If you are suggesting that there is some efficiency test for a public purpose, I would
like to see cases cited.
The difference between rational basis and compelling governmental interest is the
importance of the purpose, not the efficiency with which it is served, right?
Steve Russell
-----Original Message-----
Cc:
Subject: Re: discussion: is gun registration unconstitutional?
In all the messages on this topic, I've not seen discussion concerning
whether gun registration provides a benefit. Mugler v. Kansas suggests the
question what is the public purpose of such a statute and would it bear a
substantial relation to the purpose.
If the purpose is inventory of militia weapons, registration would be
confined to those suitable for use (and perhaps not all of those since I
can't report with two battle rifles, they are my property and you can't say
I have the obligation to maintain both for militia purposes just because I
own more than one).
If the purpose is public safety (registration suppressing criminal use), the
statute would need justification which seems unlikely. The British and
Canadians have not been able to solve crimes nor keep guns from being used
in crime by registration. New Zealand did register rifles and abandoned
that effort in 1983 from lack of value as concluded by police. Britain went
from registering handgun to banning them from lack of value. In Canada a
Member of Parliament asked the authorities to give him an example of crime
solved by the gun registry and was told there was no example.
I wonder what public purpose might be cited to justify registration and how
that purpose might be defended (in all of this, I'm hoping that the mere
assertion of value would not suffice for the Courts -- maybe a naive hope
these days).
Phil Lee
The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be
misled by mere pretence. They are at liberty---indeed, are under a
solemn duly---to look at the substance of things, whenever they
enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the
limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to
have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals,
or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those
objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the
fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and
thereby give effect to the Constitution. Mugler v. Kansas, 123
U.S. 623, 661.
Title: Re: discussion: is gun registration unconstitutional?
<snip>
It's probably an argument about what rules courts should devise in order
to implement the constitutional text. But if that's so, it should be cast
in terms somewhat more tenuous than "there is constitutional authority"; and
beyond that, it should explain why these are the right rules. Is the test
that registration is permissible only when it advances the arming of the
militia? If so, why? Is it that registration is permissible only when it
"doesn't impair the use of firearms for legitimate militia purposes"? If
so, then why are the purposes listed there the "only" ones?
<snip>
