If you have an unregistered handgun you could not sell it or use it. If caught, extra jail time. When a crime happens, the news could find out exactly where the gun came from, they could be traced. I see no violation of the 2nd Amendment, as law abiding citizens could buy, sell and own handguns. I own 3 handgun and have a CCW and would have no problem if they had to be registered.

the news could find out where the gun came from?

As it stands now there is no way to trace handguns except ones that are newly purchased or from a gun dealer. If police had that information it would become public with other facts of the crime.

Please have some coffee before posting stuff that silly. kthnxby.

two problems with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
and how many people actually get sent up for it in places like New York? How often are guns left behind, given there is evidence community guns are still (it was common in the 19th century among urban gangs.)
My problem is simply one of costly and pointless theater.

as violating my right to privacy? What other aspects of my private life shall the government keep track of?

it is on a database. Did you protest and not fill out the census forms like Mehell Backmann wanted you to?

if I keep a car on my property I do not need a license or registration.

I think guns should be licensed and registered like cars.

if you want to sell it. I could go with the car model. Keep in on your own property and don't use it for self defense or ever sell it, no registration.

still OK if you use it for self defense on your own property.

How will the government know I have a gun in the first place.

Background checks on all purchases is the smarter way - the system is in place and in any case, the issue with gun violence has everything to do with the person and not the gun.

The real reason off road equipment is titled is for taxation purposes.

Neighbor I had from years back had an all original Tor Red Hemicuda that was never titled. It was extremely valuable and he could have sold it to any collector. Even drove it around the neighborhood on occasion. Even without the title he still had a state issued personalized license plate on it. I've bought and sold numerous project vehicles without titles. So much for your car analogy...






Technical incompetence, anti-gunners own it.

Totally legal.

Nothing wrong with accountability.

I live in New York State, where every legal handgun is registered. It's not a huge deal to me -- a little bit of bureaucratic hassle when buying or selling a handgun, and I question how much safer it makes anyone, but that's OK.

So let's play the compromise game: it would be nice if I could drive across the Massachusetts border without becoming an instant felon because I have a handgun in my car. I'll trade you 50-state handgun registration for 50-state carry reciprocity.

Sound good? It would be a win-win for me, because I'm already in a registration state. Any input from those who aren't?

Otherwise I think MA has it about right in terms of licensing process. Maybe localities have too much say in issuing. But my thinking is that the local police chief probably has a pretty decent handle on what is happening in his town.

FL probably does not make you apply to your local police department for a license either.

like most places.

with "his head up his a$$".

has no place in a liberal democracy. MA either needs to be shall issue or close the oligarch loophole along with NY, CA, IL.

you want. Wyatt Earp knew better than that.

I think that you have to be a little off to think you need to arm yourself in a church or national park or school etc. It should be up to the organization that governs the area to determine if they want guns in their establishment or on their grounds.

I would like to know that when I go to Yosemite or Disneyland that there isn't a bunch of gun nuts walking around with loaded weapons near me.

And I guess that crime never happens in a church, national park, or a school, etc. (see Columbine, VT., etc.)
Private businesses and private property owners have always had the right to ban firearms.
How does my carrying a firearm affect your safety?

If you think that you need to arm yourself against the bad guys in church, I have nothing to add to what I said in my post.

I will ad this. Think about a bullet flying around in a church with a standing room only congregation. If you can't understand that, I have nothing to say to you.

Yes or No?
Whose bullet would be flying, the criminals or the CHL holder? I dare say it would be a criminals bullet because a CHL holder isn't going to just up and start shooting for no reason.

on their new Black neighbor. You make my case for me.

Show me one post or link where I identify with Zimmerman or, in your own bigoted words, those two Deliverance types. Just one post or link.

I identify with the RKBA and the school of thought that responsible citizens can own and carry firearms and are responsible for their own safety and well being.

Of course you had to add race in this. Where in the story did it say race was involved?

You make my case for me? What a hoot.

One person with a fantasy would be the guy with a vision of himself in a bar and a beautiful woman sits next to him and buys a couple rounds of drinks then invites him home for the night.
Another would be the guy with a vision of himself carrying a loaded weapon in a bar or church and some other guy with a loaded weapon starts shooting the place up and the first guy pulls his weapon and shoots the shooter saving the lives of the other patrons or congregation.

Everyone has fantasies but most people don't act on them. The person with fantasies and a healthy mind would not go to a bar in the event that a beautiful woman comes over and buys a couple rounds of drinks and invites him home for the night.

It's happened. See Jean Aslam. She stopped a gunman who was preparing to shoot up a church.
Here's a real world incident,
Virginia Tech, Cho goes on a shooting spree killing 32 people including himself, why did this happen? Several reasons, VT was a gun free zone which meant that no one had a firearm that day except the campus police who stood around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for the real police, and when the real police did finally make entry and confront Cho, he offed himself.
Now maybe, just maybe if a teacher or a student had a firearm that day, things might have turned out far different.

Your fantasy of a CHL holder shooting up bars and churches is just that, a fantasy. Those of us who choose to be armed are well aware of the great responsibility we have, we're not a bunch of, in the words of another anti-gun poster here, cowboys who practice our quick draw in front of a mirror, stuff a gun or two down our pants and then go out an pollute society with our guns to play judge, jury, and executioner, nor are we, in the words of another anti-gun poster, racist vigilante apologists, we are responsible adults who believe that we are responsible for our own safety and well being.

If that bothers you, well, tough, that's your cross to bear, not ours.

The lengths to which some people will go to to try to demonize us is just mind boggling.

But most guys don't sit around bars waiting for it to happen.

That those of us who choose to legally conceal carry sit around bars fantasizing that we can shoot a bad guy?
Really? That's what your really think? Pleas tell me I'm wrong. If that's what you think, your the one fantasizing.

How come the rest of us don't feel the need to carry a loaded weapon? What, we don't understand the dangerous world out there? I find it a pain to carry a wallet or cell phone let alone a gun!

You have a really warped view of CHL holders. Don't carry a gun, that's your right, but don't belittle or ostrasize those of us who take the time to go through the class and spend the money to carry a weapon.

He doesn't have to give a damn whether I have taken the classes and I don't have to give a damn whether or not he feels or thinks of our desire to acquire a CHL. We are no danger to him, so, again respectfully, why should we care?

I have never threatened anyone with a firearm, unless you count a big ass gun on the helicopters I flew, so I am not the problem. He's directing him disdain towards the wrong people.

In February 1968 near Ben Hoa airbase, a couple of hueys with mini guns and a couple of cobras with rockets kept the Viet Cong off my back all night. I'm alive today because of guys like you with big guns.

Maybe you'll save my life again, who knows.

As long as I live I will never forget that night that the hueys and cobras saved my life. I always wondered how they could fire those mini guns and rockets and hit so close in front of us and not hit us. I also always wondered why they kept coming back time after time to protect us. There were two hueys (it was dark but I think that's what they were) flying 180 degrees apart in circles taking turns diving down and ripping off a blast of those mini guns and when they would leave the cobras (again it was dark but I think they were cobras) would come and do the same pattern only with rockets. Over and over again they came all night long.

Thanks for what you have done from those on the ground.

On edit, I read in a history of the Vietnam war that we were attacked by 12 divisions of Vietnamese regulars that week.

If we did, we would have fewer problems in this world. If all of us made a sincere effort to understand the other's point of view, rather than dismissing it out of hand, we might be able to engage in productive conversation and progress as a society. I think his disdain is not directed at you, but rather the trend in behavior that you endorse. But I can't speak for him.
I respect your right to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean I respect your choice to exercise that right. I could say the same about abortion. I respect and strongly support a woman's right to choose abortion, but I may not respect an individual's choice to abort. I respect and support freedom of speech, but I don't respect or support hate speech.
Point is, rights are one thing and how we, as individuals, choose to exercise those rights, is a whole other thing. That "how" is what defines us.

I'm on the other end of this argument, but it is damn nice to hear somebody actually admit that their opponent is a thinking human being. It's pretty hard to convince somebody else of anything when you're not willing to try and understand why they believe their position is correct and moral. There aren't that many people in the world who really don't care about right and wrong or justice and injustice.

What's the point in the discussion if one is not open to other possibilities. We don't live in a black and white world, hopefully.

I respect a woman's right to choose and support it 100%, yet I wish there were far fewer abortions. You call that cognitive dissonance. I call it clear thinking.
I do not want women to lose that right. But if the majority of women used abortion as a primary form of birth control, there would be a fierce backlash, probably resulting in all women losing some of their rights.

Regarding guns, I would like to see handguns disappear from our streets and all public places. They are snake oil and are not going to cure any social ills. They serve more to divide rather than unite. Plus, they're damned dangerous. Keep them home and quit encouraging the populace to arm itself against itself. I can't believe that's the kind of world you or anyone wants to live in.

Hopefully, some genius will invent some equally efficient, but non-lethal substitute. Hell, we sent a man to the moon 43 years ago.

And you sound like you finally got it with

I support individual rights all the way to the point when they threaten the public good. Same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Or even talking loudly in a theater. I don't call for individual sacrifice. Do you consider leaving your gun at home when you go out to dinner a sacrifice?

> How come the rest of us don't feel the need to carry a loaded weapon?
> ... I find it a pain to carry a wallet or cell phone let alone a gun!

Laziness.

Most folks understand that the odds of needing a gun are remotely small. Most are willing to take the risk and play the odds because lazy is easy and almost always works.

WTF?

or merely that no one would ever shoot up a church?

If so you are definitely wrong. Here's one recent example where a man with a carry permit might have stopped a massacre. If he had not been armed, it is quite possible that buckshot would have been flying around the church.

I'd like to see NICS checks made available to private sellers. Not a ban on private sales, but I would like to be able to do a NICS check as a private seller.

I'd like to see nationwide reciprocity on concealed carry. I already have it by virtue of the "Law Enforcement Safety Act" but choose to instead follow the same law that the rest of Ohio's citizens are burdened with.

I'd like to see any plea deal that resulted from a greater charge including a firearm specification have to include the firearm spec. on the lesser charge. For instance, if you are indicted on Agg. Murder with a firearm spec. and you deal it down to involuntary manslaughter, you'd still be on the hook for the firearm spec. No dealing away the mandatory firearm specification.

I'd like to see the 1986 closure of the NFA registry repealed.

I'd like to see AR15's with a 14.5 inch barrel exempted from the NFA regulations if we can't repeal 922r entirely.

Silencers, or suppressors for you nomenclature Nazis, should be NFA tax exempt or considered AOW.

And the big one for me is a decriminalization of Marijuana. Growers should be given their quota in exactly the same fashion we now allot tobacco bases. At the same time I'd like to see the importation of foreign marijuana tightly regulated. Lets throw the hippies and farmers a bone on this one folks. That one law would cripple the drug gangs considerably and free up tons of resources in the system.

I agree with you 100%.

the requirement for NICS checks on all sales (private or dealer) for the removal of the above restrictions.

Eliminate plea bargains for crimes in which firearms are used.

Decriminalize possession of a firearm.

Ditch the unfunded "fired shell" requirement for new handgun

Ditch the "Approved Handgun Roster" (designed to prevent blacks from being able to afford guns)

Switch to NICS for handgun sales, instead of waiting two weeks for the incompetent MSP to do their check

Ditch the discriminatory handgun permit system and go to real shall-issue with reasonable fees

Codify our limited duty-to-retreat instead of leaving it as a jury instruction

Ditch the 20rd magazine capacity restriction

Strengthen state preemption of gun laws, so there isn't a maze of pre-'85 laws

Ditch the bore lock requirement for new handgun purchases

Ditch the entire "regulated firearms" category and treat handgun sales the same way as rifle sales

I believe that every firearm owner should have a license - a Firearm Owner ID.

Similar to the way Illinois works. If you want to buy a firearm, privately or commercially, you must present your FOID and a record of the sale kept by the seller for some period of time. Sellers have an incentive to record this information because if you sell to someone without a valid FOID odds are good that it will end up used in a crime and then traced from the original sale through each successive valid owner until it stops with the last valid owner who sold it illegally.

In Illinois, failure to produce the paperwork of the sale is a misdemeanor.

However, the problem with the Illinois system is that it creates a list of firearm owners for the government, since only people who own, or are very likely to own firearms are going to get an FOID.

To solve this problem, I would automatically issue FOIDs (after NICS check) to everyone who signs up for a drivers' license or state-issued ID, unless they choose to opt out.

By making the system opt-out, you could not say with certainty that possession of an FOID means you own firearms.

Benefits of this system:

1) Background check for all lawful firearm purchases, private and commercial.
2) Preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

As a concession for submitting to licensing, I would expect two things:

1) As a licensed, background-checked firearm owner, I should be able to buy firearms direct to my door through the mail without intervention of an FFL. After all, the purpose of having firearms shipped through FFLs is so a background check can be run. Since the FOID means the background check has already been run, this purpose is negated.

The gun industry will fight this as it enables nation-wide competition for firearm sales.

2) National reciprocity. I should be able to travel to other states and buy any kind of civilian firearm.

that there would be no list of owners and who owns what.

In particular, the '86 ban would absolutely have to go.

A couple of questions:

What kind of information would the seller have to record?

How long do you think the records would have to be kept?

On what grounds could law enforcement demand to see them?


I see a lot of room for abuse, but it does have the potential to be a good idea. I think with the incentives you mentioned, plus a repeal of the machine gun ban, I'd be more than willing to support it.

In Illinois you have to record the buyer's FOID information, and I think you have to keep a record of the sale for 5 years or something, I can't remember.

I don't know what the procedure or requirements are for law enforcement to see the records. Presumably it works like an FFL and they must be surrendered on demand.

I'd like to see law enforcement severely restricted in their ability to demand the records. I'm not sure what that would look like, exactly. I'd say they should have to have the actual gun in their possession, or



a high-resolution color photograph of that particular gun being used in a crime, with the serial number clearly visible.

/

What I don't want to see is some overzealous anti-gun sheriff using this system to harass honest people.

Those things have really appreciated in value!

Bulls make money; bears make money; pigs lose their shirts.

An exception to 922r allowing the current standard long arm of the United States Army to be added to the registry. That would be the Colt M4, and also maybe the FN version of it. If they'd just make that one exception it would still appease the millionaires who hold most of the NFA guns in circulation and still allow citizens to bear the same long arm as the standing army.

I like it.

I think you've got a good start, there.

Kinda pisses me off that I have to go to the trouble of setting up a trust just to properly control varmints. The NFA tax just adds insult to injury.

Repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban.

Expansion of constitutional carry(open and concealed carry without a license).

Expansion of campus carry.

Expansion of reciprocity(not necessarily "national reciprocity". It should be determined by the states).

Allow optional NICS checks by private sellers, while protecting the personal information of applicants.