Hacker News Reader

Comment by exabrial | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, with firearms registration and no-fly lists, Muslim registries are part of the slope we've set precedent for. A citizen should _never_ have to register with the government to exercise a freedom explicitly granted in the constitution.

View on HN

Flying isn't a constitutionally protected right. Voting is though. Should you be able to vote without registering?

Flying actually falls in a gray area... Considering you are "taxed" in essence for the TSA, to move between states... freedom of movement between states and all...

The TSA is, in principle, something voters have 'chosen' to put into place and could remove if they wished. Also there is no difference in the TSA 'tax' if you fly between states or within a state, so as such in has nothing to do with interstate travel.

Flying is an interesting case, per the 5th amendment we have the freedom to travel (liberty). There are too many points to consider for an HN thread, but in general, I would propose flying as a reasonably protected right, but no-fly lists as a violation of that right because of the absolute lack of due process. There is plenty of room for reasonable and effective security measures, as long as they don't intimidate, discriminate, inconvenience, or harass citizens.

Voter registration is an interesting scenario too, but there's more than what meets the surface: There are multiple rights to protect. We all have the right to vote. We also have the right that your vote is of equal weight to everyone else's vote. We must also be able to ensure that votes are anonymous, to protect people from being persecuted. Finally, we also have the right to a secure election that only allows citizens to vote.

In my opinion, voter registration is a reasonable regulation to protect everything I mentioned above, as long as it does not intimidate, discriminate, inconvenience, or harass citizens.

> as long as it does not intimidate, discriminate, inconvenience, or harass citizens

Historically, this is exactly what voter registration has been used for. You put it somewhere perpetually underfunded (especially in urban areas) like the DMV, and watch the results come in.

I don't disagree with the principle, but the current state of affairs makes it impossible to trust that voter registration laws are passed in good faith.

> We also have the right that your vote is of equal weight to everyone else's vote.

That's clearly not true, when the votes of California residents are worth significantly fewer electoral votes per capita than in any other state. Until the electoral college is replaced with a straight popular vote, we will never have the right to equally-weighted votes.

Should you be able to vote without registering?

Correct.

The US Govt and many others already maintain a complete list of all persons, living and dead, including useful attributes like citizenship, current address, age (aka eligibility to vote), in real-time.

Maintaining separate, duplicate, opt-in, haphazardly maintained, patchwork voter registration databases is wasteful, error-prone, and only serves the purpose of disenfranchising undesirables.

Maintain a single-unified opt-out, meticulously maintained, centralized voter registration database, is at risk for authoritarian abuse for cataloging and targeting people.

Why should Federal government care who lives in Florida, aside from a population estimate for the Electoral College? That's Florida's business.

> Should you be able to vote without registering?

Maybe. Maybe voter rolls should be some sort of bio-token that proofs your uniqueness and existence, and your approximate location (to determine local eligibility) but uses a pseudonym and is not connected to anything like your taxes, drivers license, etc.

Eugene Volokh wrote an excellent and highly-cited paper on this point, summarized here: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slipperymag.pdf

It's an interesting argument. How could that work for things like driving, where you need to prove competency before you are legally allowed to do something?

Driving isn't considered a right, but also registration is with the States, not the Fed.

I think the important point is that competency doesn't come from religion. It comes from past actions and current environment one is exposed to.

Driving a car isn't a protected right unlike the other things mentioned in the parent comment.

Because driving on public roads has never been a right in the US. It has always been a privilege that you are granted.

That's not really accurate. Freedom of assembly is interpreted pretty generously. It's fine to disqualify on not knowing how to drive safely, but any other unrelated qualifier would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Thats a good point. If the US did a "no drive" list, there's no way it would standup in the courts. Counter point would be a "no firearm" list which runs counter to the 2nd amendment and may standup in the courts.

Driving isn't listed as a Constitutional Right though.

There are people who believe that driver's licenses are a way of stealing the right to freedom of movement. But to the best of my knowledge courts have typically rejected this.

The case law on this is interesting. When driver licensing was challenged in the early 20th century, the courts ruled that motorcars are so dangerous to the public that the state would be justified in banning them entirely; and that therefore, it may restrict their use in any way.

I'd argue "A citizen should _never_ have to register with the government" should really be the entire statement.

Things like aid and whatnot should really be isolated and broken off to prevent mass collection dbs.

Doesn't every birth have to be registered with the government?

For "social security" benefits. Yes. And look how that's turned out. It's deemed proof of citizenship (and a vital document) despite being just a poor quality piece of paper.

The data is misused in just about every way. From colleges using it as a student id number to people committing crimes with it.

If someone is using a SSN as proof of citizenship, they are blatantly wrong. SSNs can and are issued to aliens.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

USCIS lists as common proofs of citizenship: US birth certificate, US passport, certificate of citizenship, or naturalization certificate.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/A4...

I imagine they are thinking of it being a list C document:

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents

(an unrestricted SSN is proof of eligibility to work in the US)

Yes, and no less than 3 of my former jobs required a photocopy of the card itself. You can argue legal requirements, or you can shut up and be paid.

Sometimes it's better to be paid than right. (Especially on your first few jobs)

"select * from individual where religion = 'muslim'"

You would think it's that easy as the "government knows all". But from working on government databases and systems, it's hardly the case. Disparate systems, competing departments, endless workshops that hold up progress, political spats, etc. And this isn't even in a country like the US that has separate states!

Not even for voting?

You don't have to vote.

equating the purchase of a shotgun to having an ethnic or religious identity is a sad statement.

Why? Both are guaranteed in the Constitution. Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs.

One is a potentially deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene.

The other is a largely inconsequential part of your personal identity, which has routinely been used as justification for persecution throughout human history.

(Personally: I support responsible gun ownership, but I don't think there's anything wrong with asking owners to register their serial numbers.)

There's plenty wrong with asking people to register their serial numbers, especially when you combine these two statements:

> asking owners to register their serial numbers > deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene

I'm legitimately curious here... what's the actual problem? I don't see any issue combining those two statements.

The second amendment gives you a right to own a firearm. Nowhere does it say you should be allowed to use it to commit criminal acts with impunity.

I view it like the requirement to have a license plate visible on my car, which seems reasonable given the risks involved in driving.

Because who committed a crime and who owns the firearm are often very different people in reality.

And you only need to have a plate visible on a vehicle if you plan on using it on public roads.

"Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs."

Citation Needed

Should we not require drivers licenses or car registration?

Is the right to keep and bear arms not an important part of an Americans identity?

Everyone has a culture, even if from your perspective it's normal or even "low".

It's protected by our constitution in the same Bill of Rights that assures US citizens' other freedoms, such as religion. Liberals and conservatives both need to learn that they can't pick and choose, and on one hand hold in reverence the 1st Amendment and on the other hand reject the 2nd, or vice versa.

Libertarians, on the other hand, recognize that all of the amendments are vital and represented a huge step forward for not only the US, but all of mankind. Now, if only we would abide by them at the present time...

Does the second amendment apply to assault weapons, machine guns, bazookas, artillery guns? When it was written, there were only muskets.

Does the first amendment apply to Internet speech? When it was written, there was no Internet.

An interesting, but somewhat depressing argument can be made that subscribing to a specific religion, along with one or two other "flags" is actually far more dangerous than legally purchasing a firearm.

Most reports put between 80%-94% of crimes involving a gun as being committed with an illegally obtained weapon. Which means of the 300k firearm related crimes in 2013 perhaps less than 20k were due to legal gun ownership.

I'm not bringing all this up because I actually believe Muslims are more dangerous than guns, or that Trump was right, or anything along those lines. I'm just trying to highlight how your bias might be more unfounded than you'd imagine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com