What is with guns and paranoia?

[BStrong]

A Federal requirement that whenever ownership of a handgun is transfered, a licensed firearms dealer does a background check and registers the firearm to it's new owner. Private sales would have to be finalized at a dealers shop. If this is not done, the prior owner remains responsible for whatever is done with the firearm.

It's already the law in California, for all firearms other than curio and relics, other than the bolded section above.

Hasn't had any noticable effect on criminal misuse of firearms, but it gives the state DOJ bureau of firearms a reason to exist, and costs firearms owners $25.00 per DROS (Dealers Record of Sale)

On the federal level you'd have a problem with the FOPA (firearms Owners Protection Act) wrt your registration scheme - no federal gun registration of title 1 firearms is permitted under that law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

 

[PetersCreek]

I would probably not oppose a licensing scheme that does not put a heavy burden on the owner, requires issue and renewal to anyone who can own a gun and does not provide penalties simply for failure to renew or possess the license.

Ranb

And let's not forget...a license that would be honored in every state and municipality across the country...if one is serious about equating it to a drivers license.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>
... Unless one has been committed by court action, there is no record of the fact that one has seen a psychiatrist, say, with suicidal or homicidal ideation.
Indeed, psychiatrists and other medical professionals are under extreme strictures to avoid reporting such things to the "authorities". Doctor-patient relationships...Federally mandated patient confidentiality...
As well, people "go bad". An individual who purchases a handgun may be a sterling fellow with no record whatever and all.... And two years later, suffering from the pressures of his job and an impencing divorce and stacks of bills...May decide to "go postal".
No way to prevent such a thing...

It isn't that easy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California

 

[Cain]

I'll take your earlier word that your post was meaningless.

It seems you're good at that -- reading into my posts whatever fits your desired narrative.

---------------

Have any names or evidence to support this claim?

Other than my sarcastic tone?

I think some victimless crimes are unreasonable, failing to renew a gun license or being denied a renewal should not be one of them.

If it's a victimless crime to renew a gun license, then how is it just to impose a license on someone in the first place? It sounds like you're against licensing in principle but unwilling to say it.

I would probably not oppose a licensing scheme that does not put a heavy burden on the owner, requires issue and renewal to anyone who can own a gun and does not provide penalties simply for failure to renew or possess the license.

What constitutes a "heavy burden" is open to interpretation, but a penalty for failing to renew does not sound unreasonable. If there's no penalty, then why would anyone bother to renew at all?

 

[crimresearch]

It seems you're good at that -- reading into my posts whatever fits your desired narrative.

---------------
<SNIP>

And of course, you'll have no problem spelling out exactly what 'my desired narrative is', and backing it up with facts, right?

 

[Ranb]

And let's not forget...a license that would be honored in every state and municipality across the country...if one is serious about equating it to a drivers license.

Good point. That would be a way of making some states like WA, CA, MN and MA see the light.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

Because gun enthusiasts enthusiastically support a licensing process, in addition to other regulations. They're well-known for it; NRA lobbies for those controls all the time.

If you're talking about carry permits, I'm all for training and licensing, and ran the classes off and on in my jurisdiction.

If you're talking about a prospective buyer presenting legit ID and proof of residency, and filling out a 4473 and going through NICS, fair enough, I'm on board.

If you're talking about a government permit to simply own firearms, no go.

 

[The Dark Lord]

If penalties for not having a licence means a felony, **** that. No way any law otherwise law abiding person should have to go to prison and have his life ruined because he forgot to renew his license or whatever.

If it means a citation and a fine, well that's more reasonable. I don't see it accomplishing much though.

 

[Ranb]

Other than my sarcastic tone?

You are starting to sound like a lite version of some of the people posting here. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121769

If it's a victimless crime to renew a gun license, then how is it just to impose a license on someone in the first place? It sounds like you're against licensing in principle but unwilling to say it.

I said fail to renew. There are reasons why a person could fail to renew a license. If the law does not require the state to issue a license on demand to a person who qualifies, then this can lead to trouble for a person who is trying to stay legal.

I may be against it, still have to give it more thought. I certainly hate the registration process and taxes I have to deal with when making firearms.

What constitutes a "heavy burden" is open to interpretation, but a penalty for failing to renew does not sound unreasonable. If there's no penalty, then why would anyone bother to renew at all?

Renew because it is the honorable thing to do?

Ranb

 

[crimresearch]

If you're talking about carry permits, I'm all for training and licensing, and ran the classes off and on in my jurisdiction.

If you're talking about a prospective buyer presenting legit ID and proof of residency, and filling out a 4473 and going through NICS, fair enough, I'm on board.

If you're talking about a government permit to simply own firearms, no go.

Which pretty much mirrors automobile requirements.

As long as the car is inside your garage, you don't need anything but proof of legitimate purchase/gift. You certainly don't need permssion to merely own one.

The minute you take it off your property, you need the works.

 

[Kestrel]

If the goal of the various gun-control laws is to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, clearly they are ineffective.
For as long as I can remember, it was nearly impossible for a citizen to legally own a handgun in either New York or Chicago.
Yet police took thousands of firearms "off the street" on a yearly basis in both these cities, and though New York has calmed considerably Chicago is still one of the most-murderous cities on Earth.
Criminals do not obtian firearms by purchasing them legally from licenced dealers. They usually obtain weapons that have been stolen in burglaries or obtained from black-market sources. With many millions of firearms available, there is no shortage of supply.

The big ugly secret of the firearms industry is the the illegal trade is supplied by diverting firearms from the legal trade. Fixing the problem state by state doesn't work. Chicago may have strict laws, but what about other nearby states? We don't have border controls at the city limits or at the boundaries between states.

 

[Kestrel]

It's already the law in California, for all firearms other than curio and relics, other than the bolded section above.

Hasn't had any noticable effect on criminal misuse of firearms, but it gives the state DOJ bureau of firearms a reason to exist, and costs firearms owners $25.00 per DROS (Dealers Record of Sale)

On the federal level you'd have a problem with the FOPA (firearms Owners Protection Act) wrt your registration scheme - no federal gun registration of title 1 firearms is permitted under that law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

A classic example of law designed to pander to gun lobby paranoia. If the Federal government had easy access to the records of firearms sales, they would only use it for evil.

Never mind the hoops that are required to trace a firearm found at a crime scene. The ATF contacts the manufacturer and finds the retail outlet where the gun was first shipped. An agent then has to go to that store and sort through paper records to find the person it was sold to. That person is then contacted and if we are lucky the process can be repeated. But if he claims to have sold it to some guy named Bob at the local gun show, the trail goes cold.

But instead of registering firearms the way we do cars, we pander to the guys that think Red Dawn is realistic.

 

[BStrong]

The big ugly secret of the firearms industry is the the illegal trade is supplied by diverting firearms from the legal trade. Fixing the problem state by state doesn't work. Chicago may have strict laws, but what about other nearby states? We don't have border controls at the city limits or at the boundaries between states.

Please explain.

This is closer to the truth:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20952388/follow-guns-from-georgia-bay-area-streets

On April 13, 2009, Crystal Erin Davis walked into the Cherokee Gun and Pawn shop on Knox Bridge Highway in Canton, Ga., and bought a Cobra Enterprises .38-caliber pistol, commonly known as a Saturday night special. She filled out paperwork that said the gun was hers.

But in fact Davis bought the weapon -- and, on other days, 20 others -- for her boyfriend, Jeffrey Martin Colon-Moore, a Vallejo native and ex-convict who could not legally buy guns from licensed dealers. He sold and shipped the firearms by overnight delivery to buyers in the Bay Area that spring.

Those buyers, in turn, put the weapons in the wrong hands.

About 15 of the 125 guns Moore's crew bought from gun stores or gun shows have since been recovered by law enforcement. While none has been directly traced to a killing, they've been taken from parolees after car chases, from juveniles after a robbery and from a car searched after a fatal shooting at a San Francisco nightclub.

The story of those guns -- which emerges from a federal trafficking case -- provides a rare view of the ways criminals get firearms, and just how easy it can be. It also helps explain why, when Oakland police seize an average of 1,200 to 1,500 firearms every year, there is a steady supply to replace them.

"It is definitely frustrating," said Sgt. Nishant Joshi, head of the Oakland Police Department's Gangs/Guns Intelligence Task Force. "A lot of guns come from out of state, a lot of straw purchases. Guns are not manufactured in Oakland. There's no big warehouse in Oakland where you go in and buy what you want."

 

[Ranb]

The big ugly secret of the firearms industry is the the illegal trade is supplied by diverting firearms from the legal trade. Fixing the problem state by state doesn't work. Chicago may have strict laws, but what about other nearby states? We don't have border controls at the city limits or at the boundaries between states.

It is not a secret at all. The people making these laws know they have little effect other than depriving law abiding residents in their jurisdictions the right to own certain firearms. If they do not intend to use these laws to keep people safe, then they are using them for some other reason.

Ranb

 

[The Dark Lord]

A classic example of law designed to pander to gun lobby paranoia. If the Federal government had easy access to the records of firearms sales, they would only use it for evil.

Never mind the hoops that are required to trace a firearm found at a crime scene. The ATF contacts the manufacturer and finds the retail outlet where the gun was first shipped. An agent then has to go to that store and sort through paper records to find the person it was sold to. That person is then contacted and if we are lucky the process can be repeated. But if he claims to have sold it to some guy named Bob at the local gun show, the trail goes cold.

But instead of registering firearms the way we do cars, we pander to the guys that think Red Dawn is realistic.

I think the comparison to car registration is invalid. You only need to register a car if you drive it on public roads. Plus if the cops catch you driving an unregistered car they would probably just give you a ticket which would go away if you got it registered. Whereas I imagine you want it to be a criminal offense to have an unregistered firearm?

I would not be opposed to allowing the feds to track firearm sales better though.

 

[BStrong]

A classic example of law designed to pander to gun lobby paranoia. If the Federal government had easy access to the records of firearms sales, they would only use it for evil.

Never mind the hoops that are required to trace a firearm found at a crime scene. The ATF contacts the manufacturer and finds the retail outlet where the gun was first shipped. An agent then has to go to that store and sort through paper records to find the person it was sold to. That person is then contacted and if we are lucky the process can be repeated. But if he claims to have sold it to some guy named Bob at the local gun show, the trail goes cold.

But instead of registering firearms the way we do cars, we pander to the guys that think Red Dawn is realistic.

The federal government by law has access to retail firearms transfer and sale records. The federal form 4473 must be filled out by the actual buyer of the firearm (easily circumvented though, see above post) but that 4473 is retained by the FFL, and a recovered firearm (one not with a successfully defaced serial number) can be traced almost immediately - and in Califonia, an officer can enter that serial number into the system at the scene and get the name and vitals of the listed owner - if said firearm was sold at retail in California.

Hasn't stopped or slowed crime during my years otj.

The ATF for many years has computerized 4473's they recieve when an FFL goes out of business, FOPA or no FOPA, and has engaged in Backwards Tracing as an excercise (looking at the chain from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer) to determine weaknesses in the integrity of the record keeping along the chain.

WRT vehicle licensing, it isn't anything remotely related to firearms registration and licensing.

One is intended to provide proof of ownership, a method of regulating insurance coverage and a source of income for the state, and any such scheme related to firearms would by nature be a before sale scheme intended to determine suitability of the purchaser

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Are you saying no one ever buys guns for that purpose?

I know at least one guy who did. Thank goodness he eventually moved way away from me.

Or is it because it might be read as me implying all those that recreate with guns have pyscho-sexual issues? Well I wasn't trying to imply that.

You know of one guy? It sure did seem like you meant a significant number of gun owners.

Criminals do not obtian firearms by purchasing them legally from licenced dealers. They usually obtain weapons that have been stolen in burglaries or obtained from black-market sources. With many millions of firearms available, there is no shortage of supply.

We would like to see that say, a convicted felon can't walk into a store and buy a new pistol, but likely such persons would be unlikely to do so anyway... If you intend the weapon for criminal purposes you don't want it to be nice and easily traceable.

When I served on a federal jury we convicted a man of (amoung a number of drug offenses) felon in possession of a firearm. The gun was originally purchased by his grandmother.

If it's a victimless crime to renew a gun license, then how is it just to impose a license on someone in the first place? It sounds like you're against licensing in principle but unwilling to say it.

What other freedoms gauranteed by the constitution do we need licenses for? Will I need a free speech license next? Maybe I'll need a license to be an atheist too.

 

[Travis]

Did you vote for the legislators and the governor that supported/signed AB50?

I'm not sure. I don't really pay much attention to my local legislator. He's so conservative he probably thinks pants on women should be illegal.

You know of one guy? It sure did seem like you meant a significant number of gun owners.

Well he is to date the only person I know who ever went out and actually legally bought a gun. And he was very unwell. The way he'd declare that he was "horny" and thus needed to shoot and kill something deeply disturbed us.

We were very glad when he was turned down for a concealed/carry license. He wasn't, however, that's why he moved to Nevada.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Oooh, a sample size of one. Impressive.

 

[Robrob]

Don't forget, in addition to the ridiculous urban myth about George Soros buying up all the gun companies (dumbest conspiracy ever), the NRA claims President Obama not taking away our guns in his first term is proof positive he plans to take away our guns in his second term.