sigh
Oppressive laws.
:smack:
Add a licensing requirement. The license gives you carry rights nationwide. Pre-empt all state and local gun laws and implement the federal plan. Repeal the national firearms act (other than with respect to destructive devices) but maintain the restriction on the manufacture and sale of new automatic weapons. Start selling surplus fully auto M-16s and M-4s for tens of thousands of dollars. Sure it would only produce a few billion dollars but it would pay to get the registry up and running.
Its a good way but not the only way of preventing the transfer of firearms into the hands of prohibitted individuals.
The devil is in the details. Canada’s registry is poorly run, rife with corruption and incredibly expensive.
Wait. WHAT!?!?!?!
If the NRA disappeared tomorrow a la ACORN, another organization would step into its place, the NRA is not the only defender of the second amendment out there. Gun ownership in America doesn’t exist because of the NRA. The NRA exists because of gun ownership in America. Its symbiotic but I think you got the chicken and the egg mixed up.
For example, I think the Heller case is a watershed moment in gun rights in America. The NRA had nothing to do with that. in fact they tried to sabotage the efforts of Alan Gura. Alan Gura is playing nice with the NRA now but he hated them with a vengeance before they made it up to him.
Its politically impossible without some sort of compromise. Even in the wake of Newtown, you probably needed a compromise.
I think he’s saying you couldn’t achieve it politically without throwing in some concession to sweeten the pot.
Criminals with guns will never register their guns. Almost any law you pass will not be complied with by the criminals. So you need a law that will restrict criminal access to guns but only require compliance by the law abiding.
Licensing and registration would require you to get a license to possess a gun. When you buy a gun it has to be registered under your license. Now the chances of guns being sold by straw purchase (or by accident) to a criminal is much lower.
There is a large stock of guns in criminal hands right now but as time passes, we will hopefully deplete the stock of guns available to criminals.
I support the right to keep and bear arms and I support licensing and registration. I think that the notion that we will ever confiscate guns at the federal level is fantasy. You cannot name 30 states that will elect a senator that would vote for such a thing, hell I bet you can’t name 20 states that would elect this sort of senator. I certainly don’t think this supreme court would permit such a confiscation and I find is impossible to believe that they could ever repeal the second amendment. So once you get rid of fears of confiscation, licensing and registration makes a lot more sense.
Meh, the NRA’s database doesn’t bother me.
I know what you would compromise, I’m asking what he would.
I don’t share your confidence. Go back in time 15 years in CA and ask if people thought it was a fantasy to confiscate guns. Go back in time 10 years and ask if people thought it was fantasy to confiscate guns in Louisiana. Go back in time just 6 years and ask if people thought it was a fantasy that the SCOTUS would rule the 2nd recognized an individual right and that 2 years later that right would be incorporated against the states. What seems unlikely at some point in time can change dramatically in a short amount of time.
Some unlawful gun owners buy guns from legal owners … some buy them from gun shows, some from gun stores (the applications are full of lies, but the records regarding mental illness aren’t thorough or current enough) and, get ready for this … some criminals actually STEAL guns from law abiding citizens … around 1.4 million in a five year period from 2005 to 2010, according to this BJS statistic:
My point is (and was … to Hentor the Barbarian) that you won’t identify these thieves with your massive data base, but you might be telling them where to steal more guns.
Hentor, you out there?
While I have some issues with the details of the laws here, overall they are in fact not that different from the requirements around getting and maintaining a drivers licence.
You should thank Debaser for showing you the violence inherent in the system. Otherwise you might not have noticed it and you would continue to slide down that slippery slope until Australia becomes–I don’t know–some sort of flat, dry New Zealand.
Yes, and I’ve found it breathtaking how challenging this is for you to understand.
First, as to the above comment about telling criminals where to steal guns, that’s just a vapid, asinine comment. Do you envision this being like a telephone book or online web resource? It’s just as likely that criminals will find out where to steal guns from the NRA’s massive data base as they would from a government data base.
Back to the primary logic problem you cannot overcome.
Joe is 22. Joe buys a firearm legally. He has no record of felony. Time passes. At 24, Joe is convicted of a felony.
CLUE: Checking a record of criminals is irrelevant. He has just been convicted. Checking a criminal database will tell you what you know.
So, tell me, how would anyone know that Joe has a firearm he must surrender?
Sally is 23. Sally purchases a firearm legally. She has no record of mental illness. Time passes. Sally turns 25, and has an onset of schizophrenia. She is involuntarily committed for a period of time.
CLUE: Checking a record of mental illness (if one even existed) would be irrelevant. You know that she has mental illness.
So tell me, how would anyone know that Sally has a firearm she must surrender?
Ask a colleague if you continue to struggle with this. I think Bone understands the basics, since he’s trying to change the topic.
The question is irrelevant. The issue was the assertion that a gun owner database or gun registry would have no value. This is an obviously false statement; such information is necessary to be able to determine when a new felon has a firearm to surrender.
Transfer of weapons is not relevant to this issue. A firearms registry would not help you do anything like you suggest.
The status change of the firearm is not the relevant issue.
The status change of the individual is.
This is what I’m talking about when I say that gun advocates struggle with categorical, inflexible thinking. It is my belief that that fundamental difficulty is at the root of the problem in comprehending this issue. In particular, the idea that once someone is a lawful gun owner, they will always be one seems endemic to their thinking.
This can’t be serious. You’re really making this suggestion as a way to highlight the absurdity of any proposed voter identification law, right?
Correct. Whether that’s a sufficient value to make it worthwhile is obviously debatable, but it’s beyond cavil that it would have some value.
Bone – why would you possibly try to defend such an indefensible point?
Here’s a sneak peek at a couple of little loopholes in your gun confiscation plan:
Knock, Knock.
Old Lady: “Hello?”
Cop: “We’re the Gun Confiscation Squad, ma’am, we’re looking for Sally Doodlebrain, is she here?”
Old Lady: “Oh my, no, she’s at Bellvue. She tried to jump off the fire escape last night.”
Cop: “Alright, well … we’ll have to search your house for weapons anyway … we have a registry here that says Sally had a gun.”
Old Lady: “But she’s gone, and she didn’t leave any gun here.”
Cop: “Open up, ma’am, or we’ll have to bust down the door and shoot your dogs.”
Old Lady: “They’re shih tzus! What the …?”
Cop: “Get the ram, boys”
Scenario 2.
Knock, knock, knock!!!
Door opens.
Cop: “Floyd Feloni, we’re the Gun Confiscation Squad. Step out here, please. We have a warrant to search this trailer for weapons, Mr Feloni.”
Floyd: “Okie, Doke, dudes, knock yourselves out.”
Waits.
Cop: “Mr. Feloni, we have records that indicate you own a 20 gauge shotgun. Where is that gun, sir?”
Floyd: “Sold it at my garage sale last summer.”
Cop: “Well, sir, we see that you have been convicted of a Felony for sale of drug paraphernalia. We’ll need to confiscate that gun. Who did you sell it to?”
Floyd: Dunno … same guy who bought the Tommy Chong autographed bong. I don’t even smoke pot … I won the bong in a song lyric contest. The Judge gave me a suspended sentence. I don’t know where the gun is."
Cop: “You didn’t hide the gun back in the woods, give it to a friend or relative to hold, stash it in your ex-wife’s storage unit, leave it at work at the foundry, or bury it under your trailer, did you?”
Floyd: “No sir, honest. I’d never do something ILLEGAL like that.”
Cop, to other cop: “Well Joe, I’m stumped. We never thought convicted felons would hide a gun and fib to us about it. He musta sold it to that out-of-state stranger with the generic description.”
Cop, to Floyd: “Sir, we’re pretty sure that you’d never risk commiting another crime by hiding your bird gun, so I guess we’ll just go away. Have a good day … BOOM!”
Floyd: “You shot my dog!”
Cop: “He was threatening us, sir.”
Floyd: “He’s a chihuahua! And he was tied up!”
Cop, to other cop: “C’mon Joe, let’s get over to Mr. Sniperson’s place. Bet he didn’t sell his guns. He has five of ‘em. Nobody’d hide five guns from the gubernment, I’m sure we’ll be confiscatin’ before luch time.”
At least you seem to have finally grasped the basic issue.
Your purported pitfalls aren’t very challenging.
“Okay Sally. Upon your release, you are obligated to turn over your weapon. If you fail to do so, you will be in violation of the law and will be prosecuted.”
“Mr. Feloni. Please turn around and place your hands behind your back.”
Sally: “I don’t have it anymore. It told me to throw it off the Golden Gate Bridge, so I did. It had a German accent. Do your guns have accents? Ooh, shiny badge!”
Floyd’s attorney: “As it’s legal to sell a gun privately in this jurisdiction, and as the law doesn’t require the buyer to register a long-gun in this state, I’m advising my client to go fishing today.”
Wow. Can someone from that side of the aisle help this guy out? Or not, I suppose. It probably doesn’t matter.
No. Canada tried a national gun registry and aside from angering a lot of people, it accomplished very little, and what the OP is describing is even more extensive. The money would have been far better spent on more cops and giving better equipment and training to cops.
I’m not exactly sure what topic you’re referring to. I asked in my first post to this thread if we’ve diverged from the OP.
Who has exhibited this thinking? It is axiomatically true that criminal behavior stems from individuals that were at some point in time law abiding. I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. Gun owners are not immune from this. Many lawful gun owners will commit crimes. If the next response is that we then must have a registry to account for these individuals who become prohibited I would say at what cost (and not just financial).
Who asserted that a gun owner database or gun registry would have no value? Certainly not me. I think a registry would have tremendous value to different groups of individuals. To the NRA, it would be valuable for fundraising, get out the vote efforts, advocacy, advertising, sales and marketing, etc. It would be very valuable as a component of keeping guns away from prohibited persons like you are describing. It would be valuable to gun control advocates if they wanted to target specific arms or to initiate confiscation. I have never implied or stated in any form that a registry would not be valuable. On the contrary, it’s value is part of why it is opposed.
I also stated and I believe correctly so (you can let me know if you disagree) that enacting a registry without compromise is not feasible. So any potential benefits you can envision from a registry are moot unless you are willing to compromise on something. That is why the question is relevant. Would you care to answer it? I still think you’re avoiding the question and the reality that without compromise a registry is unlikely.
I haven’t defended nor made that point. Perhaps **Hentor **is confusing me with someone else.
[In fantasy land]
**if my ultimate goal **was to ensure that prohibited persons were not able to possess firearms, here’s what I would do: Mandatory license and registration of all firearms (no exceptions for C&R). 100% sales and non-sale transfers through an FFL. Comprehensive database of all crimes and health records of all individuals. Any time there is a status change that affects an individual that would move them from not-prohibited to prohibited it would be cross checked against the registry. At every firearm transfer the comprehensive database of crimes and health records would be checked. Any of these checks that yield a rejection due to prohibited status would result in confiscation and massive civil and criminal penalties. Non compliance with any of the above would carry massive civil and criminal penalties. That should ensure that anyone who isn’t actively trying to circumvent the law would not do so.
[/end fantasy land]
Of course, people could still acquire firearms illegally. You could have a network of straw purchasers who would pretend to lose firearms on a periodic basis, less than the amount that would trigger suspicion. They could be stolen. They could be manufactured at home. They could be imported from outside the country, etc.
But since I do not believe that the value of a registry outweighs the cost, I would not support one. I’m sure you feel differently, Hentor. I’ve done you the courtesy of directly addressing your questions - would you care to reciprocate?
The disconnect is that you’re assuming that a registry would include the logical extension that transfers and private sales would be subject to it - a fair and reasonable if not explicit assumption. SirGalahad is not making that assumption.
Of which aisle do you speak? I’m a devout liberal that would vote Democrat if Democrats were not such Conservatives lately. I just think the massive disconnect regarding firearms and/or the 2nd Amendment is a huge gaping hole in the mindset of the current crop of neo-liberals who should be directing their energy toward Civil Rights and the environment, rather than cowering at the mention of the word “gun”.
The gun culture will dwindle as the Vietnam vet era population dies off. Anti-gun logic and statistics are weak weapons against a mindset firmly routed in a reasonable Amendment. If statistics are followed to logical conclusions, some safety nerd will realize that “Black folks kill the biggest percentage of victims with guns”. Oh yeah, that’ll help.
The biggest risk of Americans losing their 2nd Amendment rights is the government revoking that right by degrees, or by decree. Voters cutting off their own right to defend themselves against stronger or more numerous opponents (in an effort to emulate foreign nations with different demographics and social conditions) isn’t likely IMO.
Gun fearfulness is wasted energy … there are such more serious and important Social and Political problems facing this country, that Liberals spending time and political currency on whether their fellow citizens should be able to defend themselves is demented.
On the subject of a registry, it will serve the authorities in that police will be able to use it to confiscate guns … not just from dull-witted criminals who can’t figure out how to hide a handgun, but from anyone who falls on the wrong side of vague or unconstitutional statutes.
I don’t bear arms, but I have no reason to deny my fellow citizens the protections defined in the 2nd Amendment. Criminals and psychopaths don’t scare me into doing the wrong thing. They’ll have to be dealt with in ways that don’t rob law-abiding Americans of their rights.
You have to get a drivers test four times a year in Australia? You can only drive one type of car based on which one you used in the test? You can only drive at a private club or if you have written landowner permission from someone with a track?
That sounds like a tough country to drive in. You should probably just take the bus.