LOVING The Earth, the Gaian Spirit, The Bunnnny Waaaabbitts, and ALL else that is SACRED!

  • deepspeed||

    What part of DESIGNED TO KILL don't you understand?

  • epsilon given||

    Of course, you are assuming that no one ever needs to kill anyone--or anything--else. What part of WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE don't /you/ understand?

    If killing is never appropriate, then we shouldn't be handing guns out to police officers...

  • deepspeed||

    "Of course, you are assuming that no one ever needs to kill anyone--or anything--else."

    The Authority will tell you what you need.

    "What part of WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE don't /you/ understand?"

    The Authority will tell you what rights you have.

    "If killing is never appropriate, then we shouldn't be handing guns out to police officers..."

    Are you questioning the Authority, pleb?

  • ||

    "What part of DESIGNED TO KILL don't you understand?"

    The part where people try to use it as an excuse to deprive me of my Creator-given, natural, human, civil, and Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't YOU understand?

  • geologist||

    Yes, but that is because car registration schemes are primarily for the purpose of taxation. They have not thought of taxing gun owners...yet.

    But try NOT registering your car, and at least in California you WILL find a couple of Sheriffs knocking hard at your door at 5 am ready to haul you and your car away to impound. When it happened to me I was able to prove I no longer owned either car in question, but if not for that I would have spent a weekend in jail waiting DMV to clear up the confusion.

  • Ron||

    when Arnold was governor of California he did propose eliminating all cars over a certain age. so yes they will come for your registered cars. And this year they are talking about a tax on every car a person owns based on their value to help with the roads even though you can only drive one car at a time. Of course if they were to use the gas tax like it was designed for they wouldn't need another tax.

  • Major Johnson||

    In California they passed a law stating that if you're illegal and caught breaking driving with no license or insurance they can't impound your vehicle.

    If you like your car and you're here illegally you can keep it. No doubt the government has a similar policy for guns.

  • Tyger_purr||

    Auto registration is only required for vehicles used on public roads. It's primary purpose is taxation. While a vehicle does have to be registered, legally it is considered the property of the person it is registered to, however, it does not have to be registered to the person operating it or in possession of it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't support registration at all, but it's possible that those who do have no intention to enact confiscation. I don't understand this need to make one's political opponents into moral monsters.

    Of course, once the registration exists it's nearly impossible to get rid of, and if the people in charge at a later date favor confiscation they'll find the registration quite handy. So unless the people in charge are never the sort that want to confiscate, confiscation will be a consequence, albeit unintended.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "I don't understand this need to make one's political opponents into moral monsters."

    That's because you are a moral monster.

    Foreseeable consequences are never unintended.

    Go ahead and register all of your guns.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Just so we're clear:

    Gun registration laws are just as immoral as gun confiscation.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If saying, in effect, that governments act like governments no matter what promises they have made is making "one's political opponents into moral monsters", so be it. No government in recorded history has been dependably honest where momentary expediency raised its head.

  • Mark22||

    Progressives enacting these laws clearly have good intentions, but good intentions don't protect us from the consequences.

    Good intentions don't shield you from moral responsibility. "Moral monsters" throughout history generally have had what they considered "good intentions".

    Please keep your good intentions as far away from me as possible and mind your own business. All I want is liberty and justice.

  • Major Johnson||

    The road to hell is paved with the unintended consequences of good intentions. We're building a super highway.

  • ||

    "I don't support registration at all, but it's possible that those who do have no intention to enact confiscation."

    What other purpose could it possibly serve?

  • Tonio||

    But they are only confiscating the illegal guns!!1!

    /progderp

  • ||

    Why Good People Should Be Armed
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM

    Watch her other videos as well.

  • ||

    Seriously, check out her other vids people. She is a Libertarian Goddess!

  • Homple||

    Her website is www.josietheoutlaw.com

    Her video "message to police" is seven minutes of gut-punching questions to the paid enforcers of those who rule us.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It looks and sounds like she has a great personality, for sure.

  • wadair||

    Very good points, indeed.

  • entropy_factor||

    that girl has serious fat potential.

    in other news, although I was cheering to all of her videos, how much money do you wanna lay down to bet that she is on 5 watchlists now ?

  • ||

    I would say your bet would be a safe one.

  • Sevo||

    It's on the truck out for delivery!
    The check's in the mail!
    I'm with the government and I'm here to help!
    If you like your insurance, you can keep it!

  • Anomalous||

    I'll respect you in the morning, and I won't come in your mouth.

  • gimmeasammich||

    The trick is to not say anything of the sort, and just do it. The worst you'll have to deal with is her calling you an "ash-ho" as she scurries off to the trash can in the corner.

  • Mainer2||

    It's just a cold sore.

  • Mainer2||

    It's just a cold sore.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Actually, what are commonly referred to as cold sores are a type of herpes virus. While one strain (HSV-1) typically results in sores around the mouth and the other (HSV-2) in sores around the genitals, HSV-1 can result in genital sores. So you still need to be careful.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Can HSV-2 also cause sores around the mouth? And what's this finger herpes I've heard about?

  • Sam Grove||

    If she's doing it properly, you won't come in her mouth.

  • Tejicano||

    Really, what practical use could registration be for other than for some future confiscation? Registration in and of itself has no effect on future use - otherwise there would be no cars used in crime ever since all cars are registered.

    And the myth about tracking the gun's ownership - just how is that supposed to stop crime? WHere it might matter there are many ways to get around it. It has next to zero practicality.

    Also, the impulse to resist gun registration when implemented is not anywhere near a unique American reaction. Just about all "industrialized nations" have millions of black market guns. Our closest cultural neighbor, Canada, had to scrap its long gun registry due to cost and ineffectiveness.

  • fish||

    Really, what practical use could registration be for other than for some future confiscation?

    When the criminal throws his gun down after committing his nefarious deed registration will allow law enfarcement personnel to track the weapon back the owner and give them a stern talking to.

    /moreprogderp

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So things that actually happen, but don't support libertarian ideology, are "derp" now?

    How did Fast + Furious scandal come to light? Tracing serial numbers.

    How did the person who sold the gun to the guy who shot EMTs and firefighters in upstate NY last Christmas Eve get nailed? Tracing serial numbers.

    And thousands of other cases.

    You may not like the idea of registration (and I agree with you on that point) but don't pretend it's useless.

  • Edwin||

    well, it IS Tulpa. You're right, but that's still basically useless in terms of actual PREVENTION. SOLVING a crime that happened, sure, but prevention? No. And something tells me that registration is being sold either as aiding in prevention, or the people believe that this is the idea/effect

  • Enigma||

    back to the owner

    If the gun was stolen or purchased on the black market, how would giving the original owner (who never committed a crime) "a stern talking to" help the situation get resolved? It doesn't prevent anything, only helps you pick up the pieces afterwards (barring the aforementioned circumstances). And how is registration sold to people? By telling them it will prevent crime.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fucked up laws are useless.

  • Procrastinatus||

    Fast & Furious "came to light" because of whistle blowers like John Dodson. Even if we admit that registration is "useful" in that it isn't preventing crime per se, but solving crime after it happens, who commits a crime with a weapon they know is registered to them? You would have to be stupid enough to commit a crime with a weapon registered to you, and then for whatever reason leave it at the crime scene for investigators to trace back to you.

    Yeah, I'd go out on a limb and say it's pretty useless.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Our closest cultural neighbor, Canada, had to scrap its long gun registry due to cost and ineffectiveness.

    Not surprisingly, Quebec is/was fighting to re-institute it at a provincial level. I'm not sure what the result of that was.

  • Paladin308||

    The Supreme Court has set a tentative date of October 14th for the appeal to be heard. Crossing my fingers and hoping it get's the smack down it so righteously deserves.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And the myth about tracking the gun's ownership - just how is that supposed to stop crime? WHere it might matter there are many ways to get around it. It has next to zero practicality.

    If people are required to report stolen guns and/or required to store their guns securely when not in the owner's possession, suddenly it has a ton of practicality.

    Sometimes it seems libertarians think guns just magically materialize in criminals' hands. Not so. Nearly every firearm in the hands of criminals once had a legal American owner. If we can stop or deter the movement from legal American owner to illegal criminal owner, we can cut down on gun crime.

  • Edwin||

    agreed on the reoprting part, it will allow cops to verify whether a gun is actually rightfully owned should they somehow find out a person owns a gun. But a requirement to lock up a gun probably won't last in the law, DC v Heller already set the precedent that any regulations that make the gun useless for personal home defense fundamentally violate the property right to own it (I do believe they did indeed refer to that aspect in a propertarian aspect as applied to the 2nd, not solely a 2nd amend. issue)

  • Tejicano||

    About 15 years ago some people broke into my place and stole an 800 pound safe with my long guns and ammo. They got a couple bolt action Mausers, my custom made hunting rifle, a 22, a couple muzzle loaders I had built, a pump shotgun, and a semi-auto M14.

    I took a printed list describing each gun, with serial numbers and photographs, down to the police station after I reported the crime. When I handed the folder over the cop barely glanced at it - didn't even touch it much less pick it up. I got the strong feeling he just threw it out after I left. I never heard a thing from the police about it after that.

    Something tells me your serial number tracing fantasy happens on TV more than it does in real life.

  • deepspeed||

    So, all we have to do to prevent gun crime is to eliminate the crime of theft. And you accuse libertarians of believing in magic...

  • Procrastinatus||

    "Sometimes it seems libertarians think guns just magically materialize in criminals' hands. ."

    Statists seem to think that just passing laws magically makes crime stop, or guns/drugs/alcohol/porno/whatever dissapear from the face of the planet.

    "Not so. Nearly every firearm in the hands of criminals once had a legal American owner"

    I swear anti-gun derp is the worst form of derp. I've build zip guns in my garage. I've built Ar15's from 80% lowers. I could build a slam fire shotgun from some iron pipe with hand tools, and now I can 3D print an entire handgun from home. None of these, including my Ar15, have serial numbers. It may not be "magic", but do you now understand why your registration ideas are so pointless?

  • niobiumstudio||

    Even better than 3d printed guns is owning a CNC converted milling machine for making guns. For $4 or $5k you can get a really, really nice mill and lathe from Grizzly for a home shop and convert them over to CNC for a couple grand more. You can start commercially building and selling guns from scratch for less than a $15,000 investment.

    With that, you don't even need to be an experienced machinist and can download CNC template files for every single part of an AR-15 or any other popular firearm and simply mill the gun from scratch. Fully automatic with no serial numbers.

    You can make all the laws you want, but criminals are still going to have a source for guns. Full auto "street" guns like the KG9 and MAC10 are illegal yet criminals have no problems getting their hands them.

    Just like with drugs - if you outlaw the legal guns or make it too hard to transfer legal guns to criminals, organized crime will simply start manufacturing their own. They do it in Pakistan right now without fancy CNC milling machines and the guns are nearly indistinguishable from the originals.

    Underground gun manufacturing is incredibly simple - how do you think Israelis got all the guns and ammunition to fight the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? They built them in clandestine shops...

  • ExNuke||

    You do realize that violent crime has decreased to the lowest level in decades, don't you? FBI and DOJ stats, not NRA. This while over 150 million NEW GUNS have been sold since the Brady Background Scam was passed. Again FBI stats. The way to cut down all crime, not just "gun crime" is to stop encouraging criminals by willingly making yourself a helpless victim.

  • Tejicano||

    Yeah, if you like your guns you can keep them.

    Seems to ring a bell.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Where's our little Precautionary Principle Libertarian to tell us we should give them the benefit of the doubt?

    Because they're from the government, and they promised to behave, this time.

  • GroundTruth||

    The benefit of the doubt is also known as a presumption of innocence. However, that applies to individuals, not the government (as less so the Feds than the states, and less so the states than the towns).

  • Libertarius||

    Why should they bother confiscating guns when you can't get any fucking ammo, save for bolt-and-lever calibers?

    I'm seeing more .223s now, but they're still super expensive--.50 cents a round at Gander Mountain. I'm trying to get .22 lr., and they are more scarce than gold, you can't buy them anywhere.

    Or maybe I'm missing something, so if anyone knows a good source of .22 long rifle, please speaketh. This "new normal" of an ammo market with no ammo is spooky.

  • LynchPin1477||

    After Newtown I came up with a type of registration scheme that I thought might be workable (it may not have been original, but I hadn't heard of anything similar) if it came with some concessions from the anti-gun nuts (you know, that's how compromise is supposed to work). Basically the idea was to only give the government access to information on the dealer that a gun was sold through, with the personally identifiable information on the owner accessible only with a warrant.

    I can definitely say that the NSA's blatant disregard for warrants and judicial oversight, and the eagerness of other government agencies to use that info, killed what trust I had in such an idea. Silly me, but hey, I'm still learning. Now, as far as I'm concerned, they can take their registries and shove them up their asses.

  • Sevo||

    "Now, as far as I'm concerned, they can take their registries and shove them up their asses."
    My compromise is very simple:
    No, I won't.

  • Tejicano||

    My "compromise" is simple too.

    Molon Labe - oh, and they won't find a single firearm or bullet at any address they can trace my name to.

  • Tejicano||

    LynchPin - not sure if you were serious or not so - you do realize that your idea is what we have right now, right?

  • GroundTruth||

    The concept of gun registration is rather like pregnancy, either it is, or it isn't; there is NO middle ground.

    The only purpose of gun registration is to enable future confiscation, and to have laws in place to add at least one more chargeable offense to the rapsheet.

  • Procrastinatus||

    I think a good compromise would be to expand NICS checks to gunshows only, but remove any mention of the weapon type or serial# from the form. If it's really about background checks, there's no need to have the gun info in there anyway, and that'd make sure it wasn't a registry.

  • ExNuke||

    There is only one way that I would agree to universal background checks, open the NICS database to anyone free of charge with no record kept.

  • Adam.||

    Any weapons I maybe have bought I took with me on this great fishing trip but high winds led to the boat tipping over where they were all lost; tragedy that.

  • Santa.Claus||

  • Edwin||

    I want to say facetiously to the gun control nuts when it comes up in conversation
    "Yeah, guns are legal in Texas. In fact they HAVE to sell you the gun if the background check doesn't come back in 5 minutes.
    Oh yeah, totally, it's total bedlam in Texas. People are just shooting each other left and right. I have a friend down there, he says you can't even leave your house without fearing getting shot."

    And then see how long it takes them to figure out I'm being facetious.

    I fear that it would indeed take some time, and some people just wouldn't get it.

  • DH||

    If the people who wanted a registry actually supported gun owners and gun rights, then I might be pretty open to a registry and licensing system for guns, as long as the cost was minimal and not overbearing to all who wished to own and use firearms. I can see some value from certain aspects. But Instead they can go pound sand. Because all you ever hear from people like Chuck Schumer is how they want to protect our gun rights while shoving new gun restrictions down our throats. The saddest thing is the hypocrisy our "leaders" show with guns. Guns are useful and important enough to protect them, but we, the plebes aren't important enough to warrant personal protection. Fuck them and their desire for all encompassing power and control.

  • Curtisls87||

    I bought a revolver, today. First time I've bought a gun in California. 2 forms of ID (well, proof of residence) a form that asked me to verify that I was not a felon, under a restraining order, if I had ever been committed for psychological evaluation, et cetera - all things that someone who had done would never admit to on a government form. I then had to take a test which included trick questions - at what age can a person buy a gun in the state of California, 16, 18, 21 or 25? The answer is a trick, because a long gun can be purchased at 18, but you must be 21 to purchase a hand gun.
    Having gotten through all of that, I now have to wait 10 days before I can actually pick up the revolver, that way I won't go commit a "crime of passion."
    It's as if they actually believe that this will help! Either that, or it's just a very cynical attempt to keep additional public servants on the payroll.
    Now, I must wait until the 22nd to pick up my new Ruger GP100.

  • DH||

    Good choice. Those things are huge guns, hope you got some big paws. I think there are probably are cases where people use guns in "crimes of passion"/heat of the moment, rare but probably has happened. But of course that' doesn't stop you from killing them in multiple other ways. For example, running them over with a car, burning them alive with gasoline, good old fashioned strangling, stabbing them with a sharp object, bludgeoning with just about anything, poisoning. All perfectly good proven ways you could kill somebody in a relatively short timeframe from the time you decided to do the deed that just about anybody could do without a gun and background check waiting.

  • Almanian!||

    Just turned down and opportunity in NY state - told the headhunter it was due to "recent legislative actions" in NY. He asked what - I declined to discuss further.

    THIS is what I'm talking about (SAFE, etc.). Never thought Michigan would seem like Libertopia, but compared to a whoooole bunch of other places, it's becoming better on the margins. Making me glad I'm in the land of More Fresh Water Than You'll Ever Need and the ability to buy and carry without TOO much hassle. Plus - Up North, lots of arable land, forests, wild animals to hunt. And cars.

    Fuck - good luck, New Yorkers...

  • Rach||

    I have thought about a way to explain gun registration to the young anti-gun "pro-registration" folks out there. The best I can come up with is to compare it to the Marvel Comics "Civil War" story line.

    It has been a long running thread in Marvel that there are those forces who want the registration of "Mutants" out of fear of who/what they are. This has been more or less portrayed in the movies as an allegory for the mutants being part of the LGBT community and discriminated against. When has anyone ever seriously tried to register that demographic? Also those supporting the "Mutant Registration" are portrayed as conservative stereotypes if not straight up called Republicans.

    But if you read and watch the story line, you see the advocates say things like "These people are capable of doing massive harm to innocent people, we the government need to know where they are". Sound familiar?

    Also in these many "Mutant Registration" stories we are treated to many many efforts by government to imprison mutants (Confiscate?)or baring that mute/nullify their abilities (Capacity Limiting?).

    I submit that the "Mutant Registration" story lines are more analogous to "Gun Registration" than to LGBT fear. Those in the "Mutant Registration" story lines that support registration are behaving more like the liberal left than the conservative right. That using this fictitious story line you can see the fear of simple registration as the first step to confiscation.

  • epsilon given||

    This is something that irked me about the bonus features of the first X Men movie. It assigned the desires of all politicians in favor of registration to Republicans...yet, in the movie, we had a Republican talking to someone who doubted the need for registration, justifying the registration with "You favor registration on guns, don't you? How is this any different?"

    Of course, that isn't to say that it would be difficult to find a Republican who would be in favor of registering guns...but perhaps I find this annoying because (1) if anyone were to oppose registration of mutants, there would be a fairly good chance it would be a Libertarian Republican, and (2) there's this assumption that everyone "reasonable" would favor gun registration...yet the same people writing the script seem blind to the idea the difference between registering guns and registering mutants is only a matter of magnitude, and not a matter of kind.

  • Rach||

    I have always seen the "Registration" story lines as being more related to Gun Control than of whatever writer agenda exists.

    I find it funny (ironic?) that in writing these pieces of fiction actualy see them making the argument against gun control themselves.

  • Ron||

    If they ever require registration of rifles in California I will register one gun so that I can hunt. The rest will be somewhere else

  • LIFE.time.opertunity||

  • Aluhaii||

    The feds know I have a gun because I have a CCE. (concealed carry enhanced which means I can carry anywhere except certain parts of a court house or police station) What the feds don't know is how many I have. Also, there are plenty of sterile guns abroad. (out there or around and about)

  • ||

    I notice most of my old classmates are registering their weapons on facebook. I mean they are right there saying that they'll never register their guns while standing with their guns in front of their house on facebook. I mean how many of you refuse to register are never posting your weapons on social media, which you know the government monitors?

  • Chmee||

    "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment." [Thou Shalt Not Get Caught]

    - Robert A Heinlein

  • Tucci78||

    They want law-abiding citizens?

    No problem. They simply have to start behaving like law-abiding officers of government.

    In which case infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms constitutes criminal malfeasance in public office, and THEY are felons.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement