I was then talking about after I sell them, if I did sell them.
I don’t think I’d have trouble sleeping until the day I turned them in to the police. However, like with most people, I’d be safer with them out of the house.
Yes. That’s why I earlier floated the idea of limits on bullet sales.
I would probably cart them to the township dump.
Really? Are you suicidal or just overly dramatic?
What are your thoughts on alcoholic beverages? Would you suggest a partial prohibition on them the same as you would on guns and bullets? And why do you worry about bullets? Aren’t they harmless without a case, powder and primers?
Never. And since you might even be convicted of being a felon, not only you won’t get your gun back, but depending on the State you may never be allowed around a firearm again.
Either one is a responsible gun owner, and responsible for your piece or you’re not. How you secure your piece is up to you but you’re responsible for the results. It’s that whole “legal” gun owners are not responsible for jack and being unduly “punished” meme.
Analogy invalid since we don’t have a serious problem with people stealing legally owned dynamite to murder thousands of people every year.
Besides, dynamite is regulated much more than firearms: You first get a federal explosives license. You will need to prove three things: that you are a good person, that you need the license for professional reasons, and that you have a *safe, secure place to store your explosives *before you use them. After you have this, you contact an explosives supplier who will sell you the explosives you are licensed to have.
Holding you responsible if your weapon gets out of your house does not have any bearing on if you secure or don’t secure it at home. Regardless, you’re responsible for your weapon at some level until you report it stolen or sold to someone that passes the requirements.
It is far from clear what the “well regulated” part means and open to many interpretations including yours. This is far from settled by the Supremes.
Scalia indicates that licensing and registration are probably constitutional. As noted above, whether you secure your weapon or not doesn’t have to be spelled out, but that does not prevent passing laws that make a gun owner responsible if their piece gets out of their control. At a minimum some form of criminal negligence.
The old “If you didn’t wear a short skirt you wouldn’t get raped” argument huh?
Does the same rule apply for cars? If someone steals your car and crashes into someone else should you be held criminally liable?
Do you think Gil Kerlikowske the current drug czar should be a felon because someone stole a pistol out of his car when he was the Seattle chief of police?
And if Gil Kerlikowske can’t stop tons and tons of drugs from coming in, why do you think they would be able to stop a floodgate of machine guns (the most common and cheap) guns from coming in to fill that void?
And I will note you still have failed to show that bans and confiscation has ever lead to a decrease in crime and deaths.
What federal programs will we need to cut to fund this too? Canada’s long gun registration program cost over $2Billion to get running and $66.4 million a year to run. Even if we consider that is just for long guns and go linear with population (~10x) Where are you going to get that $20 Billion for once and more than half a billion per year to run the program?
That is $45,000 a year per murder if it could stop all of them!!!
And you still can’t show how we can hold someone criminally responsible for the unlawful acts of others at all.
Have you read Heller vs. DC? From the opinion:
(my bold)
Your implication that it is far from settled is false.
That being said, I have no problem with mandatory reporting of stolen weapons, with a reasonable time window and exceptions based on circumstances.
I have yet to see this answered.
I also want to thank you(China guy) for taking up the torch of gun control in such an obviously radical way
This is completely nuts. You want to charge the victim of a theft with a crime for getting robbed?
ETA: what’s next? rape victims go to jail for some variation of “incitement”?
Yeah, The list of unconstitutional laws on the books is long. Lets wait until someone actually gets charged with that after Heller and has the case taken up to the Supreme Court.
Wait!!! WHAT??? You would feel guilty for selling your guns to someone who could legally own them? WhY? The overwhelming majority of guns are never used in crime and if your grandfather had 50 guns, the vast majority of them are probably not even appropriate for criminal use (many guns used in crime used to be some variant of 38, now its probably a split of 38s and 9mm).
Bans and limits of this sort can’t work. The ammunition reloading (taking your spent casings and reloading it with a new primer, poder and bullet using a reloading press) market is just too vibrant (and the recent ammunition shortage has created millions more reloaders).
You can now use a 3D printer to make an AR-15 lower receiver (the only regulated part of the gun). They can fire hundreds of rounds withoutn failure.
You can now use a 3D printer to turn your regualr capacity magazine into a high capacity magazine.
/sigh you’re kind of missing the point.
Why would I be convicted of a felony? And why are you allowed to keep my property again?
If I am legally allowed to own dynamite and someone steals that dynamite from me because of my negligent storage of that dynamite and the thief uses the dynamite to kill a thousand people, I am not held responsible for those deaths. Why would you transfer criminal liability to me for the criminal acts of another. If you want a penalty for failure to secure my weapon then you can try to do so but I don’t know how such a requirement survives judicial scrutiny in light of Heller (where they overturned the DC requirement that guns in the home be secured by a trigger guard or some other security device).
Of course its a good analogy. Dynamite is significantly more dangerous than a firearm and the penalty for failure to secure that dynamite is limited to the crime of failing to secure the dynamite, we don’t charge them with whatever damage that is caused by the thief. What you are proposing is likely unconstitutional.
So? You still aren’t charging them with crimes committed by the thief that stole their negligently stored dynamite.
Nope. Not even if I leave it on a nightsand next to an open window. Not even if I knowingly sold it to a criminal. You can send me to jail for 10 or 20 years for selling him the gun but you can’t send me to jail for life as an accomplice to the 30 murders he commits with the gun.
You really should read the Heller opinion, its not that long.
Yeah I think that Scalia would probably hold that reasoanble licensing and registration requirements are constitutional as long as they are objective and issued on a “shall issue” basis.
You can TRY to pass some sort of criminal negligence law for failure to secure your weapon but it is likely unconstitutional. You cannot do indirectly that which you are forbidden from doing directly.
Neither do I (if you can formulate a rule that makes sense) but the penalty should not include the possibility of a conviction for multiple murders if thats what the thief does with your stolen firearm.
The problem i have with reasonable exceptions is that exceptions will almost always be found reasoanble for suburban white dudes who lose track of their guns and will almost never be found reasonable for poor minorities in urban areas. If you want a law, then pass a law that you are willing to enforce all the time or admit that its a crappy law.
Its more like charging the victim of car theft with drunk driving and manslaughter because they failed to report the stolen car before the thief ran over an elementary school with it. You are not being prosecuted for being the victim of a crime, youa re being prosecuted for failing to report that crime.
I agree. Your analogy is better, but it’s still a crazy idea.
I believe Kathleen Loviscek was recently charged in Chicago for firearm possession under the same provisions that were just declared unconstitutional in the 7th district in Moore vs. Madigan. I’m not sure I’m interpreting this correctly, but she’s being charged for violating a law that the court has ruled unconstitutional. How is that possible?
It’s a wonder any drug laws get enforced. Law enforcement would have to go undercover, pose as a drug buyer, arrest sellers in the act; it’ll never work.
This may be legal but it ain’t right, and it sure as hell is not responsible gun ownership.
Gun owners correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re responsible for your piece, you’re responsible for what you aim at and you’re responsible to treat every firearm as if it were loaded? Or am I missing something basic here beyond it’s been this way for a while and I love not being held accountable?
You’re missing something but I don’t think you’re helping yourself in the way you’re asking the question. You’ve seemed legitimately interested in the past so I’ll take a stab at it.
You are responsible for your weapon, correct. You’re responsible for for what you aim at, correct. All of the four rules of safety, check. You are not responsible for the actions of a person who steals your gun nor what they do with it. If you sell your gun to a criminal in an illegal way (you had knowledge they were a prohibited person) you are responsible for that sale and can be prosecuted for it. That is where your culpability ends. When that criminal later turns around and commits crimes, you are not responsible for those actions, the criminal is. Likewise, if that same person uses that illegally obtained firearm and saves the president by killing a ninja assassin, you don’t get credit for that either.
Gun owners should be held legally responsible for not securing their weapons against theft. They should not be held directly responsible for the crimes committed by the thief, but they should bear a legal penalty for not securing a weapon subsequently used in a crime.
Define “securing a weapon against theft”.
If it is stolen, you violated the law. You may secure your weapon any way you wish, but if it is stolen and subsequently used in a crime, you will be held legally responsible for not securing it. No inspections or gun locks required; just gun owners being held accountable for their weapons.
That would be unconstitutional, as per Heller. And yet another reason to be against universal license and registration - it would give people the opportunity to push for absurdities like that.
No, it does not violate Heller, as it does not require any locks or inspections, and it does not impede an individual’s right to bear arms. It simply enforces responsible gun ownership, entirely constitutional.