Gun Owner Self-Ban Registry. The Most Ridiculous “Pro-Gun” Proposal In the History of the United States . . . Since Yesterday

Stephen L Carter (courtesy wikipedia.org)

It’s a day shy of two weeks since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School spree killing. Unlike previous firearms-related mass murders, the mainstream media’s Parkland-related gun control agitprop continues to blast like water out of a firehose. The result . . .

is some seriously stupid sh*t. Like yesterday’s “pro-gun” proposal to sacrifice individual gun rights on the altar of state’s rights. And today’s article A ‘Deeply Libertarian’ Plan to Restrict Gun Sales.

Before we delve, keep in mind that Stephen L. Carter’s proposal was published at bloomberg.com, the website owned by America’s most financially fecund anti-firearms freedom financier. Also note that Mr. Carter (above) is a Yale law professor and best-selling novelist who summers in Martha’s Vineyard.

The state establishes a “No Gun” registry. Joining is entirely voluntary, but upon adding my name, I give up my right to purchase a firearm. Not forever. Not for some set period of time. The waiver is in effect only until I change my mind, which I am free to do whenever I like.

Sound too easy? This is where the elegant part comes in.

When I join, I can supply the email addresses for people who should be notified if I change my mind. If I decide later to drop my name from the registry, nobody can stop me, but there’s a three-week cooling-off period.

During that fortnight and a half, the state notifies whomever I listed as a contact when joining the registry. The idea is that if I’m disturbed or depressed or given to bouts of temper, my contacts can try to talk me out of buying a gun — and, if I’m adamant, they might try to take stronger action, such as having me held for observation.

The proposal is aimed particularly at the mentally ill, who might, during their lucid periods, agree to join the No Guns registry. If you’re skeptical, be aware that the authors have conducted surveys suggesting that nearly half of those with diagnosed mental illnesses would sign up. This matters because, despite recent prominent claims to the contrary, it’s pretty clear that mental illness often plays an important role in mass shootings as well.

Welcome to the American equivalent of post-war East Germany, run by and for the Communist Party, where you’re encouraged to surrender your (illusion of) individual liberty and rat out anyone who dares exercise their natural, civil and [no longer] Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Ok, that’s just dumb in a scary sci-fi, Kurt Vonnegut Welcome to the Monkey House kinda way. Here’s the REALLY frightening bit, revealed in Mr. Carter’s edited Q&A with one of the eggheads who came up with this boneheaded idea:

Question: You’ve compiled a lot of data about who would support your plan and who might register. What are the highlights?

Answer: In two separate surveys, Vars and I have found that about a third of Americans say that they would be willing to give up their right to purchase and possess firearms. Moreover, almost half of people who have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness say that they would be willing to waive their Second Amendment rights.

WHAT? I need some serious range time to clear my head before I can take that stat, dubious as it is, on board. Not to mention assembling the Daily Digest’s farrago of firearms fail polluting my computer . . .

comments

  1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    This is me trying to think of something more unrealistic and oppressive than what we’ve been hearing for the past two weeks — and failing.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      I actually think that this is kind of brilliant. The cornerstone of the anti-gun movement is that “nobody can handle this kind of responsibility,” and that “people might buy a gun and then just snap.” Of course this is psychological projection for “I don’t trust myself, I might snap.” Which I’m fine with. If you know that you’re untrustworthy, it’s perfectly intelligent to deny yourself weapons. Lots of stuff, really.

      So virtue signalling anti-gunners, of the same ilk that chop up their guns for the cameras, can put themselves on a no-buy list. And then try to take themselves off, ha, ha. And their ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends can freak out and call the police on them, and take out gun restraining orders. As they should.

      1. avatar Lewis Tripp says:

        BS Psycho babble.

  2. avatar Tracy says:

    Ha! Ha! Ha! This is hilarious!

    1. avatar Francis says:

      This guy must be a habitual pot smoker … wait a minute problem solved and no need for the lengthy process to self deny one’s own right to the 2A… simply self declare yourself addicted to whatever this guy is smoking…

  3. avatar Ogre says:

    I’ll bet this Harvard don pored over his law books all night long to come up with a precedent that would support his inane idea. To whoever paid for his education and his salary as a law professor – is this what it has all come to? Your money has been wasted. He’s ready for the funny farm, except that he’s got tenure.

    1. avatar Bill Schmittler says:

      Just another example of what the coming generation will have for “professors” of education in academia. They are now propagandists of their own personal and Leftist brainwashing. Remember the 1960s with “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” . Since our government has invaded and controlled public ducation we now should say “Don’t believe any teachers from K through 12 and especially the tenured professors.” of formerly respected institutions. In all, politics and governments take up more of our lives than they should. We do have life, less liberty, and are trying to pursue happiness.   

  4. avatar Bloving says:

    “my contacts can try to talk me out of buying a gun — and, if I’m adamant, they might try to take stronger action, such as having me held for observation.”
    Or… I dunno, maybe buy a gun of their own to protect themselves from YOU?
    🤠

  5. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    The man is mentally ill and likely came up with this idea during one of his less than lucid periods. BTW it only took him a fortnight and a half.

  6. avatar Gman says:

    Me thinks there won’t be too many Republicans buying into this and that, to me, is a really great thing. Liberals giving up their 2nd Amendment rights, how much better can it get?

  7. avatar Felix says:

    And what kind of proof is required to self-register? How easy will it be for me to register my enemies? How soon will “voluntarily” registering be part of plea bargains for minor crimes? How soon will “voluntarily” registering be required as part of restraining orders?

    I sort of appreciate the concept. It’s definitely a fresh idea. But it’s the typical dreamy unicorn idea which makes no allowance for the coercive aspect of government and the corruption it will accrue.

    1. avatar AnotherSparky says:

      Thank you for your excellent insights. Too often we fail to recognize the “slippery slopes” inherent in these seemingly benign proposals.

    2. avatar Bill Schmittler says:

      In Left Coast Washington State they are trying to make a law that allows anyone, with no identification for record, to report what they consider odd or dangerous behavior to the “authorities” so the authorities are enabled to raid, enter, and confiscate weapons. First draft was about firearms but that could be expanded. Police confiscation is nearly always permanent. This would allow any person with a grudge, an unfriendly neighbor, a former friend to have State law enforcement ignore and negate more than the 2nd Amendment Right but also other rights under the Constitution, including illegal search and seizure. If the nearly 50-50 split between having rights or having security in our population is not addressed and corrected one or the other will take over. I vote for the conservation of the Constitution with all the rights. My vote may not matter since, by State law, the illegal aliens can negate my vote by merely having a driver’s license to register to vote. By State law they can not be questioned as to citizenship status. Odd, isn’t it?

  8. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I’m going to go with virtue signaling for 500 Alex

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      And we have today’s Daily Double!

  9. avatar rc says:

    Well, if they want to create a *voluntary* registry and otherwise leave me and my guns the hell alone, I can’t complain. I imagine all the usual suspects will be in line to sign up on day one. Yeah, it’s a dumb idea, but I’m thinking it’s harmless for those of us who aren’t interested in participating.

    1. avatar Felix says:

      No government program ever stays as defined. Every little loophole is countered with far more onerous “fixes”, and government is nothing if not coercive and jealous.

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      Look — I don’t see the problem with this. I see this as a win win win.

      It changes absolutely nothing for the pro-2A crowd. But it gives the hoplophobes what they want — government control over their lives, and a way to virtue signal that they’re the “good people” who don’t want icky guns in their lives. And, hell, at least it does SOMETHING to help mentally ill folks, by at least notifying their friends and family that they are out of control of their lives.

      Look — this proposal is aimed at those who can’t function, whose lives are out of control. It does NOT encourage anyone to “rat someone else out”.

      Now, the day it changes to where you can add someone else’s name to the list? That’s the day the revolution starts. But until then, this is the least-intrusive, least-offensive “gun control” measure I can think of. You tell me I have to take either an AW ban, or a mag cap ban, or this? It’s this all the way.

      I don’t think y’all understand the antis. They NEED this kind of thing. They are scared to death not of guns, but of what they’d do if they got ahold of one, because they KNOW they have no self-control. That’s what they project onto the rest of us. They’re showing their own weakness. So hell, if this makes them “feel good” while doing NOTHING to impair my rights or the rights of anyone else who wants to exercise their rights, then go ahead. Implement this, at least until we can diagnose and prescribe a cure for liberalism so they don’t have to fear harming themselves and others.

  10. avatar Jonathan Long says:

    so if i’m reading this correctly its a list you can voluntarily put yourself on so that the state will stop you from buying a weapon? sowhat if you try to get off the list and they refuse What if your angry ex puts you on the list without your consent? This line of thinking is not only retarded, but dangerous as well…

  11. avatar Joe in NC says:

    The stipid is strong with this one.

  12. avatar Soylent Green says:

    For Christ’s sake, if you voluntarily believe you are too dangerous to own a gun, because of what you might do with one; I want you off the streets. Do liberals not understand all the myriad ways one human can kill another, especially a deranged, detached from reality because of mental illness human ? Do they really think that guns are the only way? Why not have an “I won’t kill/harm anybody list” while we are at it?

    It would be an interesting study to see how many people on the “prohibited persons list” manage to kill and maim in another way

  13. avatar million says:

    they bring up abortion in the Q&A but if he suggested a 3-week cooling off period for pregnant women seeking an abortion, then he would be vilified worse than Clarence Thomas.

    Q: You say that this idea is consistent with the Second Amendment. Suppose someone offered the same plan with regard to another controversial constitutional right — abortion, for instance. Even if you might oppose such a plan, would you consider it constitutional?

    A: Our proposal in essence is allowing people to opt into a three-week waiting period. Because mandatory waiting periods have been found repeatedly to be constitutional, a voluntary waiting period will surely pass constitutional muster. The email option raises thornier constitutional questions, but again several courts have upheld mandatory public disclosure of gun permit holders so volunteering to have state disclosure to particular email addresses is likely to be okay.

    The larger question of when the state can facilitate durable waivers of constitutional rights or associational marketplaces has not been worked out by courts. I’d think that courts are likely to strike down as unduly burdensome any durable waiver of a woman’s right to abort, but courts might uphold an email option where women voluntarily committed to have particular people notified if they exercise that right (especially if there were exceptions built in for sincere belief that disclosure might put the woman at risk)

  14. avatar neiowa says:

    Can we add a marketing function? Send the same info to nra.org, ruger.com, smith-Wesson.com, etc. I’m sure they could then email some useful/helpful coupons and rebates.

  15. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

    Why limit it to guns, make it a slave registry where people can opt out of the Bill of rights.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Gun control people should automatically qualify for this list.

  16. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Why not permanent as well? They can have a celebration like a wedding or Mitzvah. Dancing, cheering, pats on the back, name in a registry of “honor”. This would allow idiots to publicly self-identify and permanently disarm (legally anyway) themselves. I have known lots of people, usually leftists, that I thought were better off unarmed. They had/have anger issues and violent tendencies that they assume everyone else has too. 🙂

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      Exactly. So why stop them?

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Don’t forget the mandatory forehead tattoo. That way, they can virtue signal everywhere they go. Undoubtedly, criminals will avoid harming the chosen due to their uber-liberal status.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Assuming that you AND ONLY YOU can put yourself onto their voluntary list, I have no problem with it.

    My only concern is ensuring that John or Jane Doe cannot put me on the list.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      This is exactly the defining characteristic. As long as it is something that only YOU can do, then I’m fine with it.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      But, with government involved, it will always become something else; more sinister for everyone. Best not to open that box.

      If they want to virtue signal, they can do so right now by wearing special clothing or something… maybe a helmet. Goodness knows they need helmets.

  18. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This sounds like a proposal from the “What if they gave a war and nobody came” bunch. Just a bunch of pseudo intellectual nonsense from an ivy league nitwit.

  19. avatar Behindenemylines says:

    It’s a California bill now… (not a joke)

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I just had to look it up and good golly… https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-allow-suicidal-citizens-to-ban-themselves-from-getting-guns

      Thanks for the information. I never would’ve believed it.

  20. avatar Retired in SC says:

    My college roommate complained about getting no job offers so we signed him up with the military recruiters coming to campus. Some lists you never get off once you get on them. That was 40 years ago.

    I also remember that income taxes were voluntary until they weren’t.

    The rule is that rights can’t be bought, sold, or given away.

  21. avatar A. C. says:

    First, let’s try it for recovering drug and alcohol addicts. Adding oneself must be strictly voluntary. A list that any establishment that sells any beverage with alcohol in it must check before selling any person an alcoholic beverage in any form. If the person is on that list, the sale must be refused. There are probably quite a few addicts and alcoholics who would, on sober (literally) reflection, put their name on the list because they have failed to stay clean and sober with often disastrous results and they want to stop. This isn’t the same as gun ownership, I realize, I don’t believe that gun collector has been identified as an addiction. Yet. Anyway, track what happens. Watch as a state makes a law implementing mandatory additions of certain groups of people to a purely voluntary list. Watch as people on the list find ways around it. You can be sure that every trick and technique, every abuse by government of a voluntary program, and more will find it’s way into this list and its administration. Plus, all the usual restrictions on guns will still be in force.

    1. avatar N says:

      Not a bad idea.
      To bad it would never happen.

  22. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I hereby submit this idiot to a first amendment ban.
    He is now and forever prohibited from voicing his thoughts.

  23. avatar Indy Jones says:

    This proposal is outstanding. I call for them to adopt it for whenever they want to procreate

  24. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The lunacy of the Left is a disease and is contagious.

  25. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    I can see it now, a trending hashtag #IRegistered

  26. avatar Rick Hess says:

    Voting too. If we could get libs and rinos to voluntarily give up gun and voting rights I am all for it.

  27. avatar oliver says:

    Why don’t we have violent criminals voluntarily put themselves on a list to be incarcerated whenever they get the urge to commit violence. Crime problem solved! I win one trillion internet dollars.

  28. avatar Uh-huh says:

    Kinda reminds me of this.

  29. avatar Felixd says:

    What am I missing? Where is the “libertarian” part of this plan?

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Like most Yale Professors and Martha’s Vineyard residents, they have no idea what libertarianism means. Yeah, it is voluntarianism, until it isn’t.

  30. avatar Echo5Bravo says:

    We are doomed as a society.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      We are not “a society”. We are two separate societies, forced to live uncomfortably intermixed, and we are on an irrevocable path towards separation.

      I don’t see why we should force them to live under our rules, any more than they should force us to live under theirs. Give ’em what they want so long as it doesn’t infringe on us. The further they pull away, the closer the day comes when we can peaceably and amicably go our own ways.

  31. avatar C.S. says:

    As a added bonus, you’ll also be placed on the no longer talked about No-Fly list… free of charge.

  32. avatar GS650G says:

    Golly what the fuck could go wrong with this proposal?

  33. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm, cannot be trusted with tenure.

  34. avatar Liberalism Is a Mental Defect says:

    “The proposal is aimed particularly at the mentally ill”, [begin sarcasm] of which Stephen L. Carter is obviously not one. [/end sarcasm]

    Liberals never stop amazing me at greater and greater levels, in the very worst of ways.

  35. avatar MyName says:

    I have a modest proposal: If you on’t want to but a gun, don’t – no legislation required.

    You’re welcome.

    P.S. There are two types of people in this world: Those who can think for themselves and, oh, I don’t know, you tell me.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Oops, fat fingers, *don’t* and *buy*

  36. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    In two separate surveys, Vars and I have found that about a third of Americans say that they would be willing to give up their right to purchase and possess firearms. Moreover, almost half of people who have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness say that they would be willing to waive their Second Amendment rights.
    Actually, I think all people who register with the (D) would “voluntarily” be put on this list.

  37. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    I have thought progressives should be able to just self submit to NICs as a prohibited person, put their money where their mouth is and all. Like that one journalist who was ticked when he was denied his attempt to easily purchase a gun. And the other who bought a Glock and inserted it into his mouth (but didn’t pull the trigger), they should be prohibited persons. But don’t waste money making laws and throw extra billions at it to do it. They could just commit a felony I guess.

  38. avatar SparkyInWI says:

    I think every liberal should sign up. Bloomberg, Watts, and all of them along with their body guards should sign up. They should put their money where their mouths are so to speak. DiFi, Schummer, etc. all should sign up. Let all of these fine folks be the test cases so we can see how it works…. LOL.

    As for emails to notify in case they change their minds, easy. I will give them a list of good folks who will want to know if these hypocrites change their minds.

  39. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    Here’s another way to not buy a gun yourself … don’t buy a gun.

    Apparently these people don’t know whether they’ve done something or not, if the government tells them. Oh right. He’s from Yale. My bad. Carry on.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email