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

OP
sakinago

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
807
Points
185
What you are referring is called universal background checks, that’s just the term for requiring a background check for any and all gun transfer. For it to have an effect, ALL guns must be registered. All universal background checks do is make law abiding citizens jump through an extra hoop when a grandfather is giving a shotgun to their grandson. It does nothing to stop how guns are being purchased illegally today. My main point isn’t that it’ll lead to universal registration (although it probably will), it is that universal background checks do not work without gun registration. You have to know who owns what gun, and when that gun gets transferred. There is nothing stopping someone with a clean record buying for someone else. There’s nothing stopping an exchange of guns that only god know where they came from, from changing hands in a dark ally or parking lot. So why is there such a push for a measure that doesn’t even require secondary level thinking to realize that it won’t work? Ask yourself that.

Secondly, what is the point of having shopkeepers keeping paper ledgers of who they sold too? How on earth is that going to help LE find out how shooters bought their guns? Every time there’s a murder with a gun, is the DA going to go on the 5 o’clock news and say “we need all gun store owners to page through their ledgers to see if they can find this guys name.” Who has time for that? And in this political climate there i’d say there’s a pretty good incentive not to announce that you were the person who sold some asshole a gun, and then get demonized for it because you don’t have professor x’s superpowers and were just doing your job. Keeping a ledger does nothing to help the problem outside of making more work for people...who aren’t selling to those who don’t pass background checks guns anyways. For this “ledger” system to work, it would at the bare minimum need to be digital, and LE would either need a rubber stamp supbeana of all gun shops in the area (better hope assailiants didn’t buy their guns elsewhere), or be linked directly to an LE database. This is effectively gun registration, with a middleman. These would be the steps one would need to take to make your propositions actually viable. Also the same point in the first paragraph applies to this ledger scanario as well, this does nothing to stop the selling of guns illegally already in circulation pre-policy, or purchased by someone with a clean record. Again, why the push for ineffective policy?

Third, the stats behind people who don’t pass background checks are pretty damning themselves. I believe out of the 12 or so million denied due to failing a test, only 2% were actually the felon or whatever other crimes failed them. The rest are all cases mistaken identities because they share the same name as a felon, and it actually adversely effects law abiding blacks trying to purchase. The reason being, there is a lot of identical names among ethnic groups of people, doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are. In the case of the US, where some 30% of the male African American population are felons (these are just raw stats here, no implications), there are going to be a lot of black males being denied for no reason.
You are linking the gun registration to the background check. It's apples and oranges. As long as the background check does not have the information of the gun itself on the inquiry then it can not be called a gun registration which would be illegal. It only looks at the current background of the purchaser and not what they are purchasing. It would take some mighty tall and difficult legislation to get those two linked together and I don't see that coming anytime soon. You are just trying to cause fear where there isn't a problem.

The gun can be tracked directly to the gun shop that sold it. The Gun Shop Dealer can go in and identify who purchased the gun as long as there is a court order ordering him to do so. The Authorities cannot directly access all his paper files. But the Gun Dealer, under court order, will have to present that one document on that specific purchaser. That's the way it is now and it's a good system. Not Court Order, no individual record produced. BTW, all guns ARE registered at the factory and tracked throughout their history up to and including the Gun Dealers. After that, the tracking ends. What the Universal Background Check gives you is a way to track one specific gun past that through a specific background check with the proper court order. And it's pretty well known it's going to take a Federal Judge to issue that court order and a Local Judge can tie it up if he feels it's not lawful. It becomes a State issue after that. The system already works but we can make it a bit better.

As for Felons, regardless of color, if your state does not allow convicted felons to own guns then take it up with the state. If you are a felon procuring guns outside of the normal methods you are already a criminal and probably need to be sent back to prison. If the State Law is found to be invalid through a Vote or Legislation then that's another thing. I know a number of Felons that would like to own guns but don't. But in this state, you can be a felon that has not been convicted of a violent crime and own a gun after so much time has passed. If your state is different, get it changed if you feel strongly about it. You are trying to make it a Black and White issue, it's not. It's a Felon V Innocent Citizen issue.
I am linking universal background checks with gun registration because universal background checks are 100% unenforceable laws without gun registration. You’re asking all of society to participate in an honor system with universal background checks. Law abiding citizens will, criminals will not. What is the point of asking criminals to jeopardize their enterprise when they don’t have too? There is no hurdle for them to jump over that they are not already jumping over. That’s the main question with universal background checks.
It is enforceable. Get caught selling that way or buying that way and it's a class 4 felony. And you lose your gun rights for life after a brief visit to the pokey. Very few sales are made that way in this state. And fewer each year.
LE isn’t catching them now. How is this policy going to increase the rate law enforcement can stop person to person sales without a gun registry? Here’s how a scenario would go.
LE: “where did you get this gun?”
Suspect: “I got it as a gift 10 years ago from my pops (or insert any other easily conjurable excuse).
LE: “Ok, have a nice day (since I have no gun registry to compare your story to what is reality).
Well, if it was manufactured newer than the law then you just lost the gun and probably lost your gun rights at the same time. It takes time to catch up. But it does catch up sooner or later. It took about 10 years to get rid of the Thompson MG from circulation after the 1934 Firearms Act. Attrition works.
What you propose would again only apply to non criminals. You proposed that gun shop owners keep a ledger, with a state to state time period for keeping that ledger. Let’s say a “reasonable”’time period for keeping a ledger is 10 years of record keeping (this isn’t all that reasonable considering if you’ve owned a gun for 9 years, chances are extremely low you’ll commit a crime with it on the 10th year). So I buy a 11 year old gun, and say I got it for some other shop when it was hot off the assembly line. Oh too bad, no record for it there, sorry officer.

This is why you need a gun registry. If you have a gun registry, LE has something to compare your story too. Were taking about every single gun circulating in the US, not just one type of gun. There are more privately owned guns in the US than there are people in the US. It’s not like scrapping a gun is more profitable than selling it.

There also no way to know someone lost their gun without a gun registry. If I lost my gun hiking in the woods, I’m not going to turn myself into the police station for that if they have no way to know that I owned that gun.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,052
Reaction score
1,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
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.
Addressing your OP paragraph on open carry. CCW holders have a lower negligent discharge rate than police do. I think you hold a false characterization, or generalization of gun owners as irresponsible, the basic white trash hick getting loaded on jack while waiting for the racoons to raid their chicken coop. Those people certainly exist. Those people also become cops with plenty of firearms training.

What is the problem with open carry??? This argument makes no sense. If anything, concealed carry should be outlawed (it shouldn’t). It’s the whole, if you have nothing to hide concept. Wouldn’t you want to know whose armed. Again I think you have a skewed view of guns and gun owners in general. Your point on open carry implies that if you open carry you intend to harm, or display dominance. Who cares? The only thing that matters is what you do with the gun. The dousch in a Porsche doesn’t bother me (other than the fact I think they’re probably a dousch), until they drive that Porsche in a manner than threatens my life or those around me. Then they cross over into the threshold of that becoming a crime. The open carry guy doesn’t bother me until they threaten me with that gun, which is a crime. Porsch is to reckless driving as gun is to reckless endangerment. You’re assuming motives, just like I’d be assuming motives if I see you in a Porsche and think you’re a dousch.
CCW carriers also only carry about 1/4th of the time. The figures used are inflated due to that fact. And the CCW carriers are more reluctant to pull that weapon than a cop is. The CCW carrier knows he walks a fine line even carrying the gun. So he is in his own class. One that is the safest. Just short of one that doesn't carry at all. I totally support LTC(CCW) as long as it's not that stupid 4 hour class where you get to load a few dummy rounds into your gun and, poof, you are a CCW licensee. I do support the 3 day course where you put 100 rounds of live ammo through your weapon (and you start calling it weapon instead of a gun at that point).

A few weeks ago, at a school fund raiser, some idiot shot his weapon but luckily didn't kill anyone. Although there was no law that said he couldn't have the gun there, there was alcohol involved (inside him). Open carry means that it's too easy for a knuckle buster to increase to a shootout. They learned that in 1871 and it's as true then as it is today. And you don't have to be drunk to get into something like that. Just get into a heated argument that might go into a knuckle buster that can be controlled easily. You use your gun instead which takes it completely out of control fast. Again, something learned in 1871 and is still true today.

The problem is, no gun regulation is no better than total gun outlawing. And if you don't take into consideration that Public Safety falls under this venue then you are pushing for no gun regulation and the Wild Wild West only lasted from 1866 to 1871 when they started passing local gun regulations in protection of the public. BTW, that no open carry law stood in Dallas Tx for more than 130 years. But even the Dallas Tx law requires you to have a CCW to carry either a concealed or open weapon and has a lot of restrictions on where and when you can carry either.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,052
Reaction score
1,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
You are linking the gun registration to the background check. It's apples and oranges. As long as the background check does not have the information of the gun itself on the inquiry then it can not be called a gun registration which would be illegal. It only looks at the current background of the purchaser and not what they are purchasing. It would take some mighty tall and difficult legislation to get those two linked together and I don't see that coming anytime soon. You are just trying to cause fear where there isn't a problem.

The gun can be tracked directly to the gun shop that sold it. The Gun Shop Dealer can go in and identify who purchased the gun as long as there is a court order ordering him to do so. The Authorities cannot directly access all his paper files. But the Gun Dealer, under court order, will have to present that one document on that specific purchaser. That's the way it is now and it's a good system. Not Court Order, no individual record produced. BTW, all guns ARE registered at the factory and tracked throughout their history up to and including the Gun Dealers. After that, the tracking ends. What the Universal Background Check gives you is a way to track one specific gun past that through a specific background check with the proper court order. And it's pretty well known it's going to take a Federal Judge to issue that court order and a Local Judge can tie it up if he feels it's not lawful. It becomes a State issue after that. The system already works but we can make it a bit better.

As for Felons, regardless of color, if your state does not allow convicted felons to own guns then take it up with the state. If you are a felon procuring guns outside of the normal methods you are already a criminal and probably need to be sent back to prison. If the State Law is found to be invalid through a Vote or Legislation then that's another thing. I know a number of Felons that would like to own guns but don't. But in this state, you can be a felon that has not been convicted of a violent crime and own a gun after so much time has passed. If your state is different, get it changed if you feel strongly about it. You are trying to make it a Black and White issue, it's not. It's a Felon V Innocent Citizen issue.
I am linking universal background checks with gun registration because universal background checks are 100% unenforceable laws without gun registration. You’re asking all of society to participate in an honor system with universal background checks. Law abiding citizens will, criminals will not. What is the point of asking criminals to jeopardize their enterprise when they don’t have too? There is no hurdle for them to jump over that they are not already jumping over. That’s the main question with universal background checks.
It is enforceable. Get caught selling that way or buying that way and it's a class 4 felony. And you lose your gun rights for life after a brief visit to the pokey. Very few sales are made that way in this state. And fewer each year.
LE isn’t catching them now. How is this policy going to increase the rate law enforcement can stop person to person sales without a gun registry? Here’s how a scenario would go.
LE: “where did you get this gun?”
Suspect: “I got it as a gift 10 years ago from my pops (or insert any other easily conjurable excuse).
LE: “Ok, have a nice day (since I have no gun registry to compare your story to what is reality).
Well, if it was manufactured newer than the law then you just lost the gun and probably lost your gun rights at the same time. It takes time to catch up. But it does catch up sooner or later. It took about 10 years to get rid of the Thompson MG from circulation after the 1934 Firearms Act. Attrition works.
What you propose would again only apply to non criminals. You proposed that gun shop owners keep a ledger, with a state to state time period for keeping that ledger. Let’s say a “reasonable”’time period for keeping a ledger is 10 years of record keeping (this isn’t all that reasonable considering if you’ve owned a gun for 9 years, chances are extremely low you’ll commit a crime with it on the 10th year). So I buy a 11 year old gun, and say I got it for some other shop when it was hot off the assembly line. Oh too bad, no record for it there, sorry officer.

This is why you need a gun registry. If you have a gun registry, LE has something to compare your story too. Were taking about every single gun circulating in the US, not just one type of gun. There are more privately owned guns in the US than there are people in the US. It’s not like scrapping a gun is more profitable than selling it.

There also no way to know someone lost their gun without a gun registry. If I lost my gun hiking in the woods, I’m not going to turn myself into the police station for that if they have no way to know that I owned that gun.
If you have a brain in your head, if you have your gun lost or stolen, you had better report it post haste. If someone uses it in committing a felony and it turns up, you will be held liable civilly at the very least.

ALL guns made in the last hundred years are already in a Gun Registry. That is a Federal Law. They all can be tracked each and every time they go into a retail or wholesale situation. They HAVE to be reported by whomever has the gun license. And the first gun registry was done by the factory right after the manufacture. It's people that are not tracked unless you use the gun in a crime. Yes, some states require the gun to be registered along with the person but we don't here. Only the Gun is registered. Again, if you don't like the law, get it changed or move to a state more to your liking as per Federal Judge Young in NRA V Massachusetts. The only time the background check will become an issue if that gun is used in a crime and they come to the last place it was sold by a gun dealer and have a court order of at least a State Judge so that one single form can be viewed. Only then can they link the actual gun to a person. Yes, it's hard on the LE, but it's supposed to be.
 
OP
sakinago

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
807
Points
185
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.
Addressing your OP paragraph on open carry. CCW holders have a lower negligent discharge rate than police do. I think you hold a false characterization, or generalization of gun owners as irresponsible, the basic white trash hick getting loaded on jack while waiting for the racoons to raid their chicken coop. Those people certainly exist. Those people also become cops with plenty of firearms training.

What is the problem with open carry??? This argument makes no sense. If anything, concealed carry should be outlawed (it shouldn’t). It’s the whole, if you have nothing to hide concept. Wouldn’t you want to know whose armed. Again I think you have a skewed view of guns and gun owners in general. Your point on open carry implies that if you open carry you intend to harm, or display dominance. Who cares? The only thing that matters is what you do with the gun. The dousch in a Porsche doesn’t bother me (other than the fact I think they’re probably a dousch), until they drive that Porsche in a manner than threatens my life or those around me. Then they cross over into the threshold of that becoming a crime. The open carry guy doesn’t bother me until they threaten me with that gun, which is a crime. Porsch is to reckless driving as gun is to reckless endangerment. You’re assuming motives, just like I’d be assuming motives if I see you in a Porsche and think you’re a dousch.
CCW carriers also only carry about 1/4th of the time. The figures used are inflated due to that fact. And the CCW carriers are more reluctant to pull that weapon than a cop is. The CCW carrier knows he walks a fine line even carrying the gun. So he is in his own class. One that is the safest. Just short of one that doesn't carry at all. I totally support LTC(CCW) as long as it's not that stupid 4 hour class where you get to load a few dummy rounds into your gun and, poof, you are a CCW licensee. I do support the 3 day course where you put 100 rounds of live ammo through your weapon (and you start calling it weapon instead of a gun at that point).

A few weeks ago, at a school fund raiser, some idiot shot his weapon but luckily didn't kill anyone. Although there was no law that said he couldn't have the gun there, there was alcohol involved (inside him). Open carry means that it's too easy for a knuckle buster to increase to a shootout. They learned that in 1871 and it's as true then as it is today. And you don't have to be drunk to get into something like that. Just get into a heated argument that might go into a knuckle buster that can be controlled easily. You use your gun instead which takes it completely out of control fast. Again, something learned in 1871 and is still true today.

The problem is, no gun regulation is no better than total gun outlawing. And if you don't take into consideration that Public Safety falls under this venue then you are pushing for no gun regulation and the Wild Wild West only lasted from 1866 to 1871 when they started passing local gun regulations in protection of the public. BTW, that no open carry law stood in Dallas Tx for more than 130 years. But even the Dallas Tx law requires you to have a CCW to carry either a concealed or open weapon and has a lot of restrictions on where and when you can carry either.
I know more than a handful of CCW’s who carry everywhere they can, although that is anecdotal evidence which I’m not a fan of. But yes it is true that they probably carry less, however it is still a stat that contrasts to your assertion that people should be properly trained in order to get a CCW. People should be properly trained to drive a Porsche or jetski. Porsche’s are basically rockets attached to light chassis, with an engine block hanging off the ass. That’s not a very safe set up according to Newton and inertia. Paul walker died (Educated guess) breaking around a turn in a Porsche, that engine block probably kept pushing that car straight. Jet-skis require gas to turn, extremely counter-intuitive to the lay jet-ski renter flying around the bay on a water rocket their first time. Point being these things are dangerous items too when not properly trained, more dangerous than guns (much easier to be safe with a gun than a Porsche or jet ski, finger off trigger, safety on, dont point rudely). Yet we don’t require specialized training for these items because tragedies that arise are rare enough that no one really cares. They’re rare tragedies that happen far more often than gun accidents, by a very wide margin. There’s a lot more guns out there in the hands of private citizens without any “formal” training than there are jet-skis or sports cars. There are also a lot more gun owners out there than there are sports car and jet-ski owners.

And we already have some 6 or more states with open carry policies to look at. You assume that they’ll devolve into the Wild West, but you should have the stats to back that up. Where’s the correlation of the increase of bar fights turning into shootouts? Don’t give me assumptions, give me stats. I can’t do anything with assumptions.

Also the Wild West is hardly a fair comparison to today. Our societal infrastructure (including things like LE) is pretty universal in the US now compared to back then. Back then there were settlements in their infancy in the middle of nowhere, where the sociopaths, psychopaths, and anti-social PD’s found a haven in the outskirts of these settlements that had no good counter to criminals and highwaymen. The criminals could get away with hit and runs, ride off into the hills, and there wasn’t much of anything that authorities could easily do about it since there was almost infinite places for criminals to hide. The new settlements also attracted people crazy enough to take a dangerous journey across country by horse so that they could hopefully strike it rich where there isn’t much of a social infrastructure to lean on and offer protection like there was in the east. That attracts a different kind of person. Some of those crazy folks were the those like the Earpps, a good amount were probably the not so savory types in the east who saw some opportunity. It was a very transitional period of expansion back then, where the social and cultural structures that give order to society, couldn’t keep up. That attracted a lot of people who could take advantage of that. We do not have that problem today.
 
OP
sakinago

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
807
Points
185
I am linking universal background checks with gun registration because universal background checks are 100% unenforceable laws without gun registration. You’re asking all of society to participate in an honor system with universal background checks. Law abiding citizens will, criminals will not. What is the point of asking criminals to jeopardize their enterprise when they don’t have too? There is no hurdle for them to jump over that they are not already jumping over. That’s the main question with universal background checks.
It is enforceable. Get caught selling that way or buying that way and it's a class 4 felony. And you lose your gun rights for life after a brief visit to the pokey. Very few sales are made that way in this state. And fewer each year.
LE isn’t catching them now. How is this policy going to increase the rate law enforcement can stop person to person sales without a gun registry? Here’s how a scenario would go.
LE: “where did you get this gun?”
Suspect: “I got it as a gift 10 years ago from my pops (or insert any other easily conjurable excuse).
LE: “Ok, have a nice day (since I have no gun registry to compare your story to what is reality).
Well, if it was manufactured newer than the law then you just lost the gun and probably lost your gun rights at the same time. It takes time to catch up. But it does catch up sooner or later. It took about 10 years to get rid of the Thompson MG from circulation after the 1934 Firearms Act. Attrition works.
What you propose would again only apply to non criminals. You proposed that gun shop owners keep a ledger, with a state to state time period for keeping that ledger. Let’s say a “reasonable”’time period for keeping a ledger is 10 years of record keeping (this isn’t all that reasonable considering if you’ve owned a gun for 9 years, chances are extremely low you’ll commit a crime with it on the 10th year). So I buy a 11 year old gun, and say I got it for some other shop when it was hot off the assembly line. Oh too bad, no record for it there, sorry officer.

This is why you need a gun registry. If you have a gun registry, LE has something to compare your story too. Were taking about every single gun circulating in the US, not just one type of gun. There are more privately owned guns in the US than there are people in the US. It’s not like scrapping a gun is more profitable than selling it.

There also no way to know someone lost their gun without a gun registry. If I lost my gun hiking in the woods, I’m not going to turn myself into the police station for that if they have no way to know that I owned that gun.
If you have a brain in your head, if you have your gun lost or stolen, you had better report it post haste. If someone uses it in committing a felony and it turns up, you will be held liable civilly at the very least.

ALL guns made in the last hundred years are already in a Gun Registry. That is a Federal Law. They all can be tracked each and every time they go into a retail or wholesale situation. They HAVE to be reported by whomever has the gun license. And the first gun registry was done by the factory right after the manufacture. It's people that are not tracked unless you use the gun in a crime. Yes, some states require the gun to be registered along with the person but we don't here. Only the Gun is registered. Again, if you don't like the law, get it changed or move to a state more to your liking as per Federal Judge Young in NRA V Massachusetts. The only time the background check will become an issue if that gun is used in a crime and they come to the last place it was sold by a gun dealer and have a court order of at least a State Judge so that one single form can be viewed. Only then can they link the actual gun to a person. Yes, it's hard on the LE, but it's supposed to be.
I don’t think the issue is whether or not I like the law, it’s whether or not that law violates a higher order of law, being the constitution/BOR. It’s a “paper covers rock” issue. This I what I mean by rule of law, what’s the point of having a constitution of government is just going to ignore it anyway?
 
OP
sakinago

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
807
Points
185
What you are referring is called universal background checks, that’s just the term for requiring a background check for any and all gun transfer. For it to have an effect, ALL guns must be registered. All universal background checks do is make law abiding citizens jump through an extra hoop when a grandfather is giving a shotgun to their grandson. It does nothing to stop how guns are being purchased illegally today. My main point isn’t that it’ll lead to universal registration (although it probably will), it is that universal background checks do not work without gun registration. You have to know who owns what gun, and when that gun gets transferred. There is nothing stopping someone with a clean record buying for someone else. There’s nothing stopping an exchange of guns that only god know where they came from, from changing hands in a dark ally or parking lot. So why is there such a push for a measure that doesn’t even require secondary level thinking to realize that it won’t work? Ask yourself that.

Secondly, what is the point of having shopkeepers keeping paper ledgers of who they sold too? How on earth is that going to help LE find out how shooters bought their guns? Every time there’s a murder with a gun, is the DA going to go on the 5 o’clock news and say “we need all gun store owners to page through their ledgers to see if they can find this guys name.” Who has time for that? And in this political climate there i’d say there’s a pretty good incentive not to announce that you were the person who sold some asshole a gun, and then get demonized for it because you don’t have professor x’s superpowers and were just doing your job. Keeping a ledger does nothing to help the problem outside of making more work for people...who aren’t selling to those who don’t pass background checks guns anyways. For this “ledger” system to work, it would at the bare minimum need to be digital, and LE would either need a rubber stamp supbeana of all gun shops in the area (better hope assailiants didn’t buy their guns elsewhere), or be linked directly to an LE database. This is effectively gun registration, with a middleman. These would be the steps one would need to take to make your propositions actually viable. Also the same point in the first paragraph applies to this ledger scanario as well, this does nothing to stop the selling of guns illegally already in circulation pre-policy, or purchased by someone with a clean record. Again, why the push for ineffective policy?

Third, the stats behind people who don’t pass background checks are pretty damning themselves. I believe out of the 12 or so million denied due to failing a test, only 2% were actually the felon or whatever other crimes failed them. The rest are all cases mistaken identities because they share the same name as a felon, and it actually adversely effects law abiding blacks trying to purchase. The reason being, there is a lot of identical names among ethnic groups of people, doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are. In the case of the US, where some 30% of the male African American population are felons (these are just raw stats here, no implications), there are going to be a lot of black males being denied for no reason.
You are linking the gun registration to the background check. It's apples and oranges. As long as the background check does not have the information of the gun itself on the inquiry then it can not be called a gun registration which would be illegal. It only looks at the current background of the purchaser and not what they are purchasing. It would take some mighty tall and difficult legislation to get those two linked together and I don't see that coming anytime soon. You are just trying to cause fear where there isn't a problem.

The gun can be tracked directly to the gun shop that sold it. The Gun Shop Dealer can go in and identify who purchased the gun as long as there is a court order ordering him to do so. The Authorities cannot directly access all his paper files. But the Gun Dealer, under court order, will have to present that one document on that specific purchaser. That's the way it is now and it's a good system. Not Court Order, no individual record produced. BTW, all guns ARE registered at the factory and tracked throughout their history up to and including the Gun Dealers. After that, the tracking ends. What the Universal Background Check gives you is a way to track one specific gun past that through a specific background check with the proper court order. And it's pretty well known it's going to take a Federal Judge to issue that court order and a Local Judge can tie it up if he feels it's not lawful. It becomes a State issue after that. The system already works but we can make it a bit better.

As for Felons, regardless of color, if your state does not allow convicted felons to own guns then take it up with the state. If you are a felon procuring guns outside of the normal methods you are already a criminal and probably need to be sent back to prison. If the State Law is found to be invalid through a Vote or Legislation then that's another thing. I know a number of Felons that would like to own guns but don't. But in this state, you can be a felon that has not been convicted of a violent crime and own a gun after so much time has passed. If your state is different, get it changed if you feel strongly about it. You are trying to make it a Black and White issue, it's not. It's a Felon V Innocent Citizen issue.
I didn’t make it a black and white issue. It’s a consequence I am pointing out of ineffective background checks. It screws over unlucky people through no fault of their own, and a very large majority of those people screwed over just happen to be black.

So you’ve temporarily placed a roadblock for the stupid enough 2% of people who have not passed background checks. That is not an effective law. That’s a very counter-effective law. It screws over 98% if the people it enforced on.

Laws should have a good level of efficacy should they not? If they do not, and instead screw over innocent people. They are not good policy. Unless you carry an “the ends justify the means” mentality. If that’s the case, then we are philosophically opposed. What’s the point of universal background checks when at least 99% of the target population won’t follow it? You could get into the argument of, “if that 1% saves lives” , but we both know that those who advocate for gun control will not be satisfied with a mere 1%. You personally may not be in that category of not being satisfied, but I think it’s fair to say you’d represent a small minority.
There you go again. Background checks are not linked to Gun registration. You keep linking the two together. Again, the background checks don't even have the mention of the gun on the form. It's strictly the public background check on the buyer. And as it stands now, if a person wants to backdoor the system, they just go ahead and do it. Since the weapon isn't tracked after the legit retail sale, it can easily land in some really stupid criminals hands.

Then you go off on the 1 or 2 percent that can't pass a background check. If they have been misidentified, there are avenues to fix that. If they are a convicted felon for something not violent, get your state law changed. If they have been convicted or on trial for a violent crime, I don't want them to walk into a gun show and purchase a gun. If they are under shrink care for almost beating their wife and kids to death, this is not one I want to own a gun so he can easily finish the job. Gun checking stops stupid people from getting guns that do stupid things with them. Smart people know someone with guns out the back of a buick. Stupid people find Feds selling guns out of the back of a buick.

We can't stop all crime nor arrest all criminals. We fix what we can when we can where we can. If it means that you have to do a background check for that new 9mm, the next time that liquor store is not held up at gun point by an inept criminal should thank you.

BTW, in Colorado, ALL gun sales, the person has to go through a background check. No exceptions. And yes, I know of at least one or two people that I can buy a handgun from that will sell it without a background check. I won't buy from them because that would be breaking the law. They seem to not be able to sell their handguns these days. Of course, sooner or later, someone is going to tip off the authorities and it's bye bye due to the Buy Buy for them.
You’re not answering my question. How do you enforce universal background checks? In other words, how do universal background checks help curb person to person gun transfers, particularly among the criminal? Think this through.
Last year, in Colorado, there were 174 failed Background checks. Out of those, 34 felons were returned to prison. That's 34 stupid criminals no longer on the streets. There is nothing that can be done about the smart criminals because they know how to get around the laws but they are also the least likely to get violent during a quickymart holdup due to a stupid blunder. We do what we can do and not cry over what we can't do. To make laws or not make laws over the things you have no control or no hope of controlling is just bad governing.
Yea but the road isn’t going to end where you are claiming it will end if the laws have very little efficacy. These laws are being pushed by people who call themselves progressives...because they want to progressively move in a certain direction, one step at a time.

You could call that out as a slippery slope fallacy. But the slippery slope fallacy is the one I criticize the less because there are tons of examples of it throughout history to look too. We’ve seen things like the milgram experiment that should challenge the thought that “humans are generally good.” In the case of gun control, there are plenty of prominent progressive leaders who clearly do not want to end at the “common sense” measures they push for. Some state that publicly and openly, Obama himself advocated for Australian type gun control. I’m pretty sure he’s not in the minority of progressives with that view. Universal background checks are only effective (we’ll say effective enough to be safe) with gun registration. It’s a Swiss cheese law that is more air than it is cheese. A couple of years after it would pass, progressives will begin to move the Overton window, and say “well of course it didn’t work, we need gun registration.” This is just the nature of progressivism, the philosophy is to use government structure society to their liking one step at a time. I think progressives would agree with that characterization.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,052
Reaction score
1,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
You are linking the gun registration to the background check. It's apples and oranges. As long as the background check does not have the information of the gun itself on the inquiry then it can not be called a gun registration which would be illegal. It only looks at the current background of the purchaser and not what they are purchasing. It would take some mighty tall and difficult legislation to get those two linked together and I don't see that coming anytime soon. You are just trying to cause fear where there isn't a problem.

The gun can be tracked directly to the gun shop that sold it. The Gun Shop Dealer can go in and identify who purchased the gun as long as there is a court order ordering him to do so. The Authorities cannot directly access all his paper files. But the Gun Dealer, under court order, will have to present that one document on that specific purchaser. That's the way it is now and it's a good system. Not Court Order, no individual record produced. BTW, all guns ARE registered at the factory and tracked throughout their history up to and including the Gun Dealers. After that, the tracking ends. What the Universal Background Check gives you is a way to track one specific gun past that through a specific background check with the proper court order. And it's pretty well known it's going to take a Federal Judge to issue that court order and a Local Judge can tie it up if he feels it's not lawful. It becomes a State issue after that. The system already works but we can make it a bit better.

As for Felons, regardless of color, if your state does not allow convicted felons to own guns then take it up with the state. If you are a felon procuring guns outside of the normal methods you are already a criminal and probably need to be sent back to prison. If the State Law is found to be invalid through a Vote or Legislation then that's another thing. I know a number of Felons that would like to own guns but don't. But in this state, you can be a felon that has not been convicted of a violent crime and own a gun after so much time has passed. If your state is different, get it changed if you feel strongly about it. You are trying to make it a Black and White issue, it's not. It's a Felon V Innocent Citizen issue.
I didn’t make it a black and white issue. It’s a consequence I am pointing out of ineffective background checks. It screws over unlucky people through no fault of their own, and a very large majority of those people screwed over just happen to be black.

So you’ve temporarily placed a roadblock for the stupid enough 2% of people who have not passed background checks. That is not an effective law. That’s a very counter-effective law. It screws over 98% if the people it enforced on.

Laws should have a good level of efficacy should they not? If they do not, and instead screw over innocent people. They are not good policy. Unless you carry an “the ends justify the means” mentality. If that’s the case, then we are philosophically opposed. What’s the point of universal background checks when at least 99% of the target population won’t follow it? You could get into the argument of, “if that 1% saves lives” , but we both know that those who advocate for gun control will not be satisfied with a mere 1%. You personally may not be in that category of not being satisfied, but I think it’s fair to say you’d represent a small minority.
There you go again. Background checks are not linked to Gun registration. You keep linking the two together. Again, the background checks don't even have the mention of the gun on the form. It's strictly the public background check on the buyer. And as it stands now, if a person wants to backdoor the system, they just go ahead and do it. Since the weapon isn't tracked after the legit retail sale, it can easily land in some really stupid criminals hands.

Then you go off on the 1 or 2 percent that can't pass a background check. If they have been misidentified, there are avenues to fix that. If they are a convicted felon for something not violent, get your state law changed. If they have been convicted or on trial for a violent crime, I don't want them to walk into a gun show and purchase a gun. If they are under shrink care for almost beating their wife and kids to death, this is not one I want to own a gun so he can easily finish the job. Gun checking stops stupid people from getting guns that do stupid things with them. Smart people know someone with guns out the back of a buick. Stupid people find Feds selling guns out of the back of a buick.

We can't stop all crime nor arrest all criminals. We fix what we can when we can where we can. If it means that you have to do a background check for that new 9mm, the next time that liquor store is not held up at gun point by an inept criminal should thank you.

BTW, in Colorado, ALL gun sales, the person has to go through a background check. No exceptions. And yes, I know of at least one or two people that I can buy a handgun from that will sell it without a background check. I won't buy from them because that would be breaking the law. They seem to not be able to sell their handguns these days. Of course, sooner or later, someone is going to tip off the authorities and it's bye bye due to the Buy Buy for them.
You’re not answering my question. How do you enforce universal background checks? In other words, how do universal background checks help curb person to person gun transfers, particularly among the criminal? Think this through.
Last year, in Colorado, there were 174 failed Background checks. Out of those, 34 felons were returned to prison. That's 34 stupid criminals no longer on the streets. There is nothing that can be done about the smart criminals because they know how to get around the laws but they are also the least likely to get violent during a quickymart holdup due to a stupid blunder. We do what we can do and not cry over what we can't do. To make laws or not make laws over the things you have no control or no hope of controlling is just bad governing.
Yea but the road isn’t going to end where you are claiming it will end if the laws have very little efficacy. These laws are being pushed by people who call themselves progressives...because they want to progressively move in a certain direction, one step at a time.

You could call that out as a slippery slope fallacy. But the slippery slope fallacy is the one I criticize the less because there are tons of examples of it throughout history to look too. We’ve seen things like the milgram experiment that should challenge the thought that “humans are generally good.” In the case of gun control, there are plenty of prominent progressive leaders who clearly do not want to end at the “common sense” measures they push for. Some state that publicly and openly, Obama himself advocated for Australian type gun control. I’m pretty sure he’s not in the minority of progressives with that view. Universal background checks are only effective (we’ll say effective enough to be safe) with gun registration. It’s a Swiss cheese law that is more air than it is cheese. A couple of years after it would pass, progressives will begin to move the Overton window, and say “well of course it didn’t work, we need gun registration.” This is just the nature of progressivism, the philosophy is to use government structure society to their liking one step at a time. I think progressives would agree with that characterization.
I think I see the problem here. It's pretty simple. Both sides keep linking Universal Background Checks with Universal Gun Registration as per your definition. You find it too confining and they find it exactly what they think we need. Both sides will almost fight to the death for their own definition. And therein lies the problem.

Both sides are wrong. And both sides are the fringe groups. But the press that we all see are only from the too fringe groups. Both claiming to be right. There are millions of bucks a year from both sides (whether it's from the NRA or Network) spent trying to say that "Everyone" except the other small side thinks this way. In reality, MOST people are rarely heard from except in the ballot boxes where the common sense laws are usually voted in. For the most part, our Gun Laws in this State were voted in. It took two mass shootings for the people to wake up. On Gun issues, this state was a solid Gun Freedom State but after two mass shootings, the public got sick of it and voted in some pretty simple laws that woke up the communities. And after spending a few million fighting off the NRA and the other one in courts and recalls and elections, got back to living our lives.

I support those common sense laws but they would make you cringe on each and every one. But the mass shootings have stopped. Oh, we still have those that try but the communities are not not allowing it to happen anymore. When I type a common sense law I am not coming up with any original ideas. I am actually quoting or paraphrasing the Colorado Gun Regulation Laws. You would call most of these laws "Unconstitutional" but after the NRA and the other bunch lost their battles in courts and the laws stood at the Federal Level the NRA finally gave up and moved to easier picking states so they could scare meeker people. Outside of Boulder, Colorado is very much old west and has that mentality. We are a stubborn bunch. But not afraid to take care of your own. But those millions spent on what turned out to be frivolous lawsuits cost Colorado money for Education, Bridges, Roads, infrastructure, growth and more. It sent some children to bed hungry. The NRA isn't too popular by the average Coloradan anymore. One of the biggest changes for gun laws I would like to see is where in a court action, the loser pays for the costs of the winner. That would stop this nonsense cold. I don't say the NRA shouldn't take it to court but there had damn well better be a good reason. Heller took it to DC on the federal level without the NRA and had a much bigger impact on gun regs today than any other single decision. He knew he was right. If the NRA sees something that they know is constitutionally wrong, they should be able to take it to court and if they win, have their court costs and time repaid. But if it's just a nuisance suit like it was here, the NRA should also pay for the States expenses and time.

Right now, both sides vilify anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them. It's like inventing the term RINO. MOST people you will find lean towards the RINO views. But it's been vilified these days. We get mistaken for "Socialists", spit on floor. Newsflash, an Independent voter does lean a bit to the right. That makes up most of us. But we seem to not be represented by either party at this time and haven't been for about 60 years. But we are in favor, for the most part, common sense gun regulations. Does that make me a "Socialist" Spit on floor? Only if you think so. But the bulk of the voters here think that common sense gun regulations have had a significant positive impact in preventing mass shootings and even criminals shooting up our citizens. The first step was to run off the Gun Grabbers and the NRA who are supporting the gun crazies.
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top