Gun Registration. Why should gun owners be opposed?

Good morning

All I see is some pick and choose what part of the Constitution and BOR applies to the modern world as they see fit. Until the elected officials pass a bill this all is for not.

I am happy all my Representatives down to the Sheriff are Pro Constitution.

 

It isn't about covering one's ass. The question is two-fold.

First is whether a law-abiding gun owner wants to sell a firearm to a person, whether a criminal or crazy, that is prohibited from owning one by the court because the court made a decision that that person would represent a serious threat to others if they possessed a firearm? I sure as hell don't want to sell a firearm to someone that is likely to use it on me or someone else in the future. Not only do I not want to sell it to them if they are intent on buying a firearm in violation of the court order, which is a violation of the law, then I want them stopped from purchasing one from someone else as well. Simply blocking one purchase doesn't stop that person from buying a firearm from someone else and even the attempt is a violation of the law. Not only do I want a way to instantly identify the individual that the court has determined is a serious threat I want to be able to report them to law enforcement so that law enforcement can stop them from buying a firearm from someone else. That person has violated the law in attempting to purchase a firearm and I want the law enforced.

Next is the simple question of whether I want to own a stolen firearm? Of course I don't so as a buyer I want to be able to instantly check to see if the firearm has been reported as stolen. If the seller has stolen the firearm or is in possession of it then they are a criminal and once again I want the law enforced. I want to be able to report them to law enforcement so the laws can be enforced.

No, I shouldn't be required to go to the sheriff's office when this information is instantly available from a database. All I need is to be given access to that database. I do have a serious problem with the government collecting information about me that is unnecessary as that violates my Fourth Amendment Right "... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." The government has no justifiable reason for knowing what I own or possess that I acquire legally for lawful purposes.

Now the question of whether I would want to own a firearm that was used in a crime is a different issue. First of all how would law enforcement know if a firearm that I legally purchased (i.e. it was never stolen property and I legally acquired it) was used in a crime if they don't have the firearm? They might suspect it was used in a crime but they wouldn't know it was actually used in a crime. I would not be opposed to the "database" notifying me of the fact that law enforcement was looking for a firearm I purchased legally was potential evidence in a criminal case and I would furnish it to them. How they might come to believe that the firearm was possibly used in a crime is still questionable, of course, but if they could establish that they wanted to see a specific firearm then I would provide it to them for their investigation if I possessed it. I believe that all law-abiding Americans would do this voluntarily. That same firearm might even be important to the defense because it could potentially establish a 'reasonable doubt' for a jury if it wasn't the firearm used in a crime.

None of this relates to covering my ass but instead relates to what a law-abiding citizen would do voluntarily based upon the enforcement of the laws. I don't want criminals or "crazies" to possess firearms in violation of the law. I don't want to purchase stolen property nor do I want others to possess stolen property which is a violation of the law. As a law-abiding citizen I want to do what I can related to potential evidence in a criminal case and if I legally own evidence then I would furnish it to law enforcement voluntarily for the enforcement of the laws.

The government keeping a database of the possessions, including firearms, of law abiding citizens has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing the laws of the land. The type and specific information related to a firearm has nothing to do with whether a person can purchase it legally. The type and serial number of a firearm has nothing to do with the law if it isn't stolen or if it is not evidence being sought based upon a warrant by law enforcement. The fact that a law abiding citizen seeks to purchase a firearm is not information that law enforcement has any business knowing because it doesn't relate to a criminal actions and they are only concerned with those prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm by a court order which would be a criminal act.

Show me a crime and then the government has a "need to know" but without any criminal wrong-doing the government doesn't need to know.

 

There's a few key "ifs" here...
What about if/when the weapon IS stolen and/or used in a crime?
Don't you believe that, if a weapon can be traced back to the last buyer, that buyers would be less likely to perform straw purchases on behalf of their criminal friends?
Don't you believe that the registration of vehicles helps limit vehicle theft, as well as investigate it effectively?

 

Weapons can be traced back to the original buyer in the current system. Hundreds of straw purchasers are convicted every year through that process. We don't need registration to do that.

The only time registration makes it possible to catch car thieves is when they are caught driving the stolen car. If the car is sold for parts or hidden, registration does nothing. Heck, if the thief takes the license plates of the car, registration does nothing.

Most people with stolen guns won't be waving them in public. If a cop does find a gun on someone during a search he checks the serial number against the database of stolen guns that we already have. No registration is necessary to determine if a gun is stolen.

 

If the firearm was stolen then a crime has been committed and I want the law enforced. It would show up on a database search of stolen firearms and I want access to that database.

There is no way to my knowledge that a firearm can be traced back to a crime unless the police actually have the firearm. They might suspect that it was (e.g. a man has a sales receipt for a 9mm and his wife dies of a bullet from a 9mm but the gun is missing). In that case the firearm is wanted as possible evidence in the crime but it doesn't establish that the firearm was actually used for the crime. Any law-abiding gun owner I know that legally purchased the 9mm from the man would gladly provide the firearm to the police for their investigation. If the man legally sold the firearm then he should have a copy of the bill of sale which would show that he no longer owned the 9mm at the time of the shooting. That's just common sense.

No, I don't believe that the government tracing the history of firearm sales would prevent people from breaking the law. A person that wanted to make a straw purchase of a firearm on behalf of their criminal friends would only have to report the firearm as being stolen to avoid prosecution. The only thing that could link them criminally is if the "criminal" was caught with the firearm and then was willing to testify that they had the "legal" individual purchase it for them and even then it would require additional evidence for a conviction. We cannot stop criminal acts by passing laws because criminals don't follow the law.

No, I don't believe that registration prevents anyone intent upon stealing a car from doing so. It is the VIN that is used to identify a stolen car and not the registration or license plate number. If the car is not used in public then typically we'd never find it anyway. Tens of thousands of cars are stolen and then shipped to foreign countries and we rarely catch those responsible.

Most people don't walk around showing off stolen firearms in public and, in my thread addressing reasonable laws for firearm registration, I proposed that virtually identical registration laws for firearms be patterned on vehicle registration laws. If the firearm is to be used in public places then we could justifiable require that the firearm be registered (e.g. based upon a CCW or hunting license) but if it's not to be taken into public then, like a car, it should not require registration.

 

I don't normally sell guns. I have only sold two in 15 years to people I knew. I have purchased several during the past few years, but from strangers. I don't bother the sheriffs office over a shotgun or a .22, however, if there appears to be some sort of question I simply check. The list of sales/trades is for me, not so much for them. There are only two people who know what I own, me and the one I sleep with; the wife.
The new purchase of a firearm from a legitimate dealer automatically registers the firearm to the buyer and creates a history (paper trail). Here in Indiana, the law questions all transferes when a gun is discovered by law enforcement.
If you are found with a handgun originally owned by someone from another county, they can and have charged folks with illegal possession of a handgun, based on no proof of ownership. Unless you can prove you didn't steal the gun, the police assume you have and treat you accordingly. It is their opinion that the gun may have not been reported stolen, and charge you. I simply take information for my own protection, legally. I have too many other things going on to have to spent weeks of time dealing with a simple issue of transfere. It just saves me a ton of grief. The Sheriff down here does a simple serial number check. It doesn't cost me a dime and I don't have to give up the other guy's name. Of course, if it was reported stolen, that a whole different issue. When we buy guns through private sales, we inherit the history, and part of the responsibility. I have turned down good offers to buy firearms, just because it didn't feel right or the price was way too good.
For me, this works. This is a small county, population-wise, and the sheriff knows everybody who lives here for more than 8 months. He does not cause trouble or throw his authority around. I think I can trust this guy to some extent, so I'll work with him as opposed to cross interest. He has sent a letter to the residents stating he is not behind the fed gov on this issue and will not enforce it. Feds may come in, but they probably have to leave after breakfast.
The real question is, how to detemine who can or cannot own. That then becomes an issue of registering yourself, not the gun. If we register both the owner and the gun, does it violate the 4th A as well as the 5th A?

 

While current law does require an FFL to submit the purchase information including the firearm specific information (which I don't believe should be required any more than car dealer reporting the sale of a car that isn't going to be used on the public roads) the original buyer can be identified. That doesn't establish that the person originally purchasing the firearm still owns the firearm. I did a search on "straw purchases" and found a few cases of this being prosecuted but no evidence that hundreds of cases were prosecuted annually or that they related to a purchase from an FFL that would have recorded that purchase with the federal government.

Professional car thieves typically purchase a "junk car" to obtain a legal registration and then sell the stolen vehicle using the registration from the "legal" car. Most people don't check the VIN when buying a used car so they end up with a stolen car and even law enforcement rarely checks the VIN for a normal traffic stop. The often don't register the "junk car" in their name using the original title signed by the prior owner when they sell the vehicle to avoid any written connection with the actual sale. Now "joy-riders" that steal a car are far more common and they generally don't plan on keeping the car and only use it for a short time hoping that law enforcement won't notice it's stolen before they abandon it.

The officer will both check to see if the firearm is reported as stolen as well as checking to see if the person is prohibited from possessing it by a court order. As I've noted I'm not opposed to the registration of firearms being carried in public (based upon a CCW or hunting license) but I do oppose general registration because the government has no need to know about firearms I have in my home which present no threat to society.

 

All the original buyer has to do to avoid prosecution is claim it was sold some time ago in a private sale... Seems like we should be content with convicting "hundreds" of straw purchasers a year rather than PREVENTING thousands of straw purchases a year... Not good enough.

Incorrect. Ever heard of VIN on parts?

Right, because most stolen firearms are immediately reported...
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

 

A VIN isn't registration and could be traced to a stolen vehicle even if the vehicle had never been registered (for instance a vehicle stolen from a dealership).

As for avoiding charges by claiming theft, that may work once or twice, but if several guns one person buys are found in criminal hands, it will be hard to avoid charges as a straw buyer.

 

Yup, but if the vehicle was never registered, the trail dies pretty quickly...

Not if they have ever been sold privately...

 

Once agian I'm going to get back to the point. We don't need a law that mandates a background check but instead need the means to perform it which we don't currently have for private sales. The database exists but average citizens cannot access it. As a responsible gun owner, and overwhelmingly gun owners are responsible, if I had a means of obtaining an instant background check online I'd use it. I don't want to sell a firearm to a person with a criminal background nor do I want to sell a firearm to someone that is mentally unstable. The last thing I want is for a firearm I've once owned to be used in a murder.

If the President wants background checks then I believe he can direct the FBI to open upon it's online database for the public to use without any laws being passed. It doesn't cost much for the FBI to do this. We don't need a mandate under the law to do that which we, law-abiding gun owners, would do voluntarily as a matter of course because it's in our best interests to do so.

I would challenge any responsible and law-abiding gun owner to offer a logical reason why they wouldn't run a background check to prevent themself from selling a gun to a criminal or a "crazy" in society that is likely to use that gun for criminal purposes. No responsible gun owner wants to arm criminals or crazies. The life they take might be our own.

 

I still believe there are certain unacceptable risks involved with this concept. For example: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/172204.pdf

 

Good morning

Wonder if some would support background checks for 1A Freedom of speech? Speech has promoted more problems, fights, wars, prejudices, hate and is dangerous in its own right.

I feel uncomfortable and unsafe around a society so quick with the tongue loaded with academia talking points.

 

not registration per say, but with his administrations carb standards, and smog laws. purchasing, and getting the car you want registered may be an issue in the future, obama's car for the masses is the smart car, and his administration is taking steps to make sure all that will be the only choice we have.

umm, logistician, the average 15 year old gang banger, and his friends ARE the retail outlet who sell illegal "products", for a massive web of international smugglers. the list of products smuggled in includes, illicit drugs, people (undocumented workers, as well as unwilling prostitutes.,as well as firearms and ammunition.

many guns on the street, are smuggled in. most may come from theft, however if you came up with a way to restrict the availability of guns to be stolen, the thugs will simply ask there contacts in the massive web of international smugglers, to toss a few guns in the next load of marijuana, that's hows it works in England, where the only ones with guns are the criminals.

 

YUP Nuff said

 

Just like you currently have to have seat belts, and are limited to cars that can pass today's safety standards... How tyrannical!

The average 15 year old gangbanger is a wannabe who is afraid of his own shadow and needs his friends around to back him up because he has no combat skill of his own. He tags local buildings and makes a lot of noise in order to show his affiliation with a gang... all in the hopes that he will appear to have resources that make him look like something to be respected or feared because the average 15 year old gangbanger doesn't clearly understand the difference between respect and fear. The ironic thing is that, rather than inspiring respect of fear, the average 15 year old gangbanger inspires only contempt and loathing in the average adult with any sense of self.

Like many teenagers, the average 15 year old gangbanger is primarily concerned with his own survival, and is likely to become a criminal informant for the police if he is convinced that his "friends" won't find out and that being a CI will keep him out of trouble. This is hardly the individual who is likely to run (or be trusted by people running) a multi-million dollar international business like those you mentioned.

What?! What country do you think these smuggled guns are coming from? Who (as in citizen of a country) has access to more guns and a wider variety of guns than the average US citizen?
Isn't it interesting that the US has 688% of the gun murders in England (per capita)...?
Isn't it interesting that our total crime is 82% higher...?

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

 

Ireland. Prior to Ireland, many of the guns come from parts of the former USSR, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. Guns manufactured or sold in the US are easily traced. If guns found in England came from the US, you would have no trouble finding some articles or research saying so.

So prove your statement or recant.

 

Guns manufactured or sold in the US are easily traced... to the first person who ever purchased them from a licensed dealer... You seemed to be missing that part. A firearm in the US can legally trade hands a dozen times after that point with few (if any) traces of where it's been.

And if you can't find a significant flow of firearms going from the US to the UK, what reason is there to believe that firearms could easily be smuggled from the UK to the US?

You mean my earlier question? I asked which countries we're concerned about. Why would this impact on the validity of the declarative statements I made and provided a link for....?

 

You don't seem to be able to follow the conversation at all. You asked where guns in England came from and implied that they came from the US. I both answered the question and explained that if they had originated in the US, British authorities would easily be able to tell. It wouldn't matter how many times the guns changed hands in the US before going to England, they would still trace right to the US.

In today's gun atmosphere, if a significant number of England's illegal guns came from the US, it would be reported by a lot of newspapers, so you should have no problem proving your implication.

Where in the world did the guns coming from the UK to the US BS come from? If guns were illegal in the US, criminals would most likely get them through the same channels as they get drugs - from Columbia and Venezuela most likely.

 

As a gun owner and believer in the 2A, me thinks some of you are waaaaay too paranoid. Want to register your guns, do so, and if not you have choices, simple as that.

 

.....it's not really an issue of registering guns, it is all about registering the owners. Registration is the constant companion of seizure/confiscation and never far behind. check History for proof.

 

Check history for proof of you assertion? Here's a better idea, if you want to make sweeping declarative statements, how about you provide your own supporting links.

 

You may be right... I can't recall every asking where guns in England come from... Could you point that out since I'm the one who is having difficulty following the conversation?
And how does tracing a gun back to a country help if you can't trace it back to an individual?

Once again, I don't recall making this implication.

 

dude, you seem like you went to school. what part about registration and confiscation don't you get?

 

I don't get the insistance that one follows the other, particularly since I still have my car and there are a large number of people in countries with firearm registration who still have firearms...
For example, registration is required in UK, Australia and Switzerland... Yet civilians are still allowed to obtain firearms. In Switzerland it's even mandated!