Oh please. This is some random board and most importantly, 1 - Prove I had any guns in the first place. 2 - Prove I didn’t sell them in the mean time of this post, I’d I ever did have them. You see, Missouri has no registration requirements or anything that says you need to document your private sale. So let’s go full blown authoritarian. You go through the gun records of the last 20 years and prove someone in a state like mine did at some time buy guns. So what? Doesn’t help you prove they are hidden when they don’t turn up in a house search? So you say, “fine, contempt of court, go to jail until you give them up. If you don’t, you basically have a life sentence without a trial, as you won’t get out of jail until you give them up.” Any lawyer will argue you can’t prove a negative. Nobody can prove they didn’t in fact sell their guns privately instead of burying them somewhere not on their property. Which is a good way to preemptively get around red flag laws; just keep most of your guns that aren’t registered off your property; then they can raid you day or night and it won’t matter. See that works? In a state like mine, you can’t prove someone didn’t sell that AR-15 that has not turned up. “Well they made a post that suggests they did.” “Maybe I never had guns and was joking, maybe I did have them and sold them after the post. Prove I didn’t. Womp Womp.”
Okay thank you, I buy that. I did not know that about Missouri law. But to preface your scenario a little differently, let's imagine that a someone gets caught with an un-federally-registered weapon. There's evidence of the original transfer from manufacturer to retailer, then also evidence of a second transfer between the retailer and a friend of the person, then tangential evidence (transaction history, range footage, social media, etc) will show that the person made a 3rd transfer when they acquired it from their friend, privately. The person says the gun is now missing in a "boating emergency". Well then there should be evidence of a boating emergency being reported to some local response line. If there is, then it matters what they claimed as losses with insurance or police. Then all their local ammo suppliers will be scrutinized to see which ammunition they are purchasing post-boating emergency. Then their browser history will be tortured along with their phone records/data/photos. Then eventually when things don't add up, their home gets searched and then they're screwed when the law concludes that there is no plausible explanation for the missing weapon and place a hold on their rights until their status changes from "under investigation" to "accounted for".
The boating accident quote is just a saying. It means anything of the nature. In this case, “boating accident” means “I sold them privately before your law, prove I didn’t.” Another example: “You got me on a charge of negligence, maybe? Sorry, I was cleaning my guns yesterday and then went to bed. I left them out all night and the door to the house unlocked. When I woke up, they were gone. No forced entry.”
Yeah I guess. Still, with all the home security cameras, you'd have to think it through like this and leave no stone unturned, if we're actually headed in this direction as a country. I don't think we are, despite the unrelenting "liberal" crowd obligating government to be responsible for more and more of our lives. But I the case for concern is stronger all the time, so who knows.
@Siskie Mind you, I'm 9 months in waiting for my PDW while the ATF shits up the industry, so I am frustrated with all things gun legislation. Would be nice to just stop and reapproach crime data analysis.
I have often suggested elimination firearms in the US is impossible; that possibility is long gone. But, I have also suggested, most suggestions by anti gun advocates on a serious attempt to effect a confiscation would require violating many provisions of the Constitution, so many, in fact, that the Constitution would no longer be a basis for US governance and thus be one of the reasons the 2A was drafted as being a last point of check against a government of tyranny. As far as any semblance of the idea that a historic record of any-type associating you with having guns in the past does not require you to fabricate an unprovable story to explain what happened to your firearms, you simply don’t answer such a question, you just remain silent. I was raised in one of the most firearm restrictive nations in the world, the UK, not only were we able to obtain firearms (I had access to them as a child), but often manufactured both guns and ammo... as well as explosives. But, at a very early age, we were often given training on how to handle the interrogations of state authorities... say nothing and don’t even engage in any type of conversation no matter how casual it might seem. Anything you say will be turned against you. At the point of being incarcerated or tortured for a confession (I underwent both), you are now in a war, fighting for a greater cause than just yourself. Funny, almost no one knows I own guns or even if I EDC them concealed... not my family, or my friends. Concealed means, concealed. Btw, when purchasing guns, ammo, accessories, I only use cash. A life long practice as the result of living under a government that operates with selective repression.
If you're wanting the text for this bill it is now out. LINK: HR 127 It is requiring and does A LOT more than just licensing and registration. It bans a lot of types of guns. It requires a psych evaluation which includes the psychiatrist being required to interview your ex or current spouse along with 2 other family members. The registration will be public to EVERYONE. It has a "large capacity magazine" cap of 10 rounds. It requires that you get insurance for the gun which costs $800 per year. Paid before you are able to get the license of course. Requires that you get training on safety and proper storage, even for antique guns that you only mean to display. Additionally you have to get a special license to even display antique guns in your own home, and that it is in a "safe or facility approved by the General Attorney for the storage of firearms"....kinda hard to display an antique in your home if its in a safe isn't it? And of course they've given anyone that works for the government an exception to all of this. Will this pass? I don't know. I wouldn't doubt it since Dems hold all the cards right now. Especially with the portrayal of the riot on Jan 6 as being an "insurrection". But lets say that it does pass. It WON'T pass SCOTUS. No matter how much Dems may want this it would be shot down in almost its entirety. (unless they stack SCOTUS...another possibility at play at the moment...) And no, I don't need to point to the 2nd Amendment for my reasoning and I won't even address the ban of guns. First the psych evaluation. This will be overturned for much the same reason that Roe v Wade overturned abortion laws. Right to Privacy. Requiring such to be done where it is reported to the government is a violation of our right to privacy just as it was, and is, a violation of a woman's right to privacy with her doctor. Especially since they are requiring an interview with people other than yourself. Gun registration: Again, a violation of our Right to Privacy. Particularly since they are making the registration open to the public. Large capacity mag ban, that one might actually pass. This is an unknown since in Heller they made the distinction of not being able to ban guns that are "in common use". The same argument could be made for magazines and the like since they are a part of a gun. However SCOTUS did rule in Heller that restrictions could be done. As such this is a toss up. Insurance, this one will get tossed out as an undue burden. Particularly on poor folks. (I can imagine using the same argument that Dems use because this will no doubt disproportionately affect black people, denying them their right to own a gun). Requiring training on safety and storage: this one is also an unknown. Completely. But I could see a case being made against it for at least antique firearms which are not used in crimes by pretty much anyone. Seriously...when was the last time you heard of a mass shooting or convenience store robbery by someone using a musket? A separate license to display an antique firearm, I just don't see this as being something that SCOTUS would accept as being able to be regulated by the federal government. I mean seriously, a license just to display an antique? Where's the need for such? Some of the penalties might also be shot down as being considered "cruel and unusual punishment" considering you are in violation of this law if you even let your 17 year old hold your gun as such is considered a "transfer to an unlicensed person".
Forgot to add in my last post that some of what's in that bill may run afoul of the fact that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction on intrastate sales. So if a father/mother gives their son/daughter a gun the government has no ability to deny such, or even track it.
She proposed that bill before in the 116th Congress, and it didn't anywhere, 0 co-sponsors. US Congress HR4081 Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
You're wrong. It was introduced on 1/4/21. 117th Congress convened on 1/3/21. LINK: 117th Congress As you can see, they also have a sponsor. I have to go to bed so will look this one up at a later time.
I would love to register my guns, but I sold them all privately. Unfortunately, I didn’t keep any receipt as there is no current law in my state demanding to keep records of selling guns privately, so I can’t prove I sold them; but it can’t be disproven, so the gun store forms won’t help. And gosh darn it all, I don’t recall who or where they were sold. Dang it, wish I could help you on knowing where all those guns were so you could confiscate them later after registration. Dang it.
Oh, I'm wrong!! omg!!!! Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 07/26/2019) H.R.4081 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4081 This year's bill: Cosponsors: H.R.127 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information (Except Text) Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] | Cosponsor statistics: 0 current - includes 0 original No cosponsors
Dude, I even showed you a pic that clearly says H.R.127. And has Ms. Lee as a co-sponsor. And you still post this?
Imagine if they proposed a license for the other fundamental individual rights - freedom of expression, voting rights, etc.
Imagine if you had to get a license to have an abortion, and said abortion had to be registered with the state.
IF it were rammed through and they had packed SCOTUS by that time then it could be upheld and become law. If it did, their plan isn't to start a war by going house to house. Nah, evil tends to be more subtle than that. They'll enable others to send in tips about someone "threatening them" or that they believe so and so is mentally unstable. Your first warning will be a knock at the door at O Dark Thirty. Before anything like this monstrosity can be passed, states need to clearly go on record as denying any help to the Feds in enforcement.
A cynical person might think the act has been proposed because the Democrats have to assure that part of their base and other independent voters concerned about firearm issues (and make no mistake there are such voters) that 'at least they tried' or some such. Firstly IMO its not going to pass through the Senate - at least not without having all but the bluntest of its teeth pulled. Secondly the Supreme Court will tear it to shreds on appeal given the precedence on gun control legislation and their interpretation of 2nd Amendment Rights. So no need to start burying firearms just yet.
A realist would recognize that they continue to keep trying to pass such laws. Often more than once an election. Until such stops and they start working on the actual problems of violence and crime there is no reason to believe that they don't want to reduce everyone to carrying or owning anything that threatens them.
A 'realist' would realize they have next to zero chance of effecting any significant change in US firearms legislation baring changes to the 2nd amendment. And since the Federal Government also has next to zero influence over State and Country etc policing it would probably be better to point the finger of responsibility for those issues at the elected officials responsible. Of course if you really want the Federal Government to take over responsibility for 'street' policing in your community you can always become an advocate for it. Then, assuming you are successful you actually have a a valid reason to blame them for not doing 'their' job correctly.
Poor people already have trouble defending themselves in their high crime neighborhoods, so registration fees will provide killers with easy victims and cops with more reasons to fill our prisons with young people. I took the kids out to the dessert to shoot this weekend. Imagine one of my kids takes the truck to run errands and a cop sees a round of ammunition in the truck bed. Of course, my kid doesn't have a license for ammo, so now another young person gets caught in our legal sausage grinder and every job application/background check will show an arrest/conviction on a firearms crime.
Three points; Firstly, when is that likely to happen given the string recent conservative appointments by Republican Administrations? Secondly, you can't have it both ways. If its OK for the Conservatives to 'stack' (your words) the Supreme Court with Conservative leaning Judges it must by default be OK for Liberals to do the same. In a democracy your preferred choices are not more important than some else's just because you happen disagree with those choices. Thirdly, the Second Amendment stands until it is amended as does the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court to date. All of which have tended towards a very liberal (that hated word) interpretation of the right to bear arms. Conclusion? Nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable future, if ever so chillax. You've got what you want and welcome to it.
The Second Amendment won't die at the Federal level, it'll be nit-picked to shreds in any state controlled by the Democrats. Does California, Illinois, and New York ring a bell......soon be adding Virginia to that miserable list.
