Soooo...You wonder if this guy would get a proper background check?

The stolen firearms part was in reference to how does the black market start circulating firearms. Liability insurance is smart since people want to mitigate risk as much as possible for things that you can mitigate for. That is one reason to own a firearm: mitigate risk being hurt or killed in a violent encounter.

Background checks would not have prevented the circulation of firearms acquired in the method of a burglary. A license would just be a form of permission and would create a compulsary list of "eligable" firearm owners, even if they don't own one. The list of potential owners is narrowed considerably if the list only includes license holders.

How would registration shut down straw purchases? Registration would be able to prosecute after a weapon was used in a crime, yes. Registration would not prevent a straw purchase by itself. Prosecuting the straw purchaser after the fact doesn't prevent a straw purchase. Just because something is illegal doesn't shut off the flow of a particular item. Case in point: illegal drug trafficking.

Impact: all of these new regulations are meant to discourage and increase the cost of guns on people that follow the law. This registration scheme would be levied on the gun owners and increase costs above what they already are. Extra background checks are levied on gun owners that want to comply with the law. Compulsary insurance, which is being considered in washington D.C. would be paid for by gun owners. The people that are being punished aren't the criminals, but the gun owners wanting to be in line with the law. So, to answer your question, the impact would be great, financially, for gun owners and no one else.

 

.so substitute privilege for Rights.................what a novel concept for a socialist............... Why stay here..you know you're welcome in OZ. they have such a well-ordered society where they don't have to think for themselves, but follow the commandments set forth by their legalized tyranny. Hey slick, did you ever follow up on Legalism? or are you too damned lazy
Tell ya what, since you want this gun control thing, I think you should pay for all of this, personally.... back ground checks, building the network AND all the lawsuits that will follow................You are the one demanding this, aren't you? I think you and all your little socialist buds should pay for "the change you can believe in" your own damned selves

 

I lost all respect for him because of the fanny pack...

 

Point 3 is irrelevant. The state governments have to get involved in stopping the straw purchasers. Look how the state of Arizona conducted itself with Fast & Furious. I don't see how you stop straw purchasers.

 

A. An addiction to guns.

B. The right to defend himself, his family and his property.

C. The country is going downhill.

He doesn't miss a trick.

Hell, give him a slap on the wrist for this offense but make a note to go heavier on his next sentencing.

 

You might need to understand what "liability insurance" is before replying to this, otherwise you risk embarrassing yourself.

Actually, we don't at gun shows and in private sales... Nice try. Besides, the "criminals" obtain these through straw purchases, which would be mitigated against by point 3 (registration).

If you store your weapons safely, how are they getting stolen? I thought owning the weapon was to protect yourself against exactly that kind of crime?
Most first-world democracies who have implemented registration have not had confiscation. Look at the Swiss and the Australians, for example...

 

Really? Then why hasn't anyone had any major issues with having to get a concealed carry permit, or a Class 3 license? This isn't about people "getting permission", this is about people being "well regulated", which might sound familiar to anyone who is actually familiar with the 2nd Amendment they claim to be protecting.

If the police identify a pattern in which weapons registered to me are being used to commit crimes, they will be able to identify me as a straw purchaser and lock me up. I would then be unable to continue making straw purchases, and other people (knowing there is a chance of getting caught) would be less likely to make straw purchases either. Of course, the police can't identify who owns the guns that end up in the hands of criminals, because we don't bother tracking sales unless they happen through a licensed dealer.

Actually, that's BS. If registration had any significant cost, it would be deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. And costs of liability insurance would be offset if the owner could show that he had no risk factors in his history (psychiatric issues, criminal convictions, etc), that he had a gun safe or other secure storage, and that he had attended some form of safety training... Getting owners to do these things would be the whole point, as it would make sure ALL owners are safe from thieves and accidents.

 

Australia???Now you are lying. Even their government called it confiscation. You can only hold if you are rich or can justify it to the socialist government that runs that mess. Tell me Oh Book of Know it All, why are there still 550,00 to 6 million guns left illegally in Australia? Could it be that some folks over there don't trust socialism as a way of life? Total government control is not so well-embraced as you might think it is over there.
What other name can you apply to one who wants the BoR totally removed from the American people? Traitor, Tory, Back-stabber? What do you call socialist lovers? Do you have a particular name you give to the people who would destroy out Rights?

 

Wow, ignorance that can be clearly disproven with a simple google search.... Australians are still permitted to have firearms, though they are WELL REGULATED (those words sound familiar?).
BTW, when did the Second Amendment of the Constitution become the ENTIRE BoR? And when did I say I wanted all guns removed? I recall recommending some changes, but never a ban...

Perhaps you lack the capacity to understand what's being discussed.

 

Or he didn't have any money to buy a gun illegally, which you know, explains why he tried to steal them.

 

And you show your ignorance of the 2nd Amendment again. A well regulated militia means one that is well trained. Not this sh*t again...

 

Actually and in the US, wellness of regulation is prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.

 

Regulation of State militias is up to the State.

 

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

Any federal law that is written to create any kind of a national registry for gun control is unlawful and illegal. It is up to the respective States to decide what they will allow or not. That particular power is reserved to the States, AND the people therein. But because Lincoln made us all US citizens (14thA), the States do not have the authority to restrict ownership in the house. They can pass no laws that intrude upon the 4th and 5th A Rights. Do you even care how much blood was spilt to establish your Right to Free Speech? The same amount that went in to the rest of the BoR. They are Individual in nature, not corporate. You choose to practice what you will with what ever part of the BoR you want. You have that Right. If you don't want to use the 2ndA, then don't. That is your Right.
However, short of a Con Con, there's not much of anything there that tells you that you have the right to tell me how and when to practice my Rights. An that's what you want to do, tell people what to do instead of tending your own garden.
Whose Rights are legitimate AND lawful gun owners taking from the general population?
What Rights were those again?
You're the one inviting tyranny, not I. So, who is violating whose Rights?
Australia,,where only the very rich and influential can posses? You realize that they had no rights to begin with, don't you?
And since the government leases firearms to those lucky enough to pass forty pounds of paper work and have enough money to grease the gears of public safety commissions get to have a government approve firearm in their house, that doesn't explain away the fact that there are still 550,000 to 6 million guns left unregistered there. And you have no answer except for the obvious, those people don't trust their government.
I keep getting the impression you think their program of confiscation is justified. I keep telling you to move over there if that clime agrees with you.

 

From Article 1, Section 8:

 

Where does it say congress has the authority to regulate arms? The government only has the authority to regulate the militia, which means to keep it in working order. That article doesn't state anything contrary.

 

Did you miss this part: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

 

All that says is congress must organize, arm, and discipline the militia. Don't see anything referring to disarming it, which is what gun control advocates think "well regulated" means.

Once again, well regulated means to keep in working order. You can't have a working militia without arms, can you?

 

That is just a Federal requirement if so chosen. States can form their own militias independent of the Central Government.

 

Only well regulated militias of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment while civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service do not.

- - - Updated - - -

It is merely a federal Standard for the Union.

 

It is a federal standard for the union of States militia formation but does not dictate State militia requirements.

 

Wrong.

Please show me where in the constitution it says that.

I'll wait.

-George Mason, "father" of the Bill of Rights.

 

From Article 1, Section 8: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

 

Get off it Dan, The Supreme Court has already overruled you.