I don’t know why you think that, or worse still why you think that I know that. Why would Republicans defund the DB? They can’t even bring themselves to defund Obamacare or Planned Parenthood.
From The Hill:
It’s kind of a weak quote, but it raises the same objection.
So why would there need to be a database?
Is the goal to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, or is it to create a registry? Because opening up NICS allows people to avoid selling to prohibited persons. It’s pretty revealing when a proposal that would limit prohibited persons is rejected because no registry is created - it shows that the registry is the goal. And make no mistake, a registry is the nuclear option and would be opposed accordingly.
If you would reject universal background checks without a registry, then what you really want is a registry. The push for universal background checks is a deception pushed by gun control advocates.
Bone and HurricaneDitka, are you saying you don’t buy guns from FFL holders because you fear that this is de facto registration of your firearms? (assuming, of course, that you are gun owners)
Was it proposed that a private seller had to go through an FFL holder to perform an NCIS check (and have the purchase recorded in the FFL holder’s log book) and that the seller incurred criminal and civil liability if he did not?
Of course, if that case, if I sold a gun for cash to someone I didn’t know, how the hell would they find me? I suppose police could conduct stings as a disincentive to this practice, but I don’t see them doing that in my home state.
I don’t fear registration, nor do I think it’s unconstitutional, although I don’t know if the latter point is settled law. While I do understand that mass confiscation is only really possible if the guns are registered, I and the Supreme Court do think that is unconstitutional and short of repeal of the 2nd Amendment don’t think that will happen. Confiscation is the issue on which gun owners should dig in there heels in my opinion, not registration.
I’ve purchased guns from both FFLs and private parties. All other things being equal (price, location, condition of gun, etc), I’d choose a private party purchase every time.
Yes. This is what the gun control crowd means when they say “universal background checks”.
They can and do conduct sting operations. In addition to that, if a gun that was last transferred to you via an FFL shows up at a crime scene, the police are going to ask you how it got there. If your answer is “I sold it to Trayvon from the hood without going through an FFL” you’ve just incriminated yourself.
Guns have already been confiscated, and there are state-level bills pending to confiscate more of them. Hillary Clinton said she wants Australia-style gun control, which I understand her to mean that she wants to confiscate guns from their owners.
Where have they been confiscated in the US?
Because that’s what your side does: demand “stricter enforcement of existing law” while defunding (or defanging) the agencies tasked with enforcing it.
If you sell your car to someone and they intentionally or recklessly drive it into a crowd and kill people, should you be held liable?
Straw purchases… which means buying a gun for someone else… is already illegal and I would think civil penalties could be brought about, assuming it could be proven that you knew, or should have known, you were breaking the law.
From the quote above, it seemed to me that there was a record-keeping requirement on the seller, rather than the FFL holder.
They conduct them on FFL holders, but I am unaware of cops conducting stings on private citizens. The BATFE wouldn’t do it because there is no such requirement at a federal level and I don’t know if jurisdictions where there is such a requirement have the budget for that sort of thing.
Guns have been confiscated? I haven’t been able to find reliable cites. Were the owners offered compensation? Is there a challenge pending?
What did Hillary actually say? BTW, no cite, but I understand that private gun ownership has doubled in Australia since that law was passed.
Also, I know you don’t want criminals or mentally unstable people to have guns any more than Hillary or anyone else. At the risk of hijacking my own thread, what did you have in mind to prevent this?
True. Are guns special? One does not normally think of a car as a weapon even though one could be used as such. Would a gas station have any liability if they let someone fill a bunch of glass Coke bottles with gasoline?
However, if there were an NCIS requirement and you did not meet it, you would have committed an illegal act which may incur criminal penalties and open the door to lawsuits.
Following your analogy, if someone steals your card and runs someone down with it, should they be held liable? IANAL, but I believe that you might incur liability if you did not exercise reasonable care, e.g. you left your keys in it. In Texas, they write that up as owner-involved theft. Similarly, if you fail to secure your guns, are you liable if they are used in a shooting? If a kid get ahold of them, you are.
Should I be held liable if I sell someone a dagger (considered an illegal knife for the purposes of carrying it in Texas) and they stab someone with it? If not, why not?
It is legal to sell one, btw. Is the standard that the seller had to do something illegal in order to incur liability?
In this thread that you participated in, the confiscation of guns after Katrina was mentioned in post #64.
Katrina confiscation was mentioned in passing in post #80 of this thread which was after your last post in the thread, so not sure if you saw it.
Katrina confiscation and CA confiscation of SKS rifles is mentioned in post #44 of this thread which you participated in too.
Here is a USA Today article about New Orleans settling with the NRA over a lawsuit they filed related to the gun confiscation after Katrina. There’s also a pretty well known video of authorities knocking over an elderly woman to take her .22 pistol after Katrina.
Here is a GQ thread about Katrina confiscation as well.
The city of Santa Clara, CA has made illegal by city ordinance possession of magazines that are able to hold more than 10 rounds. While not confiscating, they must be removed from the city limits or turned in to police. Gavin Newsom announced his plan for ballot initiative to do the same statewide even though there are thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of these in the state.
I live in CA. CA requires all firearm purchases to go through an FFL, subject to a background check and 10 day waiting period. I am not permitted to travel out of state to purchase firearms in a state I am not a resident of. I follow all firearm laws. If I had the ability to legally purchase firearms that were not registered, I would do so. I have done so prior to the longgun registry that was enacted a few years ago.
I am considering purchasing 80% lowers to mill my own and therefore be exempt from the registry, but the law is a bit grey here so I’m holding off.
Here is one recent example. The ATF enticed a broke veteran to drive a few miles into another state to sell a few of his personal guns to support his 7-months pregnant wife. This wasn’t some master arms dealer, this was a poor dope that didn’t fully understand the law. Now he’s facing a long prison sentence. I hope the people that think they’re “fighting crime” by doing this sort of thing burn in hell.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks-australia-perspec-1025-jm-20151023-column.html has a video. I’m not going to bother to type it up.
You’re right that I don’t want criminals or dangerous, mentally-ill people to have guns. I also don’t want drunks to drive, or parents to abuse their children, or criminals to rob, rape, or murder people. I don’t know how to “prevent” any of those things. With a country of 300+ million people, some bad things just happen. I know that I don’t want a government powerful and intrusive enough to stop all of that.
So, I looked up the issues surrounding Katrina. Guns were confiscated during efforts to enforce a mandatory evacuation, even in unflooded areas. The NRA filed suit to force the city to return the guns to their owners which was settled.
Is it your opinion that violence attributed to guns is just the cost of doing business and there is nothing that needs to be done?
I don’t want a government powerful enough to stop all of it either, but I don’t feel that that means that there is nothing more to be done.
If it was required to “register” a firearm?
Then everyone would know where the firearms are
Ok by me (:-
It was settled with the NRA, but look at the numbers. The NRA estimated 1200 guns were confiscated while the police estimated that they had 552. Also, how well do you think those guns were stored for the three years that they were held? Most likely, IF they were returned, they were rusty and unusable.
It was a bad situation, regardless of how things ended up three years later.
When I said guns had been confiscated, I wasn’t referring solely to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. California originally told owners of Sporter SKSs that they had to register them, but if they did, they’d be allowed to keep them. Then they decided that they were all illegal and had to be turned in to be destroyed or removed from the state. Recently New York did the same thing with the SAFE Act. Firearms that were legally owned were first required to be registered as “assault weapons” and subsequently declared illegal. Those are a few examples of why gun owners don’t trust “registration” schemes and largely refuse to comply with them.
I was unable to find information on that after an admittedly cursory search. I see that the SAFE act forces the sale of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds.
It does that, but also provisions of the law state:
No due process here, just based on the statement of a mental health professional which I couldn’t locate a definition for. This is different than federal law which requires someone to be adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution which is much more clear guidelines.
Here is a story of David Lewis who had his firearms confiscated based on an error in reporting for mental health issues. Through court proceedings he was able to re-acquire his firearms, but this example shows that the confiscation provision based some nebulous say so is taking place.
I also note that the VA was, and maybe still is, refusing to comply with the reporting requirement, citing, I believe, HIPAA regulations.
BJS also states that about 40% of murders are committed by felons but the percentage of gun murders committed by felons is probably higher because of things like vehicular homicide. Felons cannot buy or possess firearms. The list of prohibited persons is augmented by others who are not allowed to purchase firearms (like minors).