4 ms·

“The hypocrisy of warning about a governmental registry and at the same time establishing a private registry for political purposes is stunning,” So does he su

by _blk 2y ago

“The hypocrisy of warning about a governmental registry and at the same time establishing a private registry for political purposes is stunning,” So does he suggest that databases on advertisement/customer preferences, voters, ... be run by the govt? All debatable but I'll argue the constitution never gave the govt the right to know who owns guns since the ratification of the 2nd amendment, the purpose of which is exactly to defend against unconstitutional govt acts. So per se, that means if it's legal to be tracked, it has to be done in private registries.

_ea1k 2y ago
While I don't like manufacturers doing this, the comparison to government gun registries is indeed strange. The manufacturers didn't compel buyers to provide this information with the thread of prison time, and perhaps more importantly, they didn't compel buyers to inform the manufacturer of every subsequent transfer.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Are there reasons to oppose a government database of guns that don't also apply to a private sector database of guns? For example, if a future government decided to round up all the guns and needed a database to find them, the fact the database is in a different building ain't going to stop them.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    Sure. The government database presumably covers "all the guns". The private one includes some subset of guns, for example, all those whose owners want to subscribe to a certain gun manufacturer's newsletter, or all guns whose owners opted into a warranty program despite knowing it would get their names in a database. The fact that this particular database included data collected under false pretenses shouldn't preclude anyone from making a mailing list of gun owners.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    One could reasonably argue intentions matter, and the only possible intention for a government database is explicitly prohibited. If one were worried about such things, then a private database existing is of course problematic in that a ready-made one is there any time the government decides to stop prohibiting itself from doing such a thing... But this is more bone-headed than sinister.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    Yes, the government by force of law can wholesale strip citizens of their second amendment rights by having a list of gun owners. The ATF not even 5 years ago was doing this with all sorts of guns that were formerly legal. In particular, ex post facto laws seem to not apply with the ATF. Once they issue a new "opinion" it becomes defacto law because of the Chevron Defense. The result, is ATF door kickers visiting people who were, possibly weeks ago, entirely law abiding citizens. "Ghost guns" in particular were used to justify no-knock raiding several law abiding citizens when the ATF "opinion" came out. In that case however, the ATF more-or-less told manufacturers if you don't give us names we will send you to prison for life. The government having any list of any kind of person is never good. Ever. The government already "has" a list of gun owners. 4473s are kept forever. If a gun store shuts down, the 4473s are shuttled to storage in the ATF's buildings/containers/whatever. They have, historically, used these for all kinds of questionably legal "enforcement" procedures. However, since the 4473 list isn't entirely accurate - for example, gun transfers do not require a background check in many states, you could have destroyed the gun, lost it in a literal boating accident, etc there's plausible deniability. A government run list would certainly be designed to eliminate this - and that's a horrible, horrible thing for the 2nd. Presently the only "real list" is for NFA items. I'd imagine a government-run list would have the same privacy invading, civil rights abusing powers the NFA-owners list has. A manufacturer on the other hand could be coerced, as "ghost gun" 80% lower manufacturers were, to narc on their customer base. However, there are legal avenues to at least slow this process down significantly. It's far better, if we have to choose, to let manufacturers have the data. They have historically been far better stewards of the bill of rights than the ATF ever has.
MBCook 2y ago
I don’t think that’s their point. Their point is that all the hand wringing over privacy they use as the reason to prevent any kind of registration (whatever you think of it) seems very incongruous with giving away warranty information, which often they explicitly said they wouldn’t do, to whatever political cause they want. It looks extremely hypocritical and in many cases violated a promise to the customers. Yes the consequence of the government having a list instead of a lobbying group is very different. The issue is the lobbying group shouldn’t have had it period.
- gsk22 2y ago
  To add to this, all it takes is one piece of legislation or one court order for the private registry to end up in the government's hands. Gun owners who fear a government-run registry should fear a privately-run one just as much, if not more.
gigaflop 2y ago
I've heard a lot over the years about how registries are a step towards confiscation. A bit conspiratorial, but also not totally unfounded. Now that the government knows that this database exists, it seems like a partially-complete registry could be a lawsuit (and years of appeals) away. The participants of this may have accidentally built their own Torment Nexus.
- MBCook 2y ago
  To be fair, it’s just warranty data. It’s always existed. All you have to do is buy something to know it comes with a warranty card. So they could’ve figured it out it was there. However the fact that they can now get it without having to sue for warranty information is certainly a new twist. Of course they’d have to get it from a lobbying group, which wouldn’t exactly go over terribly well either.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The difference between the two is that a government-mandated registration scheme that mandates up-to-date status can clear a lot of legal bars that a private list compiled from random sources does not. Just because someone filled a warranty card for a gun 10 years ago doesn't mean that they still own that - or, indeed, any - gun today, and courts would generally balk at making such an inference for the purposes of, say, signing a warrant for a search.
  - gigaflop 2y ago
    I don't personally believe that the data would be good quality by modern standards. Also, with rising levels of minor paranoia among some groups, I'd wager $1 that people these days are less likely to fill out forms like the ones shown in the article. However, if we presume that the data were of good enough quality and available to government, I believe that at least California would try to do something with it.

by _blk 2y ago

_ea1k 2y ago

While I don't like manufacturers doing this, the comparison to government gun registries is indeed strange. The manufacturers didn't compel buyers to provide this information with the thread of prison time, and perhaps more importantly, they didn't compel buyers to inform the manufacturer of every subsequent transfer.

michaelt 2y ago
Are there reasons to oppose a government database of guns that don't also apply to a private sector database of guns? For example, if a future government decided to round up all the guns and needed a database to find them, the fact the database is in a different building ain't going to stop them.
- dmurray 2y ago
  Sure. The government database presumably covers "all the guns". The private one includes some subset of guns, for example, all those whose owners want to subscribe to a certain gun manufacturer's newsletter, or all guns whose owners opted into a warranty program despite knowing it would get their names in a database. The fact that this particular database included data collected under false pretenses shouldn't preclude anyone from making a mailing list of gun owners.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  One could reasonably argue intentions matter, and the only possible intention for a government database is explicitly prohibited. If one were worried about such things, then a private database existing is of course problematic in that a ready-made one is there any time the government decides to stop prohibiting itself from doing such a thing... But this is more bone-headed than sinister.
- zer8k 2y ago
  Yes, the government by force of law can wholesale strip citizens of their second amendment rights by having a list of gun owners. The ATF not even 5 years ago was doing this with all sorts of guns that were formerly legal. In particular, ex post facto laws seem to not apply with the ATF. Once they issue a new "opinion" it becomes defacto law because of the Chevron Defense. The result, is ATF door kickers visiting people who were, possibly weeks ago, entirely law abiding citizens. "Ghost guns" in particular were used to justify no-knock raiding several law abiding citizens when the ATF "opinion" came out. In that case however, the ATF more-or-less told manufacturers if you don't give us names we will send you to prison for life. The government having any list of any kind of person is never good. Ever. The government already "has" a list of gun owners. 4473s are kept forever. If a gun store shuts down, the 4473s are shuttled to storage in the ATF's buildings/containers/whatever. They have, historically, used these for all kinds of questionably legal "enforcement" procedures. However, since the 4473 list isn't entirely accurate - for example, gun transfers do not require a background check in many states, you could have destroyed the gun, lost it in a literal boating accident, etc there's plausible deniability. A government run list would certainly be designed to eliminate this - and that's a horrible, horrible thing for the 2nd. Presently the only "real list" is for NFA items. I'd imagine a government-run list would have the same privacy invading, civil rights abusing powers the NFA-owners list has. A manufacturer on the other hand could be coerced, as "ghost gun" 80% lower manufacturers were, to narc on their customer base. However, there are legal avenues to at least slow this process down significantly. It's far better, if we have to choose, to let manufacturers have the data. They have historically been far better stewards of the bill of rights than the ATF ever has.

MBCook 2y ago

I don’t think that’s their point. Their point is that all the hand wringing over privacy they use as the reason to prevent any kind of registration (whatever you think of it) seems very incongruous with giving away warranty information, which often they explicitly said they wouldn’t do, to whatever political cause they want. It looks extremely hypocritical and in many cases violated a promise to the customers. Yes the consequence of the government having a list instead of a lobbying group is very different. The issue is the lobbying group shouldn’t have had it period.

gsk22 2y ago
To add to this, all it takes is one piece of legislation or one court order for the private registry to end up in the government's hands. Gun owners who fear a government-run registry should fear a privately-run one just as much, if not more.

gigaflop 2y ago

I've heard a lot over the years about how registries are a step towards confiscation. A bit conspiratorial, but also not totally unfounded. Now that the government knows that this database exists, it seems like a partially-complete registry could be a lawsuit (and years of appeals) away. The participants of this may have accidentally built their own Torment Nexus.

MBCook 2y ago
To be fair, it’s just warranty data. It’s always existed. All you have to do is buy something to know it comes with a warranty card. So they could’ve figured it out it was there. However the fact that they can now get it without having to sue for warranty information is certainly a new twist. Of course they’d have to get it from a lobbying group, which wouldn’t exactly go over terribly well either.
int_19h 2y ago
The difference between the two is that a government-mandated registration scheme that mandates up-to-date status can clear a lot of legal bars that a private list compiled from random sources does not. Just because someone filled a warranty card for a gun 10 years ago doesn't mean that they still own that - or, indeed, any - gun today, and courts would generally balk at making such an inference for the purposes of, say, signing a warrant for a search.
- gigaflop 2y ago
  I don't personally believe that the data would be good quality by modern standards. Also, with rising levels of minor paranoia among some groups, I'd wager $1 that people these days are less likely to fill out forms like the ones shown in the article. However, if we presume that the data were of good enough quality and available to government, I believe that at least California would try to do something with it.