You’re telling me. I spent four years trying to convince my right-wing gun nut friends that Obama wasn’t really coming for their guns, that the battle was over and we had won, that now it was time to move on to other important issues. Hard to make any progress. They were totally convinced that once Obama won his second term, his REAL agenda would show.
I guess I showed those paranoid nuts. Oh wait…
No shit. I kept trying to convince my gun nut friends that Obama wasn’t a gun grabber. I tried to tell them that Heller and McDonald proved they had effectively won the war and the fact that eh NRA was no longer even advocating solely for gun rights anymore but was advocating for other conservative issues like taxation and union rights. They were similarly convinced that Obama was slow rolling his agenda until his second term. I told them they were being paranoid and that obama would never try to ban guns, they didn’t listen and bought a shitload of reloading supplies, high capacity magazines and AR lower receivers. They weren’t alone. They ended up paying about 25% more for them than they would have paid in 2011, I told them they were stupid.
Last month, one of the smarter ones made over $20K selling AR-15s on gunbroker selling his shittier AR-15s and high capacity magazines. I’m sure he felt stupid for not listening to me 
:smack: Only stupid gun control advocates can make one of Wayne LaPierre’s more idiotic statements look like a prescient genius.
These guys are gun nuts and I have convinced them that licensing and registration are good ideas because they will be able to carry nationwide, stolen guns could be returned to them and the ban (one of them collects machine guns so he actually wants to keep the ban on machine guns, he expectes they will pay for his dauighter’s college education)
I don’t know what makes you think I’m a gun control guy. I was just pointing out that the scary-sounding propaganda that ChickenLegs was concerned about is used by the pro-gun side, too.
Dude, I’ve been getting beat up about this from one side for not caring about dead children and the other side for facilitating the tyrannical takeover of our freedom by the federal government. If I erringly grouped you in with the folks who support some of the ineffective methods of gun control to reduce gun violence, then I apologize.
Both sides have their extremists and its lonely here in the middle (I always considered myself a supporter of the second amendment but apparently I don’t support it enough for one side and I support it too much for the other), you start seeing shadows when there isn’t even any light.
Tell me how the war is won in CA where I have no legal way to carry a firearm of any kind. Where I can only buy one pistol per month and only if from an approved list. Where I have to use a bullet button on 10 round magazines for rifles because the assault weapon ban never expired here. No - the war has not been won. Far from it.
I was talking about the federal level, you know, the part that Obama is involved with.
I also happen to think that they are going to have to make some form of carry right available to everybody on at least a shall issue basis.
Hell even Virginia had a limit on how frequently you could buy firearms. They dropped it because it was retarded but it wasn’t a big deal. Magazine caps are probably not unconstitutional. The AWB probably is.
Heller and McDonald while at the federal level - were very narrow. Those are merely tools to use in further litigation. You know, after Heller DC tried to implement CA’s “Safe Handgun Roster”. That roster prohibited the very gun that Dick Heller sued over. When they realized their folly (and after actual and threat of further litigation) the case was mooted when they dropped that asinine idea. Each individual law that affects gun rights will have to be litigated.
Even at the federal level the war is far from won.
The avalanche is just getting started. This is all over but the screaming.
Back to the OP
A national registry makes background checks a lot MORE effective but even the background checks we have now provides some benefit.
Criminal liability for loaning is a bad idea. The way to handle loaning is to have a licensing procedure. You can’t loan your gun to anyone without a license.
Any “loaner loophole” is no bigger than a “my buddy stole my gun” loophole.
Reporting stolen weapons much happen within a reasonable time but there has to be some reasonable grace period. If you have made a habit of getting your guns stolen, I might suspend your license but I don’t think you can generally hold a victim of theft liable for crimes committed with stolen guns.
BTW, I don’t think you are not generally liable for things rung up on your stolen credit card, I think you have 60 days after the disputed charge appears on your credit card before you are liable and I think that liability is limited to $50 per card and most credit card companies waive even that charge.
One contributor to the problem in the US of A is that there are enough “responsible” gun owners who aren’t.
How would you propose dealing with a “loaner loophole”? As in, I loaned that to my buddy 9 months ago, so I’m not responsible he went full mental jacket and shot up that school.
The “my buddy stole my gun” loophole is much easier. There shouldn’t be one. It’s treated like any other theft.
If you’re a responsible gun owner, you know where your weapon is. No if and’s nor but’s about it. That just goes with other truisms like “always assume the weapon is loaded”, and what’s the phrase that Dick Cheney forgot “always know what you’re shooting at” and the like.
If you don’t know where your piece is, you shouldn’t have one. Sure, there is probably a reasonable timeframe such as 24 hours (and let’s not get nitpicky here about what if’s like being on vacation for a month please).
Firearms are deadly weapons and often used criminally. If you’re not willing to be responsible about preventing your weapon from being misused, you shouldn’t have one. If you do have one, there should be criminal consequences for what amounts to criminal negligence.
BTW, the credit card thing is an analogy. If the analogy is flawed, it doesn’t invalidate the point. Just FYI from the Federal Trade Commissionon stolen credit cards: Acting fast limits your liability for charges you didn’t authorize. Report the loss or theft of your card to the card issuer as quickly as possible. Many companies have toll-free numbers and 24-hour service for such emergencies. Once you report the loss of your ATM or debit card, federal law says you cannot be held liable for unauthorized transfers that occur after that time.
So, responsible gun owners. I know that the above ends the lax free ride that currently exists, but are any of the above points not common sense? And if not, why not?
Did your buddy have a valid national gun license when you loaned it to him?
What does that mean? My buddy commits a crime with my gun, I say that he stole it that morning. Who are you going to believe me or the guy that just shot ip the place?
I’m not sure where our disagreement is. I think 24 hours is too short but like you said, lets not get nitpicky.
Once again, I’m not sure what I have said that you disagree with.
From your link:“Credit Card Loss or Fraudulent Charges
Under the FCBA, your liability for unauthorized use of your credit card tops out at $50. However, if you report the loss before your credit card is used, the FCBA says you are not responsible for any charges you didn’t authorize. If your credit card number is stolen, but not the card, you are not liable for unauthorized use.”
If the analogy is flawed it undercuts your point because you were trying to say “see, even credit cards hold you accountable for the consequences for not reporting a stolen credit card so we can do that with firearms” Well, if credit cards don’t hold you to that tougher standard then you need a stand alone argument for your new standard of assigning CRIMINAL liability as if you were involved in the crime commited with your stolen firearm (for not reporting your stolen firearm in time).
If you want to assign a criminal penalty to everyone that fails to report a stolen firearm that would probably be OK but you can’t attribute another person’s crime to me because someone stole my guns and committed a crime with them.
Fifty guns? As in fifty chances of the gun being used in a teenage suicide, or stolen and then used in a crime?
If you want to sleep easy at night, and you have no interest in gun owning, you call the police non-emergency number and ask them how to turn in the guns for disposal.
Oh really sez John Law. And just when did you file the police report claiming your gun was “stolen” Mr. Ajashi? Looks like Miranda time.
That’s the whole point. And perhaps why “legal” gun owners have their panties in such a twist over being held accountable. A gun is registered to an owner, and said owner is responsible. If it’s not secured and is used a crime, well, sucks to be you don’t it? You could report it and be non-liable.
I don’t read the 2nd as saying it’s buy a gun with zero responsibilities and sell it on privately to any Tom, Dick or Harry. I mean the second does include “well regulated” 
Can you name any part of our current law where you are held responsible for the criminal actions of another person due to being a victim of a crime?
Help me with the math. What are the chances that any gun might be used in a teen suicide? What are the the chances that one might be stolen and used in a crime? And to be fair what are the chances one might be used to stop a crime, or used recreationally without an incident?
Or you could sell them on gunbroker.com and pocket maybe $25,000-50,000, and still sleep easy at night.
Well, it went missing this morning and I didn’t know he stole it until you came by and told me he used it to kill someone. Thanks officer. When will I be getting my gun back?
People are upset about the notion of holding them responsible for crimes committed by something stolen from them because it is ridiculous. We don’t even do that for dynamite. The penalty for failure to secure high explosives has nothing to do with the eventual harm caused by stolen explosives.
Considering that the Supreme Court has said that it is illegal not to allow people to have unsecured guns around your house, how do you figure you can pass a law that requires you to secure your guns? (see Heller and the discussion on trigger locks).
I don’t know if you are being snarky but well regulated in the context of the second amendment means well trained. Scalia has indicated that licensing and registration requirements are probably constitutional. He has ruled that requirements to secure firearms are not constitutional. Stop looking for whacky creative solutions that won’t work and are probably not constitutional and stick to the ones that probably will work and are probably constitutional. Insurance and storage requirements probably won’t work and are probably not constitutional while licensing and registration will have some effect and are probably constitutional.
Why the fuck would you do that? I have no interest in keeping a shipping container of cigarettes either but if I inherited them, I don’t think I’d have the health department pick them up for destruction.
BTW, why would owning guns give you trouble sleeping? Are you keeping them loaded and lying around the house? You do know that guns aren’t very lethal without bullets right?