Do you guys realize that this is already the law, except that the definition of “gun dealer” doesn’t include some hard and fast limit on the number of guns sold per year.
Registration leads to bans. That’s how the banned machine gun purchases in 1986 (the NFA registration). That’s how they banned handguns in Chicago and DC (closed their handgun registries). Registration leads to bans. I will not support registration. And I doubt Congress will either. Cite.
A major, possibly the major factor, that keeps criminals from using machine guns is their size, weight, and complexity. Per the DoJ’s Guns Used In Crime report:
Gun crime is primarily a matter of handguns. If firepower were the criterion criminals were using to select weapons, we’d see far more assault-rifle type weapons, where in fact they are used in less than 2% of gun crimes according to a 2012 report.
Yes, which is why there is a “loophole”. Many of those guys at gun shows who regularly sell guns are not considered gun dealers under the law, and they should be. Do you disagree?
Never said it wasn’t. Other than keeping track of guns on a list, how is the California system even remotely similar to NFA?
I’ve stated my concerns with a registry. It is a very ripe target for abuse. They have been abused in the recent past and I have no faith that today’s version of the government is any more altruistic and would leave the registry alone.
I would be happy to review any data that you have, but do not include NFA as a success unless your registry plan includes ALL of the items that NFA includes. As I mentioned before, NFA is more than just a list of guns maintained by the Feds.
Also, if you’re a felon, going to a hobbyist lets you ignore background checks no matter how many guns he’s selling.
Cali abutting against Arizona, Nevada and Mexico might undercut any effect registration would have.
Although, if the government were allowed to collect or share data about gun violence, it might help to get to the bottom of that.
Yes, we’re basically talking about making just that tweak and leaving everything else in place in that post. So, the same rules that apply to FFLs as they do now, but there is the added step of requiring someone to be an FFL if they want to sell more than x number of guns.
I’d put the number at ten per year or so. If you are selling more than that you aren’t a casual gun seller.
The only issue is the one time situations that I can think of.
Example: Someone who has no interest in owning guns inherits 50 of them.
In cases like this they would have to come up with some solution.
Agreed completely. No registration.
It’s chilling to see some posters matter of factly state that we should do registration simply because it would tighten up a background check system. They don’t seem to be aware that registration is a needed first step towards confiscation and that many anti-gun rights people really do salivate at the concept of knowing where the guns are.
This is all true.
But I’d add that there is a practical element as well.
Most people only own one car. Many gun owners own many different types of guns. I’ve never let anyone borrow my car for a week or a month. I can’t. I need it to get to work and it’s the only one I have.
But I have let people borrow a gun for a week or a month because they needed it for something they were doing and I didn’t.
Cars depreciate and when they get old enough you buy a new one. Guns don’t and last for generations. They are handed down through families.
You commonly get situations with guns that you don’t get with cars. Example: A grandfather passes away and leaves his old hunting rifle to his son, who then gives it to the grandson to go up hunting for the weekend. Requiring background checks for these sorts of things is onerous, and accomplishes nothing.
Plus you can’t enforce any requirement for background checks in situations like this without requiring registration. How does law enforcement know if a gun was legally transferred to someone?
All these practical considerations don’t exist with cars.
Another thought about registration of guns vs cars: People are suggesting registration of guns because the only way to make background checks fully effective is to tie the gun to the person.
There is no such requirement with cars, is there?
When a cop pulls you over they ask for two things: License. To prove that you are legally able to drive. Registration. To prove that the car is registered and is legal to be driven.
But those two don’t have to be tied together, right? I can borrow my friends car for a week and if a cop pulls me over there’s no problem. Unless it’s reported stolen or something there isn’t any requirement that I only be in possession of the car(s) that I am registered to.
That is what people are suggesting with guns. You own guns X, Y and Z. You need to be registered to each of them for it to be legal to have them.
This just wouldn’t work.
I was thinking about this too. Background checks are not required for selling guns to a licensed gun dealer- so the law can be written such that the lucky guy who inherits 50 guns can sell them to a gun dealer without being considered a gun dealer himself. If he wants to sell them all privately, then I’m afraid he’s either going to have to become a dealer himself, or just keep it under x guns a year.
Yes. If there are people who meet the definition listed below and don’t have an FFL, the ATF should prosecute them. The definition should not be broadened.
Under 18 USC 921 (a)(21)(C), a dealer is defined as:
Your 50-gun heir should be able to sell the entire collection next week to pay off the debts of his father’s estate. he shouldn’t have to stretch it out over a period of years, and he shouldn’t have to apply for an FFL. That process can take months by itself. The same goes for an avid gun collector who falls on hard times and has to sell part of his collection to pay the bills. This should be legal. He shouldn’t be told “only 5, and then you’d better stop or it’s off to prison for you”.
You don’t need a registry for a ban. We had an assault weapons ban without an assault weapons registry. The ban isn’t brought about by the closing of the registry, it is the method by which they implement the ban, if you have a legislature that wants to ban guns, they will ban guns regardless of whether there is a registry or not. You are justifiably gunshy 
about any infringement on gun rights because the gun control lobby is retarded and does stupid things but that doesn’t mean we should respond by being retarded and doing stupid things.
If you aren’t willing to admit that there is a gun violence problem then you will not be a part of the conversation on how to fix that problem and then you very well may be looking at your worst case scenario. But if you ackowledge that there is a problem with gun violence and you want to do something about it, then licensing and registration make boatloads of sense. Is the only thing holding you back the notion that a congress that wanted to ban guns wouldn’t be able to do so without a registry?
No you need to be licensed to possess a gun, you need to register the guns you own.
I disagree. I find that definition sufficiently vague that it probably wouldn’t take much of a lawyer to successfully defend a “hobby” gun trader who sells hundreds of guns every year.
So let them sell to dealers. Or write such exceptions into the law. Or allow waiver applications for various situations.
It’s ok. Reasonable people can disagree.
There is a third thing (or second, often) - proof of insurance.
I do wonder if a state requirement that all guns be insured against liability due to negligence or wrongful use would be found unconstitutional.
shrug I hope so. The definition was specifically narrowed because of the ATF’s past overreach and abuse of regular folks. Given the ATF’s history, I have no desire to see them given more tools which they’ll use to persecute hobbyists and enthusiasts. Fortunately, there isn’t any political will to broaden the definition at this point.
No, I understand that Congress can, and has, banned guns without a registry in the past. I guess my non-support is really based on three things (just off the top of my head):
[ol]
[li]Congress has used registration in the past to ban the purchase of new firearms ('86 MG ban, Chicago handgun ban, DC handgun ban), and registrations have been used to order the surrender or disposal of previously-legal firearms (CA SKS and NY now).[/li][li]I’m not convinced that it’ll have a significant impact on gun violence (but am probably persuadable on this point)[/li][li]I think “my side” has the votes in Congress and don’t see why we should give up anything. I don’t think the other side would if they had the votes.[/li][/ol]
Interesting to see these two quotes together.
So the ATF should prosecute them, but you hope the “hobbyists” (which are gun dealers by any reasonable sense of the phrase) are successfully defended, because you don’t like the ATF. Got it.
You know what is maddening about this whole topic? It used to be that we had MORE guns being sold through licensed dealers.
Back in the early 90s, it cost ten dollars to get a Federal Firearms License. You still had to process all the sales correctly, but it allowed you to buy guns directly from dealers.
Then the antis found out. “More gun dealers than gas stations!” was one of they’re lines. “Kitchen table gun dealers” was their favorite negative-sounding term (they’re good at these.)
The net result? After 1993, $200 instead of $10 for an FFL, and a whole bunch of hoops to jump through. The number of FFL holders dropped by about two thirds.
Now they’re whining that too many sales are coming from non-FFL holders. Oh, the hypocrisy.
The sooner people realize that the antis’ goal is to reduce the overall ownership of guns, by whatever means necessary, the better. Any restriction that makes it a little harder to legally own guns is gun. And single type of gun that can be banned, for now, is good (more to follow.) Any scary-sounding propoganda you can come up with is great: Kitchen table dealers. Assault weapons. Gun show loophole. Saturday night special. Street sweeper. Sniper rifles. etc. etc. etc.
I don’t find reason 1 very compelling. They have the power and if they ever had the political capability to ban firearms, the existence of a registry isbn’t going to make it any easier.
I don’t find reason 3 very convincing because if the gun control activists weren’t so goddam stupid and didn’t constantly show their ass by displaying their ignorance on almost everything to do with guns, we could very well be talking about the size and scope of a national gun license and registry instead of mandatory background checks at organized gun shows.
I think that many of the anti-second amendment folks take their position because of their geography and their ignorance. There simply aren’t that many anti-second amendment folks in rural areas or areas where guns are prevalent.
I agree on the FFL issue. A friend applied for an FFL a while back. He was denied because he failed the interview. They determined that he wasn’t really serious about dealing guns as a business out of his garage (my impression was that if he didn’t make as much money from his day job, he would have been more credible). Hell, he even displayed at a couple of gun shows to show he was serious. Why the fuck do they care if someone wants an FFL to facilitate a hobby or to make a living? Why is that even a criteria?
The scary-sounding propaganda is hardly limited to one side. The first thing Hitler did was to register all the guns. The first thing Stalin did was to register all the guns. The first thing Mao did was…
The ignorant idiocy on the gun rights side is a well known and documented fact and outfits like the NRA make full use of their useful idiots. What is knocking you gun control guys on your heels is the fact that so many of you guys are even more ignorant idiots.
The gun rights guys are paranoid but they have good reason to be. There is a large movement out there that wants to entirely strip them of their second amendment rights without going through the amendment process.
The gun control guys are afraid of guns largely because they are ignorant and unfamiliar with guns.
You know how a lot of white folks are racist and have horrible stereotypes of black people because they are ignorant and their exposure is largely limited to things they see on TV? Well a lot of gun control folks have a negative reaction to guns based on the same ignorance and lack of exposure. When you go to places with high levels of gun ownership, the irrational fear of guns evaporates and is replaced by a healthy respect for the lethality of guns.