Just to be clear, there’s only any “registration” in most places if you consider the Form 4473 to be registration, which is really a stretch.
It’s just a requirement for federally licensed dealers to record the details of all transactions they make, and keep those records stored in case it becomes necessary to attempt to trace the ownership of a firearm. No government agency collects or records this information. In most states, this is the only legal requirement regarding the recording of gun sales.
Lets see. I have two shotguns, four rifles and two handguns that all where givin to me in one maner or another. I have never purchased a gun, yet I have 8.
The data needs to be recorded at the time of retail sale (since 1964, iirc). Even die-hard-gun-nuts have no major problem with this. “Gun registration” refers to the idea that all guns in your possession must be “registered” or else there’s a crime. For example, let us say Widow Smith has her late husbands Police service revolver in a box somewhere*. Under “gun registration” laws she’d be guilty of a crime.
the gun may or may not have been recorded when sold, perhaps her late husband bought it before 1964 for example.
It’s a huge difference. The records of what the government can show I obtained and what I actually have in my possession are quite different. And frankly I want it that way - since in practice registration has often led to confiscation.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s the deal in Illinois…if my husband dies, I have to either get a license or sell the guns within one month (I think) or it’s considered illegal possession.
I wasn’t clear. I meant the difference between the dealer holding the records and the govenrnment holding them, not the difference between current practice and full on registration of all weapons. I agree with you completely.
So, what you are saying is that you want to make"the widow Smith" a criminal* because you beleive somehow this sort of tracking will reduce crime somehow?
I will assume here that the “Widow Smith” has no idea she would have to resgister her late husbands gun, and thus she’d not register and thus jail time for Grandmother, just because her late husband served as a Police officer. niiiice.
Spare me. The single time I grabbed my gun for personal protection I was perfectly justified in doing so, and nearly everyone who has heard that story has agreed that they would have done the same thing in my shoes.
So, non-firearm owners can be accused of getting the vapours over “a few unaccounted for guns”, but those who practice regularly with a weapon for defensive purposes, can’t be said to be fearful?
It’s just as stale and ignorant as the “compensating for something” argument. What the hell do I have to be afraid of? Government is the only entity around that could seriously threaten me. I’m not afraid of you having guns, my neighbors having guns, criminals having guns. I am afraid of wolverines, but who isn’t? Antigunners are apparently afraid of me having guns and me losing guns, even though I’ve been investigated by federal and local agents and found to be fully trustworthy.
Okay, you’re one of the good guys. Can you say that about everyone you know with a gun?
If everyone was as responsible as you are, there wouldn’t be a problem with stolen guns, would there?
