Bull Ring What is “within reason” in relation to gun ownership: Saki & Dhunt

[sakinago]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

 

[JGalt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

Background Checks with no loopholes. This is not gun registration. The only record of this check kept on file by the Fire Arms Dealer who will destroy the record after X number of years depending on the State Laws. You want to buy a gun privately, both the buyer and seller heads over to the nearest gun dealer and gets the background check done. If you want to buy a gun at a gun show, there are enough FFL dealers there that can do instant background checks. In my state, the price for the check is regulated at 7 bucks.

If you don't follow the above method and obtain your gun anyway, you just committed a class 4 felony. Plus, the person that you either illegally bought it from or borrowed it from should be held accountable for any illegal act that you perform using that gun exactly as if they held that weapon. I didn't know should not be a defense. Actively pursue conviction of these people and give them nice long jail sentences even if no one was killed.

Make the min age to purchase guns 21 years old. Simple as that.

Stop with the Open Carry crap. I support the CCW all the way. But it's just too easy to get one these days. One of the classes is 4 hours long and you only dry fire your weapon. Hardly anyone fails that one. But many should have. The one I support is 3 days long and includes 100 rounds at an Active Target Range. This one has a high failure rate because MOST should not be carrying anything including a toaster. They leave the class that they failed and go to one of the milk toast classes and, poof, they are qualified with a CCW.

When transporting a long gun, have a reason like you are going hunting, taking to the gun shop, over to the neighbors, or to the target range or skeet or trap range. You can have it in your Gun Rack, in a Carrying Case or in your Trunk. But you should NEVER be walking down the street with a locked and loaded long gun of any kind. This makes the general public very nervous and doesn't do a thing to the bad guys when you are openly displaying locked and loaded long gun. To believe otherwise is just a sick fantasy.

Notice, I have not said a thing about having a gun in the Home for Home and Family defense. That is where you should be able to have a completely serviceable handgun on tap. How you store it is up to you. It's your home and your right.

And start getting the NRA and the other Organization (yes, Dorathy, there are only two) to stop with the frivilous law suits. I will admit that Heller V DC was not a frivolous lawsuit since it upheld your right to have a fully serviceable handgun in your home. But I watched the NRA go hog wild around here, spending Millions and lose their cases, sue to get 3 state reps recalled (2 stayed and 1 did not but was put back in the next election) and cost the Tax Pay millions we could have spent on Roads or Education. Make the loser pay.

We need to allow the states to exercise the 2nd and 10th amendment without fear of those frivilous lawsuits and being beaten up about it.

Common sense laws should do it. Otherwise, it if gets too bad, the gun grabbers start grabbing guns.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

 

[JGalt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

Meanwhile, the mass shootings by the 17 and 19 year olds were done by guns either borrowed or stolen from their parents. See my comments on that one.

A criminal could have just as well off bought those same weapons and used them for other than legal reasons. A little incovenience on your part just might save someone else's life.

You are a FFL holder so you don't have nearly the limits as the normal person. But you also follow the laws to obtain those weapons. Anyone can own almost anything with the proper FFL license.

 

[JGalt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

Meanwhile, the mass shootings by the 17 and 19 year olds were done by guns either borrowed or stolen from their parents. See my comments on that one.

A criminal could have just as well off bought those same weapons and used them for other than legal reasons. A little incovenience on your part just might save someone else's life.

You are a FFL holder so you don't have nearly the limits as the normal person. But you also follow the laws to obtain those weapons. Anyone can own almost anything with the proper FFL license.

I am not an FFL holder. Private sales are allowed at gun shows, or between two people for that matter. But it's a small town so I know everyone.

Come to think of it, the only firearm I've bought through channels is my AK-47. I've also carried a legal concealed G19 every day for the last 8 years.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

Meanwhile, the mass shootings by the 17 and 19 year olds were done by guns either borrowed or stolen from their parents. See my comments on that one.

A criminal could have just as well off bought those same weapons and used them for other than legal reasons. A little incovenience on your part just might save someone else's life.

You are a FFL holder so you don't have nearly the limits as the normal person. But you also follow the laws to obtain those weapons. Anyone can own almost anything with the proper FFL license.

I am not an FFL holder. Private sales are allowed at gun shows, or between two people for that matter. But it's a small town so I know everyone.

K, Lucy, Splain

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

Notice the trend. It's deviating quickly.

 

[JGalt]

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

Meanwhile, the mass shootings by the 17 and 19 year olds were done by guns either borrowed or stolen from their parents. See my comments on that one.

A criminal could have just as well off bought those same weapons and used them for other than legal reasons. A little incovenience on your part just might save someone else's life.

You are a FFL holder so you don't have nearly the limits as the normal person. But you also follow the laws to obtain those weapons. Anyone can own almost anything with the proper FFL license.

I am not an FFL holder. Private sales are allowed at gun shows, or between two people for that matter. But it's a small town so I know everyone.

K, Lucy, Splain

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

A lack of infringement in respect to gun ownership.

infringe: To violate or transgress. An encroachment.
An act that disregards an agreement or a right.

 

[JGalt]

It's already legal to own a firearm "within reason". The "reasonable" part of firearms ownership means that first, you are legally eligible to possess them, and second, that you use them "reasonably." In other words, safely, responsibly, and legally.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

I pickup a Thompson 45 the gun was one of the old military types sold for 45 dollars with a welded barrel that was sold in the last page of comic books back in the 50 s paid 22 bucks for it. Sold it to a gun collector for 400 bucks for parts.

 

[JGalt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

You mean the idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason”? If so, anything the military currently has, would be "reasonable", as long as that person is vetted.

To believe that only certain weapons should be legally available to citizens, would be the same as believing that the First Amendment only protects things printed on antiqued hand-operated printing presses.

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

I pickup a Thompson 45 the gun was one of the old military types sold for 45 dollars with a welded barrel that was sold in the last page of comic books back in the 50 s paid 22 bucks for it. Sold it to a gun collector for 400 bucks for parts.

I remember back in the 60's when you could buy all sorts of WW2 de-milled weapons like that: Mortars, antiquated artillery pieces and Bofors anti-aircraft guns.

Those things would be worth a fortune today.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do you mean that ANYTHING at all? Does that include 155mm Artillery, MOABs, and more? Doesn't sound too common sense to me. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

Does that automatically make me a criminal if I legally own them? I also disagree with the background check and paperwork for any purchase. I've bought 12 firearms so far this year at garage sales: They were not on the tables and I had to ask if that had any firearms. Most of the time the people who have them have no idea what they are or what they're worth. They were just some old rifle or pistol that their parents or grandparents owned, and they were happy to get them out of the house. The average price was between $20-$60 and I'll turn around and sell off what I don't want to keep, at the gun shows this fall.

Capitalism is great.

Meanwhile, the mass shootings by the 17 and 19 year olds were done by guns either borrowed or stolen from their parents. See my comments on that one.

A criminal could have just as well off bought those same weapons and used them for other than legal reasons. A little incovenience on your part just might save someone else's life.

You are a FFL holder so you don't have nearly the limits as the normal person. But you also follow the laws to obtain those weapons. Anyone can own almost anything with the proper FFL license.

I am not an FFL holder. Private sales are allowed at gun shows, or between two people for that matter. But it's a small town so I know everyone.

K, Lucy, Splain

Why not? I can already legally own full-auto or a hand grenade for that matter, if I wanted to pay the $200 tax stamp. Except that grenades are commercially unobtainable.

You are picking nits on this one. You have a NFA license. You aren't a dealer therefor, you don't have a full blown FFL and aren't required to actually sell guns to maintain your license. You have the personal version, the NFA that enables you to purchase Class 3 weapons and accessories for your own use. But unlike the FFL, you are not authorized to sell the Class 3 items to anyone not possessing either a NFA or a FFL. This has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's already legal to own a firearm "within reason". The "reasonable" part of firearms ownership means that first, you are legally eligible to possess them, and second, that you use them "reasonably." In other words, safely, responsibly, and legally.

The question is, what is a reasonable firearm? We already know that we have the reasonable right to own and possess as per where ever we are located at. But where to we draw the line at what is reasonable? And who draws that line?

 

[sakinago]

This is bull ring, only one other person invited. Peps, the rules aren’t that hard to follow. Watch to your hearts desire, but do not post. Start you’re own threads if you want, I don’t care. I went to go hang drywall for a couple of hours and saw that there were 15 messages. For a one on one, that shit shouldn’t happen, unless the person I invited posted 15 consecutive messages. Can I get an admin to delete anything else but Daryl Hunt. flacaltenn por favor

 

[sakinago]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

Background Checks with no loopholes. This is not gun registration. The only record of this check kept on file by the Fire Arms Dealer who will destroy the record after X number of years depending on the State Laws. You want to buy a gun privately, both the buyer and seller heads over to the nearest gun dealer and gets the background check done. If you want to buy a gun at a gun show, there are enough FFL dealers there that can do instant background checks. In my state, the price for the check is regulated at 7 bucks.

If you don't follow the above method and obtain your gun anyway, you just committed a class 4 felony. Plus, the person that you either illegally bought it from or borrowed it from should be held accountable for any illegal act that you perform using that gun exactly as if they held that weapon. I didn't know should not be a defense. Actively pursue conviction of these people and give them nice long jail sentences even if no one was killed.

Make the min age to purchase guns 21 years old. Simple as that.

Stop with the Open Carry crap. I support the CCW all the way. But it's just too easy to get one these days. One of the classes is 4 hours long and you only dry fire your weapon. Hardly anyone fails that one. But many should have. The one I support is 3 days long and includes 100 rounds at an Active Target Range. This one has a high failure rate because MOST should not be carrying anything including a toaster. They leave the class that they failed and go to one of the milk toast classes and, poof, they are qualified with a CCW.

When transporting a long gun, have a reason like you are going hunting, taking to the gun shop, over to the neighbors, or to the target range or skeet or trap range. You can have it in your Gun Rack, in a Carrying Case or in your Trunk. But you should NEVER be walking down the street with a locked and loaded long gun of any kind. This makes the general public very nervous and doesn't do a thing to the bad guys when you are openly displaying locked and loaded long gun. To believe otherwise is just a sick fantasy.

Notice, I have not said a thing about having a gun in the Home for Home and Family defense. That is where you should be able to have a completely serviceable handgun on tap. How you store it is up to you. It's your home and your right.

And start getting the NRA and the other Organization (yes, Dorathy, there are only two) to stop with the frivilous law suits. I will admit that Heller V DC was not a frivolous lawsuit since it upheld your right to have a fully serviceable handgun in your home. But I watched the NRA go hog wild around here, spending Millions and lose their cases, sue to get 3 state reps recalled (2 stayed and 1 did not but was put back in the next election) and cost the Tax Pay millions we could have spent on Roads or Education. Make the loser pay.

We need to allow the states to exercise the 2nd and 10th amendment without fear of those frivilous lawsuits and being beaten up about it.

Common sense laws should do it. Otherwise, it if gets too bad, the gun grabbers start grabbing guns.

Ok, just a heads up, I got as far as the “stop the open carry crap” paragraph, and am starting my response now. My brain works faster than I can type, and I will forget stuff if I do not get my points out now. I will read the rest, and then respond when I get a chance.

No matter what, universal backround checks require a universal registration. What you just described is a universal registration, with a time limit. This is a gun registration measure (that is what you described), the only difference is, you are inserting a middle man into the equation with a varying time limit. If I am a black arms dealer, and my state has a 5 year record keeping limit, I simply just front load, buy guns now and sit on them for 5 years...and then make even more on the “clean guns” I mark up for double the price. Simple supply and demand. If I am a criminal who wants to carry out naughty deeds, I just hide my gun better. I live downstream by a river from a city, I have found 3 guns in the river behind my house. One was a sawed off shotgun. Turned them into police, they couldn’t do jack bleep with them. Will it be slightly more of a pain in the ass for criminals, sure, I’ll give you that. But the laws of supply and demand will always prevail. All you’re going to do is make richer black market gun dealers and smarter criminals. Mexico has effectively banned guns, yet the drug cartels have more firepower than probably half of the national guard units of the US. If you wish for a different metaphor demonstrating the law of supply and demand, look to the war on drugs. All that has happened in the past 40 years is illegal drugs are more potent, more readily available, cheaper, and are now considered epidemics across the nation compared to previous years. LE technology has gotten better, Federal and State anti-drug units have ballooned, yet heroin and meth are dominating rural communities, where as before, the “epidemic” was limited to under privileged city communities. The one consequence we have absolutely seen is a violation in civil liberties due to the war on drugs. Civil asset forfeit siezure might be the most Un-American our government participates in currently. I don’t care if everybody and your mother knows you are a drug dealer, it needs to go to trial, and you need to get your money back if found innocent. Now the government is going after people like grandmas who don’t trust banks, or traveling Christian rock bands, or diner owners who operate with a lot of cash. You get pulled over, cop sees that cash, they take it, and you never see it again. It’s 100% BS. Point being, what sort of further civil rights violations are we going to see from a universal gun registration? I doubt Daryl Hunt is going to be leading the gun control department. The fed/state will use it to make money, or gain piolitical points at the expense of law abiding citizens in the name of “security”, just like they do with everything else’s

 

[flacaltenn]

To clarify "The Bull Ring". USMB has a lot of specialty forums for arranging different types of discussions. They all have different rules for participating. Some other examples are the Structured Debate forum (including Invite Only posting) and the Clean Debate Zone.

The BullRing is strictly one-on-one debate. No other participants. If you actually read the rules, you are supposed to arrange the TERMS of the debate in a separate forum provided for setting time/post limits, appointing judges and other stipulations.

You can get the details here; [ PLEASE READ ]The Bull Ring Guidelines/Rules

So if your name isn't Daryl Hunt or Sakinago --- you need to take a seat ring-side or arrange your OWN match card. You will be tossed from thread if you persist.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt,

What is your definition of “within reason” in respect to gun ownership?

Background Checks with no loopholes. This is not gun registration. The only record of this check kept on file by the Fire Arms Dealer who will destroy the record after X number of years depending on the State Laws. You want to buy a gun privately, both the buyer and seller heads over to the nearest gun dealer and gets the background check done. If you want to buy a gun at a gun show, there are enough FFL dealers there that can do instant background checks. In my state, the price for the check is regulated at 7 bucks.

If you don't follow the above method and obtain your gun anyway, you just committed a class 4 felony. Plus, the person that you either illegally bought it from or borrowed it from should be held accountable for any illegal act that you perform using that gun exactly as if they held that weapon. I didn't know should not be a defense. Actively pursue conviction of these people and give them nice long jail sentences even if no one was killed.

Make the min age to purchase guns 21 years old. Simple as that.

Stop with the Open Carry crap. I support the CCW all the way. But it's just too easy to get one these days. One of the classes is 4 hours long and you only dry fire your weapon. Hardly anyone fails that one. But many should have. The one I support is 3 days long and includes 100 rounds at an Active Target Range. This one has a high failure rate because MOST should not be carrying anything including a toaster. They leave the class that they failed and go to one of the milk toast classes and, poof, they are qualified with a CCW.

When transporting a long gun, have a reason like you are going hunting, taking to the gun shop, over to the neighbors, or to the target range or skeet or trap range. You can have it in your Gun Rack, in a Carrying Case or in your Trunk. But you should NEVER be walking down the street with a locked and loaded long gun of any kind. This makes the general public very nervous and doesn't do a thing to the bad guys when you are openly displaying locked and loaded long gun. To believe otherwise is just a sick fantasy.

Notice, I have not said a thing about having a gun in the Home for Home and Family defense. That is where you should be able to have a completely serviceable handgun on tap. How you store it is up to you. It's your home and your right.

And start getting the NRA and the other Organization (yes, Dorathy, there are only two) to stop with the frivilous law suits. I will admit that Heller V DC was not a frivolous lawsuit since it upheld your right to have a fully serviceable handgun in your home. But I watched the NRA go hog wild around here, spending Millions and lose their cases, sue to get 3 state reps recalled (2 stayed and 1 did not but was put back in the next election) and cost the Tax Pay millions we could have spent on Roads or Education. Make the loser pay.

We need to allow the states to exercise the 2nd and 10th amendment without fear of those frivilous lawsuits and being beaten up about it.

Common sense laws should do it. Otherwise, it if gets too bad, the gun grabbers start grabbing guns.

Ok, just a heads up, I got as far as the “stop the open carry crap” paragraph, and am starting my response now. My brain works faster than I can type, and I will forget stuff if I do not get my points out now. I will read the rest, and then respond when I get a chance.

No matter what, universal backround checks require a universal registration. What you just described is a universal registration, with a time limit. This is a gun registration measure (that is what you described), the only difference is, you are inserting a middle man into the equation with a varying time limit. If I am a black arms dealer, and my state has a 5 year record keeping limit, I simply just front load, buy guns now and sit on them for 5 years...and then make even more on the “clean guns” I mark up for double the price. Simple supply and demand. If I am a criminal who wants to carry out naughty deeds, I just hide my gun better. I live downstream by a river from a city, I have found 3 guns in the river behind my house. One was a sawed off shotgun. Turned them into police, they couldn’t do jack bleep with them. Will it be slightly more of a pain in the ass for criminals, sure, I’ll give you that. But the laws of supply and demand will always prevail. All you’re going to do is make richer black market gun dealers and smarter criminals. Mexico has effectively banned guns, yet the drug cartels have more firepower than probably half of the national guard units of the US. If you wish for a different metaphor demonstrating the law of supply and demand, look to the war on drugs. All that has happened in the past 40 years is illegal drugs are more potent, more readily available, cheaper, and are now considered epidemics across the nation compared to previous years. LE technology has gotten better, Federal and State anti-drug units have ballooned, yet heroin and meth are dominating rural communities, where as before, the “epidemic” was limited to under privileged city communities. The one consequence we have absolutely seen is a violation in civil liberties due to the war on drugs. Civil asset forfeit siezure might be the most Un-American our government participates in currently. I don’t care if everybody and your mother knows you are a drug dealer, it needs to go to trial, and you need to get your money back if found innocent. Now the government is going after people like grandmas who don’t trust banks, or traveling Christian rock bands, or diner owners who operate with a lot of cash. You get pulled over, cop sees that cash, they take it, and you never see it again. It’s 100% BS. Point being, what sort of further civil rights violations are we going to see from a universal gun registration? I doubt Daryl Hunt is going to be leading the gun control department. The fed/state will use it to make money, or gain piolitical points at the expense of law abiding citizens in the name of “security”, just like they do with everything else’s

The record is not kept in a computer nor is it forwarded upchannel. It is just to check to see if that person is eligible to purchase a firearm. The firearm itself is not upchanneled. Just the persons personal information. And that is a one way check. I can spend a buck seventy nine and get that information on anyone myself without doing a firearms check. it's public record. In fact, that buck seventy nine will give me the information on that person for the last 20 years or so. The Firearms Background check just deals with right now. And the only place that the new owner and the firearm is linked together is on the form that is filed temporarily with the Firearms Dealer who will destroy it at a given date.

It's not even close to universal gun registration. If the FBI or that ATF starts "Reviewing" those records, stand back Sally. There is going to be some heads role. And the ones leading the charge will be the Firearms Dealers themselves with both of us in the second row screaming for their heads. I doubt if they could even get a Federal Judge to issue that warrant to search those records without some pretty damned good reason. And even then, they are going to ask the Firearms Dealer to retrieve the specific record and not peruse the whole batch. Unless a specific crime has been committed by a specific person, the FBI or ATF has absolutely no legal reason to access those manual files. And then, they can only access the one that the Warrant specifically states by identity. I would like to be a fly on the wall when a Firearms Dealer calls the issuing Judge's Clerk and says they scanned his entire file. That's going to be one really pissed off Judge.