|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 9, 2013, 03:08 PM | #376 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Given that between 1 and 2 percent of guns used by criminals were originally sold at gun shows and a similar amount in private sales. And given that many states do not report felony conviction data to the national database and even more do not report mental health information.
Given that federal gun prosecutions have dropped substantially, and that prosecutions of individuals who illegally attempt to buy a firearm and are stopped by NICs is vanishingly small. Given that the only way to even theoretically make a universal background check work that includes person to person sales is to require registration. And given that even in Canada the long gun registration resulted in only 30 percent of long gun owners registering their guns. And that such a system in Canada cost billions of dollars, didn't solve one crime and took untold man hours of police time in addition to payroll. Pursuing a Universal Background Check is a fools errand that will only succeed in making millions of Americans criminals, by definition of law, as polls estimate the overwhelming majority of Americans will not register their guns. Maybe they could focus on more productive matters, like getting states to report felony convictions and those adjudicated mentally ill in a court of law, and funding mental health treatment to get people help so they don't reach the point of hurting others, and prosecuting federal gun crimes, and getting rid of gun free zones unless there is armed security provided. |
February 9, 2013, 03:39 PM | #377 | |
Member
Join Date: October 7, 2010
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 03:39 PM | #378 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 03:47 PM | #379 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law. "
Oh, c'mon manta. No one is saying that except you. There's no sense piling on more laws that won't work for obvious reasons when no effort is made to enforce existing laws or plug the holes in the existing system so the supposed safeguards already in place have a chance of working. |
February 9, 2013, 03:54 PM | #380 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Quote:
Gun laws on the other hand are purely based in possession, not behavior with the object. The correct correlation should be, we do not restrict possession of cars that can obviously exceed the speed limit, so likewise we should not restrict guns that can be used to kill. This isn't even considering the difference between the two as privilege versus a fundamental right. |
|
February 9, 2013, 04:06 PM | #381 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 9, 2013, 04:11 PM | #382 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Besides, there are some real problems with UBCs on private transfers: First, the whole idea driving the push for universal background checks is that it will keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Universal background checks on private sales will be almost entirely unenforceable. Both buyer and seller will have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against themselves. Without registration of all firearms, it will be virtually impossible for a prosecuting authority to prove a violation of the law. Second, under an old 1968 case called Haynes v. U.S., I have a very strong suspicion that convicted felons and other prohibited persons will be virtually immune from prosecution for violation of same. Based on these two items, it's the Fifth Amendment that is standing in the way of this "common sense legislation." As for the mentally ill, do you really expect them to abide by laws? Aren't the inability to recognize right and wrong, legal and illegal, and an inability to conform ones behavior ordinarily defenses to criminal charges? Laws are intended to punish bad behavior and deter same. Given the first two items above, new legislation will basically only apply to law-abiding citizens, causing them to jump through more hoops, but it will not have any effect on either felons or the mentally ill. In other words, private background checks on private sales will serve no purpose. Driving laws apply across the board to each and every person operating a vehicle. Whether licensed or not, prior conviction or not. There's not a "prohibited persons" class which could not legally be required to register its cars.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 9, 2013, 04:15 PM | #383 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
The actual downside is bigger than any supposed benefit. In countries with registration there is no demonstrable measurable benefit. And because of widespread non-registration or non- compliance one would making criminals of millions of gun owners and creating an even larger black market in guns. Well, no benefit unless one's goal was primarily to create millions of new criminals.
|
February 9, 2013, 04:42 PM | #384 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 9, 2013, 04:57 PM | #385 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that we should not have any laws regarding firearms. That's never been what I've argued. Possession of firearms by certain categories of persons is already prohibited, and it should be. However, piling on more laws which: (1) will only serve to harass law-abiding gun owners; (2) without any realistic possibility of enforcement; and (3) without any foreseeable effect on crime, makes no sense. Heck, our DOJ isn't even prosecuting the laws we currently have with any regularity. How will they find time to prosecute more?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 9, 2013, 05:05 PM | #386 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 05:06 PM | #387 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
manta, you're just not getting it.
The existing background check law is a farce. Depending on who you listen to, untold thousands of people were denied the purchase of a firearm because they didn't pass the background check. They either: 1) lied on the submitted form, which is a felony, and only a scant few were prosecuted. So the existing law isn't being enforced. ; or 2) the information in the NICS system is flawed, and untold thousands were unjustly denied the purchase of a firearm. Thirdly, people who know they won't pass a background check won't submit to one and will buy one illegally on the black market, or use something else to do their dirty deed. So logic only tells you that piling any new laws on top of one that isn't enforced, or more people submitting to a flawed system, accomplishes nothing. Nada. Zip. |
February 9, 2013, 05:08 PM | #388 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"I am not saying that registration should happen in America or would be a good idea. Its this idea that the government couldn't technically or have the means to require registration and enforce it i would disagree with they manage it in lots of other countries."
Those other countries don't have anything like our 2A either. |
February 9, 2013, 05:18 PM | #389 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
There are several questions at play: 1) Is registration technically feasible? Yes. 2) Can the gov't get the political support necessary? I don't think so. 3) Could the legislation survive a 2A challenge? No way to know without seeing the legislation. 4) Is it a good idea? IMHO, no, it's horrible. 5) Will the American public cooperate? A very good question.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
February 9, 2013, 05:25 PM | #390 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; February 9, 2013 at 06:09 PM. |
|||
February 9, 2013, 05:25 PM | #391 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Let's not forget...
Quote:
18 USC 926 |
|
February 9, 2013, 05:31 PM | #392 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
February 9, 2013, 05:50 PM | #393 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Originally Posted by manta49
"Requiring people to register would not make them criminals. Braking the law by not following it would make them criminals if that's the case they would have no one to blame only themselves and that would be their choice." It is clear given the evidence of Canada - that people in America will not by a large majority register their guns. Other countries do not have the same culture or history of gun ownership that America does. Recent threats of gun bans and confiscations will reinforce that decision to refuse to register. They would not be left with finding themselves to blame, on the contrary they would blame those that chose to pass such legislation into law and there would be organized resistance and protest; Civil disobedience and a greater disrespect for the legitimacy of government and the law. Clearly an awful law with no demonstrable benefit and a huge downside. But hey, knock yourself out and go for it. It would hugely energize the RKBA movement and change the political landscape until it was repealed. |
February 9, 2013, 05:51 PM | #394 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
Nothing I hate more than people who call their point of view "common sense". It is extremely rude IMO and I can no longer give any creedence to their opinions!
|
February 9, 2013, 05:56 PM | #395 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Driving a car- pretty easy to enforce- it's out there, people can see it. A pistol under someone's seat, or under a bed- almost impossible for officers to get a look at it, run numbers, etc. If I sell a gun to a private party without a background check, how will the police know? In the odd chance they do pull the buyer over or find a reason to come into his house, find some reason to search, come up with some sort of reasonable suspicion to run numbers on the gun, how do they know it wasn't sold before the UBC law was in place? And how do they know he got it from me? Quote:
Answer is we don't. It's completely useless. It has no purpose, but to burden FFLs with extra paperwork, make FFLs money on unnecessary transfers, or trip up honest people. |
||||
February 9, 2013, 06:11 PM | #396 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Manta, it sounds to me as if you're making the same argument over and over, using the same terminology- yet you aren't listening to the explanations people have given to you- repeatedly.
What is your goal here? Are you open to the explanations offered, or do you not want to consider them? |
February 9, 2013, 06:14 PM | #397 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Quote:
You really are not making any sense in comparing gun laws of possession to laws fir actual bad driving. |
|
February 9, 2013, 06:17 PM | #398 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
This is a gun enthusiast forum so you would expect most to resist firearm controls. So to a certin extent you are preaching to the converted. My question is the rest of the population in America as against gun control as most on this forum. ? |
|
February 9, 2013, 06:31 PM | #399 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Since in Canada estimates were that 70 percent of long gun owners refused to register their arms until the law was finally repealed as a massive expensive failure and since a recent poll of American gun owners showed that 65 percent said they would not register their firearms which is similar to the Canadians response - the evidence is fairly solid that that would be the case.
Edit to add: that would mean 65 million or more new criminals - good luck with that. Their passion anger at being made criminals would influence the views of some of their loved one's such as spouses, adult sons and daughters, friends, and other relatives and support for the law would drop. Gun owners are notorious for often being single issue voters unlike gun control advocates. Registration would impact millions more citizens than the 1994 ban did. That's a huge can of hurt to open. On second thought - go for it. Last edited by mack59; February 9, 2013 at 08:43 PM. |
February 9, 2013, 06:38 PM | #400 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"My question is the rest of the population in America as against gun control as most on this forum. ?"
No, but most of them just don't care, are driven by passion instead of reason, and their brains are poisoned by too much MTV. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|