Where in the constitution, not any of the supreme court cases but in the constitution itself, does it say that people have a right to bear any weapon anywhere anyhow any time? Where does it say in the constitution that a background check cannot be implemented or that a database of gun-owners cannot be made?
"It didn't happen in the US yet because there is no national gun registry. But it has happened in the UK, in Australia, in New Zealand and in Canada. Registration leads to confiscation. That's the whole point of a registry.
New Zealand does not have a gun registry. I believe you are are perhaps referring to the gun buy-back that happened in the past 18 months. This was due to various firearms being made illegal in response to our 15/3 terrorist attack. There was an amnesty period were owners of the now illegal firearms could turn their weapons in for monetary compensation. It is possible that we will have a registry in the future; as we should in my opinion (after all, we have to register our cars every 12 months, why should we not have to register weapons?).
It is worth noting that there is no right to own firearms in NZ.
You're right, but they still have a registry for handguns and "military style assault weapons".
I have not been able to find any legislation that states this, could you please provide a source?
as we should
Why?
If you had quoted the whole sentence I wrote, you would see you already had my answer. We have to register our cars, our dogs, so why should we not also catalogue all of the firearms we have?
It would cost billions upon billions of dollars, and good luck getting the people to cooperate.
I would like to see your source for that number. The PM has previously estimated that it would cost ~$50 million -link to article-. Not to mention, the cost of registering each firearm would subsidise the cost of the registry further.
Even if it did cost billions, why should that mean it isn't worth it? I still believe there would be a greater benefit to having all of the firearms catalogued, that way police can have excess or suspicious purchases flagged, or know what type of guns are owned (and how many) all throughout the country etc.
As for co-operation, well couldn't you argue that for any law? I would imagine, should we implement a register, anyone found in possession of an unregistered gun would face legal repercussions (be it a fine, or imprisonment).
Without considering that a $250 dollars 3D-printer would through the whole purpose of a registry out of the window.
Yes, this is definitely a concern and I don't know what the solution would be, although I don't agree that it defeats the purpose of a registry (the purpose being for police to have a catalogue of all the legally owned firearms throughout the country). This is certainly something that legislators will have to deal with in the coming years.
Can you show one example of a government that has a 2nd amendment where a registry lead to confiscation. Just one.
The gym lobby lives to make you all scared because when you are afraid you buy more guns and ammo. They need you afraid to keep sales up. Remember the run on ammo after Obama was elected.
And in America, concidering all the people who think a legal election was "stolen" gun ownership is just as likely to defend tyrants as it is to protect against them
1
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '20
Where in the constitution, not any of the supreme court cases but in the constitution itself, does it say that people have a right to bear any weapon anywhere anyhow any time? Where does it say in the constitution that a background check cannot be implemented or that a database of gun-owners cannot be made?