quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Because, unless the flaws in the present law are addressed and fixed, tighter regulations will not work which would then lead to an outright ban.

Exactly why do you think an outright ban on all guns is the natural result of a failed background check system?

Given America's gun culture and the strong influence of the NRA on the right, I really can't see a gun ban ever ever ever taking place.
I am frankly amazed at how all the gun people are so sure it's just around the corner.

I have also noticed that nobody has even bothered to respond to the idea of a Canada-style license-to-own.
I doubt that will ever happen just like I doubt the current system will ever be repaired, but at the very least it makes sense to me.

Simple, those wanting stricter back ground checks that wont work until participation in the data base is mandatory for reporting anyone that would be disqualified, will point once more to the failed system and then make the claim an out right ban is the only solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The ATF form with the certification that a person is lawfully eligible to own a firearm is kept at the gun dealer's office. When the gun dealer terminates their firearm license (closes the shop, retires, goes bankrupt, any reason) the firearm purchase records are sent to the ATF and entered into their database.

Where did I learn this? From an incident my Uncle had. My Uncle's house was broken into. Part of what was stolen was a 38 police revolver purchased by his grandfather in the 1930s.

A large professional burglary ring was busted and my Uncle's property was found among recovered property. The FBI did tracking on all firearms found and had a listing for the original purchase of the revolver and tracked it to the heir that inherited it; my Uncle. Firearm theft and transport across state lines seems to be a Federal crime. After the trial, my Uncle got his revolver and rifle back. The perpetrators got 12 years for burglary and 70 years for multiple federal firearms violations.

The takeaway is that firearms records can be to your benefit. But, do you really trust that all those phone in NICS checks really fall out of records after 90 days?

I don't think anyone will argue that the mentally incompetent should be barred from purchasing or owning firearms, explosives, and other deadly weapons. The continuing argument is over who gets to decide who is or is not mentally competent. Currently, it requires a court hearing on mental competence to get a person legally declared as "incompetent" and unable to exercise full civil rights.
It has been proposed that civil rights should be abrogated for being on the no-fly list, have a peace bond on your for domestic violence, or if ever treated for depression. Please not that none of those three require a court hearing where a defense may be made by the person having their rights abrogated. My personal opinion is that removing civil rights without due process is a violation of the constitution and should not be tolerated.
The laws already on the books need to be followed. I'm thinking of the fact that if a court clerk had entered Dylan Roof's conviction into the NICS database in a timely manner; Roof would not have been able to purchase firearms for shooting up a church.

Hey Jlf.... Here's that slippery slope I mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Well, so far they have added individuals on the terrorist watch list, but hey, that sorta makes sense.

But, to be honest, that is the only addition that has been made in 49 years, or almost half a century, and that was done under the patriot acts, which makes it hard for a Muslim to purchase a firearm generally because of the similarity of male names which may match someone on the watch list, like a six month old child that was bared from taking a flight to see a heart specialist because he had the same name as one on the terrorist watch list.

So the people on the list are not properly identified but is a good thing to deprive people of their rights?

Is it used for voters?

No, I am saying that the terrorist watch list has names of people that are the same as citizens in the US, without any photo or age etc, just the name, so some infant with a heart condition born in the United States is barred from a plane because of a name, although there are some on these boards that will claim if it stops one terrorist....

The point is that when a person is found mentally deficient in a competency hearing, then their name should go on the prohibited register. And even if they voluntarily commit themselves, if it is found that there is a serious danger warranting holding them in an institution, then there is a hearing with a judge to decide that, so again, there is due process.

A mental health provider can also either on his own after some sessions with the patient or at the request of a patient's family make the recommendation for someone to be committed for up to 7 days for observation, since the 73 hour period that police can request rarely reveal a persons nature (primarily because for that 72 hours, they are medicated.)

There is a process to either put someone on the prohibited list or even remove them, including felons who petition the governor to restore their full civil rights. Thus it is not a permanent thing that follows someone around for their entire life.

However, by withholding that information it allows individuals who are emotionally or mentally unstable to purchase guns and then we get Virginia Tech, or in the case of Sandy Hook, the shooters father tried to get the man committed and the mother fought it, and ended up being killed by the shooter and her guns used in the school shooting.

However, getting to your regulation argument, as I said, you basically already registered the damn thing at purchase when the required forms are filled out. The only real argument at this point is being required to pay an additional fee to whatever agency you would have to register the gun with.

You say it would be used for confiscation, yes, it could be.

However, if that meant that the authorities confiscated the gun belonging to those very people who are not, by law, allowed to possess them, i.e:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Would that not be enforcing an already existing law?

As for the government coming after your guns, all it takes is a court order (if they do it legally) or a police raid to get all those forms from a gun retailer then it wouldnt matter one way or the other, they would know where the owners of guns are and how to get them.

At that point, if the 2nd has not been repealed, then would that not be the exact argument that many of us are putting forth as for the reason that it should not be?

They will do like CA and NY and only confiscate one class of weapons
and claim that doesn't count as confiscation because they didn't take every gun.
OR they will do like NO and claim an emergency.

Guess you forgot this fact:

quote:

President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.

As for the california law, it is still under injunction pending appeals.

Unless you are referring to California SB104, which only allows the confiscation of guns from people who may have purchased them legally, but are no longer legally allowed to own or possess firearms under the federal regulations set up 49 years ago.

As for the New York SAFE act, again that has been stopped pending lawsuits, many will most likely end up before SCOTUS and with the present court being heavily conservative, its a safe bet they will be thrown out.

However, once again, in each case you have cited, the state has been stopped and appeals and lawsuits filed, and so far, the only one appealing decisions are the states, and they are losing.

The actions in New Orleans was thrown out and a law passed preventing it from happening again.

We have a heavily pro gun SCOTUS and with Trump in office, it is sure to stay that way until the dems get elected again.

Do you really have a problem with those who have been convicted of crimes that would prohibit them from owning guns having their guns confiscated?

Hell the three cases under the NY safe act that turned out to be bullshit and the gun owners sued and got their guns back and are nailing a nearly bankrupt state by winning the cases, NY is quickly running out of options.

The only way to beat the anti gun movement is just as true today as it always has been, meet them halfway or kick their ass in court, SCOTUS has pretty much killed every attempt at local bans for years, all citing the 2nd.

The only way a ban is going to happen is if the present laws are not fixed, meaning the back ground checks and some nut job takes manages to break a hundred in a one time body count.

Oh, FYI, the lack of registration of firearms is pretty much a deal of the last 60 or 70 years, sorta stopped when some states started disbanding their militias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

How is the federal government going to seize over 270 million guns?
Especially from people who would rather kill/die than give them up?

I would really like to know how anyone can think that the situation isn't utterly hopeless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
It may have something to do with that 'innocent until proven guilty' (of actually commiting a crime) thing.

Uh, lets see if I can explain this in terms that even a rock can understand.
If they have been found to be mentally incompetent by a judge, because of violent acts related to some mental condition, while technically not guilty of a crime, they have been determined by a judge to be a danger to the public safety, therefore, their right to privacy is no longer valid when it comes to the purchase of a firearm.
Again, public safety trumps the right to privacy.
Or to put it another way, it is the same as if someone is found to have an STD, the health department has the authority to get the names of the person's sexual partners so they can 1) be informed and 2) stop it from spreading, and while most times people cooperate, in the event they dont, the health department has the authority to use whatever means necessary to warn the public, even if it means running a notice in the paper with the person's picture.
Public health and safety again trumps the right to privacy.
Or the famous perp walks in some bigger cities, people arrested are basically marched through a crowd of new photographers, whether convicted or not.
Or the nice little sections of the local papers where people arrested in the previous 24 hours are listed, along with what crimes they have been accused of.
Or in the case of sex offenders who must remain on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives even after completing their sentences, again the ruling is that the right of privacy does not supersede public safety concerns.
So, you agree that a sex offender being required to register for the rest of his life is in the interest of public safety, but a person determined by the court as being a danger to public safety should have their information sealed?
Sorry, but the argument does not hold up, but you are willing to have another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech massacre?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
It may have something to do with that 'innocent until proven guilty' (of actually commiting a crime) thing.

Uh, lets see if I can explain this in terms that even a rock can understand.
If they have been found to be mentally incompetent by a judge, because of violent acts related to some mental condition, while technically not guilty of a crime, they have been determined by a judge to be a danger to the public safety, therefore, their right to privacy is no longer valid when it comes to the purchase of a firearm.
Again, public safety trumps the right to privacy.
Or to put it another way, it is the same as if someone is found to have an STD, the health department has the authority to get the names of the person's sexual partners so they can 1) be informed and 2) stop it from spreading, and while most times people cooperate, in the event they dont, the health department has the authority to use whatever means necessary to warn the public, even if it means running a notice in the paper with the person's picture.
Public health and safety again trumps the right to privacy.
Or the famous perp walks in some bigger cities, people arrested are basically marched through a crowd of new photographers, whether convicted or not.
Or the nice little sections of the local papers where people arrested in the previous 24 hours are listed, along with what crimes they have been accused of.
Or in the case of sex offenders who must remain on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives even after completing their sentences, again the ruling is that the right of privacy does not supersede public safety concerns.
So, you agree that a sex offender being required to register for the rest of his life is in the interest of public safety, but a person determined by the court as being a danger to public safety should have their information sealed?
Sorry, but the argument does not hold up, but you are willing to have another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech massacre?

How is that person's privacy been crossed if they are flagged, but the reason for the flagging isn't revealed to the requester? The reason for the denial would be mailed to the person who was denied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
It may have something to do with that 'innocent until proven guilty' (of actually commiting a crime) thing.

Uh, lets see if I can explain this in terms that even a rock can understand.
If they have been found to be mentally incompetent by a judge, because of violent acts related to some mental condition, while technically not guilty of a crime, they have been determined by a judge to be a danger to the public safety, therefore, their right to privacy is no longer valid when it comes to the purchase of a firearm.
Again, public safety trumps the right to privacy.
Or to put it another way, it is the same as if someone is found to have an STD, the health department has the authority to get the names of the person's sexual partners so they can 1) be informed and 2) stop it from spreading, and while most times people cooperate, in the event they dont, the health department has the authority to use whatever means necessary to warn the public, even if it means running a notice in the paper with the person's picture.
Public health and safety again trumps the right to privacy.
Or the famous perp walks in some bigger cities, people arrested are basically marched through a crowd of new photographers, whether convicted or not.
Or the nice little sections of the local papers where people arrested in the previous 24 hours are listed, along with what crimes they have been accused of.
Or in the case of sex offenders who must remain on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives even after completing their sentences, again the ruling is that the right of privacy does not supersede public safety concerns.
So, you agree that a sex offender being required to register for the rest of his life is in the interest of public safety, but a person determined by the court as being a danger to public safety should have their information sealed?
Sorry, but the argument does not hold up, but you are willing to have another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech massacre?

How is that person's privacy been crossed if they are flagged, but the reason for the flagging isn't revealed to the requester? The reason for the denial would be mailed to the person who was denied.

the reason they are flagged is not revealed at the time of the background check any way, you get either 'approved for purchase' or 'denied for purchase.'

The person trying to buy the gun is given a number to call to find out why they were denied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And you know that the vast majority of those disqualifications turn out to be mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Because, unless the flaws in the present law are addressed and fixed, tighter regulations will not work which would then lead to an outright ban.

Exactly why do you think an outright ban on all guns is the natural result of a failed background check system?

Given America's gun culture and the strong influence of the NRA on the right, I really can't see a gun ban ever ever ever taking place.
I am frankly amazed at how all the gun people are so sure it's just around the corner.

I have also noticed that nobody has even bothered to respond to the idea of a Canada-style license-to-own.
I doubt that will ever happen just like I doubt the current system will ever be repaired, but at the very least it makes sense to me.

Simple, those wanting stricter back ground checks that wont work until participation in the data base is mandatory for reporting anyone that would be disqualified, will point once more to the failed system and then make the claim an out right ban is the only solution.

And no, the present system will not likely be fixed anytime soon because, as you pointed out, both sides use the right to privacy as a reason not to, ignoring the fact that the supreme court has already struck that argument down with the sex offender registration laws.

So, if the right to privacy does not apply to a sex offender due to the possibility impacting public safety, how the fuck does it apply to someone that either the courts or an institution has determined that their mental illness constitutes a danger to public safety?

quote:

Strict background check laws in two states have had little to no effect on the number of background checks conducted for gun sales, a new study has shown.
The study, conducted by gun violence experts from the Center for Gun Policy and Research and the Violence Prevention Research Program, looked at expanded background check laws in three states–Washington, Colorado, and Delaware–to see if more background checks were actually processed as a result of the stricter laws.

The results, published in the medical journal Injury Prevention, show that no overall changes were found in Washington and Colorado. However, Delaware did see an increase in background checks conducted, which ranged from 22 to 34 percent depending on the type of firearm.

The researchers did note that external data showed Washington had a small increase in background checks for private party gun sales, and Colorado had a similarly small increase in background checks conducted for sales not held at gun shows.

“These aren’t the results I hoped to see. I hoped to see an effect. But it’s much more important to see what’s actually happened,” Garen Wintemute, a University of California Davis emergency room physician and main author on the study, told The Guardian.

Researchers surmised that non-compliance and poor enforcement played major roles in limiting the effect of the laws in Colorado and Washington, citing an “I will not comply” rally held in Washington after a law was passed in 2014 expanding background checks to all private sales and transfers. Researchers also pointed to a group of Colorado sheriffs who said that enforcing a similar background check expansion would not be a priority.

Wintemute insisted that the results shouldn’t dissuade other states from passing such laws but should instead lead them to focus on enforcement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And you know that the vast majority of those disqualifications turn out to be mistakes.

There should be a way to correct errors in the database, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

How is the federal government going to seize over 270 million guns?
Especially from people who would rather kill/die than give them up?

I would really like to know how anyone can think that the situation isn't utterly hopeless.

Oh good, it's utterly hopeless, HB has spoken. Now maybe you can just go away. Don't come to this country and don't offer up silly opinions about it. It's utterly hopeless so just ignore it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

How is the federal government going to seize over 270 million guns?
Especially from people who would rather kill/die than give them up?

I would really like to know how anyone can think that the situation isn't utterly hopeless.

Oh good, it's utterly hopeless, HB has spoken. Now maybe you can just go away. Don't come to this country and don't offer up silly opinions about it. It's utterly hopeless so just ignore it.

It is simple.
They won't grab the 200 million guns at once.
First they will outlaw any gun that holds over 7 rounds and confiscate them.
They will tell us this isn't confiscation because we still have guns.
Then they will outlaw any long guns that holds more than 4 because you can't
use them for hunting. And it still won't be confiscation because will still have guns.
Then they will outlaw ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

How is the federal government going to seize over 270 million guns?
Especially from people who would rather kill/die than give them up?

I would really like to know how anyone can think that the situation isn't utterly hopeless.

Oh good, it's utterly hopeless, HB has spoken. Now maybe you can just go away. Don't come to this country and don't offer up silly opinions about it. It's utterly hopeless so just ignore it.

It is simple.
They won't grab the 200 million guns at once.
First they will outlaw any gun that holds over 7 rounds and confiscate them.
They will tell us this isn't confiscation because we still have guns.
Then they will outlaw any long guns that holds more than 4 because you can't
use them for hunting. And it still won't be confiscation because will still have guns.
Then they will outlaw ......

You seem to forget that up until the militia act of 1932, registration of all guns in the US that were suitable for use by militia members was mandatory.

Up until just before the US entry into WW1, every state had a militia that was subject to federal service, and it was the creation of the National Guard, which was partially funded by the Federal government that created the need for states to establish State Defense forces independent of Federal funding, and actually funded and equipped by members, and 23 states maintain such units.

Now add to that every significant gun control ruling of SCOTUS, all of which hinged on the 2nd and directly referenced the militia.

Combine that fact with the fact that federal law states the unorganized militia, which include the state defense forces, are every able bodied person between 18 and 65.

Now, when you take the SCOTUS rulings, existing federal laws, the only registration law that could possibly stand is one that 1) required all weapons that would serve a purpose in a militia organization and 2) make mandatory that such ownership subjects the person to militia call up by the state governor.

It is no longer legal for US marshals or local authorities to confiscate firearms in the aftermath of a natural disaster thanks to the fuck up in New Orleans, even though SCOTUS made that clear in at least on ruling from that incident, congress put it down as federal law.

What you are projecting is similar to what the Nazi's did to the Jews.

But, what many people on both sides of the argument have not considered is this.

Katrina, and the major storms since, plus the storms this year proved something that not even President Trump can be blamed for.

Multiple disasters strain the ability of the Federal government to respond, FEMA was maxed out after two storms, hence the slow response to aid Puerto Rico, at least as far as FEMA was concerned.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US are not closet mass killers looking for an excuse to kill a few dozen people, but are pretty stand up, civic minded individuals, who when needed step up to do what they can, when they can, with and without guns.

Other than being gun owners, the skills range from your basic blue collar worker to doctors, nurses, EMT's etc. All types that you would need in the event of a natural disaster.

In most cases, these very people cannot just up and take time off from jobs without the risk of losing the jobs to aid in something like what this country experienced this year.

So why not gun registration tied to the existing militia law covering unorganized militias? That goes back to the very core of the militia.

Okay, so you have to show up one weekend a month and prove you can hit your target with some degree of proficiency.

Okay, so the local sheriff can send a deputy knocking on your door at 2 in the morning and tell you that the local militia has been called up and you need to get your ass to the court house.

So you have to provide your own weapons and uniform and since the laws havent been changed, you can look forward to a nice $250 a month pay check, maximum.

But the flip side is that if this type of registration was put forth in every state, it would require (except for those with a valid religious reason not to) every able bodied person to own at least one gun and be proficient with it.

Personally, I would enjoy seeing this kind of law shoved down the throats of a lot of people.

Locally, and we have a lot of anti gun pricks around, even in west Texas, I have seen more gun owners step up when calls have gone out for volunteers to help fight grass fires, for finding lost kids and other routine calamities that beset communities than the anti gun crowd, although after the fact I have seen those same liberal asshats complaining about how the 'county was ill prepared.'

I find it real funny when I get a call from a local farmer or rancher wanting me to eradicate hogs on their property and pull up to see a real nice anti gun sticker on their bumpers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The big issue with the terror watch list is lack of due process. That is the reason its use for denying 2nd amendment rights was challenged in court.

One fine point to make... a U.S. citizen has a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. A non citizen permanent resident in good standing is given the privilege of keeping arms. Temporary residents may only bear arms by specific permission. (guards at foreign embassies are the ones that pop to mind having been given specific permission)


==================================================================
Trying to remember where I saw a political cartoon that suck with me.

"We will not confiscate any hunting weapons. We will change the definition to make them sniper rifles first."