Current U.S. Gun policies: Believe it or Not

http://www.nraleaders.com/state-of-affairs.html

Interesting website for example:

1. Licensed gun dealers have no requirements to report multiple sales of long guns, like the semiautomatic assault style weapons sought by terrorist organizations. So someone can buy long guns by the hundreds and there is no requirement that these sales will be reported to law enforcement.

I wonder if there is a gun dealer anywhere who would knowingly sell arms to terrorists?

14. Police can only trace a serial number back to the first retail sale of a new gun by a licensed gun dealer. Therefore, if someone buys a secondhand gun from a "private" seller, the gun can't be traced back to its illegal seller or the purchaser.

What if it is a legal sale?
How do they track a second-hand sale from an FFL?

The Bullseye Gun Shop sure didn't seem to care who wandered out of their shop with weapons....

...was the color of their money.

I haven't seen any proof of that, and Lee Boyd Malvo said in police interviews that he stole the Bushmaster. Why would he lie about that?

...but I'm sure they were paid for all the guns they improperly sold.

"but I'm sure they were paid for all the guns they improperly sold."

...Bullseye was on that lsit of 125 gun dealers that supplied a large majority of guns used in crimes. It was discussed on this board a month or two back.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

That they did anything illegal. Every gun sold has a small probability of winding up in the hands of a criminal. The more guns you sell, the more are bound to be used in crimes.

...the more are bound to be used in crimes.

and they have to be applied uniformly across the USA. It is a federal standard. There is no "sloppy" background check...it's either done or not, to federal standards.

...that some dealers may not be doing the checks for each and every sale. Regardless of what the law says.

in their records. A cursory investigation will quickly uncover and malfeasance.

"Even if a court had declared Mr. McCoy as a "mental defective" or he had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, Mr. McCoy would not have been prevented from buying a handgun in Ohio, said Kent Markus, a law professor at Capital University and a former counselor to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
That is because Ohio is among 33 states that do not have a centralized system to provide court records on the mentally ill to the National Instant Check System, which is used under the federal Brady Law to do criminal background research. Michigan does have such a system.
"These problems are not about the status of a law, but more about adequate resources to arrange for a process to have these records retained and entered into a database," Mr. Markus said.
There would have been no background check if Mr. McCoy bought his weapons at a gun show or from another person, Mr. Markus said."

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040321/NEWS24/403210363/-1/NEWS

And it was in a large part to get rid of the lawsuits against Bullseye that the disgraceful gun immunity bill was being muscled through Congress a couple weeks ago...

Another famous Bullseye customer was racist imbecile Buford "Wake Up Call" Furrow....

is a factor of number of guns sold. The greater the volume, the greater the number of traces.

I'm sure you would agree that a gun dealer who sold a total of 50 guns in a year and 25 of them are used in a crime has a much greater problem than if a dealer sells 10,000 guns in a year, but has 50 turn up being used in crimes. The first dealer is most likely breaking the law, while the second dealer isn't.

A USEFUL statistical classification system would provide a ratio instead of gross numbers. For instance, instead of saying "This dealer had 400 gun traces back to him, saying "this dealer had a 1:40 or 1:10 or 1:2 ratio of traces to guns sold" would convey a LOT more useful data. you could scale the ratios based on geography, too, averaging the ratios in similar areas to help identify problem dealers. Dealerships with a rural client base should have similar numbers, and dealers with suburban and urban clientele should have similar ratios. That way, you can actually IDENTIFY the problem dealers in a meaningful way. You'd be able to look at stores across the country, identify trends, and then direct enforcement to the problem areas. For example, you could cross-tab the trace rates for all stores in an urban area with crime rates of between 20.0 and 50.0 violent crimes per 10,000 per year. If the national (or local) average for such stores is a 1:20 trace ratio, you could target all stores that drop below, say, a 1:15 ratio to find out why, and punish dealers who are breaking the law, while ignoring those dealers in the area with a 1:30 or higher ratio, since based upon volume and the average, they're doing something right.

One of the "top 10 trace" stores is near where I used to live. They sold an absolute boatload of guns, and had a semi-national reputation. Their primary customer base was police departments, and they sold guns to departments all over the country, in BIG lots (for example, they supplied one out-of-state department that shall remain nameless 4,000+ handguns in a single transaction, a single deal which got more guns out there than most stores sell individually to all their customers in 5 years, and that deal took less than a week total time expended to put together). They had a huge number of traces because they sold guns to the cops, and after a while, the departments re-sold them to other dealers and replaced them, but the trace came to the first store.

didn't report the Beltway Sniper's gun stolen until AFTER it had been traced back to them.

(One wonders how someone shoplifts a rifle without anyone noticing....do they stick it down a pantleg and limp out?)

...what? And what terrorist organization did the Beltway Sniper belong to?

But I'm not sure on that. After all, didn't they have Timothy McVeigh in their membership ranks?

and it's so pweshus to see some people try to pretend otherwise....

..proving that any gun store has sold "long guns by the hundreds" to any "terrorist organizations".

I would find it very pweshus.

"A few years ago, the government of Colombia asked the United States to trace nearly fifty MAK-90 rifles it had seized from the National Liberation Army, or ELN. It turned out these rifles had been obtained by Colombian gun traffickers after being purchased at retail stores in the Miami area. The ELN is on the State Department's foreign terror watch list. Yet, like many other underground armies around the world, it buys its weapons in one of the world's freest arms markets. "The United States has for many years been a warehouse, a shopping center, if you will, for firearms," says retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (AFT) resident agent in charge Daniel McBride, "because of the ease of acquisition, not just in the state of Florida but typically throughout the United States. We are a very easy place from which to obtain firearms for transshipment back home."
The story of a ragtag South Florida outfit called Lobster Air International illustrates just how easy US gun purchases can be. In the summer of 1998 Stephen Jorgensen began buying the first of what were eventually more than 800 MAK-90 semiautomatic rifles at a store called Gun Land in Kissimmee, Florida. He did not have a resale permit--known as a Federal Firearms License, or FFL--and he was not required to present one. But Jorgensen wasn't stockpiling the guns for his personal use; he was taking them to Opa-Locka airport near Miami and loading them aboard a light airplane headed for airstrips in Venezuela and Colombia, via Haiti. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1116-05.htm

You just don't hear of too many foreign armies being equipped with firearms purchased in Canada. That damned firearms registry; if it caught out the folks buying up a couple of dozen Garand whatever-they-weres, just imagine what it might do when somebody started buying 800 of those things.

Of course, these ones, in the story you cite, we know about because the people buying them were "bad guys" and it was the "good guys" who asked their counterpart "good guys" in the US gummint to trace them.

There's nobody asking the US gummint to trace the arms sold in the US that end up in the hands of the fascist militias in Colombia.

Even international criminals criticize America's lax gun laws and say they inevitably lead to international trafficking. Conor Claxton, who was convicted of smuggling more than 100 guns from Florida to the Irish Republican Army in 1999, said the group did its shopping near Fort Lauderdale because "we don't have gun shows in Ireland. You see things here like you never imagined." Rafael Ceruelos, who has lived in Spain since serving time for his offenses, says, "The right to bear arms made sense 200 years ago but not now." He adds, "As long as people can buy weapons in gun shops, there will be people from other countries who want to do business with them."

Of course, the IRA were *good* terrorists ...

Dog forbid that a USAmerican's exercise of "rights" should be interfered in any small way that might mean that that peasant farmers in Colombia might have a chance to feed their families.

.

Clearly the accused was running a business buying and selling firearms. Doing so without a Federal Firearms License is a major felony. We're not talking about ordinary firearms sales here; this is international gun-running. I don't see how a registry does anything to prevent black market sales of firearms that aren't even on it.

I don't see how a registry does anything to prevent
black market sales of firearms that aren't even on it.

Did somebody say it did?

Wasn't what I was whining about the fact that firearms can evade the firearms registry in Canada by being trafficked into Canada illegally from the US?

At bottom, though, firearms just have to come from somewhere, don't they? I mean, they're just not like "government", dropping like a lawn dart from heaven ...

The firearms in question -- the firearms sold in Florida -- would have been on a registry if they had been sold legally in Canada.

The sale of those 800 or so rifles was quite illegal under US law
Clearly the accused was running a business buying and selling firearms.

Well, here's where I'm ignorant. Does the dealer selling to that individual have a duty to ascertain what the purchaser is doing with them? Is there a cut-off point, say a dozen or a hundred weapons, where there is a presumption of intention to sell on? Does the dealer then have a responsibility to refuse to sell, or to report, or something?

If it were illegal for the buyer to buy, but not for the seller to sell, then the law wouldn't be much of a deterrent, it seems to me.

And if it were illegal for the seller to sell, but the buyer (or a dozen, or 50, different buyers acting in concert) could just go to 50 different dealers and make 50 separate purchases of a dozen weapons, would the sales (not purchases) be illegal?

Here's what the actual dealer in question said:

When Gun Land's owner, William Ben Woodall, answers the phone, he doesn't use his real name. "Tell 'em Bubba did it," he laughs. "Bubba" says there's no limit to the number of guns that someone can buy in Florida. He says he'd probably call ATF if someone came in to buy hundreds of semiautomatic rifles, but that if the person "looked right and acted right" and passed the NICS test--the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which requires gun-shop owners to call ATF and check whether a client is a felon or is otherwise prohibited from buying guns--he'd have no problem. Such a purchase, he says, is ultimately a customer's right. "Cars kill more people than guns," he says.

Is he supposed to have been charged with something?

.

...between pro-gunners and pro-control people.

o - Pro-gunners are looking to punish wrong-doers after thay've killed, injured, or illegally sold a weapon.

o - Pro-control folks are looking to prevent as many killings, injuries and illegal gun sales as possible.

Then pro-control folks support * in attacking Iraq to prevent as many killings, injuries and illegal weapons sales as possible?

It may just as well read:

Pro-gunners assume that people are responsible for their actions until proven otherwise (innocent until proven guilty).

Pro-controllers assume that people are irresponsible for their actions until proven otherwise (guilty until proven innocent).

Pre-emptive measures are a slippery slope indeed.

Please try to stay on topic.

No wonder the movement is rotten from stem to stern...

pro gunners rely on denial, distortion and deception...

pro-control folks are able to rely on facts...

libertarians are looking to punish wrong-doers after they've been proven guilty.

authoritarians are looking to punish everybody before anything has happened.

It is prior-restraint, it removes free-will and treats all as criminals. The antis don't understand that it is about freedom. It seems that most, if not all, antis are willing to trade freedom for safety. Those who are willing to give up liberty for safety will soon find they have neither.

an authoritarian. I'd rather we didn't do that.

I also must add that I do not find ANY freedom in knowing my church, which decides to exercise the rights of it's congregation by forbiding guns must now deface the entrance with a state regualted sign, all so others can enjoy their "freedoms".

One man's freedom becomes another's burdon.

The church still has to live with zoning restrictions on the size of its outdoor advertising, and with building codes concerning the structure, just like any other business, building or structure.

Oh, well.

with a hastily implemented law? No other "zoning restriction" requires my church to place placards on the entrance to the house of worship.

That the placards indicate implied violence, the antithesis of what the church stands for, merits an "oh well" from those who would enjoy their freedom at the church goers expense is certainly telling.

as one enters the place of worship. The expense of desecrating the structure of worship. Nothing in fiscal cost - priceless in aesthetics

Wouldn't that peace of mind come knowing (well, really just thinking) that there are no guns in there to hurt you?

Actually, thinking about it some more, I agree with you, a sign there would affect my peace of mind too. I'd be much more comfortable knowing that some of my fellow parishioners would be able to protect the church and its members if necessary.

That kind of peace of mind would be indeed priceless.

Note that I live in rural community. I'd say 9 out of 10 males own rifles for hunting or collecting. I'll bet a good share of the women do too. When we held the annual meeting and as part of business discussed the necessity of the sign the only comment was that no one wanted to bother with it, that they didn't want to see it coming into church. There wasn't a soul who felt that they needed to carry a weapon into church. One old lady said that seeing the temporary sign gave her a chill every time she went by it. I heard lots of murmured agreement.

Having the freedom to determine my own peace of mind, unburdened by you exercising your freedom to feel safe by carry a weapon of destruction in a church is true freedom to me. Again, our freedoms seem to collide.

So, if it is a matter of two different perspectives of peace of mind, which should take precedence?

I infer that you would have all citizens disarmed in a place of worship. I would like that people have the choice to carry for their defense and the defense of others.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to the choice of the church leaders to institute their own policy. I'd agree with those members of the church that I would not want to see that sign either (though for differing reasons perhaps).

I see both views having a desire to have peace of mind and safety, however, only one view advocates the restriction of another's liberty. I am having a hard time seeing how that restriction of liberty constitutes as "true freedom" as you put it.

Regardless of whether the sign is up or not, you will never achieve peace of mind knowing that there are no weapons there to hurt you. You have no way of knowing that. Concealed means just that, concealed. Personally, I'd rather not alienate those people who have gone through the trouble to obtain training and a background check to have the ability to protect those who are unarmed.

only one view advocates the restriction of another's liberty

again, we disagree. I contend that the notice that folks are carrying and need to be reminded before they enter a house of worship is intrusive on my liberties, which is the right to peace of mind.

So, again, your liberties infringe on mine. After all, what is concealed carry but peace of mind?

you will never achieve peace of mind knowing that there are no weapons there to hurt you

No, that would be you placing your values on me and my process of thought. I don't live in fear of bad guys determined to hurt me. I feel no need to carry a weapon. I don't have nightmares that we are going to have shoot outs in church. Thus, it never occurs to me that I might need to worry about weaponry as I enter my church. Well, now, actually, it does concern me that folks in my very civil neck of the woods think so little of their friends and neighbors that they need to carry a weapon of destruction and that they might carry it into church. That upsets my peace of mind, and again, it defaces our wonderful church facade.

"So, again, your liberties infringe on mine. After all, what is concealed carry but peace of mind?"

So it's ok to infringe on my actual liberty, but it's not ok to infringe on your perception of liberty?

Liberty by definition from Merriam-Webster is:

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

I still do not see how restraining another's liberty for your sake of an abstract feeling of peace of mind is justified as liberty itself. Everyone wants peace of mind, but not everyone proposes restrictions put upon another to achieve that peace of mind.

"I don't live in fear of bad guys determined to hurt me. I feel no need to carry a weapon. I don't have nightmares that we are going to have shoot outs in church."

I'm sure most people feel that way too. But if you do not have this fear, why restrict those who choose to carry if you are not afraid of shootouts and the like?

"Well, now, actually, it does concern me that folks in my very civil neck of the woods think so little of their friends and neighbors that they need to carry a weapon of destruction and that they might carry it into church."

Your choice is using "weapon of destruction" in describing guns belies your bias. A CCW holder would more likely use the term "weapon of protection/defense."

In fact, a person who chooses to carry may do so because he or she may feel that their community is so important to go through trouble of a background check and training to acquire a permit that allows them to protect that same community they are apart of.

You assign your liberty to be of greater value than mine. Mine is less tangible, but it is mine nonetheless. The facade of my Church has value, but your right to be armed at all times is of more value than the 500 souls in my church who don't want weapons near it? Earlier today the discussion was of the greater good - to me the greater good is served when the overall health and welfare of the population is served - the posting of signs on the front of my church is not in the best interest of the comon good.
---
My bias has nothing to do with our discussion. We all come to the table with preformed opinion, to refer to those beliefs as bias is simply a way of negating beliefs.
---
As far as you or any other CCW holder loving his community so much that they are seeking to protect me and my fellows? Please, do me no favors. I know and trust my local police to make wise decisions about the use of deadly force. I barely trust many of fellow citizens on the highway - I really don't know that I trust them to make a split second judgement call of whom and when to shoot.

The chances of another person being armed whether there is or isn't a sign on the door will always be there. You should never rest easy thinking that you are safe. Any peace of mind you would gain from believing there are no guns around to harm you would be false peace of mind. Prohibition of guns in a church (even without an unsightly sign) is no guarantee that you will be safe just as carrying a gun is no guarantee you will safe. By carrying, you give yourself one more option in case the unimaginable happens. However, by taking away that option you do guarantee that you will not be able to fight back in those rare situations.

If you don't trust your fellow parishioners to protect you by all necessary means, then I'm not sure why you would want to join this congregation anyway. You say you don't trust us regular citizens with making important decisions regarding life or death, yet by taking away those tools, you would have everyone be at the mercy of those who wish to do you harm. And if you don't trust us, why should we trust you to preemptively make a life or death decision for us by prohibiting our carry of tools for our protection?

I choose not to live my life in fear. I've travelled the world, I've lived in crappy parts of big cities and I've stayed out way past my bedtime. I've never once considered that my life would be improved if I had a weapon with me. I truly have no problem with people thinking they are better off with them - until you mess with the sanctity of my church.

If you don't trust your fellow parishioners to protect you by all necessary means, then I'm not sure why you would want to join this congregation anyway.

Dude, that is not how I choose a congregation. I know I can trust my kids around them, I know I can count on them to look in on my family if i get sick or am out of town. I know they will help me grow and allow me to be a part of the spiritual community of of the church. It would never dawn on me to ask them if they were willing to get into a gun battle for me. That kind of thinking would never even occur to me - doesn't even approach my reality.

I am further confused as to when I took away your tools to protect yourself. I just want people to respect my congregation's rights enough not to bring a weapon into the church and not to have to worry about posting silly signs for those who can't give up their weapon for 65 minutes (75 if you can stick around long enough to join us for coffee).

Many people bring up that they don't live in fear when speaking of people who choose to CCW. However, these people do not live in fear either. It is more about being prepared for those bad things in life that are almost guaranteed to happen. It's why we wear seatbelts, have auto insurance, and have fire extinguishers in our houses.

I'm not sure what you want. Is it that you wish an exemption to the law so that all firearms are prohibited in churches so you don't have to post a sign? By asking parishioners to leave their weapons in the car, that is probably an even more dangerous situation than if you let them take them in. Not only do you leave those parishioners defenseless (and by prohibiting carry, you in effect do take away these tools of protection), you invite the possibility that those weapons could be stolen out of their vehicles.

However, as I stated a few posts above, if the church leadership does make the decision to prohibit carry within its walls, then people should respect that. I'm sure that it could be discussed as being a matter of courtesy without a sign being put up. Of course, you still wouldn't know who would be carrying or not though. Concealed is concealed after all.

Dude, don't give away the secrets. Now everyone I meet who reads this will ask if I am carrying.

Seriously, Luna, after spending a few months in J/PS, I know that I will protect me and mine. If other people want protection, they can use their own cell phone or bring their own weapon.

I am mixed about exclusionary rules. On one side is property rights. On the other side is the idea of a public place where security is not provided.

I do choose not to carry to my church or to ones I visit. Then we have 28 parishioners on a good day.

Columbia is right...signage or not, I don't know who is carrying. There is too much responsibility in choosing to carry to be bothered by letting others know you carry. Even the Presidential protection detail watches non verbals rather than looking for bulges.

It is more about being prepared for those bad things in life that are almost guaranteed to happen.

So, without a doubt I am going to get into a situation where I need a gun? Dude, like I said before, you and I live two totally different realities.

I have faced the business end of a gun. It never occurred to me the or since that I wished I had a gun on me. If I would've, one of us would be dead. As it was, the situation remained calm enough for the police to arrive and to handle the situation without loss of blood or life. Two guys who are both still daddies to their kids - one who made a real bad decision while intoxicated but has paid a small price for his error instead of a larger price for a bigger error.

Next - So, on one hand I am a sucker for not trusting my congregation to have a gun battle for me, but on the other I am a sucker because I don't know if they are violating my wishes and the rule of the congregation that we don't have guns in church? Hey, if someone has to lie and still bring a gun to come to church then I hope to hell they find somewhere else to worship.

Nope, you and I live two separate realities. We are never going to agree and I see no point in trying. Obviously I have made no impact on you and you have only convinced me that my congregation is either lying to me about having guns or isn't going to blast bad guys for me - neither one of which I truly believe or care about. Your answer is violence to meet violence - I can't live that way.

peace.

It's the spice of life after all. :)

I think you misinterpret my responses however. I do not intimate that a gun is the solution to all problems - far from it, in fact. There are lots of other measures that one must take before that, the gun is only a last resort measure. And neither did I say that you without a doubt will need a gun, I hope you do not. I only say that bad things are practically guaranteed to happen, and prudent measures should to taken to prepare for those.

"Your answer is violence to meet violence - I can't live that way."

You may think it uncouth and vulgar, but you are correct, I have absolutely no qualms about using violence if necessary to protect my life and those of my loved ones.

and lest I appear totally anti-gun here understand that I am only arguing the impact that CCW has had on my small church. My other views are totally separate. I am, however, very dismayed at the impact the law has had on my Minnesota church and our rights as a congregation.

No, I only want the option to resist violence if I cannot escape.

I don't even think about whether others may be armed. It makes no difference to me. If they are peacable, we will pass and it will not be known. If they are not peacable I am already at a disadvantage.

As far as signage, check your state statutes. Many require signage, but there is no "violation" until one refuses to leave or surrender a weapon.

Considered a request. West Virginia law is not so clear. I went to a lwyer's office back in December, and at the end of the hall was a sign, "Check Your Guns at the Door, Pardner." I do not know if it was serious or a novelty sign. It would have qualified as either.

The issue here is of course whether an owner of property should bear the onus of excluding firearms from his/her property. The particular instance is a church, and the nature of that owner and property highlight the problems with the reverse onus.

It appears that the way things stand, anyone may enter onto private property that s/he is entitled to enter -- i.e. as something other than a trespasser, whether as a customer or member or whatever -- and bring a firearm with him/her, concealed on his/her person.

The owner of the property is left not knowing whether the people on the property have firearms legally concealed on their persons or not. This is a bit of information that a lot of property owners might really, and eminently reasonably, like to have. And many property owners, eminently reasonably, might not want firearms on their property, concealed on the persons of complete strangers.

As things stand, if owners of property do not want people bringing firearms onto their property, without their knowledge, *they* have the onus of informing anyone entering the property that they may not bring firearms with them. This results in things like the sign on lunabush's church that he does not want to have there.

It's his congregation's property; whether a honking big sign about guns at the entrance to their church is something they want is just up to them. It's a matter of taste, and it really isn't something they need to explain, let alone justify, to someone else.

Mormons and vacuum cleaner salespeople and political canvassers have completely lawful access to my front porch to ply their trades at my door. As I recall my tort law, they're "licensees": they have my implied permission to be there. These concealed-carry laws appear to give them my implied permission to bring a firearm with them ("me" being someone who lives in a jurisdiction where these laws apply, which fortunately I don't).

The question is, why should the law give anyone implied permission to bring a firearm onto my property? (Or into a church, the case at hand here.)

Why should someone carrying a firearm not have the onus of seeking and obtaining permission before carrying a firearm, concealed on his/her person so that the property owner cannot otherwise know it is there, onto someone else's property??

Why should the onus not be on a property owner who welcomes people with firearms concealed on their persons, who wants them on his/her property, to post a sign saying that? Why should the presumption in the law not be that property owners prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons onto their property unless they post signs, or otherwise inform those entering, otherwise?

The law seems to be a pretty big intrusion on property-owners' rights, if y'all ask me.

In the past, it was illegal to carry concealed weapons, and so a property-owner's interest in not having firearms on his/her property was protected by the general law as it is by, say, the general law against window-breaking. (Some people will break the law, but the law is intended as a deterrent to the activity it prohibits, and people breaking it will be liable for their own acts.) Now, the property-owner's interest in not having firearms on his/her property has been made subordinate to the interest of anyone and everyone who wants to tote a concealed firearm around.

The issue simply is not what the interest of a property-owner is in not having people bring concealed firearms onto his/her property. That is entirely up to the property owner. Control of the use of property is an inherent and important part of the right of ownership.

We do make laws expressly removing certain aspects of that control from some property owners. For instance, retail store owners may not control who enters the store based on race or religion, etc.

But to slip such a huge change in the rights of property owners into a law like this, when that doesn't appear to have been a focus of public debate about the law, is pretty shifty, if you ask me; the transparency I would expect in public policy-making seems to have been lacking. And that seems like a pretty inappropriate way of doing public policy.

The law not only takes away property owners' previous ability to rely on the general law to prohibit the toting of concealed firearms onto their property, it places the onus on them to exclude the firearms and the people toting them.

It is entirely possible that someone harmed by a person who legally toted a firearm onto property where the first person had no expectation of encountering firearms (... say, a church) will think of bringing action against the property owner for failing to post the property as off limits to concealed firearms toters. I wonder what might happen then.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to avert that risk, or for whatever reason or whim they might have (and are entitled to have, as the owners of private property), lunabush's congregation has to deface its property with a sign it doesn't want.

Yup, I'm seeing somebody's rights (to tote around a concealed firearm) prevailing over somebody else's (to use, and permit the use of, its property as it sees fit), and I'm just not seeing any justification for that.

.

... have to do with what people who are not you think, and how they feel? What have your opinions got to do with any of this?

The people in question do not want firearms on the premises where they hold religious services. That's nobody else's business, nobody's at all.

No one is being "disarmed". Everyone has a choice as to whether to enter the premises in question or not. If someone chooses not to enter the premises because s/he does not want to be without his/her firearm, s/he is perfectly free to go anywhere else in the big wide world that s/he chooses, fully armed. What nonsense you speak.

I infer that you would have all citizens disarmed in a place of worship.

That's not an inference. That's an unsubstantiated allegation.

What you were TOLD was that this one congregation does not wish to have firearms on its premises, concealed on its members' persons.

By what process do you "infer" from that that one of those members would have ALL citizens (what, not tourists?) "disarmed" in a place (i.e. any place) of worship? Do let me know; I may be able to put your method to good use in future.

I see both views having a desire to have peace of mind and safety, however, only one view advocates the restriction of another's liberty. I am having a hard time seeing how that restriction of liberty constitutes as "true freedom" as you put it.

Of course you are. It isn't *your* "freedom", so how could it be true?

.

is the freedom to scurry from place to place fearfully clutching a popgun in your pocket....

All else is an infringement on liberty...in a pig's eye.

...threatens your congregation no more than your carrying a pack of cigarettes into my church threatens my congregation.

it makes us uncomfortable. Where are our rights?

...that I don't make them feel comfortable?

...by an inanimate object then then might be made uncomfortable by people who have ideas that are different than theirs.

just the idea of violence goes against the teaching of our church. If your ideas are radically different than ours then yes, we probably would welcome your participation, but you might decide that you aren't comfortable there. I think that assessment could be made of any organization. There are fits and there are non-fits. If you have radically differing views than us, I can't imagine why you would even want to attend. Unless, of course, your post was only to confront and agitate with a strawman?

...why would it be better to leave it in the car (where it stands a chance of being stolen) then safely hidden on my person? You don't really think that I'm going to start playing with it in church do you?
In all likely hood you would never know I had it on me.

Why do you, or anyone else, think that you get to have anything at all to say about what someone else permits or does not permit on his/her/their property?

This is what eludes me still.

Why do you think that the onus should be on individuals and other private property owners to inform people who wish to enter their property that they may not carry concealed firearms with them?

Why should the onus not be on people who wish to carry concealed firearms onto private property to request the permission of the property-owner before doing so?

It's a straightforward question. The law has always been, in the past, that individuals were NOT permitted to carry concealed weapons onto private property, with a few exceptions, simply because most individuals were not permitted to carry concealed weapons.

Why should permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons automatically mean that they may carry concealed weapons on someone else's property?

That is the question.

.

That is YOUR responsibility. Its your right to leave it in the gun safe at home - actually I would say that its your responsibility. I can't believe that a gun in a car is good gun ownership.

We have asked that folks not bring weapons into church. That is our right. If you choose not to respect that and must sneak a gun into church then we would rather not have that deceit in our sanctuary.

But here you are forcing me to do just that.

For example: I'm from out of town and want to stop by your church.
I can leave it at the motel, leave it in the car or peacefully carry it into church. Which is the better choice?

and appease the congregation you want to visit by abiding by their wishes.

You don't want them to put up a sign!

rather than replicate what has been aptly treated by Iverglas, please refer to her posts in this thread.

...could you boil her thoughts down to about 500 words for me? :P

...right after church is over.

You take that attitude and you better have a gun the next time you come back to my church, buddy - remember- we're all farmers and of strong Minnesota stock - not a man under 6 foot tall. And, of course, 9 out of ten of us have at least hunting rifles. :P

...oh you were.

For example: I'm from out of town and want to stop by your church.
I can leave it at the motel, leave it in the car or peacefully carry it into church. Which is the better choice?

You can leave it in the safe at your home and not take it with you when you travel.

It is your choice to take it with you. You may have a right to do that, but you certainly have no obligation to do it.

It is your choice to go to a church while you are travelling. You have a right to do that, but no obligation to do it.

If you were travelling with a large vicious dog instead of a firearm, would you ask whether the local church would prefer that you turn it loose on the street while you attend its services, or bring it with you?

I think that the church might reasonably say: you chose to travel with a large vicious dog, so you chose to accept whatever restrictions this imposes on your activities. If you decide to turn it loose on the street while you attend our services, that's your choice, and any consequences will be your responsibility. (And neither choice is one that we would make, but it isn't ours to make.)


But here you are forcing me to do just that.

What a false and contemptible statement.

Are people in the US really forced to attend church these days?

.

..inanimate object.

P.S. Dogs aren't inanimate objects

Let's say that you were travelling with an extremely valuable, and extremely large, anatomically correct (in a very exaggerated manner) fertility statue from another culture and religious tradition.

That's the kind of thing that a lot of church-goers might not want in their sanctuary. But you don't want to let it out of your sight, it being extremely valuable and you finding it very inspirational, and of course believing that it brings you good fortune and protects you from the evil eye.

You could leave it in the hotel manager's office. But s/he might not want it, and besides, what good would it do you there?

You could leave it in the cargo space of your Hummer, but it might get stolen, and it might frighten passing children, and besides, what good would it do you there?

Is the congregation that doesn't want heathen graven images that are in questionable taste and take up a lot of pew space forcing you to leave it somewhere where it could be stolen or could traumatize someone, and isn't providing you with protection?

That's an easy question, and comes with only two possible answers:

YES, the congregation is forcing me to do that, because I have only two choices:
- travel with my statue and attend church with my statue;
- travel with my statue and attend church without my statue.

NO, the congregation is not forcing me to do that, because I have lots of choices:
- travel and attend church with my statue;
- leave my statue at home when I travel;
- stay at home;
- travel but don't go to church;
- travel and find a church that welcomes my statue;
- travel and attend church without my statue.

Yes or no?

.

...huh...wah..Did someone say the moon was made of green cheese?

You could leave it in the cargo space of your Hummer

What if your fellow members decided...
...that I don't make them feel comfortable?

As I understand it, they can decide whatever the hell they want, when it comes to who gets access to their property.

You got something against the separation of church and state?

I, too, of course, have to wonder what your point was ...

.

Don't entrances to the buildings have to be marked with "exit" signs?

"No other "zoning restriction" requires my church to place placards on the entrance to the house of worship."

How about handicapped entrances? And don't handicapped parking spaces have to be marked?

"That the placards indicate implied violence, the antithesis of what the church stands for, merits an "oh well" from those who would enjoy their freedom at the church goers expense is certainly telling."

I would think that a sign banning "implied violence" seems to be an advertisement for what your church stands for. But that's just my opinion.

Don't entrances to the buildings have to be marked with "exit" signs?

No, those would be the exits - and they are there as personal safety devices in the event of a fire.

Handicapped signs are in the parking lot and set aside spaces for folks that need the space - they are welcomed. These signs are postives - the exclusion of guns - "banned" implies a negative.

A sign about implied violence does not put one in a mood to worship.

Again, one man's freedom violates another.

The fact is that your church still has to adhere to the same laws that other public buildings have to follow. That was my point.

If I get a religious exemption for every law that I don't like, a lot of people would be mad.

If I get a religious exemption for every law that I don't like, a lot of people would be mad.

...or you'd see a large proliferation of new religions.

If I get a religious exemption for every law that I don't like, a lot of people would be mad.

Was lunabush suggesting a "religious exemption" to the law that property owners who wish not to have concealed weapons on their property have the onus of posting their property to that effect?

Or was he objecting to the law that permitted anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon into his church to do so, unless his church puts a sign at its door forbidding it?

Why should permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons in public mean that they are permitted to carry concealed weapons on other people's property?

Why should lunabush's church -- or anyone else -- have to post signs telling people that they are not permitted to carry concealed weapons on their property? Why should "I" have to post a sign on my front porch telling all Mormons, vacuum cleaner salespeople or political canvassers or anyone else who wants to knock on my door that they are not permitted to tote their guns with them?

Why should property owners' rights be diminished, by giving people a right to carry concealed firearms onto their property, a right that those people never before had and a right that potentially conflicts with the property-owner's interests, which interests WERE previously protected by the law against carrying concealed weapons which made it illegal to carry a concealed weapon onto someone else's property, simply because those people have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public?

.

...who here thinks that a sign that says "no guns allowed" would stop a bad guy from carrying out his intended misdeeds?

Insert usual comments here-->
Where did I imply that?
What is your point?
Blah blah blah

only bad people who use inanimate objects in a bad manner :P

...smarty pants.

who here thinks that a sign that says "no guns allowed" would stop a bad guy from carrying out his intended misdeeds?

Why do you think that it is up to YOU to judge the reasons that someone else might have for NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY?

What business is it of yours, or anyone else's, what people do or do not want to be done on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Who cares what you or anyone else thinks about whether prohibiting people from carrying concealed firearms onto one's property will have ANY effect on ANYTHING at all?

People ARE ENTITLED to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons onto their property.

THE QUESTION IS:

Why should the onus be on people who wish to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons onto their private property to inform the world of that wish -- and why should the onus not be on people who wish to carry concealed weapons onto someone else's property to request permission to do so?

The supplementary question is:

When are you going to answer the first question and stop trying to pretend there's some other question that needs answering?

.

..."People ARE ENTITLED to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons onto their property."

It's just all so silly to get so worked up about an inanimate object carried by a peaceful person. And is there anything more PRIVATE PROPERTY than my own body and what lawful items I choose to carry on it?


Furthermore:
If the church or property owner doesn't annouce the fact that he/she doesn't want concealed guns on his/her property how do you propose I find out? Stick my head in the door and scream the question to him/her?

There is this wonderful new invention - its called a telephone. Rumor has it that you can pick it up, punch in some numbers and talk to people on the other end. Now, the tricky thing is that not just any numbers will do. You have to dial the right sequence of numbers. Well, some forward thinking guys got together and they made something called a telephone book. You find out the name of the church you wish to attend, you call them up, and the person on the other end answers and you say, "Hey, I want to go to church there, do ya mind if I bring my sidearm?"

Here is an early version:


a slightly later model or two:



more recent models may look similar to this:


And here, for your further edification (I even found one with a gun on it!) is a phone book or two:

I was gonna suggest that the hummer might come equipped with one o' those devices.

;)

in the this thread by Iverglas. Why does the responsibility fall on me, when you are on our private property? A chruch is NOT public property. It is a place of public meeting, but not a publically owned property.

that the people who profess that they need to tote a popgun in their pocket to feel "safe" seem psychically unable to part with their little toy, even among unarmed churchgoers.

Makes one realize what they actually DO worship...

Your church is still covered as a place of public accomodation under the civil rights laws -try barring someone from entry on the basis of race and see what happens.

That "place of public accomodation" is the same as a shopping mall, grocery store, etc, that holds itself out to the public with an invitation to enter. True, it is private property, but its use determines how it classified under the law.

Thanks for the response and the referrals.

I understand your point, but the fact is that people will not know if they are unwelcome unless they are told by the property owner. The whole signage law is a *public policy* decision by the legislature that it is better to warn people away before they even enter the property, instead of having the CCW permit holders track down the decision maker for the property and get the same answer.

Your church is still covered as a place of public accomodation under the civil rights laws -try barring someone from entry on the basis of race and see what happens.

That "place of public accomodation" is the same as a shopping mall, grocery store, etc, that holds itself out to the public with an invitation to enter. True, it is private property, but its use determines how it classified under the law.

First, you probably need to learn a bit more about that "civil rights law". I'd bet that you'd find that at the very least, the sanctuary of a church -- perhaps as distinct from a church hall where bake sales are held or social services provided to the public -- is *not* a "place of public accommodation", and that churches may bar whomever they take a whim to barring from their sanctuary.

Why am I not hearing "separation of church and state" here??

I understand your point, but the fact is that people will not know if they are unwelcome unless they are told by the property owner. The whole signage law is a *public policy* decision by the legislature that it is better to warn people away before they even enter the property, instead of having the CCW permit holders track down the decision maker for the property and get the same answer.

And the question STILL is: WHY is this "better"?

WHY is it "better" to place the onus on property owners who do not wish to have people carry concealed firearms onto their private property -- for whatever reason they may have -- to make that fact known to anyone who might otherwise do it?

WHY should someone who wishes to tote a gun onto someone else's property not have to track down the owner and ask permission?

If a property has a parking lot for legitimate visitors, I may assume that I have permission to park there if I am a legitimate visitor.

However, I may not assume that I have permission to park on the lawn. It's generally known that there is no implied permission to park on someone else's lawn.

There was never implied permission to carry a concealed firearm onto someone else's property prior to these concealed carry permit laws being passed. In fact, there was express prohibition, by virtue of the general express prohibition against carrying concealed firearms anywhere at all.

Why should the law now provide that anyone with permission to carry a concealed firearm in public has permission to carry it onto private property?

(And for the assistance of anyone who needs it, this has absolutely not one thing to do with "civil rights" or anti-discrimination legislation. Unless we can find some provision in such legislation prohibiting discrimination against firearms-carriers. I don't believe there is, any more than there is a prohibition against discriminating against fur coat-wearers or people carrying loud portable stereos.)

Why should property owners be subjected to a requirement to prohibit something that there was no reason at all for the legislature to permit? And that by permitting, the legislature took away the protection that all property owners enjoyed, and some would prefer to retain, against a use of their property that they had not expressly authorized? What need is there for the law to give individuals the right to carry their concealed firearms onto other people's property without asking permission?

Property owners who wanted to give that permission generally, like banks and shopping malls and bars and any other property owner that thought it was in its interests to have people bring concealed weapons onto its property, would be perfectly free to post that information at their entrances, after all.

.

I wasn't calling any person an authoritarian. What I was trying to do was to use a term that means the opposite of libertarian (not the party). Let me explain what I mean when I use various terms.

liberal and conservative are used when describing economics and the spending of money in government. One is either fiscally liberal or fiscally conservative or somewhere in between. This is the classic left-wing or right-wing.

libertarian and authoritarian refer to personal freedoms and the politics of those. One is either libertarian, authoritarian or somewhere in between. An example of an authoritarian policy would be getting a license to practice free speech. An example of a libertarian position would be freedom of speech. To take it to the extremes, anarchy would be libertarian to the extreme, while the government in the book 1984 was authoritarian to the extreme. Most of us fall somewhere in between on everything. So, branding a policy libertarian or authoritarian is completely different than referring to a person as libertarian or authoritarian. This is because none of us are pure either way. Yes, this is oversimplifying it a bit, but I'm sure you all get what I mean.

"The antis don't understand that it is about freedom."
In this case, the freedom of a scummy industry to sell guns in bulk without governmental supervision, while some people try vainly to pretend some grand overarching principle is at work (and not squalid everyday corruption, irresponsibility and greed).

Frankly, is there any reason not to clamp down on these bastards hard?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions on what could be done to make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to obtain guns, since criminals with guns is most certainly a problem in this country.

I would reverse the recent Tiahrt amendment, which the NRA and GOP snuck through under the radar. Thanks to this increddibly bad piece of crap, gun dealers are no longer required by the ATF to keep a written inventory, and the ATF is no longer allowed to release trace or multiple sale data, which shields corrupt gun dealers from public scrutiny.

I would push to have NICS data retained instead of destroyed and to spend a lot more to improve the system (two thirds of the states, for example, do not provide records for mentally ill folks --like the Ohio sniper). I would up the enforcement and inspection by ATF agents, and increase penalties drastically.

There's a good start.

I would also hold public congressional hearings on gun industry practices, to discover how it is that a convicted stick-up artist gets to be chairman of S&W, for example. I'm sure the public at large would be interested to know that crazed cult leader and criminal Sun Myung Moon also manufactures guns, for example.

I think that requiring gun dealers to keep records of guns sold is reasonable. That way a gun retrieved from a criminal or crime scene could be traced to it's point of sale. However, I do not believe that the government should have a record of what guns I own. What possible positive need could the government have for keeping a list of what guns I own. I put that kind of surveillance right up there with allowing them to keep a list of who I associate with or what books I read.

I put that kind of surveillance right up there with allowing them to keep a list of who I associate with or what books I read.

... or what cars you own, or what real property you own, or where you work, or what your children's names are, or whom you're married to, or where and when you were born, or what your income is ...

Damn that government surveillance.

What possible positive need could the government have for keeping a list of what guns I own.

Do you want to try a few guesses? Everything that comes to mind, now, not just the usual suspects.

.

in our lives.

... or what cars you own, or what real property you own, or where you work, or what your children's names are, or whom you're married to, or where and when you were born, or what your income is ...

The government SHOULDN'T be keeping stats on a lot of what we do. However, there is one big difference: What you read, who you associate with, and your opinions are protected rights. Car ownership, your work information, etc., while certainly private information, do not necessarily fall under the realm of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Second amendment protects the right of citizens to own firearms, although many will argue that that right can be regulated by the government. I personally feel that it should not be subject to government control (for law abiding citizens) but that is not the reality of the times we live in.

What you read, who you associate with, and your opinions are protected rights. Car ownership, your work information, etc., while certainly private information, do not necessarily fall under the realm of Constitutionally protected rights.

You heard of that "liberty" thing?

I personally feel that it should not be subject to government control (for law abiding citizens) but that is not the reality of the times we live in.

Hmm. So that "RKBA" is subject to restriction in the case of NON-"law-abiding citizens", in your humble opinion?

How about their rights to read and believe what they want, and associate with whom they want; do those rights get to be restricted too?

You do know how precisely NO sense you make, right?

The exercise of all rights may be limited, as I'm sure you well know. Asserting that the exercise of any particular right may not be limited (well, except in ways you agree with, which is what it always does come down to) is just silly.

Registration of firearms no more interferes with any "right" to own firearms than registration of title to real property interferes with a right to own property.

.

Do you believe that writing a law requiring gun registration and/or ballistic fingerprinting will, in any way, actually result in criminals registering their firearms? Will criminals, if required by law, suddenly appear at their local police station to be issued their firearms license? Will they turn in their guns for destruction if so ordered?

like lawn darts from the sky. Those firearms that those criminals won't be registering, that just appeared out of thin air, or fell off the back of that turnip truck that seems to have passed by these parts recently.

Like I was just saying: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=45318&mesg_id=45443&page=

Yes indeed, there are firarms in circulation at present that will in all likelihood never be registered.

So why start registering other firearms now??

I know that you really do know the answers, and I'm disappointed that you are apparently unwilling to enlighten your new friends here.

.

I also think every gun should be registered and that ballistic signatures should be kept in a national database for new guns.

"I put that kind of surveillance right up there with allowing them to keep a list of who I associate with or what books I read."
I don't....I consider it a reasonable approach to public safety.

Would it actually stop criminals from acquiring guns and using them to commit crimes? I don't think it would make one iota of difference to the crooks. Also, ballistic fingerprinting, even if is is 100% accurate, still would do nothing to stop a crack dealer from shooting someone, or a punk from sticking a gun in your face and demanding your wallet and keys. The criminals, by default, simply do not care about, nor do they obey, gun laws.

A national registry WOULD, however, allow the government to keep track of law abiding citizens who own a gun. I can't think of ANY GOOD REASON the government needs to know if you or I, law abiding citizens, own a gun.

Of gun registration, not much!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x46443

Words on paper didn't stop this guy from obtaining or using a gun in an illegal manner? Perhaps he wasn't deterred by the ink.

Criminal 101: Criminals don't care about, nor do they obey, laws that prohibit certain actions or behaviors. They do what they want. That's why their criminals.

Or not a complete solution if you want to look at it that way.

To be useful a registry must be complemented by enforcement actions, which cost money and require law enforcement resources. In California the handgun registry does serve one useful purpose: It gives police a heads-up that someone they are about to talk to owns one or more handguns legally. It doesn't do jack for the illegal ones. And since there is no procedure in place to disarm each and every gun owner who becomes unqualified to own guns, it may not actually be saving any lives.

but then there's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=45318&mesg_id=45443&page=

Nobody ever did respond to that.

.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

What would Bobby Kennedy say?

(I mean, apart from "how is 'there will never be X' a 'response' to a statement of reasons for instituting X?", which is what I'd expect a clever fellow like him to say about what you said ...)

.

It did not appear to me that you seriously wanted an answer.

But in case you did - He'd say nothing, because he's dead.

Yes, I considered saying "what would Bobby Kennedy have said?" But I know how people hate it when I use too many words, and I wanted to stick to the formula. "What would Jesus say?" - isn't that how it goes? Dead, both of them.

As I understand it, what Bobby might have said was something like:

Slackmaster sees things as they are, and says they are that way because they could never be any different.
I see things as they might be, and say "why not?"

.

In the areas where I am actually smarter than most people - Engineering, computers, technical stuff, machinery, and the like - I get paid very well for the creative and insightful manner with which I attack and solve complex problems. I pride myself on my exceptional ability to think "outside the box". I don't limit my solutions to the way things have always been done, the way the majority think, the way someone else does it, or the way a boss suggests.

I believe my understanding of political reality regarding the prospects of a useful gun registry in the USA is based on clarity or thought rather than recalcitrance. I have yet to see an example of a gun registry that comes anywhere near the grand vision they're usually sold as. But my biggest objection is that if the Democratic Party were to adopt a plan for a comprehensive national gun registry in its platform, we'd be doomed to ANOTHER four years of Republican rule. The tougher the gun control measures you advocate, the more gun owning voters you alienate. That's reality IMO.

Note that some pro-registry people use extraordinarily shallow reasoning to promote registries, e.g. MrBenchley's flaccid "I see no reason not to do it." Well I see plenty of reasons not to do it if it costs money and law enforcement resources that could be used to better public safety gain elsewhere.

I can't think of ANY GOOD REASON the government needs to know if you or I, law abiding citizens, own a gun.

You're just not trying, are you?

Either that, or you're using some private definition of "good reason" that you haven't shared with the class ...

.

What would be a "good" reason for the government to keep a list of guns that you or I might own? Why should the police want to know if I, a law abiding non-criminal, have a gun in my home or on my person? What will be done to compell people to register their guns? How about crack dealers and muggers...how will we ensure their compliance?

And I find it hilarious that the same people who want to post pictures of their lethal toys here are the same ones angrily screaming that nobody has the right to know about their toys.

worth discussing.

"Would it actually stop criminals from acquiring guns and using them to commit crimes?"
In a word, yeah.

Then how come we still have crime? It's already illegal to use a gun to commit a crime. Why haven't those printed words prevented murder, rape, robbery, etc.? Will another book of words suddenly work where others have failed?

Perhaps the problem is not with our laws, but rather with the lack of enforcement of them. Criminals really don't fear the law because they know they will seldom be subject to it. Perhaps a much stiffer penalty should be imposed for those who use a gun to commit a violent crime. The bottom line is that words alone will not stop crime.

Printed words in a book will stop crime?
Then how come we still have crime?

How come we still have hundreds of thousands of unregistered motor vehicles being driven around our streets and highways by crooks?

Oops. We don't.

Looks like a book of words may have worked. Unless you think that the crooks wouldn't rather be driving around in unregistered motor vehicles, and be doing it if they could.

The words that actually seem to have worked go something like: "thou shalt not sell a motor vehicle to anyone without registering the transfer in the motor vehicle registry." On pain of penalty, of course.

Amazing magic, eh?

.

but somehow I don't think the banking industry will be mounting a propaganda campaign to get rid of the laws against it...

I'm against passing laws that only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Heck, I'd be all in favor of a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no possibility of release for those convicted of crimes committed with a gun. I'm all for requiring individuals to receive training before they can purcase/carry a gun. I'm just against being forced to let the government infringe on my rights.

Gee, laws against bank robbery infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to rob banks...

because it's quite easy for the police to spot them and, therefore, far more difficult for people to get away with driving unregistered cars. Most people won't drive an unregistered car because they are fairly certain they will be spotted, stopped, and ticketed in relatively short order. They obey the law because the deterrent (large fines, suspension of driving privileges?) makes it cheaper and easier to obey the law than to disregard it. The same is NOT true for firearms. They are easily hidden, difficult for the police to track, and criminals know they are not very likely to face prosecution for carrying an unregistered firearm because it is very unlikely a police officer will ever know they have one.

Apparently, the penalty for being convicted of using a gun to commit a crime is not severe enough to deter a large number of criminals. Perhaps that is the real problem.

Depending on where you are something like 5-10% of the vehicles on the road don't have current registration. I suspect some of them are just a little late paying the annual fee, but it's not uncommon to see cars with registration years out of date, with bald tires, belching smoke.

I actually did live in California, for about eight years, and I agree that there are many cars out there that violate any number of DMV codes. Apparently, the threat of fines and other punishment isn't enough to compell these miscreants to get their cars up to snuff.

Some of them are too poor to afford either a new car that passes the smog test or make repairs to their existing smoker.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then run like hell, and he'll never be able to catch you.

:evilgrin:

FWIW I agree that nobody should be given a free pass to violate the law. It pisses me off severely to see smog-belching, unsafe vehicles on the road.

The same is NOT true for firearms. They are easily hidden, difficult for the police to track, and criminals know they are not very likely to face prosecution for carrying an unregistered firearm because it is very unlikely a police officer will ever know they have one.

That is indeed one of the best arguments for licensing firearms owners and registering firearms.

Most people won't drive an unregistered car because they are fairly certain they will be spotted, stopped, and ticketed in relatively short order.

Hmm. Most people, I'd say, won't drive an unregistered car because it's impossible.

Where do they get said car? Either from a car dealer, having no choice but to register the car because the car dealer wouldn't sell it to them otherwise ... or from someone who got it from a car dealer and had no choice but to register it when s/he bought it? I think so.

Yup, there will always be a few people willing to break the law by selling a car that is registered to them to someone else without registering the transfer. But various penalties do reduce the chances of that happening. Including liability for damage caused by the car when it's driven by the unregistered "owner".

Apparently, the penalty for being convicted of using a gun to commit a crime is not severe enough to deter a large number of criminals. Perhaps that is the real problem.

Yes, and the death penalty works so well to deter people from committing homicide.

Many criminals are not amenable to deterrence, period. And many kinds of offences, ditto.

Certainty of apprehension is a much stronger deterrent than severity of punishment in almost all cases where deterrence does work. (Again, I'm talking about something I actually know something about.)

And where neither one works -- as might be the case for illegal transfers/possession of firearms -- we often implement measures to make it at least difficult to engage in the behaviour we cannot otherwise effectively deter.

We don't just post signs at airports saying "no knives on board planes". We search luggage for knives, and take them away.

We don't just say "no speeding in school zones". We put speed bumps on the roadway.

We don't just say "no selling tainted meat". We employ inspectors to test meat offered for sale.

We don't just say "no driving unregistered motor vehicles". We prohibit motor vehicle dealers -- the original source of all motor vehicles on our roads -- from transferring motor vehicle ownership without registering the transfer.

Now substitute "firearms" for "motor vehicles", and see what you get.

.

Flying on airplanes (with or without a knife), speeding in school zones (or driving a car for that matter), and selling meat are all government regulated privileges. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense is a Constitutionally protected right. The only acceptable reason for the government to abridge my rights is to prevent me from infringing on your rights. Government exists only to protect the rights of the individuals governed. Government regulation should NEVER be allowed to infringe on individual rights.

and no more unworkable than the DMV...

Flying on airplanes (with or without a knife), speeding in school zones (or driving a car for that matter), and selling meat are all government regulated privileges.

You've just never read that bit about LIBERTY in your constitution, have ya?

The only acceptable reason for the government to abridge my rights is to prevent me from infringing on your rights.

Nor, obviously, do you have Clue 1 about constitutional law. Well, either that or you just like your own opinions better, at least when it's convenient.

Government regulation should NEVER be allowed to infringe on individual rights.

And again, nor do you have, or admit to, a clue about what it is that government regulation is and does.

Government exists only to protect the rights of the individuals governed.

Do join us in the 21st century any time you're ready. The door's open.

.

Hmm. Most people, I'd say, won't drive an unregistered car because it's impossible.

Where do they get said car? Either from a car dealer, having no choice but to register the car because the car dealer wouldn't sell it to them otherwise ... or from someone who got it from a car dealer and had no choice but to register it when s/he bought it? I think so.

An unregistered car is created when the owner fails to pay a periodic (typically annual) registration fee. That does not make the vehicle inoperable. Sure, any car you buy from a dealer will be registered before you drive it off the lot, but that does not guarantee future renewal of the registration.

And the fact that you have to pay annual fees to keep a car registered is the basis for one of the strongest arguments AGAINST gun registration. An awful lot of people who own one or more firearms would be very upset if they were told they had to pay for the privilege (sic) of keeping their property. That's why I think advocating a national gun registry would be political suicide in the US. Even if there is no fee to start out, once a registry is established it becomes possible to start charging periodic fees later.

As some say in New Jersey, Fuggeddaboudit.

Well stated.

An unregistered car is created when the owner fails to pay a periodic (typically annual) registration fee.

I really did anticipate this noise, and I suppose I should have struck pre-emptively, but in the interests of brevity, I didn't.

If the aim of registration is to be able to identify who was in lawful possession of "thing X" at "point A", is anyone's failure to renew the registration going to defeat that aim?

There are other aims in the case of motor vehicle registration that are not relevant to firearms registration, at least for the purposes of our discussion -- like making sure that motor vehicles are insured and meet safety and emission standards. Failing to renew registration does not make it impossible for authorities to know who owns a car, is the point.

An awful lot of people who own one or more firearms would be very upset if they were told they had to pay for the privilege (sic) of keeping their property.

It's a hard life. I imagine that when motor vehicle registration was first introduced, there were people who felt the same way. Did governments fall? Do USAmericans not love their cars as much as their guns?

Even if there is no fee to start out, once a registry is established it becomes possible to start charging periodic fees later.

I suppose it does -- but that is a completely and entirely separate issue. The reason that annual fees are charged for motor vehicle registration has very little to do with raising revenue, which I assume is one bogeyman here; while it has something to do with keeping track of ownership, it mainly has to do with the insurance and safety factors.

With firearms, it might not be a bad idea to require periodic re-registration, just to ensure that there hadn't been illegal selling-on going on. Knowing that one would be required to produce one's firearm in 5 years to re-register it might be nice deterrent to selling it to a bank robber, or leaving it lying around in the back seat of one's car contrary to safe storage laws. Hell, the re-registration could even be a freebie.

.

It might be a good thing to restrict ammuntion sales to those who can produce a valid registration...and to record that with each sale....

The California Department of Motor Vehicles says it collects approximately $5.9 BILLION in annual revenue.

According to the governor's budget report for 2000-01, motor vehicle fes provided 6.2% of the state's "total revenues and transfers".

That is far more than it costs to track ownership and make sure people have bought insurance and properly maintained their vehicles. Don't you recall the big flap here last year when Governor Davis tripled the vehicle license (that's registration) fee in an attempt to cover the budget shortfall? That was one of the biggest factors that led to his recall and replacement by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

See

And http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/what_dmv_does.htm

Hell, the re-registration could even be a freebie.

The hell it would remain so once the feds have a registry.

If you can find democraticunderground.com, I'll bet you can find Bullseye Gun Shop.

.

Are you trying to direct our newbie to the Bullseye Gun Shop in Brooksville, Arizona or the one in Duncanville, Texas?

:evilgrin:

The guy is a darn good gunsmith and has done some nice work for me in the past. Reasonable prices too. However, I get a better deal on ammo from Wal-Mart, or reloading at home.

One wonders why anyone would leap into the middle of a discussion and begin arguing before he had some facts...

The Bullseye Gun Shop, in Spokane, was the source of weapons for the Beltway Sniper and Buford Furrow, among others. It turns out hundreds of weapons are unaccounted for from this criminal enterprise. The disgraceful recent bill being rushed through Congress to give immunity from liability to the gun industry was in a large part to protect the Bullseye Gun shop from the lawsuits that have been filed against it.

I would think they'd buy them from another "terrorist" or some other untraceable source.

By the way, has there been a sudden upsurge in terrorist attacks using "assault style" weapons in this country? Did I miss something?

if you can find them...

or was it actually that they failed to follow the law regarding background checks and the like? I certainly believe that they should be taken to task over their failure to follow the laws but that doesn't mean they knowingly supplied firearms to criminals or terrorists.

But it is completely illogical to hold someone legally responsible for the actions of another person, UNLESS you can prove that the Bullseye gun store knowingly, willingly, and illegally sold a firearm to someone who then used it in the commission of a crime. The only person responsible for the shootings is the person, or persons, who pulled the trigger. THEY should be held accountable and punished.

And next ask me if I care about your misinterpretation of liability law....

By the way, I guess your earlier claim to know nothing at all about Bullseye was hooey?

For the authoritarian, anti-rights crowd. At least when they aren't indulging in guilt by association, red herrings, or straw man arguments.

I think it best if I refrain from discussions with some individuals here. (Not including you.)

:toast:

I think that is a good policy - I'm doing the same with some people here in the Gungeon. It preserves my sanity.