I have four functional AR-15s (two Colts, two I built), one will be functional in a week, and I’ll build another one in several months when the parts become available. (Actually, one part may not be produced for a year.) All were purchased through dealers, either directly or by dealer-facilitated transfer.
So you ask, ‘Why? Why do you need one? Why do you need so many?’ One could ask that about any consumer item. Why does someone need a Hummer? Why does someone need a WWII Deuce-and-a-Half? Why does someone need a Ferrari? Why do I wear a Rolex when I can get a $20 Timex or just see the time on my mobile phone? Because people have different likes and dislikes, and people collect different things. I happen to have an interest in the design and history of AR-15s/M16s. All of mine are different variants. If I had eleven of them, I’d have a decent but still incomplete collection of variants. You may not appreciate my interests any more than I would appreciate someone’s interest in Beanie Babies. If I look at guns and accessories, I find a lot of them silly. I’m like, ‘What’s the point?’ I’m personally not interested in ‘tactical’ AR-15s, and I personally look at people who collect those as Special Forces Wannabes. Maybe in 40 years I’ll see those as important developments in the history of the type. My interest is in the early development through the M16-A2, the mechanical and ergonomic changes, and keeping in mind the social and political aspects of the periods. You may not ‘appreciate’ my interest, but it exists nonetheless and I hope you can accept it.
Yeah, I’m not up for a debate either. Just trying to help you understand one person’s interest.
Back on topic:
In California in the '80s there was a slogan: ‘Use a gun, go to prison. It’s the law.’ If someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, it’s an automatic ticket to prison.
Yeah, the NRA is worried about a national registry being used to confiscate guns. Of course the federal government doesn’t have the manpower to confiscate 300 million guns and never will.
Looked at objectively you have about a third of the population owning about three guns per person scared that the other two thirds (who are unarmed) coming to take their guns. They would literally have to send the army, the national guard, the state police and every local police department and they would still be outgunned by at least 10 to 1, probably 50 to one in places like Texas.
Thanks Johnny. My son is quite into guns, and I have enjoyed shooting. I also can appreciate fine engineering. But I also think of social interests, as well as the 2d amendment.
I don’t know if you recall from previous threads, but I am a relatively recent convert from strongly anti-gun to a supporter of 2d amendment rights. One thing I strongly suspect is that whatever comes out of Congress is unlikely to accomplish anything really important. The primary goal is that they APPEAR to be doing something while not pissing off ANY potential voting group. Just kick the can further down the road and hope you personally stay out of the crossfire…
Cheshire - thanks. Tho a curious response for someone supposedly concerned about threadshitting.
Yep. Joe Biden said, ‘Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now.’
This is why those of us who enjoy shooting (or in my case collecting, since I rarely shoot) are opposed to this sort of legislation. It puts a burden on nearly 100% of gun owners while doing virtually nothing about crime. And I say this as a Liberal who voted for Obama twice, and vote for Democratic state and federal congresspeople.
So as a liberal shooting/collecting enthusiast, what do you think about a universal requirement for a firearm owners ID for all gun purchases and by anyone possessing a gun? Maybe exceptions for use on private property/ranges/etc.?
As a native of California, I am acquainted with some stringent laws. There, private purchases must go through a dealer. Here in Washington, I make most of my purchases from private sellers online. Since these purchases are all from outside of the state, all of my purchases have to go through a dealer. (Except one – I bought a lever-action .22 caliber Marlin 39A online and the seller was in-state so I could pick it up in person. The seller happened to be a gun store, so whatever.) In this way it is no different from California with a couple of exceptions:
[ul][li]California has a 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases. Washington only has a waiting period for handguns. I have a Carrying Concealed Weapon permit (CCW), so I am not subject to Wasington’s waiting period.[/li][li]California requires registration through the Department of Justice.[/ul][/li]Since my purchases have to go through a dealer anyway, a law requiring a transfer through a dealer would not affect me. But if I wanted to buy from a private party within the state, it would be inconvenient because people’s schedules are often not very flexible. I have a CCW, so my background has already been checked. It’s true that I might commit a crime after being issued the CCW, but it is very, very unlikely that a CCW holder would do. A dealer has only to pick up a phone to get a background check, and it only takes a few minutes. A private seller does not have this option. I also object to the added cost of California’s DoJ process (to which I’m no longer subject). I’m already paying for a firearm (which are expensive), sales tax (or ‘Washington Use Tax’ for out-of-state purchases), and $35 transfer fee charged by the dealer. As someone who has already been vetted, I don’t want to pay an additional $14 (as it was) to the state. If registration is required, that could be extremely expensive for collectors.
I do not support requiring a license to own or purchase a firearm. I do not support having to show my ID to buy Sudafed either, for that matter. I do support the idea that someone who has a CCW should be allowed to carry a firearm in any state, instead of just his or her own state or in states with reciprocal agreements with his or her state. I think that someone who holds a CCW, or a new permit that would show that the person’s background has been checked, should not have to abide by a waiting period where they apply. As I said, this is how it is in Washington.
How about this? I don’t think people should be required to have licenses to buy or possess a firearm. There’s no reason why I, personally, should not be allowed to buy a firearm from a neighbour. Suppose there is a national license such that holders may buy firearms without the intervention of a dealer? In this way, people who have already had their backgrounds checked can buy when and where they want. People who do not have the license would make their transactions through a dealer.
FWIW, and lest anyone think I’m paranoid, I do not carry a concealed weapon. (Nor an unconcealed one, for that matter.) I have my CCW because it’s impossible to get one in L.A. So when I moved up here, I wanted one as a novelty. I ‘use’ it if I want to buy a handgun, so that there is no waiting period.
As a liberal gun owner, I don’t like your exceptions.
If we register all guns, license all gun owners and have periodic background check as part of the licensing process, then (with good enforcement) we will eventually reduce the number of unregistered guns to almost nothing. This would reduce the flow of guns into the hands of felons and criminals.
We would still have gun homocides but the vast majority of gun homocides today are committed by felons who shouldn’t have the gun in the first place. The registry would create a paper trail so we can tell who is passing guns off to the felons.
My exceptions were thinking about someone who went to a range and wanted to try a gun, but didn’t have a license. Or I’m a licensed gun owner, and I have some unlicensed friends over for some plinking with my guns on my private property. That sort of thing.
Johnny - pisses me off as well to show my ID to cure my sniffles.
I don’t really understand - aren’t the first and latter parts somewhat contradictory? If you are advocating some kind of a national license for folk to be blanket authorized for a wide range of weapons ownershop/uses - with big penalties for folk who violate, I think that would have potential. And I don’t really understand why anyone would oppose. I could apply and be approved, without saying anything about whether I owned guns or intended to buy guns. Would this also apply to guns already owned, or just future purchases?
They are not enforced because there are too many loopholes, and it’s basically impossible to prove. First there is this:
Additionally, it’s pretty hard to differentiate between someone who buys a guy, then decides to sell it, vs. someone who is a straw buyer. Even when it’s obvious, as in the fast and furious case, the evidence is very hard to gather. It’s not that the laws are willingly unenforced, it’s that it’s really hard to prove a case. See here.
So unless secondary and private sales are also regulated, any law like the ones we have will be hard to prosecute.
The difference is this: What I oppose is that a license be required to own or purchase a firearm. What I suggested (and it was totally off the cuff) is that people who desire to purchase a firearm from an individual (i.e., private sale) have the option of having a permit that allows them to do so without having to go through a dealer. The permit could be a CCW. If a person does not hold a CCW, then he or she can get a buyer’s permit. If a person wants a firearm but does not want to get a CCW/permit, then he or she can buy from dealers or conduct private sales through a dealer. The ‘owners license’ would require a person to have it in order to purchase or own a gun. The ‘buyers permit’ would allow someone to purchase firearms privately without going through a dealer; but one would not have to have one to purchase a firearm from a dealer or to own a firearm.
An ‘owners license’ puts a burden upon millions of people without delivering a meaningful benefit. A ‘buyers permit’ or CCW removes a burden from millions of people, and public safety is addressed in that ‘buyers permits’/CCWs require a background check before they are issued. (Incidentally, my CCW renewal took almost 30 days. I’d been vetted before the original issuance, and the time involved in the renewal suggests a similarly thorough vetting.)
So today, it is difficult to prove straw purchases occurring in primary sales, which are regulated through mandatory background checks and 4473 forms, so the solution is regulating the secondary/private sales as well and then more prosecutions will follow?
We are a rich country, but not rich enough to lock up most violent criminals until elderly. So you need to think about what will happen when they get out.
A 40 year sentence takes an enormous amount of money to implement. This reduces resources government can devote to policing.
My link explains how New York City’s approach of putting funds in policing rather than what you suggest works better.
Our murder rate in Philadelphia is more than twice New York City’s despite much longer sentences
I dunno, its kind of like letting your unlicensed buddy drive your car on your property. You can do it legally but you probably want him to be licensed. My hope is that everyone just gets one at the DMV along with their driver’s license.
Yeah that’s pretty much it. You get a gun license. At the time of licensing, they do a background check and give you a test for safety and make you watch a video about how some idiot blows his head off by being careless or handling firearms while drunk. When you want to buy a gun, you just present this ID, the gun shop swipes it and your new gun has just been registered to your name. You would also have to register all your currently owned guns (a big PITA for some people, but its almost an opportunity to show off for these guys).
Every few years you have to take renew your license.
Whenever you want to transfer a gun, the easiest way is to go to a gun shop and pay an FFL fee to have the FFL do the transfer for you or you can make a copy of the purchaser’s license and file a paper form, the buyer would be responsible for registering the gun at an FFL or the police station (for a nominal fee).
Over time this would constrict (but not eliminate) the flow of guns into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (remember over 90% of all gun murders are committed by people who shouldn’t have had guns in the first place (felons and domestic abusers), sometimes they stole them but frequently they are just bought them from some guy making a private sale or from a friend or relative, people would be less willing to do this if the gun is registered to their name).
This would make gun crimes scarcer and the scarcity of gun crimes would result in harsher punishment.
I think over time this would overall reduce gun violence by a significant amount.
So wait, are you saying that having more guys with guns running around would reduce gun violence? Where have I heard that before JK I realize there is a difference between having more cops and having an armed populace.
The problem is that you are not really prohibiting anyone from buying a guy if you are only regulating primary sales since gun can and are sold multiple times. Because I could theoretically buy a gun for myself, then decide mere minutes later that I want to sell it to a guy I know, without running afoul of the law, means the checks are pretty much useless.
To highlight the problem, just look at the fast and furious case. There was a guy named Uriel Patino who acted as a straw buyer in the most obvious and suspicious way possible. Over the course of 10 months, he bought 673 guns, usually in cash. To quote the linked article:
So a guy can basically buy an arsenal with thousand of dollars in cash, sell them to any asshole he wants after the fact, yet he hasn’t broken any laws. How dumb is that? The only reason they even caught these guys is because of the sheer volume of guns they bought, and because many of them turned up at crime scenes. Someone just buying 2 or 3 handguns is almost impossible to convict.
The article sums up the legal issues as follows:
Since there are often no strong laws governing private sales, straw buyers can easily transfer guns to criminals with little fear of arrest since it’s very hard to prove someone knowingly committed a crime which likely occurred away from prying eyes.
If people really want to mitigate some of the problems guns create in society, you only need to do 5 things:
Mandate that all guns need to be tagged and registered. Possession of unregistered guns, or untagged guns are subject to long minimum jail times.
Ban private sales and transfers without the use of a registered dealer as an intermediary.
Require that all gun owners carry liability insurance to cover any damage done as a result any gun they own being used in a crime. Lack of insurance would be punishable with jail time.
Anyone who does not take sufficient means to prevent their gun from being stolen or “borrowed” will be subject to jail time and significant civil liability.
Heavily tax the gun sales and bullets.
Those things, in addition to the laws we have now, will dramatically curb gun violence in this country. More importantly, it makes gun owners collectively responsible for the negative externalities of gun ownership, and makes gun ownership expensive enough to prevent casual buyers from making the investment. All the revenue raised could go to compensating victims of gun violence, and training more police officers.
How bout we just actually enforce the ones we have. Shut down the FFL’s and Gun Shops that engage in this activity. You mean to tell me the Gun Store owner did not suspect something was up. Some kid comes up buys 20000 dollars worth of merchandise? and again the next week? I know any of the stores I frequent you would get the stinkeye and probalby kicked out if you tried this. As I recall most of these stores were in small towns too. i have a suspicion they knew but did not care. why because the laws we have now are rarely enforced, so let us add more that will be just as enforced.
But hey we did something! right? for the children/angels?
Fast and Furious case, really, you think they are going to admit they got egg on their face?
The F&F thing was just an egregious example to make a point about how our laws are mostly a speed bump for criminals largely because the gun advocates won’t allow commonsense law to exist.
The real problem is the number of gun that get into the hands of criminals that are not bought by the dozens in a fantastically obvious way. That’s how many handguns end up in the inner city. That, and them being stolen from law abiding people. Until you shut down both of those avenues, there is always gonna be an issue.
yeah let’s put the burden of criminal acts on law abiding people with your “common sense” laws. Price them out of range of poor people, too. Hey you’re too poor to defend yourself too bad.
If people really want to mitigate some of the problems alcohol and drunk driving creates in society, you only need to do 6
things:
Mandate that all alcoholic beverages need to be tagged and registered. Possession of unregistered alcoholic beverages, or untagged alcoholic beverages are subject to long minimum jail times.
Ban private sales and transfers without the use of a registered dealer as an intermediary. You can’t give a beer to your buddy without a government check, he might drive drunk.
Require that all alcohol drinkers carry liability insurance to cover any damage done as a result any beverage they own being involved in drunk driving. Lack of insurance would be punishable with jail time.
Anyone who does not take sufficient means to prevent their alcoholic beverages from being stolen or “borrowed” and drank by his fat alcoholic neighbor named “Ken” will be subject to jail time and significant civil liability.
Heavily tax the alcohol sales, beer mugs, wine glasses, and bottle openers. (We’ve made a good start.)
Require mandatory breath test ignition locks on all new cars sold. The technology already exists, and if it saves even one life, it’s worth it.
Either that, or you could just punish he people who actually do drive drunk. Not sure which makes more sense…
Your first two points seem well designed to reduce gun violence. A little more intrusive than it needs to be but, whatever.
Requiring insurance (whether or not that is a good idea) is one thing. Putting people in jail for failure to carry insurance is over the top. If I can’t afford auto insurance, I can just keep my car in the driveway. If I can’t afford insurance for my gun, I can go to jail?!?!?
Failure to secure your gun results in jail time? That s a bit draconian don’t you think?
There is a limit to how much you can tax guns before you are destroying the ability to possess firearms.
