I gave you the cite from Mugler v. Kansas. How do you read the segment: "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, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge ... "
Certainly efficiency can be judged at the 0% efficient level according to that cite. The passage seems to say that you can't have laws lacking a substantial relation to the public purpose stated for the law. Such 0% efficient laws could be rejected by a court according to Mugler v. Kansas. My intent in writing was to ask that a public purpose be stated for gun registration to guide discussion. I've heard two purposes -- public safety and militia inventory. I suspect the first can be attacked both in the legislature and in the courts as provably 0% efficient and the second will be so limiting that gun control advocates will be uninterested. But it would be nice to explore whether a proposed law in the context of its stated public purpose. Phil Lee from occupied Maryland > 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> > >
