Captain Amazing wrote:
Emphasis mine. This is a new one on me, would you be able to provide a cite? According to the BoJ:
"among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
[ul]
[li]a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% [/li][li]a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% [/li][li]family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%[/li][/ul]
What a crock of shit! Please… I dare you… proove this! The whole “most private gun sales occur” part. I already said that yes a felon could possibly get a gun at a gun show. But he could also get it at your neighbors house or from an ad in the newspaper. But by doing so, he would be breaking the law however.
I go to gunshows all across the country. I have yet to find any show where more than one or two tables out of HUNDREDS are run by unlicensed individuals selling guns. Anecdotal yes, but true none the less.
You can’t drive willy-nilly in public – at least, I know I’d get in trouble if I started doing donuts on the playground. 
But yeah, I don’t have a problem with licensed gun owners firing their guns within safe and reasonable grounds, such as shooting an intruder/attacker, or popping beer bottles in their back yard for target practice. If the safety rules for the license are indeed being followed, why not?
I’m going to withdraw my claim, at least until I can find citable information supporting it.
I don’t know how it works in other states, but at the gun shows I go to in PA, in order to set up an exhibit table at which one will actually be selling firearms, one has to have an FFL and perform NICS background checks.
If for some reason the system is down (as it mysteriously always is on any weekend that there are two or more gun shows), there are no sales from those FFL dealers.
Anyone wishing to transfer a handgun from private citizen to private citizen must have an FFL dealer act as an intermediary, and a NICS check is done.
Occasionally you’ll see someone selling an old shotgun or a rifle, and most of the sales that I have witnessed in that vein (I know, purely anecdotal) are to fathers who say they’d like to buy something inexpensive to get their sons started with for hunting.
Very similar in Iowa, the NICS system is always down whenever I want to buy something.
In Iowa, an FFL is not neccessary for any private sales of firearms. If it is a handgun though, the buyer must have a permit to acquire pistols or a concealed carry permit in their posession at the time of sale whether the transaction is private or through an FFL.
In private handgun sales, the onus is on the seller to insure that the buyer does in fact have the needed permits in order to complete the transaction. The permit to aquire costs $10 or so every year and requires a one time background check at the time of issuance.
The concealed carry permit is a couple of bucks more and requires one to pass a safety course with shooting and a written test. Permit holders need to re-qualify every other year through a short shooting test.
Back to the OP… Our county sheriff’s office is responsible for the issuance of both permits. The county sheriff himself is a democrat and VERY pro gun. He was the first democrat I ever voted for.
The county sheriff who issued me my concealed carry license is also a Democrat (my area is extremely Democrat-populated) and also very, very pro-gun.
He has no qualms handing out the licenses, but he does make clear that they will be revoked if you screw up.
They do a background check and take statements from your references. If you come back clean, they have to issue unless they can provide cause not to issue. There’s no test, and the license is renewable every five years.
I consider myself ‘pro-gun’ even though I do not own any (for personal reasons). I believe that any law abiding citizen (read: non-felon) who does not have a history of violence or psychological issues, should not be restricted in the ownership of firearms. I do not have a problem with waiting periods/background checks for purchase (as I can see little legitimate reason why someone would NEED to purchase a gun right now). I do have a problem with registration, as I have inherent distrust of the government. And no, I do not have a problem with a trained and responsible citizen owning an M-16.
Ordinance I do take exception with. Anything that cannot be made with products found around the house, like a LAW or Nuclear Weapon, should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens, under normal circumstances. Though, on the other hand, I don’t see a problem with a collector or parephenalia buff owning a tank or whatever, as long as they fit the above description (law abiding, trained, responsible, and without a history of mental illness).
What is that supposed to mean? It’s like we’re worried about “descecrating the sancictity of the idea of the gun and what it represents” rather than the nuts and bolts of the pros and cons.
I support concealed carry, but also registration but not licensing. So what does that make me? Good or evil? Or am I guilty of not oversimplifying the issue enough?
Well done! I think JXJohns response was a little over the top, but he’s basically correct. See this article: http://www.tsra.com/kopelgsh.htm for some information.
What about concealed carry? Would a license allow people to legally carry concealed in public places, like a drivers license allows people to drive their cars in public places?
I don’t have a problem with that. (What, is this “Ask rjung to craft gun legislation week” or something? )
Bottom line is, I don’t see licenses for gun owners/users as a covert attempt to restrict the rights of folks to have guns; all I care about, as an individual citizen, is that the people who want to have guns should prove that they’re competent enough to handle them with the proper care and caution that they require.
I don’t own guns, I don’t plan to own guns, and I have no desire to buy or shoot guns (well, unless we’re counting Nintendo-style light guns, but that’s a different issue 
). But I respect the Constitution of the United States, and that second amendment says people have the right to bear arms, so I’m cool with that – as long as it’s done safely. Still not sure whether or not I count as “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” on the Political Positions crib sheet, tho.
I think the problem espoused by many, rjung, is that the list of gun-owners in a particular area has been used in order to later come and collect those firearms from the owners once further legislation allows for such things. Any licensing would likely require a set of legal guarantees which would sound downright horrific to those who see guns only as a threat.
Honestly, I usually stay away from this issue, because it is very complex, especially at the state and local areas (and particularly because I don’t yet trust myself to own a gun), so I cannot provide any examples other than those alluded to above. But the basic tactic, known in my circles as “erosion,” is common in other issues.
When sorely taxed, the defenders of the issue at hand require expertise, organization, and some influence. Enemies of the same invariably seek to attack that expertise, organization, and influence, as well as continually try to kill the damned thing outright whenever possible.
That’s why the legislatively beleagured never give an inch. That inch often defends miles of territory behind it.
Okay, enough of my non-expertise. I suppose I’ve already demonstrated why I’m not qualified to comment.
Actually, to me, that was quite well stated Sofa King.
I seem to remember reading that registration lists in California were used when legally purchased firearms were later made illegal, however I can’t find the article again.
Anyone know about that?
I find a lot of articles that talk around it, but not specifically. I did find the confiscation letter. I do not know the validity of this letter (it does come from a pro-gun site).
Neither do I; I see it as an OVERT attempt. The second you need to get permission to do something, it’s no longer a “right”, now, is it?
Allow me to clarify my above post.
Basically, there is no intrinsic gain in requiring license and registration of guns. If you feel that there is, point it out to me. I don’t care if it won’t cause any harm… enacting a law just because it won’t cause any harm is idiocy and madness, frankly. We need to set our focus to enact legislation that will do GOOD.
Yep. It happened just that way. Californians registered their legal rifles. When their rifles were later outlawed, they were sent a letter by the attorney general to turn in their guns.
Same thing happened in NYC.
Hilter used the gun registration lists in Europe to find out who owned guns, and to kill the gun owners.
Other countries after making everyone register their guns, raised the tax on guns, sometimes to over a thousand dollars a gun a year, preventing average income people from being able to afford to license their guns.
Licensing and registration does not make the criminal register or get licensed - he is a law breaker!! He doesnt care about laws against crime, nor about gun laws.
Furthermore, if licensing and registering of cars is so great, then why do we let children own and buy cars? Why is there no law preventing ex-felons from owning a car? Why is there no limit to the size of engine anyone can buy? Does everyone who sells a car thru the want ads require to see a drivers license and license plate from the purchaser? or do you just want to see the cash?
If you want the same laws for cars, then you want children and ex-felons to own guns.
Licening and registration also lead to requiring costly insurance.
Once gun owners and gun registration is enacted, subsequent laws may be passed to require gun owners to get insurance, at whatever rate the state says may be charged.
If licensing and car registration and drivers training are so great, then why do we have 50,000 deaths on our highways? Why are cars still used in crimes?
Do you really think that bank robbers dont use cars for their “get aways” just because the cars are licenced?
Are you advocating an end to drivers’ licenses, then? Anyone can drive a car if they’re tall enough to reach the gas pedals?