Nazi gun control (courtesy stephenhalbrook.com)

“A more effective [gun sales] system would require everyone who owns or acquires a gun to register it,” nytimes.com posits. “Gun owners would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can use a gun responsibly, and passing a background check.” The Times would have the system applied to dealer and private sales. So, universal background checks and licensing and registration for all gun owners. This is the exact scenario mooted by opponents of universal background checks. And how does the NYT justify this Constitutional infringement? Like this . . .

The Second Amendment is the only provision in the Bill of Rights with a preamble, which announces its purpose: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Heller decision, in turn, described the “militia” not as a formal military organization, but as everyone qualified to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated.” History confirms this: Comprehensive registration laws would not have alarmed those who wrote the Second Amendment. In the early republic, gun owners were frequently required to register their weapons with local authorities. A “well regulated militia,” of course, is subject to rules that ensure firearms are used safely and appropriately.

Wait. What? In the vernacular of the day, when the Bill of Rights was written, “well-regulated” meant “in proper working order.” Don’t take my word for it. Check out the link to The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment at constitution.org.

In short, “Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

But don’t take their word for it. The meaning of the phrase (and its irrelevance to Americans’ gun rights) was made clear, “settled” if you will, in the Heller decision. Here’s the relevant bit from Justice Scalia writing for the majority [emphasis added]:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” . . .

That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause . . .

Does the Times know this? I’m not sure. But they sure as Hell[er] don’t care.

As far as the Times is concerned, Heller doesn’t limit gun control in any way whatsoever. They see no problem with registering guns and gun owners, despite the prohibition against government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, despite the obvious historical paradigm of German gun registration leading to Nazi gun confiscation (from Jews, veterans, communists and everyone not aligned with the party).

Well, at least the antis’  agenda — universal background checks -> gun owner registration -> gun confiscation (the logical and implied corollary) — is out in the open. No more pretending that universal background checks won’t lead to a federal gun owner registry. Which is, by the way, a direct violation of the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Not that the Times or its statist ilk care about FOPA or the United States Constitution.

It’s also a dire warning for friends of firearms freedom that a liberal Supreme Court judge could overturn all the gains established by the Court.

77 Responses to New York Times: Universal Background Checks, Register All Guns, All Gun Owners

  1. I propose the exact same regulations on people who write for newspapers.
    Need a reporters license, testing, (specifically on constitutional law), psychological exam, etc

    • Dang, beat me to it. Perhaps all newspaper writing should pass through government censors, who will determine if the content meets certain, unspecified secret criteria. You guys want the Stasi on our asses? Well, welcome to Pravda!

    • Mandatory registration and regulation of high capacity assault keyboards. Who “NEEDS” a keyboard that can hold more than 26 keys and can type 50 words per minute?!

    • Wasnt there a bill in South Carolina’s legislature that purports to do just that? I believe it was called something like “The Responsible Journalism Act” or something. It was obviously a jab at all the journalists that go after the 2nd Amendment. But it was an actual bill in that state’s legislature.

    • “A more effective [BOOK sales] system would require everyone who owns or acquires a BOOK to register it,” nytimes.com posits. “BOOK owners would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can use a BOOK responsibly, and passing a background check.”

      “A more effective [RELIGIOUS CONTROL] system would require everyone who practices a religion to register it, and to always wear an arm band identifying them by their religion” nytimes.com posits. “Religious people would also need a license that could be obtained by demonstrating they can practicing a religion responsibly, and passing a background check.”

      “Thus if we decide that religious people, or book owners irritate us too much, we can easily round them up in cattle cars.”

      The trouble is that these same “journalists” probably would support these regulations restricting the 1st Amendment, given the right cultural and social conditions. That is why we need the 2nd Amendment.

    • The right to freedom of the press is an individual right, and according to the NYT corporations are not individuals protected by the First Amendment, therefore the NYT corporation’s right to freely publish their paper is not protected by the Constitution.

      • The 1st was to protect POLITICAL SPEECH. Not degenerate activities and performances.

        Sad that today The National Enquirer has better “Journalism” than the Old Grey Hag.

        • “The 1st was to protect POLITICAL SPEECH”

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          ….”or of the press”

          Plus even in your mistaken reading, editorials urging changes in laws ARE political speech.

          /I do NOT defend the NYT.

    • There already are efforts in that exact direction and not efforts like the South Carolina bill which basically swaps the 1st and 2nd amendments.

      The important thing behind these licensing efforts are not bad, or at least not bad to the people on the “inside”. The folks working for the “real” journalism outfits will of course be on the “inside” and be fully licensed up.

      The goal is to sanitize your information through only approved channels.

      They don’t really want to license themselves, they want to shut you up.

    • CARS KILL PEOPLE! LET’S GET RID OF CARS!
      People should have to pass background checks to operate vehicles.
      People should have to undergo psychological checks to operate vehicles.
      People should NOT be able to buy cars at car shows, but only through regulated sellers who MAKE sure they pass their checks first.
      People should not be allowed to sell their personal cars to others, since they have no way of knowing if the buyer will use the car to kill someone.
      ONE MORE THING…THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO OWN CARS!
      According to ASSIRT Association for Safe International Traffic:
      Annual Global Road Crash Statistics
      ◾Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
      ◾An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.

      Annual United States Road Crash Statistics
      ◾Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
      ◾An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
      ◾Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
      ◾Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
      ◾Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
      ◾Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad

    • What about creating a registry for leftist “intellectuals”? We promise we won’t use it to come for them later 😉

  2. I think we need to find a DA to charge these clowns with sedition. It might not stick, but I’d love to see the NYT editorial board doing a perp walk with silver bracelets.

  3. I can almost hear the times writers high fiving and congratulating themselves on their ignorance of constitutionally guaranteed rights right now…

  4. Next they will want to put all gun owners in a camp since the know who we are.

    I’m not Jewish, but Never Again, and not without prying my guns from my cold dead hands.

    NYT is the delight of Goebbels.

    • Never Again. The fascists may indeed stand over my dead body one day and pry the rifle from my hands, but by God they will only do so after climbing a mountain made of hot brass and the bleeding bodies of their comrades.

  5. Simple question: how will requiring the law-abiding to register all firearms, notify the government about transfers of firearms to other law-abiding, and demonstrate government-mandated proficiency with firearms, prevent violent criminals from obtaining, possessing, or using firearms to commit violent crime?

    • Because in the mind of the Liberal, we are the criminals. The current criminals on the street are the victims of oppression and the criminals in jail are victims of “lax” gun laws.

    • It really isn’t about reducing crime.

      Armed people, are strong people. It is hard to frighten them. It is hard to persuade them to give up their civil liberties for a false “promise of security”. (Remember the people making these arguments generally come from the “gun free paradises” of NYC, Chicago, LA, or the UK.)

      That is one of the reasons we should all pursue “strength and resilience”, be it in the form of physical health, financial stability, strong social networks of friends and families, and/or arms.

      They want the American people to be weak and afraid. Unarmed people can be easily frightened, and then controlled or oppressed. When people are fearful, they will do anything, and give anything, just to “feel safe” again.

      Those in positions of cultural power want the government to have a complete monopoly on the use of force.

      This article is nothing but propaganda dedicated to helping them reach this goal.

    • “prevent violent criminals from obtaining, possessing, or using firearms to commit violent crime?”

      Because they want no such thing. If they were truly interested in preventing crimes and protecting people, they would be giving AR’s to law abiding people and ammo and training to boot.

      They want no one but the state to be armed. Period.

      It’s job security for the state, that’s all.

  6. I wish the Times would say how registering guns and registering gun owners WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING?

    I see governments collecting registration fees. There would have to be more government employees hired to run the process, collect those fees, and annoy me. Don’t forget which party most government employees support.

    Maybe that’s the benefit the Times imagines.

  7. Well regulated STILL means in proper working order. (Think of all the mechanical devices that have regulators of some sort — for pressure, temperature, speed, timing, you name it.) It’s not an obscure or archaic definition.

    The only context in which it doesn’t retain its plain meaning is governmental, in which regulations are synonymous with restrictions. And if there are enough of them, “regulated” comes to mean “restricted into practical uselessness.”

  8. Don’t claim to know all history, all places, but I do hold a history degree from a major public university FWIW and I have never heard of any time in America’s independent history that gun owners were required to “register” their firearms with the authorities. Perhaps if one were a member of his local militia, he may have to present his firearm to the officers to demonstrate it is in good, working order (well-regulated), but that is hardly a registry. The NYT also seems to miss the point that a major reason for militias at that time was a distrust of standing armies (which the new republic had recently defeated) subject to a central authority. I could be wrong, but I think their idea of gun registry in the early republic is either false or a spin.

    • perhaps they are confusing those few western towns that required you to check your gun with the Sheriff in order to enter. That is the closest I can think of regarding any sort of registration of guns.

    • During colonial days and right after the Revolution all able bodied men were part of the militia. One of the requirements was to own a suitable firearm for militia duties and to drill with it as required.

      Authorities required the guns and proof of their existence. Maybe that’s what they’re calling registration?

      • Right- so if anything, that disproves the point NYT is trying to make, in spirit anyway. We all have to own a firearm suitable for military use. I doubt that is what they want!

      • AND…! Requiring someone to show their one chosen militia arm is in working order, does NOT entail telling them about all your other firearms.

        • And that would mean showing up for a range day with said standard issue weapon and putting a box of issued ammo downrange thus showing both competence and mechanical condition. NOT having a TLA agency drone show up at your house for the “safety inspection”

  9. Other words that have had their meaning changed over time.

    Merry – It used to mean BRAVE at one point (hence the Robin Hood & His Merry Men and God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen)

    Pu$$y – It used to mean a cat (Tale of Puss’n’boots). And we still say things like “Pussyfoot around” which basically means to walk around lightly (like a cat) and when you call someone that word, it was because they were scared and easily frightened (like a cat)

    Bitch – Was a female dog. now, it has a negative connotation to those of the female gender.

  10. I wonder if the legislative branch would be stupid enough to repeal FOPA in its entirety (including the infamous Hughes Amendment)?

  11. Correction for the article: The late Justice Scalia was not Chief Justice. That job has belonged to John Roberts since 2005.

  12. Damn good thing I don’t live in Cali or NY. I’d of started my own civil war.

    Yes I know I’d also be dead now. But so would a number (hopefully many) of the tyrants.

    I wonder what will actually be the tipping point.

    • That is exactly what I wonder every day. Now that the facade has fallen away and they are actually calling for confiscation, I truly believe that tipping point could come any day now.

  13. I’m beginning to think that news writers like this and really most anti-gunners in general have something profoundly wrong inside their heads. I’m not saying this because I disagree with them – I disagree with lots of people about lots of things – but the more I’m exposed to the things anti’s believe, the more convinced I’m becoming that a majority of them have diseased and unsound minds.

  14. OK, fine, you win.

    Now give me my nuke. Register it, tag it and bag it, I don’t care, but I want my nukes. And tanks. And bombers with bombs. And crates filled with full auto weapons. And AP rounds. I want a f*ck ton of AP rounds! And a cannon – I want a big f*cking cannon!

    I’m in the militia and shall not be infringed. So, I can have it ALL.

    • We won’t give you nukes, you have to pay for them like everyone else. Or make your own, a rather expensive prospect. Got a few billion sitting around?

        • I think you have to form your own country to get nukes, and you have to be a very bad country, like the US, USSR, UK, hey they all start with “United”???? Or Iran…. how about you call your country Istayed, your national religion can be Isbamic if you’re from Alabama, and all you have to do is threaten a NATO country and the Libtards will shower you with aid billions and provide you with everything you need to make nukes while telling you you can’t. Mmmmmkay?

  15. I’m not a college educated individual. I have no specific training on the English language, in this time in history, nor any other time. I do, however, understand the uses of commas. When will these people stop their BS and understand that militia does not equal military. If you change “militia” to “people” it makes complete and utter sense, even more than it already does.

  16. I’ve yet to hear what is to be gained from all this from an anti.
    Because of my work I have several background checks a year, have firearms that are registered with the government and I am listed as the “registered” owner.

    None of those can prevent me from flipping nuts and murdering everyone on the planet. I could even do it with the registered guns. After the fact what good is it?

    So background checks and registration are of no value before the fact and of no value after the fact. So what value do they have? Confiscation is all that comes to mind but the same anti’s who refuse to tell me the secret power BGC’s and Reg have on making the world a safer place constantly remind me that confiscation is just a crackpot conspiracy that would never occur ever even though at least half of the anti’s proudly go on record calling for it.

    So I’m just a tad confused by all this. Or I’m not at all.

  17. The only part of FOPA that the antis like is the unconstitutional Hughes amendment. As someone previously stated, they view gun owners as criminals and enablers of crime. The greatest criminals of all time have been governments such as Nazi Germany, Leninist/Stalinist Russia/USSR, Maoist China, Castroite Cuba and Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Democratic Kampuchea. Bill Ayers, a friend of Barry’s, mentioned to an FBI informant that he foresaw the MURDER of at least 25 million Americans in order to achieve their ideological goals. I’m sure that Ayers gave a low ball estimate. The NYT and the democrat party are down with REAL change, even if it includes the liquidation of their fellow Americans by any means necessary…

  18. The experiment has been run in NY and CT with mandated “assault rifle” registration. A majority of people who own these guns ignored the mandate. So go ahead, pass such a law, then stand by powerless as we ignore you.

  19. As a MA gun owner, I’m already “registered,” I have demonstrated proficiency (far beyond that of the cops), all my guns are registered (although the state says it’s not a registry) and while I’ve never sold a gun privately, my private purchases are all reported to the Firearms Record Bureau.

    Now what?

    I hope that Carlos Slim, the fat Mexican version of George Soros, who controls the NY Slime, feels better now. If he doesn’t, maybe he should get his ass back to Sinaloa where he’ll be safe.

  20. Can’t resist translating Fraktur….

    ———-
    Weapon possession by Jews is forbidden.

    As decreed by the Emperor to Himmler.
    Munich, November 10th.

    The Emperor and Chief of the German Police pronounced the following decree:

    Persons, who by the Nuremberg Laws are known to be Jews, are hereby forbidden to possess weapons. Those who still possess weapons will be sentenced to 20 years of confinement in a Concentration Camp.

  21. I would imagine that with the background of many writers at the NYT, they should really take the shown German tract a little more seriously.

  22. Old arguments and lies recycled.

    They’re not worth mentioning, really except to note that for the sake of “diversity” perhaps some number should be possessed legally and others possessed outside of the law. Then you have a couple to give up if and when the tyrants come and a couple of others to keep.

  23. If they want to look at history as a guide, the founders resisted attempts to seize weapons and ammunition with violence.

    Taking our cue from that, maybe the next time California passes a law to confiscate certain types of rifles, maybe gun owners should rock and roll.

  24. Background checks should be okay with NRA, they promote them. Take a look at the UNLIMITED privacy waiver in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” Illinois carry bill from 2013. I am not making this up:

    “a waiver of the applicant’s privacy and confidentiality rights and privileges under all federal and state laws, including those limiting access to juvenile court, criminal justice, psychological, or psychiatric records or records relating to any institutionalization of the applicant, and an affirmative request that a person having custody of any of these records provide it or information concerning it to the Department;”

    Wow! Some military and feds will recognize this abomination as an “open ended” privacy waiver, exactly like one would see on a federal law enforcement employment application. No end date on this waiver! Want a concealed carry license? Sign the app. and sign your life away FOREVER! State Police should be able to get into tax and banking records with this doozy. Wonder if the privacy waiver in Phelps bill was provided by the anti-gun Chiefs of Police, the way they provided Duty to Inform?

    NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde is really tight with the police unions in Illinois. So tight that he gave the cops Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties. What’s a few dead gun owners getting disarmed by police criminals and serial killers when Vandermyde is trying to “get a bill passed?” Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham must love the “work” Vandermyde provides, they pay him. We should all feel lucky he didn’t include Duty to Strip Search too. I mean if it’s for “officer safety.” Where do we sign up for NRA life membership?

    • Picking a pro gun rights group to belong to or contribute to is very much like picking a political candidate. They all pretty much suck, they all lie sometimes, they all constantly ask for contributions, so pick a couple that you see as the lesser of the evils and back them, because it’s all we got for now.

      • Larry Pratt & GOA do a decent job on the Hill. Alan Gottlieb & SAF win a lot of court cases, like McDonald v. Chicago in front of the Supreme Court. NRA is the problem. After the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago overturned IL’s concealed weapons statute in Dec. 2012, it was NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde who loaded up Brandon Phelps carry bill with everything the police unions wanted, like Duty to Inform.

        Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA know what Vandermyde is doing. Although they are not supervising Vandermyde and have probably never set foot in the state of Illinois, they see the end result in bills like Phelps HB183 and continue to pay him. A huge self-perpetuating bureaucracy like NRA is going to benefit by passing marginally garbage bills that require “fixing” to justify their own existence.

        Placing Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in the carry bill, which encourages police criminals to set up and murder armed citizens, indicates criminal intent on the part of NRA and their lobbyist. If NRA-ILA continues to pay sick scum like Vandermyde to set up their own membership to be killed, then their has to be at least one more rat at NRA HQ covering for him.

  25. Every time they try that stunt, I point out that therefore, by their logic, the Flintstones theme song was a pioneer for open homosexuality (We’ll have a gay, old time)

  26. CARS KILL PEOPLE! LET’S GET RID OF CARS!
    People should have to pass background checks to operate vehicles.
    People should have to undergo psychological checks to operate vehicles.
    People should NOT be able to buy cars at car shows, but only through regulated sellers who MAKE sure they pass their checks first.
    People should not be allowed to sell their personal cars to others, since they have no way of knowing if the buyer will use the car to kill someone.

    According to ASSIRT Association for Safe International Traffic:
    Annual Global Road Crash Statistics
    ◾Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
    ◾An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.

    Annual United States Road Crash Statistics
    ◾Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
    ◾An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
    ◾Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
    ◾Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
    ◾Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
    ◾Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad

  27. I always love when anti’s bring up the idea of gun registration and all of that in the time of the Founders. Yeah, well back then in the Colonies, registration was a little bit different because there was no standing army, no state police, and no local police. The militia were the military and law enforcement. So the fear of confiscation of the people was virtually non-existent, because who would do the confiscating? The militia would not disarm themselves.

    So if a colonial government passed a law saying, “Give up your guns,” and the militia said, “No,” that would be that. It’s not like today when a state government outlaws guns, and then you have to worry about all the standing government forces.

  28. I’ve yet to see any explanation of what a registry of guns and/or gun owners is supposed to accomplish in the real world. As in, why do they claim to want this? What benefit is it supposed to bring?

  29. Enough already. Stop playing defense against the treasonous pond scum who have the platform to advocate for civilian disarmament. Just use your platform to publish their names and addresses. They take comfort in operating from the shadows. A comprehensive list with the names of all enemies of our constitution would be a better assurance to keeping our rights. They should be notified that if a shooting war breaks out due to disarmament they would not need to wait long before they are located and held responsible for their part in disarming Americans.

  30. The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be “well regulated.” …

    Why does this feel like some poorly informed “smart” big city “I care about stuff” fool thinks he is being clever and has found something EVERYONE else has missed?

    All I can think of when I read that part was: “ONE NEAT TRICK has Gunnuts HATING this Obviously Intelligent and Caring Liberal! Kill the Second Amendment by saying these few words! Click to learn how you can make 1 trillion by sitting at home!”

    Anyone else get that vibe?

  31. If you read (I believe) Federalist 29. It warns against the militia becoming Too well regulated, lest commerce and the economy will suffer.

    In other words. Don’t have them practice so much that commerce suffers.

    i.e. Regulated means something like Practiced in this context.

  32. Disgraced former Congressman Abner Mikva (D-NY) is a criminal convected by the federal government and sent to prison. His opinion is no better than that of every other FELON.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *