ACLU opposes national gun registry

[hack89]

The American Civil Liberties Union said a gun bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on March 22 mandating background checks could infringe on Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.

S 649 would mandate a universal background check for all gun sales, but the records maintained in background checks for private sales could be retained, which the ACLU says would be a violation of privacy rights.

The first concern is the bill treats records for unlicensed gun sales differently than purchases made through unlicensed sellers.

The second concern is this could be the first step toward making a national gun registry, which the ACLU would oppose for privacy reasons.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577495/ACLU-concerned-about-background-check-in-gun-bill.html

[krispos42]

1. *blink*

n/t

[bossy22]

2. this will be ignored by many pro gun control peeps

Remember its not about finding a solution, its about persecuting those whose political ideologies differ from theirs

[rdharma]

3. ACLU sometimes defends "rightie" causes..........

They also defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie, IL several years ago.

I wonder if my "privacy" rights are being violated by being required to register my vehicle.

[hack89]

4. No - they defend the Constitution. Which is a bipartisan cause.

if you kept your car on private property you would not need to register it.

[jmg257]

6. Great. If no one ever shot anyone with guns, we would not have to register them either.

Unfortunatley, in both instances, it is not often the case.

[hack89]

8. Except by law, criminals cannot be forced to register their guns.

that pesky 5th Amendment.

So every person legally prohibited from possessing guns is automatically exempt from registration.


And of course, registration will not impact the majority of gun deaths - suicides.

[jmg257]

14. Great. So we have something else to charge them with when they are caught committing crimes...

possession of unregistered firearms.

And a great way to get more illegally possessed guns out of circulation. Works fine in NY.

More penalties for detering criminal acts. More illegal guns removed.

Excellent idea.

[hack89]

18. If they are not deterred by laws against murder, assault and armed robbery

then why do you think another law will deter them?

Arresting criminals is always a good way to get illegal guns out of circulation - I support arresting criminals.

Do you support NY's tactic of "stop and frisk"? Are you another Bloomberg 1% acolyte?

[jmg257]

22. Then they can spend even more time in jail. Willing to take the risk, then do the time.

They can be charged just for having an illegal weapon, if they are found to possess one. Great.

I don't support stop and frisk. It is also only a partial way illegal guns are removed (and not very effective at that.)

[hack89]

29. That is too weak an argument for me to support it. nt

[jmg257]

51. That's understandable. The possibility of govt confiscation because of registration is a concern

of many. And it doesn't seem there is too much that can be done to diminsh that fear.

(i am assuming that is what you mean by "too weak an argument" - giving another cause to arrest criminals is not worth the risk to lawful owners of registration)

[hack89]

52. That and it won't prevent gun deaths. It is useful only after the fact.

It won't stop suicides. It won't stop criminals - there is a huge pool of unregistered guns for them to choose from. And it won't stop mass killings - crazy people don't care.

[jmg257]

54. I am of the opinion that registration will be VERY effective. I believe it will

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:05 PM - Edit history (2)

help control the flow of illegal guns, straw purchases, and the like, that seem to be a big part of crime re:guns.
A lack of illegal arms so readily available would also increase the cost of those that remain, further making access harder. If criminal access can be reduced, it will have a positive impact.


"The huge pool" is certainly an existing problem however - as you note. Without making registration retro-active we would need to wait for some attrition to kick in. But then again, if all guns had to be registered, idenitifying and removing illegal guns (and those who possess them) would be much easier and more effective.

ETA:
Those "law-abiding" refusing to register might also be less apt to use their contraband guns publicly, and otherwise cause them to be less used and better secured (maybe even buried). This could have a positive affect on accidents, child-involved shootings & suicides, rash murdes, NDs, &c..

[hack89]

57. We will see what happens.

I doubt we will see registration in our lifetimes.

[jmg257]

59. Agree for the most part - to a point...

I understand about the slippery slope stuff, but i think if some compromise is not reached (not sure what), i.e. if *something* is not done, the next time a Newtown happens the push for far greater controls will be imminent.

And so of course the push-back will be too.

Things could very well get nasty.

[hack89]

60. Another Newtown will simply polarize America more

As the noisy fringe on both sides go nuts - it will merely make compromise harder.

[Jenoch]

144. Doesn't Illinois have a form of gun registration?

Has that deterred the criminals using guns in Chicago?

[jmg257]

150. I don't know...how many illegal guns have PDs in Illinois removed from circulation?

NY got around 9000 in a year recently....likely many just handguns (only ones registered)


Seems like a pretty good chunk of guns that were otherwise being used...by criminals.

[Jenoch]

155. Do you think there are

fewer criminals using guns in locations that have gun registration? I do not (until presented with evidence to the contrary).

[jmg257]

156. Well - see what you can dig up.

In the mean time, I am of the opinion that registration (especially when combined with UBC) will...

help control the flow of illegal guns, straw purchases, and the like, that seem to be a big part of crime re:guns.
...If criminal access can be reduced, it will have a positive impact.

provide another charge against criminals with when they are caught committing crimes...

be a great way to get more illegally possessed guns out of circulation...if all guns had to be registered, idenitifying and removing illegal guns (and those who possess them) would be much easier and more effective.

etc.


Lots on the plus side, very little on the down side.

[Jenoch]

157. There are tens of millions

of unregistered guns in the U.S. Criminals will always have access to them.

I agree that straw purchases are a problem that is currently not being taken seriously. Few people guilty of making straw purchases are prosecuted for their crime.

Canada tried national registration, spent a billion dollars, and gave up. If they spent a billion in Canada, how much whould be spent here?

[jmg257]

159. Depending on who owns them now, I gess.

The tens of millions is certainly an existing problem however - as you note. Without making registration retro-active we would need to wait for some attrition to kick in. But then again, if all guns had to be registered, idenitifying and removing illegal guns (and those who possess them) would be much easier and more effective.

[Jenoch]

166. Huh?

"...if all guns had to be registered, idenitifying and removing illegal guns (and those who possess them) would be much easier and more effective."

Since criminals are not required to register guns, how would registration of guns do anything about them?

[jmg257]

167. Come across a person with a gun, it should be registered...a simple check

Would let an LE know if it is legally possessed or not.

[Jenoch]

168. They already do that.

[jmg257]

170. Okaaayyyyy...so having them registered is/would be no big deal, then.

What's your issue again?

[Jenoch]

171. I'm questioning

how much gun registration helps in crime prevention.

When cops come across people in illegal possession of weapons, those weapons are confiscated.

[jmg257]

172. Yep - so it seems it would help a lot.

help find out if guns are registered to those barred from ownership;
help find out if guns are registered at all, or are listed to the person in possession, or have been reported stolen, etc.
...this will help to identify the guns themselves as contraband.
and possibly help track such arms to the initial point of illegality.

Which all contributes to crime prevention.

(Of course serial numbers can be removed easy enough, but possession of a defaced firearm is typically already criminal behavior - identifing those as contraband would also be easy enough, and harsher penalities can always be made mandatory)

[gejohnston]

173. no it wouldn't

and confiscate with no due process like California?
If it has been reported stolen, the gun's info is in NCIC now. I know a guy that bought a gun at a flea market in Florida. Had the cops run a check on it, it was reported stolen from someone in Idaho several years ago. Cops took the gun.
They enter the point of illegality when they are stolen.

It is a federal crime to possess a defaced gun.
A prohibited person can not be charged with not registering a gun or possessing an unregistered gun. They can be charged with being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, which is a federal crime. Local DAs don't seem to take the time to turn the case over to the feds.

[jmg257]

180. Yes it would.

As summarized in previous posts, and you further eluded to here.

[Jenoch]

174. Law enforcement checks

to see if a subject is ineligible to possess guns. The gun itself does not need to be registered for that. How to you propose to get gun registration legislation passed? Are you prepared to hand over congress and possibly the White House over to the Republicans? (Out of curiosity, to better understand you, what atate do you reside in? I'm in Minnesota, resoundingly blue, and gun regisgration will not pass here. And we have a Democratic legislature, governor, U.S. Senators, 5 out of 8 U.S. House members, and every state constitutional office.)

[jmg257]

178. Of course it helps if the gun is registered.

Person A has a Beretta 92 registered to him.
But for some reason he no longer can lawfully possess arms. Upon a routine check by LE, they find a Beretta 92 is still registered to him, meaning he
a) didn't get rid of it as he was supposed to, or
B) he did so illegally.
LE should be very curious to find out why, and do so - which will help either remove the gun from his illegal possession or find out what he did with it unlawfully and charge him and who he transferred it to accordingly. Great deterence against straw purchases, illegal private transfers, etc.

Person B has in his possession an HK P2000. Upon routine check, LE determines the gun is not registered to the possessor. The gun is either stolen, or was never registered, or is otherwise being unlawfully possessed. Why wasn't the gun registered? Why does the criminal possess it illegally? The gun is confiscated and the possessor can now face any applicable charges...at the least the contraband gun is removed.


I don't propose to just get registration passed {eta atleast not w/o proper support, i.e. majority of people represented in the legislatures}. I am pointing out there are lots of points on the plus sides, and little on the down side, especially when combined with UBCs....Great way to positively impact gun crime.

[Jenoch]

189. "Little on the down side"?

I consider the distinct possibility of losing control of congress and the White House for many years to be the 'downside'.

[jmg257]

193. But IF the majority of the people agree - your fears would be unfounded.

Anyway, apparently the majority don't agree, so nothing to worry about anyway!

[Jenoch]

201. The problem with

the polls on gun control is that they are national instead of state-by-state. In New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (are there others?) as I understand the laws, a person has to have a gun license just to transport a gun in an auto within the state. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it is legal to drive to your deer hunting site with an unloaded and UNCASED gun inside the passenge compartment of a car. I never really understood the importance of this recent change in gun laws in Minnesota. The bill was authored and introduced by a northern Minnesota Democrat. (I always use a case to protect the rifle.)

The majority of people in the U.S. don't really know enough on the specifics of gun control to peovide educated answers. Hell, a majority of our legislators are not educated enough on the issues involved with gun control.

[hack89]

175. Criminals are not required to register their guns. nt

[jmg257]

179. Thanks! So when one is discovered to have an unregistered (to him) gun, or an

unregistered gun is discovered, it can be removed from circulation. Easily, as every unregistered gun is contraband.

Plus it can be investigated where the contraband gun came from too..so often more criminals can be targeted.


Just as I have been saying.

[hack89]

181. Why not simply remove the gun because the person cannot legally own guns?

Look - you are not going to get registration. It is not politically feasible - even the ACLU opposes it. Time to consider a plan B.

[jmg257]

186. That's a good idea...probably happens alot. Registration offers even more crime-fighting tools,

as in CA & maybe NY where they use registration to help remove the guns.

Well there ya go! I'm not going to get registration.
So what are so many here so worried about?? Because a few states have it and a few more are getting it seems to have 1/2 doz or so just in this thread scrambling to make arguments against it, over and over and over.

OK - you says it's not feasible, so maybe it is time to be afraid of something else.

[hack89]

191. I am not afraid of anything. I do not own guns out of fear.

None of the proposed laws will take away my guns so no problem there. My comments on registration are merely pointing out political and social reality in America.

[jmg257]

192. As mine were merely pointing out the benefits of registration.

The notion of which apparently worries some here.


I must say though, you are quite brave! There are numerous things I fear, which is good of course - keeps me from doing all kinds of stupid things, and causes me to do lots of smart things!



ETA: Hmmm...I wonder if your complete lack of fear causes you to see less deterence, and/or less reasonableness(?), in laws. Where I and many others would fear breaking them, several here would have no problem doing so, especially when/if there is no fear of getting caught.

Of course your lack of fear would provide one with a much lower perception of need for guns for self-defense and the like too, so that is good when debating needs/wants vs. more controls.

Interesting...

[hack89]

194. There are many things I fear. None of which are the reason I own guns

you are trying too hard.

on edit: When I meant I fear nothing, I meant I did not fear registration or any other gun proposal. I also meant there was nothing I feared that causes me to own guns.

[jmg257]

199. Not trying hard at all. Many fear registration due to confiscation, privacy issues, etc.

Or that registration is very possible. Good you do not worry about that...thanks for the clarification.

So many insist needing guns for self-defense is just a matter of 'being prepared', not because they actually fear themselves or a loved one being a victim, which doesn't really make sense. There is often a bit more involved with owning/carrying a gun then...'just because'....especially for SD.

I know as LE I couldn't wait to swap from a .357 to a 9mm, and then from a 9mm to a .40sw, because I knew one was better then the other. Alot of lone patrols, so I felt a fear of not being adequately armed...even kept extra capacity mags of FMJ for roadblocks, etc. Shit - even carried a .38 or .380 in an ankle holser for fear of not beng able to draw properly when in the car, or fear that my primary weapon would be inoperable etc.
Fear is a great justifier, as I have said, and often a smart thing to pay attention to.

[hack89]

200. I just like to poke holes in targets.

very relaxing and good family time.

[jmg257]

202. Yep - no doubt about that! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. More jails! Bigger jails! More jail time! Lock 'em all up! Enrich the Prison Industrial Complex!

[jmg257]

109. More guns! Bigger mags! More dead bodies! Lock and Load! Enrich the gun manufacturers!

Yee haw!

NRA all the way!!!

[krispos42]

82. Convicted criminals can't be charged for not registering their guns

You can get them for being a felon in possession of a gun, but not for failing to register the gun.

[jmg257]

83. Yep...thanks. Nt

[jimmy the one]

37. 5th amendment covers for 2nd

hack: Except by law, criminals cannot be forced to register their guns. .. that pesky 5th Amendment. So every person legally prohibited from possessing guns is automatically exempt from registration.

Are you talking about a catch22 in haynes v. US? where the catch was that, since already illegal for crims to own firearms, crims couldn't 'register' what they weren't allowed to have.

For a brief period, the Supreme Court held in 1968 (Haynes v. U.S) that felons were exempt from federal and state laws regarding registration because it violated their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. In other words, only people who were not criminals could be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm or found to be in possession of an unregistered firearm. However, in 1971, (U.S. v. Freed) the Court held that due to changes in the National Firearms Act of 1968 the law no longer violated the 5th Amendment rights of felons.

hack: Except by law, criminals cannot be forced to register their guns. .. that pesky 5th Amendment.

Unsure what the 5th amendment has to do, but we all know the nra fought in fopa1986 for ex felons to be able to restore their 'gunrights' (excepting violent exfelons) but still 'most' ex felons can apply to restore gunrights, and get them. Are these restored gun owners included in 'criminals' or ex felons, which you speak of?
Since a good portion of 'criminals' are not recognized as such - hidden criminals - they could indeed be required to register firearm purchases. One is not a criminal in the eyes of the law until he is either accused or caught or convicted.
How does the 5thA help criminals not register firearms? haven't heard this.

I recently saw another twist, that 5th amendment could be applied by criminals when being questioned if they previously had registered firearms (or something like that) & were asked in court if they had any reg'd firearms, but I think a different kettle of fish what you claim.
Pls provide a link or source or explanation, thanks, tho I suspect another catch22 concoction from the gunlobby.

Edit: Oh, hamlin I presume; it seems the nra would be pleased that gun registrations can't be used against 'criminals', especially potential criminals aka law abiding gunowners.

[hack89]

48. You need to look closer at U.S. v. Freed

As you mentioned "Changes in the NFA" were made as a result of Haynes v. U.S. Those changes were to remove any requirement for individuals to register their weapons. The NFA was changed such that manufacturers and importers had to register the weapon - the weapons were registered before they were initially sold.

From US v. Freed:

Under the present Act[3] only possessors who lawfully 604*604 make, manufacture, or import firearms can and must register them; the transferee[buyer] does not and cannot register.

Once initially registered, the weapon is transferred and the name of the owner is changed in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13714404009198646374&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

So as you can see, the government cannot order proscribed gun owners to register guns not presently registered.

You can make it illegal for a proscribed gun owner to buy and own a registered gun. But it has to be registered first.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. I already DON'T have to register mine.

I live in a no-registration state (of which there are many...the majority, in fact).

[premium]

33. Neither do I.

My .357 has never been registered, the only county in NV which requires registration is Clark County and that's going to go away pretty soon also.

[spin]

53. It's illegal to register guns in Florida.

The 2012 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 790 WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

***snip***
790.335?Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—

The Legislature finds and declares that:
1.?The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4.?Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

154. Rec.

[rdharma]

9. These same talking points showing up elsewhere......

Dailly Caller, redstate.com, Freeper site...... etc.

Strange that, eh?!!!!!

[hack89]

10. ACLU website ...

you really don't like arguing the issues, do you?

[Eleanors38]

89. So the ACLU went over to the Dark Side?

[CokeMachine]

169. Quit raining on his high.

It's the weekend afterall.

[Starboard Tack]

55. So, would you be OK with registering all guns not on private property?

Which would translate into a national registry for those who carry. Makes a lot of sense.

[hack89]

58. They are called concealed carry permits

I think it is accepted by gun owners that concealed carry requires more regulation and implies a voluntary loss of privacy.

Guns kept for home use would not need to be registered. You would also not have to register for the purpose of transporting between home and range - present laws regarding transporting guns are adequate.

[Starboard Tack]

73. What about open carry?

Do you object to some or all semi-autos, both handguns and long guns, being fitted with GPS tracking?

[hack89]

74. I do not favor open carry.

GPS tracking is a stupid idea. First off, guns don't have a power supply to power GPS. Secondly, there is no national infrastructure to support GPS tracking. What technology is going to be used to transmit the gun's location and what technology is going to be used to receive it? And just who, exactly, needs that information? Knowing where a gun is tells you nothing about the intent of the user.

[Starboard Tack]

75. A stupid idea?

Your reasoning is somewhat baffling.

You think it is a stupid idea because guns don't have a power supply.
The gun doesn't need a power supply. Guns can have chips embedded that could tether them to cellphones, which already have power supplies and GPS.

Who's talking about a national infrastructure?

Let's agree on one huge problem, which is the number of illegal guns in circulation. Doesn't it make sense to know where those guns are? Doesn't it make sense to develop technology to make stolen or lost guns inoperable?

[hack89]

78. So illegal gun owners will tether their illegal guns to their cell phones

so cops will know where they are? Ok.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Not quite.

I'm just throwing ideas out there. If a gun is rendered inoperable when not tethered to it's registered owner's phone, is one possibility. Or a gun version of lo-jack, perhaps. We have the technology. All we need is to develop it for the gun industry and apply it in such a way that lives are saved and rights are protected.
The fact that so many people feel the need to carry guns around, for self protection, demonstrates that we have a serious societal problem. Let's look for possible solutions, without going the draconian route of banning guns. The obvious place to look for these solutions is via technological innovation.

[hack89]

80. How will it saves lives?

I can still shoot people, correct? I can still commit suicide, correct? And what about the half billion guns without that technology?

[Starboard Tack]

94. How will it save lives?

Let's think about that. Let's take the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters. Multiple weapons in a gun-free zone. With the right technology, they would be rendered inoperable for several reasons. Multiple tethers, gun-free zone, unlicensed users. Think about it.
Regarding the half billion without the technology, they should be retrofitted for use outside of one's own property, or outside of designated zones, such as ranges and hunting areas.
I think we can agree that the major concern is with guns in an urban environment, as that is where most killing occurs.
Of course you can still kill people or yourself, if that's what you really want. Such a strange question.

[hack89]

102. It won't ever happen

for one basic reason. There is no demand for it and no one will get rich off of it. The government Isn't going to pay for it - they have better things to spend money on.

And you will never get criminals to Detroit their guns.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Let's hope you are wrong.

From my experience, sanity usually prevails. The demand will be there. There is lots of money to be made and lots of lives to be saved. Why would the government pay for it?
There will always be criminals, but we don't have to make it easy for them.

[oneshooter]

81. Will this be foisted on LE also? Untill they are required to use it, I for one will not.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Why should they be exempt? They work for us.

The reason cops in the UK are not regularly armed is because the people would never allow it.
Any legislation regarding firearm restrictions should always include LE.

[premium]

98. I can actually agree with you.

Cops should have to abide by the same restrictions as citizens.
They are no better than those that they serve, and you're right, they do work for us, not the other way around.

[clffrdjk]

110. So you went with a tether idea because of a lack of power

And now this teatherd firearm some how magically flips a switch (without any power mind you) and turns off. I think you missed a step or two. Once you get that figured out sell it to the cops and military until then not interested

[Starboard Tack]

112. That's only one scenario

Firstly, I don't accept that guns cannot have power sources embedded. Secondly, if the default state of the weapon is "inoperable", and power is needed for it to function, then no "magic" is necessary.
I'm neither an inventor nor an engineer, but I'm savvy enough to know that we have more than enough technology to manufacture secure firearms, that only the legitimate owner would be able to use. Biometrics for example. We also have the technology to manufacture highly effective non-lethal weaponry for those who need to defend themselves.

[clffrdjk]

113. Possible yes doable no

Firstly, I don't accept that guns cannot have power sources embedded.
True but the people you need to convince are the ones buying the item, you need to sell us on why we need it and how it makes the firearm better.

Secondly, if the default state of the weapon is "inoperable", and power is needed for it to function, then no "magic" is necessary.
UNACCEPTABLE. Hell even a failure state where the gun can not be fired is unacceptable.

I'm neither an inventor nor an engineer, but I'm savvy enough to know that we have more than enough technology to manufacture secure firearms, that only the legitimate owner would be able to use. Biometrics for example.
Ofcorce it is possible but no one who wants the tech will buy the product. The only way to get it implemented is to ban the older ones all of them and that will go over really well.

We also have the technology to manufacture highly effective non-lethal weaponry for those who need to defend themselves.
The above statement will only be true when militaries and police switch completely to non lethal. Currently we have pepper spray which is always a toss up as to who will be more effected by it. And tasers which only have an effect while the current is applied and gog help you if you miss.

[shedevil69taz]

185. There are plenty of times I turn my phone off.

Usually its to preserve battery life, but other times I just don't want to be bothered, like when I'm at the range.

[Starboard Tack]

195. I think that's a very good idea.

[WinniSkipper]

105. How do you define an illegal gun?

I think most people on the opposite of the issue from you would agree on this point.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Good question - 2 answers

1. A gun that was lost or stolen.
2. A gun that is restricted or prohibited by law, including unauthorized weapons in certain locations.

Not quite sure what you mean by "people on the opposite of the issue from you". What side do you think I'm on?

[WinniSkipper]

114. Thanks for replying

...a couple back at you:

1) How is a lost gun "illegal"?
2) This makes total sense - like AWB or a gun free zone I assume?


I would say you are more on the pro control side than the pro 2A side.

[Starboard Tack]

119. How is a lost gun illegal?

When it is used or sold or gifted by someone who is not the lawful owner.
Concerning my position, I support 2A in principle, but not in current interpretation by SCOTUS. I do not support "shall issue" regarding CCLs, nor do I support reciprocity. I also oppose the carryig of any semi-automatics by civilians or LE, except in extreme circumstances.
I am on the side of public safety, with minimal infringement on individual rights.

[WinniSkipper]

132. That definition makes sense

Although I somewhat disagree that outfitting 300+M firearms with GPS so you can track people more on the authoritarian side than the public safety side of the issue - so I will have to disagree with you there

[Starboard Tack]

137. The purpose would not be to track people.

But to track firearms, and only when they stray into the public arena. Nothing authoritarian about it. Nobody is forcing anyone to carry a gun in public. It may well be a "right", but even rights come at a price. I agree with the right to defend oneself, but I also believe in public safety. When the two conflict, as they do in the case of carrying firearms in public, then we should seek effective solutions to minimize that conflict while strengthening both principles.

[gejohnston]

139. since the chance and history

of NDs etc. are so rare to the point of nil, carrying does not have an ill effect on public safety.

[Starboard Tack]

142. NDs? What are they?

"carrying does not have an ill effect on public safety"

Are you serious? Do you think those tens of thousands who die from gunshot wounds annually are all killed by guns not being carried? Many were shot at home and many killed themselves, but lots were killed by others carrying in public. When you're the guy shot, it's kind of irrelevant whether the shooter has a permit to carry or not, or whether he was one of the "good guys" up until the moment he shot you.

[gejohnston]

143. negligent discharge

2/3 are suicides, that leaves less than 10K murders by firearm. If you look at where most of these shooting take place, they are mostly in some areas in cities over 250K people. The drug dealer that takes extreme measures to deal with employee theft or enforcing anti monopoly rules, they are a threat to public safety. The middle aged nurse or welder, not so much. Statistically, cops are a greater danger.

[WinniSkipper]

145. That's a pretty lame argument

in addition to being completely unrealistic. The government would NEVER abuse the tracking, right?

To even consider the issue of retrofitting 300M guns is foolish - it will never happen.

Who is going to monitor these 300M points of data?

It's really easy to appear on the side of public safety when you suggest unrealistic arguments

[Starboard Tack]

149. Which argument is lame?

Who said anything about monitoring or tracking 300M guns?
Do you think Lo-Jack monitors all vehicles fitted with tracking devices?
Computerized monitoring would trigger alerts, that's all. That way, gun-free zones would remain gun free and those who want to live in gun proliferation zones would have the freedom to do so.
Those of us who live in places like NYC, LA or Chicago don't want guns around, period. Many living in rural areas need guns. Why should one set impose it's values on the other?

[Duckhunter935]

151. tell that to the gun banners

"Why should one set impose it's values on the other?"

[Starboard Tack]

158. I say it to all.

I'm a great believer in "When in Rome...."
The problems arise when shared values, like public safety, conflict with individual rights, such as RKBA.
I doubt you will find too many gun banners in duck hunting territory, and I doubt you will find too many in favor of either CC or OC in major urban environments.
As long as one does not threaten the other. This happens if lawmakers attempt to ban all private gun ownership, which I haven't seen any evidence of, so far. It also happens when organizations, like the NRA, encourage proliferation of virtually any kind of weapon available.
I detest absolutism in any form.

I assume you are a duck hunter, which makes me doubt you would use an AR-15 type weapon, or other semi-automatic, for your hunting purposes. That leaves home defense and personal protection, which a shotgun and/or revolver would take care of.

[gejohnston]

162. semi automatic shotguns are common for duck hunting

What do you think of a STEN as a home defense gun?

[Starboard Tack]

163. Well that's just silly IMO. Takes all the sport out of it.

I don't think about STENs for home defense. Great gun for arming large numbers of people quickly and cheaply. Good for dealing with the zombie apocalypse and alien invasion scenarios.
Seriously, though, any decisions I make regarding home defense will be specific to the home and it's location. There is no "one size fits all" solution. I tend towards 12 gauge double barrel shotguns, which gives me options regarding loads. I also like those German flare guns, with the inserts, that you turned me on to. Very cool and flexible. The only other gun I would consider would be a scoped target rifle, preferably a .177 caliber.

[gejohnston]

164. FWS, and I'm guessing their Canadian counterparts,

since waterfowl regulations are part of a treaty with Canada, limit the magazine to three rounds. A five round tube magazine would need plugs.

In the United States, hunters must also purchase a federal duck stamp and often a state stamp. It is illegal to shoot ducks from a motor vehicle or a moving boat. Shooting sitting or swimming ducks is considered unsportsmanlike by some and possibly unsafe. Many practices that were once common in commercial duck hunting before the start of the 20th century, including laying baits such as corn, use of live ducks as "decoys," and use of guns larger than a 10-gauge, are now prohibited.[5] In most areas, shotguns that can hold more than three shells must be modified to reduce their magazine size. A wooden plug is installed in the hollow magazine of the shotgun. Legal hunting is limited to a set time period (or "season&quot , which generally extends from fall to early winter, while birds are migrating south

Folks don't spray and pray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfowl_hunting#Shotguns
http://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html
http://www.ec.gc.ca/rcom-mbhr/?lang=en&n=99FDEC59-1

Some time ago I read that double barreled rifles are popular in Europe for deer, like a double barrel .270 for example. While modern firearms are popular with Gun Culture 2.0, I (like Spin and Krispos) is still Gun Culture 1.5

[AtheistCrusader]

213. Mag capacity limits still apply. The semi-auto shotgun simply allows faster follow-up

shots, without moving the gun around by working the slide. It is quite handy for the purpose, and anything that reduces wounded animals escaping is a good thing.

An animal getting away to suffer and bleed out slowly takes all the sport out of it too. We may be killing the animals, but sportsmen that I know share one common trait: Desire to put the animal down quick and clean.

[Starboard Tack]

216. That's one of the reason I like 2 barrels

Faster follow up and the option of different loads.

[WinniSkipper]

190. "and I doubt you will find too many in favor of either CC or OC in major urban environments. "

I'm sure someone can verify your claim?

[Starboard Tack]

197. Absolutely!

[WinniSkipper]

165. I understand what you you say your goal is

Public Safety is a great cause.

So your idea to reduce gun violence is to try to change manufacturing (and laws), and then retrofit 300M guns, set up a dedicated tracking system, man it, and have alarms going off all over the place "when they stray into the public arena"? When they are already in the public arena? All at the same time tracking people for (what is now) a constitutionally protected right?

And you're serious?

[Starboard Tack]

198. No, that is not what I envisage.

Obviously, manufacturing and laws need to be changed, with public safety in mind. Many weapons need to be prohibited, I think we can all agree on that, though we may not agree on which ones.
The only guns that need to be retrofitted would be those intended for use in populated areas. Most guns are not in the public arena. Tracking would be computerized and only anomalies would be flagged. Anomalies such as several weapons simultaneously entering a gun-free zone like a school or movie theater. It is not a constitutionally protected right to carry an AR-15 into a kindergarten.
Again, the idea is not to track people, but guns. Everyone with a cellphone is already tracked, unless they deactivate the GPS, which usually involves removal of the battery. If all "carry" weapons had smart technology that would render them inoperable when not tethered to a phone or similar tracking device, then many lives would be saved. Especially the lives of those whose guns get into the wrong hands. If I were to carry, I would feel far more secure knowing that anyone grabbing my gun would be unable to use it. Biometrics are also an important part of the solution.
Bottom line, there are many avenues to pursue and discuss, but I see a brighter future ahead of us.

[WinniSkipper]

209. "The only guns that need to be retrofitted would be those intended for use in populated areas"

Dying to hear the explanation how this is supposed to work. What's defines a populated area, by the way?

[Starboard Tack]

210. A populated area is one where people live.

So, my idea would be to have guns retrofitted if used in those areas. Quite simple really. Get caught with one that isn't and go on a long vacation at the government's expense.

[rrneck]

217. Good idea.

And if each gun is properly registered and designed only to be fired by the person to whom it is registered the powers that be could instantly tell if the gun isn't where it is supposed to be and in the possession of the owner.

[Jenoch]

223. What happens when

a person attempts to defend themselves with a gun that is not 'programmed' for them to shoot? A family is the victim of a home invasion, there's a struggle, the homeowner ends up with the gun, but cannot defend themselves or their family. Might as well throw a can of beans.

This scenario is unlikely however, because the criminal who invaded the home will never be using a gun with a GPS because they will not submit their guns for retrofitting. If retrofitting is not part of the grand plan, then what good is it to reduce criminal behavior?

[rrneck]

225. Well you see,

since the powers that be will know exactly where you are all we have to do is install another RFID device in the holster that will notify them to come running if the gun is taken out in self defense. Of course you will have to give them a call and let them know when you get ready to clean it. And if you want to replace the holster you will have to register that too.

Of course if the holster has RFID technology, they will be able to slave that to the approved storage device you will have to have so that if the gun doesn't move (according to their tracking analysis) for a certain amount of time they will be notified. So if you take a nap don't let it last too long or the cops will show up to write you up for improper storage.

Don't worry, they will know right where you are so they will always be able to make sure you are doing just the right thing.

I oughta write for the Onion.

[Starboard Tack]

224. Exactly.

There seems to be a lot of movement in this direction since Sandy Hook.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/03/18/174629446/can-smart-gun-technology-help-prevent-violence

It's always about supply and demand. Until now the demand hasn't been there. Maybe legislation can change that.

[rrneck]

226. Jesus Tack, you live on a boat and you didn't see that hook?

Aren't you at least a little disconcerted about the concept of having the objects in your pockets designated for your use only and designed to report their whereabouts continuously to the authorities without your consent?

Shades of Orwell dude.

[Starboard Tack]

227. Are you kidding?

"The objects in my pocket" - what objects?
Continuous reporting to the authorities? - Reporting what?
The only time anything would be reported would be when things go awry. Do you think the "authorities" are continually monitoring every vehicle fitted with LoJack?
Regarding boats, it is irrelevant what I have in my pocket. My boat can be seen from space and monitored at will by the government. Tracking, via GPS, AIS and cellphone technology is part of life on the ocean and saves untold thousands of lives a year. The technology is there, the products are coming, shades of Orwell or not, everything in life is a trade-off. You can't stop progress, but you can help tune it so it leans more toward personal and public safety than government oppression.

And stop calling me Jesus. I haven't learned to walk on water, yet.

[rrneck]

228. Well, lets have a look at it...

"The objects in my pocket" - what objects?

Guns. This is the RKBA forum where concealed weapons are hotly debated.

Continuous reporting to the authorities? - Reporting what?

Post #73 Do you object to some or all semi-autos, both handguns and long guns, being fitted with GPS tracking?

Post # 75The gun doesn't need a power supply. Guns can have chips embedded that could tether them to cellphones, which already have power supplies and GPS.

Post # 79 I'm just throwing ideas out there. If a gun is rendered inoperable when not tethered to it's registered owner's phone, is one possibility. Or a gun version of lo-jack, perhaps.

Post # 94 With the right technology, they would be rendered inoperable for several reasons. Multiple tethers, gun-free zone, unlicensed users. Think about it.

Post # 198 Everyone with a cellphone is already tracked, unless they deactivate the GPS, which usually involves removal of the battery. If all "carry" weapons had smart technology that would render them inoperable when not tethered to a phone or similar tracking device, then many lives would be saved.

You are advocating slaving firearm functionality to its location via a personal cell phone. You have already admitted that people can be easily tracked via their cell phones, and it's true. Usually just the cell towers can give a pretty precise location, but you advocate the use of GPS on the phone, which is accurate to a few feet. So the authorities will have the right to access the location of any gun owner at any time in the interest of public safety. Of course, it wouldn't do much good to unload a boatload of cops if a gun gets flagged as someone walks past a school and pings the system. They will have to send a unit out there to make sure it isn't a false alarm. So an active shooter will not be inconvenienced one whit. He can still just walk in and blaze away before the cops can show up. So I guess we will just have to give the authorities the right to have a gun ping the system within several hundred yards of restricted areas, you know, just to be safe. Of course, in any densly populated area that would result in the entire city becoming off limits. Well you know, those gun owners are suspicious characters, especially the one's that insist on carrying concealed. It's just sneaky.

So attaching the reference to your housing arrangements and hooks was an allusion to the probability you would be around a lot of fishing. And you took the bait hook, line and sinker. I posted this:

And if each gun is properly registered and designed only to be fired by the person to whom it is registered the powers that be could instantly tell if the gun isn't where it is supposed to be and in the possession of the owner.

To which you answered: Exactly. (Post #224)

If you want to know where the gun is and in the possession of the owner, you have to track the owner too. And you admitted it. I mean, if I were you I would admit to wanting to track each and every gun owner all the time rather than admitting that you didn't realize the implications of what you were proposing. But that's just me. Your call.

[Starboard Tack]

230. OK, let us indeed have a look

Objects in my pocket
Depends what I carry in my pocket. If it's a semi-automatic firearm, then it should be tracked, or trackable. Why not? As you say, cellphones are already trackable and when the GPS is enabled, they are trackable within a few feet. This is an excellent use of technology. Why on earth would anyone legally carrying a gun be opposed to this? I see it the same way I see radar or AIS. A great way to avoid disasters.
In fact, I would propose a passive system, like a smartphone app, that alerts someone when they come within a certain distance, say 100 feet, of a loaded firearm. Like crossing shipping lanes, a slight course adjustment can prevent a potential catastrophe. In fact, that's much better than having the CC gang wear those pointy hats.

Post 73 - Please note, I only refer to semi-autos. Not all guns.

"So the authorities will have the right to access the location of any gun owner at any time in the interest of public safety."

No. Not the gun owner, but the gun. And only if the system sends an alert, such as multiple weapons simultaneously entering a gun-free zone, or when a gun is separated from it's tether in public.
And I'm not restricting this to what you describe as "the authorities", but rather make it available to anyone concerned about public and personal safety.
I understand your Orwellian fears, but let's face it, we live in a world where anyone who is not living in a bunker, is trackable. DU's use of tracking technology to identify repeat disruptors is the norm. I use the same tools to track traffic to my websites. I don't drill down to a GPS level because I don't need to, but the government does.

Imagine Sandy Hook elementary school having a system that could have alerted and prompted an automatic lock-down scenario.

[rrneck]

231. Well, here's what you'll have to do to make it work.

1. Compel the future evildoer to carry an RFID enabled gun.

2. And see to it that he does not disable the RFID chip or sear lock. The fire control group in a gun is really easy to access.

3. Equip him with a GPS enabled smart phone and force him to use it.

That is of course assuming you will be able to tell who the potential evildoers are. More on that later.

4. Equip every adult in the United States who is not an evildoer with a smartphone so that they can detect the firearms that come near them. To do less would be pretty regressive since a lot of people can't afford smart phones, and by unfortunate circumstance those are the people who would most need them. That's how regressive laws usually work.

5.Produce a reason why you have a right to know what other people carry on their persons that will pass constitutional muster. Just offhand I'd say your plan would violate the first, second (maybe), fourth, and fifth amendments.

6. Actually get that legislation passed into law and then find your way back from the political wilderness when you take the Democratic party out there for supporting such an outrageous violation of people's privacy and endanger their personal safety.

Of course you will have to mandate the use of your technological umbilical for anyone carrying a gun, whether they will use it improperly or not. That sort of notion comes from the "guns as a danger to public health" meme dujour. The problem with that silly meme is that when you characterize a gun as a dangerous pathogen, you characterize the carrier of the gun as an infected pariah. And to add insult to injury, you will have them carry the equivalent of one of these:



So you have a plan that can be easily circumvented by the bad guys, treats the good guys like lepers, costs a boatload of taxpayer dollars, and causes any politician that proposes such a thing to insult millions of voters and turn himself into a political laughingstock.

You might want to work on that one some more.

[Jenoch]

146. Do they do

GPS tracking of guns in England? I know there are guns in private homes in England but am unaware if they have gone to this extreme.

[Starboard Tack]

160. Guns are not a problem in England.

Nobody carries there without a helluva good reason, such as LE on special assignment. Get caught with a gun or ammo in public and you're looking at some serious time.
England is not a better society, nor is it less violent. It is simply more mature. Those who like to engage in physical conflict have learned that it is preferable to use less lethal means to resolve those conflicts. They have found that when torn between going for a gun, or a cup of tea, the latter is more satisfying and far less lethal.

[gejohnston]

161. that is assuming mutual combat

but has nothing to do with a predatory attack by robber or rapist.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. Yeah, good luck with the GPS tracking.

Soon as I see the military and LEO using it, I'll consider it, just like 'smart gun' technology that limits user access.

And I mean that with all seriousness, it's a feature that I would like, but it isn't 'there' yet and probably won't be for a long time.

[Starboard Tack]

188. I agree.

Probably won't be for a long time, but eventually society will catch up with technology.

[krispos42]

86. And, again, the only guns that would be registered...

...would be those carried by citizens with a squeaky-clean criminal record and who have a state-issued CCW permit.


So, how again does this make sense?


Not that registration makes sense anyway. The government knows that thousands of people own a 12-gage shotgun. A person is killed with a 12-gage shotgun. How does the the information lead to an arrest?


In order to boil things down to a particular 12-gage owner, you need other information. Motive, opportunity, method, physical evidence, etc. And if you have that, you can narrow it down to a particular person regardless of whether their gun is registered or not.

[Starboard Tack]

99. I don't include 12 gauge shotguns.

I consider them legitimate hunting weapons and excellent for home defense. I'm talking primarily about "carry" guns, especially semi-autos.

Registration makes a heap of sense, if done correctly. If every gun manufactured can have a unique serial number, then it can also undergo a ballistic test, which would help in solving numerous crimes. It would serve to make gun owners more responsible about the safe keeping of their firearms, especially if they are held accountable for any lapses in that responsibility.
You mention "Motive, opportunity, method, physical evidence" as being important.
Motive is often irrelevant to proving a case. It just makes it tastier, like the icing on a cake.
Opportunity is a constant in any investigation.
Method is a given - shot by gun
Physical evidence would include ballistic testing, which would narrow it down to the weapon used. Bingo!

[Eleanors38]

90. That's a state matter; I may object, but only have a say in the state where I live...

But a state which has "may issue" or other laws which substantially restrict the right to bear may be challenged in court via the 2A & 14A.

[Starboard Tack]

100. This is an area that needs to be a federal matter.

I'm all for states' rights, but in this kind of situation, they are ridiculous, unless you want to have controlled borders between states.
Also, a registry has no bearing on any constitutional rights. It's a public safety issue. Tracking things that kill people is hardly a state matter. Try telling the CDC or NIH to keep their vaccines out of your state, because of a "shall issue" or "may issue" policy regarding viruses and bacteria.

[Eleanors38]

123. It is not states' "rights," but states' powers, as rights are individual, not communitarian.

The feds protect the RKBA, most esp. through the 14th Amendment when it comes to states over-reaching their authority; it is ironic that you mention "states' rights," as it is at the state level where gun control measures are most strict.

Registration has not been shown to be an effective law enforcement tool, and would face constitutional challenge in any case: One of the purposes of 2A, whether folks like it or not, is to provide a bulwark against tyranical givernment. That purpose is obviously not served by having the government maintain a registry of civilian firearm ownership.

[Starboard Tack]

136. The states should have more control locally

That's how democracy is supposed to work. The Federal governments job is to keep the country safe and stable. A national gun registry in no way impinges on the rights of states or individuals. It helps track guns used in crimes and helps LE apprehend criminals. You say it has been shown to be ineffective for LE. Care to explain how?
If you really think that 2A provides a bulwark against a tyrannical government, then we obviously live in completely different realities. It isn't about whether "folks like it or not". It's about which century "folks" are living in. If you and others who buy into such nonsense, think that you stand as a "bulwark" against anything beyond wanting a more sane and peace loving society, then you are delusional.
A bunch of preppers and other libertarian nutjobs are not going to take on some mythical "tyrannical government" with a few 50 cals and a bunker.

[gejohnston]

138. actually it doesn't track guns used in crimes for these reasons

guns generally are not left behind at the scene. Many gangs use community guns, a practice that dates back to the 19th century
at best, it will be traced to the last legal owner, if there is one, who most likely reported it stolen.

[Starboard Tack]

141. Guns are not usually left behind at crime scenes. Correct.

But bullets usually are. And if every gun has a ballistics "fingerprint" attached to it, then it makes LE's job easier. Tracing back to the last "legal owner" is a good step. Plus, in many cases, the legal owner or someone close to him, is actually the shooter.
Such registration is not designed to harass gun owners, but to enhance public safety. Tracking one stolen gun can lead to tracking many. Patterns tend to evolve with tracking. Scams are exposed. Criminals find access more difficult. Lives are saved.

[gejohnston]

147. rifling marks change over time

in fact, New York abandoned their casing collection because it did nothing to justify the expense.

Plus, in many cases, the legal owner or someone close to him, is actually the shooter.

that is actually rare, and they are easily caught. Most murderers and their victims have long criminal records.

Such registration is not designed to harass gun owners, but to enhance public safety.

Actually it is in many cases. DC and Chicago is designed specifically to discourage legal ownership.

Tracking one stolen gun can lead to tracking many. Patterns tend to evolve with tracking. Scams are exposed. Criminals find access more difficult. Lives are saved.

How would it tracked? It will only go as far as the guy who reported stolen.
Registration lists can also be used to target gun owners by thieves. That is a problem cops and Australia face.

[Eleanors38]

187. I said registration has not been shown to be effective...

If you propose such, then you need to explain how it would benefit some larger worthy aim.

Sans the usual insults, your "delusional" remark about countering tyranny with a .50 something or rather actually goes to the heart of why our "Super Power" status doesn't mean squat when our nation and others have checked out of numerous conflicts over the last 60 yrs when -- by your logic -- a "job well done" should have been the result. I'll go with Hubert Humphrey on this, though he couldn't seem to see beyond his good reasoning on the home front when it came to Vietnam & their AKs. In the end, maybe he was deluded.

But that is a thread for another group.

[Starboard Tack]

196. No insults intended, unless the glove fits, of course.

Where exactly has registration not been shown to be effective?

[Eleanors38]

214. ??? Do you want registration? If so, make your case..

I don't support any policy move where the advocate has not made his/her case. The case has not been made for registration, both as a constitutional matter & as a public safety matter.

Basic stuff with no hands, Ma.

[bossy22]

16. so you are supportive of the police state?

if you call free speech a "rightie cause" then you must be.

[jmg257]

5. Why is there concern over differences in the records for BGC?

"‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.


Is there even a section in there talking about records for sales?

What am I missing?

[hack89]

7. They think the present standard for NIC background checks should be the standard for all checks.

Calabrese said when approved sellers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, they destroy most of the obtained records within 24 hours, and all the records must be destroyed within 90 days. Reid's proposal doesn't have any such requirement for universal background checks when it comes to unlicensed gun sales.

"We believe the Reid proposal needs to have those same standards," Calabrese told the Deseret News.

The issue in Congress has been the record keeping requirements for private sales. The ACLU is saying there should be no requirement for permanent records.

[jmg257]

11. But there are NO unlicensed gun sales. ALL sale need to go through an FFL...

" it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).
Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

Seems a non-argument, unless I am really not seeing something that is there.

Help!

[hack89]

12. They are talking about private sales. The "gun show loophole" as it were. nt

[jmg257]

17. Please re-read...there are NO "PRIVATE SALES"...

ALL SALES need to go through an FFL.

(Not yelling - just emphasis)

"it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s)"


ETA:

‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’--
‘(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
‘(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

[hack89]

25. I think this is the section that concerns them

‘(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).’.

It appears to set unique record keeping requirements for sales not involving a FFL seller. It needs to be clarified to bring it in line with FFL record keeping requirements.

[jmg257]

36. Thanks, hack, appreciate the patience in clearing that up! I did indeed not notice that. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. So I would have to go through a FFL when my FIL gifted my MILs .22 pistol

after she died or if my husband goes away for extended periods of time leaving his guns with me?

It sounds like it makes a lot of unnecessary criminals.

[jmg257]

135. Naa - you'd probably be good...long as you are law-abiding...

You'll have to check the 'exceptions' section to make sure though.


Laws certainly make one a criminal if they are not in compliance - that's the point. Then they might want to be sure they are, unless they don't care.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

140. What do you mean, "If I'm law-abiding"?

If I have to summon the police to my house for any reason and they were to see guns not transfered via FFL they could arrest me. God forbid I actually use one to defend myself.

I shouldn't have to go through an FFL to claim my MILs gift to me.

[jmg257]

148. Why not? How does anyone know if you can lawfully own firearms w/o a BC?

It shouldn't matter simply because your mother in law died?


But again - you should be good, as long as you are not prohibited - i.e. 'law-abiding'...

‘(f) Exceptions- Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if--

‘(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;

‘(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;

‘(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if--

‘(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and

‘(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee;

[rdharma]

13. "ACLU is saying ........"

So are all the "rightie" web sites!

But, of course, you probably already know that!

[hack89]

15. Are you saying the ACLU didn't say what they said?

or are you desperately looking for a diversion.

[rdharma]

20. ACLU didn't say what they said?

No...... I didn't say that. I was just commenting on how the "righties" are running with this in their talking points!

Strange that, eh?!!!

[premium]

21. I get it now,

you're saying that because some RW sites are quoting the ACLU and because it was posted here, then we must all be RW'ers.

[rdharma]

27. Follow the posted link.........

........ it didn't go back to the ACLU site. Did it?

What source was it cut and pasted from, eh?

[premium]

31. So because it's coming from a site you don't approve of,

then it's either not true or we're all just a bunch of RW'ers? Is that what you're alluding to?
Did the ACLU come out against registration or not?

[rdharma]

39. I've noticed a pattern.......

Seems like certain posters have an "affinity" for cutting and pasting from "rightie" sites.

Draw your own conclusion! I have!

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. "Poisoning the well."

Perhaps you've heard the term...

[premium]

41. And your conclusions could be wrong.

I do draw my own conclusions.

Seems like certain posters have an "affinity" for disruption without adding any content to the discussion.

[rdharma]

43. You think repeating "rightie talking points" .......

.... is worthy of discussion? Or is it just assisting them in spreading their propaganda?

[premium]

45. What "rightie talking points"?

That the ACLU opposes registration? Is that a "rightie talking point"?
Or is it anything you disagree with?

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. It's not just "righties."

It's anyone concerned with privacy. That concern is the cause of my own mixed feelings on a national registry and the closely-related issue of expanded background checks. The latter won't be nearly as effective without the former. But there are undeniable privacy issues with the former, as well...

[hack89]

28. So now you are trying to tie the ACLU to the RW. Nice. nt

[sylvi]

19. When the ACLU agrees more with a "rightie" web site

When the ACLU agrees more with a "rightie" web site on Constitutional rights than they do with a self-professed "liberal" such as yourself, perhaps you need to re-evaluate just how liberal you actually are.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. You make zero sense.

Is some news to be ignored/discounted because right-wing news sources happened to find it interesting, for unspecified reasons?

[rdharma]

204. I've just noted how some DU posters seem to get their talking points.........

.... word for word from the rightie web sites!

In fact, some seem in agreement with several issues found on the rightie sites, but they never seem to get involved in any of the typical "libural" issues found on DU.

Strange that, eh?

[AtheistCrusader]

205. I agree that it was strange insofar as

it wasn't simply lifted directly from the ACLU website. Then again, I have occasion to see interesting bits and bobs while trolling across enemy news sources as well, and lifting them for recirculation.

I wouldn't automatically assume malice, but there are other patterns that can correlate.

[rdharma]

206. "I wouldn't automatically assume malice, but there are other patterns that can correlate"

There certainly are!

[jimmy the one]

23. strange bedfellow for the nra

The first {aclu} concern is the bill treats records for unlicensed gun sales differently than purchases made through unlicensed sellers. Calabrese said when approved sellers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System {NICS} , they destroy most of the obtained records within 24 hours, and all the records must be destroyed within 90 days.. "We believe the Reid proposal needs to have those same standards,"
... The second concern is this could be the first step toward making a national gun registry, which the ACLU would oppose for privacy reasons.. White House has denied pursuing a national gun registry but Calabrese said that could be an indirect result of the language of the bill. “.. leads sometimes to the creation of govt databases and collections of personal information on all of us .. That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
... The ACLU has no problem with universal background checks as long as the records are taken care of {ie destroyed} and privacy rights are preserved. "If you're going to do a background check, it makes sense to do an effective background check," Calabrese said.

A sticking point with the aclu is destruction of bg checks, rather than licensed retention;
But what strange bedfellows wayno gots:

ACLU POSITION Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in US v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down DC's handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in Heller held for the first time that {2ndA} protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by {2A}. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

2002: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

[hack89]

30. Yup - they are concerned with protecting civil liberties.

However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions

[rdharma]

32. Strange bedfellows, indeed!

It's amazing how the righties are running with this!

Check out all the rightie web sites coving the ACLU's position on this! They are ecstatic over it.

[premium]

34. So?

What's your point?
That the RW'ers agree with it? That progressives should disagree because the rightees think it's a good thing?

[rdharma]

35. I didn't agree with the ACLU.......

.... when they defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, IL either.

How about you?

[premium]

38. Yeah I did.

I defend the rights of anyone, no matter how repugnant they are, to peacefully protest.
If I disagree with their message, and they're in my town, then I will counter protest them, as is my right under the 1st Amendment.

%3Fw%3D470

[sylvi]

56. Wow. I guess we know where you stand on equal rights now.

The Constitution only applies to those with whom you make common cause.

Are you sure you're a liberal?

[Eleanors38]

93. I've begun challenging the "progressiveness" of banners...

They question my record & credentials, I question their's.

[sylvi]

104. I've never considered disarming the populace as progressive.

Not short of eliminating the propensity for violence and oppression in humankind first, anyway. It harkens back to the days when commoners weren't allowed more sophisticated weapons normally reserved for nobility and their armies, and to the more recent despotic regimes that have disarmed and purged "undesirables" from their ranks by the millions.

No, removal of a person's last line of defense for themselves and their families is a regressive action in my book.

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. I did.

I despise Nazis (neo- and otherwise) and everything they stand for. I despise people who advocate convenient abrogations of basic civil rights, too. Cut from the same totalitarian cloth...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

128. Abrogation of civil rights?

Heck, his avatar idolizes a movie character that murders, waterboards and bombs in the name of politics.

[armueller2001]

85. So you support freedom of speech

Only if the message is something you agree with? How progressive of you.

[4Q2u2]

50. ACLU Policy Statement #47

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm



"The Due Process Committee suggested that the problem with the footnote was that it was indefensible on civil liberties grounds, and that it is not the ACLU's role to commit the ACLU to involve ourselves in social issues by finding a constitutional basis where there is none. Even though gun control is a desirable social objective, and it would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation, the Committee noted that the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for particular crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation:

[LAGC]

92. +1

They are clearly "evolving" on this issue...

[slackmaster]

42. I've been telling people who call me asking for money for the ACLU this for almost 20 years...

Support the Second Amendment as fervently as you support the First, Fourth, and Fifth, and I'll keep my membership current. Until then, I won't send you anything.

In light of this turn of events, I may have to reconsider my position on the ACLU.

[rdharma]

44. "I may have to reconsider my position on the ACLU"

Sure you will.

[premium]

46. Do you have any proof that he's not telling the truth? nt.

[rdharma]

47. Proof?

[premium]

49. Yes, proof.

What leads you to belive that Slackmaster is not being sincere?

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. Essentially calling someone a liar should require at least a modicum of proof.

In my book, anyway, it's one of the worst insults possible. Such an accusation should have some substance behind it, or it shouldn't be made at all.

[rdharma]

64. Burden of proof is not on me. nt

Nice try!

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. Sure it is.

Had the person you insulted claimed to have already contributed to the ACLU, you might have a "burden of proof" argument. Instead, the poster claimed to was a potential action, that he was inclined to reconsider his previous policy of not contributing. You essentially called him a liar. Burden of proof is rather obviously yours.

[rdharma]

67. Nuh uh!

I insulted nobody. I just don't believe his "claims"........

But YOU can if you'd like!

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. You essentially called him a liar.

If you don't consider that an insult, then to be blunt, that says a lot more about you than it does about him.

None of it good...

[rdharma]

77. Like I said..... believe him if you like! nt

[Eleanors38]

95. See pot. See stirrer. Smell stench. nt

[slackmaster]

124. Yes, proof. You are implying that either I am a regular supporter of the ACLU and falsely stating...

...that I have withheld support because of their position on the Second Amendment; or you are implying that I have never supported the ACLU and have no intention of ever doing so in the future. I can't tell which position is yours, and you haven't provided any clue in that regard.

Providing actual proof that either implication is incorrect would necessarily involve posting personal information here, which for obvious reasons I will not do.

I must conclude that either you are calling me a liar, or that your sole purpose in posting in this thread and indeed the GCRKBA forum is to badger the grown-ups and attempt to derail discussions.

Which is it?

[rdharma]

125. "Regular supporter of the ACLU"

I highly doubt you have ever supported the ACLU. Though you might have documentation to prove it, eh?

Come on...... you aren't fooling anybody!

[premium]

127. And you are most certainly not fooling anybody here.

It's pretty obvious at this point what your game here is, to try to disrupt the group.

[rdharma]

129. "either"?

The choice of that word indicates that you agree with my assessment in the post above........ Thank-you!

[premium]

130. Not at all,

but if it bugs you that much, I'll edit it just for you.

[rdharma]

133. Editing out your "Freudian slip"?

Too late!

[premium]

134. Nope,

just fixing what you purposely mis-interpreted.
But you have my permission to think it was a "Freudian slip" if it soothes you.

[slackmaster]

131. Thanks for the clarification. You are calling me a liar.

What's your problem?

[LAGC]

87. You really should reconsider.

The ACLU does so much good work fighting for our civil rights.

I had to struggle with it myself, sent a few angry letters in with my annual membership renewal telling them I'd send them a lot more money if they supported the Second Amendment with as much fervor as they do the rest of the Bill of Rights.

But its not like they've ever actively come out in support of gun control or anything, they just stand silent on the issue (which I agree is pretty cowardly, considering how vocal they are when it comes to First, Fourth, or Eighth Amendment concerns, for example.)

But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more "bedfellowing" between gun rights groups and the ACLU in the coming years ahead, especially as more authoritarian gun control measures are proposed. Even though the ACLU doesn't defend gun owners directly, they have still defended many gun owners when their other rights were at stake due to their advocacy or circumstance.

So yeah, you really should join. I currently donate $500 per year to them ($100 to re-up my membership every March, then $200 which gets $200 more in matching funds at the end of each year), but I might kick it up a notch seeing more overlap defending gun rights issues.

Indeed, we wouldn't need the NRA with all its right-wing bullshit if the ACLU did its full job and defended the entire Bill of Rights. But it will take more pro-gun folks joining and putting pressure on the leadership to completely win them over... but I think it will happen, eventually.

[slackmaster]

107. Wow. A thoughtful, well-written, courteous reply. Thank you.

I will contemplate your kind words.

[Eleanors38]

232. ^^^ Last paragraph especially ^^^

[bossy22]

61. interesting enough, people aren't talking about this part of their concern

The ACLU’s second “significant concern” with Reid’s legislation is that it too broadly defines the term “transfer,” creating complicated criminal law that law-abiding Americans may unwittingly break.

“t’s certainly a civil liberties concern,” Calabrese told TheDC. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.”

“They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer. We think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/#ixzz2PcgBOLFq

It's just too damn difficult to understand. This is what I think seperates the honest anti-gun violence people and those that are just anti-gun owners. I know plenty of people who support strict gun control but believe that the system should be easy to understand and follow.

[rdharma]

65. The Daily Caller?

Founded by libertarian conservative political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney

Oh!

[sylvi]

68. herpa derp nt

[rdharma]

69. Daily Caller........ derp! nt

[sylvi]

71. Herpa derp nt

[petronius]

72. Virginia mountainman picked up on the nebulous definitions of 'transfer' and started a

thread about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=117654

But that line from the ACLU representative did jump out; I was glad to see it...

[petronius]

70. That's interesting, and a bit surprising. I'd love to see it as direct policy statement

rather than just in an interview with the Daily Caller - but it looks like the ACLU's 2A policy statement is under some degree of review, so perhaps they'll eventually elaborate on the potential civil liberties issues that they see in licensing, registration, etc. I'd be really interested to hear their take on the publication of and public access to gun owner records and CCW info...

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

[ileus]

84. Another reason to support the ACLU...

[LAGC]

88. Hell yeah.

I already give $500/year to them, if they start defending gun rights like they do free speech and privacy rights, you can be damn tootin' I'll double or even triple that support each year, as will many others.

[Eleanors38]

97. I would like to add ACLU to my list, along with...

Marijuana Policy Project, NARAL, and outdoors causes which I currently support.

[Buzz cook]

101. Privacy vs the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

You can't very well have a well organized militia in which the people supply their own arms without registration.
Consider that under certain statutes militia includes every adult. Then the 2nd would allow and perhaps require registration.

[hack89]

106. You need to catch up on the law. Start with Heller. NT

[AnotherMcIntosh]

117. x2

[Buzz cook]

120. -4 times

Heller separates the militia clause from from the individual right, but where does it say that the militia clause no longer exists?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In fact it doesn't.
I'd like to point out that the militia clause is also the right wings excuse to own evil black rifles, go wolverines and all that crap.

So perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 2nd.

Or you could rebut my point. Odds are you'll do neither.

[Straw Man]

121. Did I miss something?

Heller separates the militia clause from from the individual right, but where does it say that the militia clause no longer exists?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In fact it doesn't.

Did someone say that the militia clause no longer exists?

And could you explain why the citizen militia couldn't use individually owned and unregistered arms, or at least why they couldn't possess individual arms that are not registered and government-supplied arms that are?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. Oh, those right-wing, tea-bag, ALCU kooks. You know, the ones who spout the NRA talking points.

[rdharma]

115. Oops! ACLU doesn't think much of NRA's "School Shield" proposal either!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118941

[AnotherMcIntosh]

116. Liberals are always independent thinkers. I wouldn't expect anything less from the ACLU.

[rdharma]

118. And I don't expect the righties here to support the ACLU's objections to .......

....NRA's "National School Shield" proposal!

[markboxer]

122. I hate this!!

ACLU was good before. what happened

[demosincebirth]

152. This I don't understand. Sometimes we have to support things for the better good of our society.

[hack89]

153. They have always made privacy a top concern.

there are ways to do universal background checks without creating permanent records. We have been doing it for decades for sales by licensed gun dealers - they just need to change the law so there is not a different record keeping requirement for private sales.

[demosincebirth]

203. What's wrong with, just, common sense legislation? Maybe "common sense" is the problem

[hack89]

215. We all define common sense differently

for many gun owners, registration is step too far. We shouldn't have to be in a government database in order exercise a civil right. Especially since felons don't have to register.

[demosincebirth]

229. You have a drivers liscense, you're in a data base. Driving is a privelege not a right. This is

going to be a useless discussion, I can see. So, lets leave it at that.

[slackmaster]

182. Gun registration would be bad for society

[bowens43]

176. no group is right on every issue.

we need a registry and then we need confiscation......

[hack89]

177. And you wonder why gun owners fight "reasonable gun control." nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

211. Thank you for posting. It kind of undercuts the claim that no one is arguing for confiscation

from law-abiding people.

A thousand thanks.

Please do that again, on as many threads as you can.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

207. finally. ACLU.

fucking A.

[NYC_SKP]

208. +1 (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

212. Did the ACLU oppose the NFA registry?

I think this might be the first time I've ever opposed the ACLU for any purpose, and I'm a gun owner.

Use the NFA registry as a template. At least re-open it and extend it down to cover all semi-autos, and let's put this theory to the test where the rubber meets the pavement.

[hack89]

218. The thing about using the NFA as a template is that individual can't register guns

Haynes v. U.S. gutted the original NFA because the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment says that felons and others who cannot legally own guns cannot be forced to register their guns. The NFA was changed to remove any requirement for individuals to register their weapons. The NFA was changed such that manufacturers and importers had to register the weapon - the weapons were registered before they were initially sold.

From US v. Freed:

Under the present Act[3] only possessors who lawfully 604*604 make, manufacture, or import firearms can and must register them; the transferee[buyer] does not and cannot register.

Once initially registered, the weapon is transferred and the name of the owner is changed in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13714404009198646374&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The government cannot order proscribed gun owners to register guns not presently registered.

You can make it illegal for a proscribed gun owner to buy and own a registered gun. But it has to be registered first.

And a NFA model has no mechanism for registering all those guns that are not presently registered.

[AtheistCrusader]

219. Use the same mechanism that was used to register them at the inception of the '34 NFA.

(And abrogate the Hughes Amendment)

Ineligible possessors will ignore the law of course, but this will still put a dent in the straw purchase market. Even if all we can do is register new guns going forward.

[hack89]

220. It is hard to imagine gun registration ever becoming the law of the land

universal background checks are adequate.

[AtheistCrusader]

221. UBC's are a great start, and will help, but

they do nothing to address the straw purchase problem, unfortunately.

Not as they happen anyway. Only after the fact for sellers who move too many guns found at too many crime scenes.

[hack89]

222. The best way to cut down on straw purchases is to crack down on dirty gun dealers.

choke it off at the source.