Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the "bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK, that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'

Journey to Mount Everest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JYC...mvGKCqlsUZzigg

Subscribe for more footage.

On 1/31/2013 5:22 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the "bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK, that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'


Registration is the gateway to confiscation, proven many times over
historically, the latest being Australia.

cheers
T.A K

On 1/31/2013 5:22 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the "bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK, that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'

I don't think they have any substantive reason for opposing universal
background checks. In this case, saying that "it wouldn't have
prevented Newtown" is just a dodge. It *would* prevent some people who
ought not to have guns from having them, or at least make it much more
difficult for those people to obtain them. I have to think the NRA
simply opposes any form of gun control, based on the "camel's nose"
principle.

Registration is another matter. That doesn't do anything to keep guns
out of the hands of bad people. It's purely a form of intimidation
aimed at law-abiding gun owners, and as many have already pointed out,
is the classic first step toward confiscation. The NRA's opposition to
gun registration is sound and substantive.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:22:14 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the "bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK, that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'

1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.

2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them. Also, I do't want some asshole newspaper to print a list of
names and addresses of every gun in the US.(like that was recently
done).

How about congress put some money behind their words and allow a 100%
tax credit for anyone who buys a safe. Be it a gun safe or any other
safe, as long as it is UL rated or rated by some other agency for
theft and/or fire protection. This will mean a lot more homes will
have safes for any guns, jewels, money and valuables. Hopefully this
will drop the number of break-ins if theives know they will not find
anything easy to steal other than a TV or 2. ( of course these new
big-ass TV's are getting harder to steal too)


My .02

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

"Randy333" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:22:14 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the
recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past
few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather
fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks
and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the
"bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and
that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown
shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where
background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of
applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK,
that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but
it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some
more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the
ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me
to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help
track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it
wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the
inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the
objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding
gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'

1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.

2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them.

How in the **** are you going to keep guns away from looney tunes if they
already have one ?

Listening to the radio, today. Aparently,
"instant checks" or universal background
checks is another form of registration.
Since, it can be reasoned, that anyone
who applies to be checked must be a gun
owner of some form.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
.. .

I don't think they have any substantive reason for opposing universal
background checks.

Registration is another matter. That doesn't do anything to keep guns
out of the hands of bad people. It's purely a form of intimidation
aimed at law-abiding gun owners, and as many have already pointed out,
is the classic first step toward confiscation. The NRA's opposition to
gun registration is sound and substantive.

I don't think I'd want to trust the government,
in any form, to have records destroyed.

I like having more gun safes, not sure about the
tax credit idea.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Randy333" wrote in message
...

1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.

2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them. Also, I do't want some asshole newspaper to print a list of
names and addresses of every gun in the US.(like that was recently
done).

How about congress put some money behind their words and allow a 100%
tax credit for anyone who buys a safe. Be it a gun safe or any other
safe, as long as it is UL rated or rated by some other agency for
theft and/or fire protection. This will mean a lot more homes will
have safes for any guns, jewels, money and valuables. Hopefully this
will drop the number of break-ins if theives know they will not find
anything easy to steal other than a TV or 2. ( of course these new
big-ass TV's are getting harder to steal too)


My .02

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Listening to the radio, today. Aparently,
"instant checks" or universal background
checks is another form of registration.
Since, it can be reasoned, that anyone
who applies to be checked must be a gun
owner of some form.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

===============================================

No, anyone applying for a background check could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be destroyed in 24 hours. That is,
federal records. In some states, you have a de facto registration because
you have to fill out a purchase form (handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.

--
Ed Huntress



..

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
.. .

I don't think they have any substantive reason for opposing universal
background checks.

Registration is another matter. That doesn't do anything to keep guns
out of the hands of bad people. It's purely a form of intimidation
aimed at law-abiding gun owners, and as many have already pointed out,
is the classic first step toward confiscation. The NRA's opposition to
gun registration is sound and substantive.

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:07:37 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Listening to the radio, today. Aparently,

"instant checks" or universal background

checks is another form of registration.

Since, it can be reasoned, that anyone

who applies to be checked must be a gun

owner of some form.

Background checks are to keep known criminals from being permitted to make an otherwise legal purchase of a firearm. They are not about registering anyone as a gun owner. I think that your reasoning is flawed. I am licensed to operate radio equipment, though I don't own any, and have been licensed to operate airplanes though I never owned any.



Christopher A. Young

Learn more about Jesus

www.lds.org

.



"George Plimpton" wrote in message

.. .



I don't think they have any substantive reason for opposing universal

background checks.



Registration is another matter. That doesn't do anything to keep guns

out of the hands of bad people. It's purely a form of intimidation

aimed at law-abiding gun owners, and as many have already pointed out,

is the classic first step toward confiscation. The NRA's opposition to

gun registration is sound and substantive.

When speaking of "Registration" I was talking about registration of the weapon, not of the user. The purpose of registration of firearms would be to track their ownership from the time of their manufacture to the time (hopefully never) that they are involved in a crime. There are plenty of guns leaving the factory in a legal manner and ending up on a black or gray market in Chicago or New York. How did they get there? Wouldn't it be of some benefit to be able to trace who owned it last?

You can trace the ownership of a car through a national database, and it doesn't restrict anyone's ability to purchase or own a car. Why would a similar database limit your rights to own a gun? I just don't see how anyone should be intimidated by this, any more that you'd be intimidated by having to register your car.

1) Well, if the person is a first time gun buyer,
and the check is approved. Do you think that
person can now be called a "gun owner"?
Would that mean that pretty much anyone who
calls for background check is a gun owner?
Isn't that what I just wrote?
2) Do you trust the anti gun, socialist, take over
minded people in power to destroy information?
If you do, I think you're terribly naive.

Better luck, next time.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


No, anyone applying for a background check
could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be
destroyed in 24 hours. That is, federal records.
In some states, you have a de facto registration
because you have to fill out a purchase form
(handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.

--
Ed Huntress

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

1) Well, if the person is a first time gun buyer,
and the check is approved. Do you think that
person can now be called a "gun owner"?

Would that mean that pretty much anyone who
calls for background check is a gun owner?
Isn't that what I just wrote?

=================================================

Not until he passes the background check. And if he doesn't, he isn't going
to be one, either.

But he may be a criminal if he's not qualified and he lies on the
application.

=================================================

2) Do you trust the anti gun, socialist, take over
minded people in power to destroy information?
If you do, I think you're terribly naive.

=================================================

I don't think they SHOULD destroy the information. Otherwise, you have no
practical way to go after straw purchasers.

=================================================

Better luck, next time.

=================================================

Same to you, Chris.

--
Ed Huntress


Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


No, anyone applying for a background check
could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be
destroyed in 24 hours. That is, federal records.
In some states, you have a de facto registration
because you have to fill out a purchase form
(handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.

--
Ed Huntress

Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

--
Ed Huntress

-----Original Message-----
From: Stormin Mormon
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:09 PM Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: [OT] Second Ammendment Question

I don't think I'd want to trust the government,
in any form, to have records destroyed.

I like having more gun safes, not sure about the
tax credit idea.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

===========================================

So, if you don't have purchase records, how do you detect straw purchasers?

Form 4473 doesn't provide a database for law officers to search. It's kept
in the "bound book" at the FFL holder's place of business. Tracking a new
gun sale is a nightmare, starting with the manufacturer's shipment records,
through wholesalers, and then on to retailers. Then it requires a manual
search, onsite, through the retailer's bound book. It's rarely done. If the
gun was sold used by the dealer, there is no manufacturer's shipment record
to check. Case closed, the trail is unrecoverable. Straw purchaser walks
free.

Form 3310.4, for multiple gun purchases, isn't much better. The state and
local police who are supposed to be notified with a copy don't have the
resources to connect the purchases with gun crimes that are out of their
jurisdiction. And other jurisdictions won't know where to look, except by
going through the ATF Tracing Center.

Since the forms at the ATF Tracing Center are paper or fax (they're not
allowed to compile them into a database), there is no simple way to search
them. That's another factor that the NRA lobbied for.

The NRA complains that laws aren't being enforced. Straw purchases are
illegal. But the NRA lobbied for, and got, a system in which the records are
destroyed or made practically unusable so that straw purchasers can't be
found.

Neat, huh?

--
Ed Huntress

==================================================
..

"Randy333" wrote in message
...

1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.

2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them. Also, I do't want some asshole newspaper to print a list of
names and addresses of every gun in the US.(like that was recently
done).

How about congress put some money behind their words and allow a 100%
tax credit for anyone who buys a safe. Be it a gun safe or any other
safe, as long as it is UL rated or rated by some other agency for
theft and/or fire protection. This will mean a lot more homes will
have safes for any guns, jewels, money and valuables. Hopefully this
will drop the number of break-ins if theives know they will not find
anything easy to steal other than a TV or 2. ( of course these new
big-ass TV's are getting harder to steal too)


My .02

Remove 333 to reply.
Randy


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

1) Well, if the person is a first time gun buyer,
and the check is approved. Do you think that
person can now be called a "gun owner"?
Would that mean that pretty much anyone who
calls for background check is a gun owner?
Isn't that what I just wrote?
2) Do you trust the anti gun, socialist, take over
minded people in power to destroy information?
If you do, I think you're terribly naive.

Better luck, next time.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


No, anyone applying for a background check
could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be
destroyed in 24 hours. That is, federal records.
In some states, you have a de facto registration
because you have to fill out a purchase form
(handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.

I also agree with NOT destroying background check information. I can guarantee that somewhere in Oklahoma there's a copy of my Private Pilot License application. Why shouldn't that be true for gun permits?

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.

You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even
*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold
outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to
be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is
stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other
criminal.

The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock.
Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very
well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep
track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of
the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any
law-abiding person to bear arms.

I also agree with NOT destroying background check information. I can
guarantee that somewhere in Oklahoma there's a copy of my Private Pilot
License application. Why shouldn't that be true for gun permits?

================================================== ================

Hey, Ranger. Are the gun nutz giving you a rough time? They appear to be
multiplying. g

The answer to your first question is that you can't. Tracking a gun under
present laws is onerous and expensive, in terms of man-hours. So it isn't
done very often or very well. The straw buyers are fairly safe as a result.
Of course, the nut jobs are all but undetectable, because most states have
completely inadequate databases of adjudicated loons. And psychology itself
isn't particularly good at figuring out who in dangerous, in the first
place.

The data that we have on sources of criminal guns is based mostly on
infrequent surveys and anecdotes. So everybody argues about the data. All we
know for sure is that somebody either broke the law or was negligent, in all
but a small percentage of cases, because somebody had to buy that gun at
retail from an FFL holder, somewhere down the line.

I'm sure you see the big picture. You could have heard it listening to the
Congressional hearings the other day (I sat through most of it). Wayne
LaPierre ducked the question of why the NRA supported background checks from
FFL holders but not for "private" sales (read, unlicensed dealers who Limbo
under the wire and sell at gunshows, etc.). He just changed the subject.

The big picture, as I see it, is that we have several types of gun owners.
There are old farts, like me, who never liked semiauto rifles in the first
place and who don't have a problem with registration anyway. I also spent a
year in Switzerland and my eyes roll back in my head when people point to
that country as an example. They're tough. You break a gun law there, and
you're in deep ****. Also, their entire culture is different, and a lot more
peaceful.

Then there is a large group who is afraid that registration will lead to
confiscation. I've bought and owned guns in NJ for nearly 50 years; all of
my guns are de facto registered, and even here, I've never seriously thought
anyone was going to confiscate my guns. I just don't believe it will happen.

Finally, there is a very noisy contingent of paranoid survivalists and
Walter Mitty types who think they're going to rescue America by shooting
politicians and, one supposes, cops. That is, after they mow down dozens of
attacking liberals who are going to invade their homes and steal their
'possum jerky. These people are freaky and I'm glad they're mostly out West,
out of rifle range. g

They're very different mindsets. When you hear them say they don't want
anyone knowing what guns they own, it's the sound of paranoia. I don't think
there's anything that will change their minds. They see threats in the
shadows, around the corner....everywhere. They'll fight any attempt to limit
guns getting into the hands of criminals and lunatics, because they see
their rights as absolute and unrelated to anything criminals do with guns --
as if criminals get their guns from some source other than the law-abiding
people who buy guns from manufacturers in the first place.

There's little use in arguing with them. To me, they've completely destroyed
the position of responsible gun ownership as a part of the general culture,
and they've polarized the issue beyond all reason. That's where we are. Now
it comes down to who has the votes.

Too bad. It used to be a lot better.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:

Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.



Hey, Ed -



Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.



What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.



You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even

*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold

outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to

be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is

stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other

criminal.



The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was. If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility. If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such. If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle. What's so difficult about that?

Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are. It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that. Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.]

As Ed said, registration has been a FACT in New Jersey for many years. Nobody - neither Republican nor Democrat - is going door-to-door confiscating firearms.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Listening to the radio, today. Aparently,
"instant checks" or universal background
checks is another form of registration.
Since, it can be reasoned, that anyone
who applies to be checked must be a gun
owner of some form.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

===============================================

No, anyone applying for a background check could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be destroyed in 24 hours. That is,
federal records. In some states, you have a de facto registration because
you have to fill out a purchase form (handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.


Not sure where you got this but it's the wrong info.

The Federal 4473 form that is the form used for ALL dealer NICS checks
is not destroyed for a minimum of 20 years.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

See page 3


That means that anyone who bought any type of NICS check weapon from a
dealer since 1992 is on file.

--
Steve W.

I've heard that the 4473 yellow form is supposed to be stored at the gun
store, not turned in to the Fed. Not sure when the business closes. I've
also heard on the radio that BATFE guys have been known to show up and copy
or take with them the 4473.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Steve W." wrote in message
...

The Federal 4473 form that is the form used for ALL dealer NICS checks
is not destroyed for a minimum of 20 years.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

See page 3


That means that anyone who bought any type of NICS check weapon from a
dealer since 1992 is on file.

--
Steve W.

"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock.
Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is
very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't
keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the
hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on
any law-abiding person to bear arms.

You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even
*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold
outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to
be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is
stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other
criminal.

The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

================================================== ============

Let's see what a sound program would be. By the way, this system is
something like the one we will almost inevitably have, sooner or later, so
we'd might as well get it all out now.

First, universal background checks. To have background checks for purchases
from FFL holders, but not from the "collectors" gag who sell at gun shows,
is insane. Even Wayne LaPierre stumbled and bumbled trying to explain it,
knowing that it's sheer lunacy. The background check system has stopped well
over a million illegal purchases. How many just turned around and bought
from a "private" seller? We don't know. We don't have the stats. There is a
claim that only a couple of percent of guns recovered in crimes came from
gun shows, but that refers to guns bought from FFL holders who sell at
shows. We don't know how many came from "private" sellers. We can't tell.

Second, make the background check rational. In other words, provide enough
money to police and mental health institutions to get the databases up to
date and fairly complete. Since conservatives believe in direct fees for
users in opposition to funding things from general tax funds, finance it
with a tax on guns and ammo. I'd go along with that.

Third, 100% registration at the time of sale, new or used, commercial or
private sale, and creation of a database available to police. What that will
do is enable the easy tracking of guns back to the last legal purchaser.
Then find out what happened to the gun when that purchaser last had it. If
it was stolen, find out if the theft was reported within 48 hours of the
owner's awareness. If not, he gets a hefty fine. And no theft should go
unreported after any three-month period. That's long enough for any gun
owner to check his inventory and to notice if any gun is missing. Again, a
hefty fine if he reported his guns intact and it's discovered that a theft
occurred a year ago. That will be harder to prove, but it's a reasonable
imposition of responsibility. Once people know the law is serious about
this, I would expect a big jump in securing guns well and a heightened sense
of how seriously we all take it.

All of that will put a damper on strawman sales. It won't stop them, but the
responsibilities described above will make it harder for a straw purchaser
to claim loss due to theft. Being able to easily track down the purchaser
will make it all but impossible for those sales to result in "gifts" and
private sales to family members and friends who the purchaser knows is
prohibited from owning guns. A sale or gift to a known felon will get jail
time. A sale to anyone else, without a background check and a recording of
the sale to the registration database, likewise will get jail time. And
we'll be able to find those strawmen with such a system. Before long,
they'll know it. Really bad news travels fast in the criminal community.

Up-to-date databases on ownership and criminal/mental health records will
enable easier confiscation of guns from criminals who were *not* criminals
or nuts when they purchased a gun. If they failed to turn it in when they
became ineligible, more jail time.

Next, waiting periods for gun purchases. This will reduce some crimes of
passion and some suicides. My college roommate walked into a gun store,
bought a S&W .38 Spl. revolver, and killed himself with it less than two
hours later. Since I knew him from the time before he was sick until his
schizophrenia had progressed very far, I know he was impetuous, up-and-down,
and might have been saved and even made healthier. He was doing OK and then
went off his meds two weeks before he committed suicide.

Of course, with good background checks, Dan would not have been able to buy
the gun. He was committed years before. He would have faced two roadblocks.
That likely would have stopped him. It was his third suicide attempt, BTW,
but his first with a gun.

Next, require safety training for all first-time gun owners, like the NRA/PA
State safe hunter/safe shooter program my buddies and I all had to go
through in 1960. It was a good program. It got us off to a good start. We
took pride in handling our guns safely. Without the program, we would not
have been allowed to shoot in small-bore rifle competition or skeet at any
local club or range. We had to show our card.

There are some other things I'd favor, but this is about as far as things
probably will go. We'll tussle over ARs and big magazines, but I don't
expect anything definitive to happen there. I'd favor a lockup requirement
for all guns while no one is in the house, but I doubt if that would fly. In
fact, I don't expect much of the above during my lifetime, but that's
setting the schedule a little tight, anyway. d8-)

Anyone serious about wanting to do obvious, reasonable things to reduce gun
crime, accidental deaths and suicides will favor those things. They don't
prevent anyone from owning the firesticks of his choice. Accepting the fact
that our decision to own guns implies serious responsibility will go a long
way toward making this country grow up and put away our paranoid fantasies,
and our Walter Mitty delusions of heroic grandeur.

And we'll all still have our guns. I'll be able to shoot my Colt and Hi
Standard semiauto pistols, and all of my other toys as much as I want,
including the Mossberg 3-1/2" magnum shotgun that I shoot religiously. In
fact, whenever I shoot 3-1/2s in it, in light clothes, I yell "Jesus
Christ!"

Then he helps me see the light.

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve W." wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Listening to the radio, today. Aparently,
"instant checks" or universal background
checks is another form of registration.
Since, it can be reasoned, that anyone
who applies to be checked must be a gun
owner of some form.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

===============================================

No, anyone applying for a background check could be a first-time gun
buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be destroyed in 24 hours. That is,
federal records. In some states, you have a de facto registration because
you have to fill out a purchase form (handguns in NJ, for example) for
which the *state* retains a copy.


Not sure where you got this but it's the wrong info.

The Federal 4473 form that is the form used for ALL dealer NICS checks
is not destroyed for a minimum of 20 years.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

See page 3


That means that anyone who bought any type of NICS check weapon from a
dealer since 1992 is on file.

--
Steve W.

================================================== =============

Yeah, I know about form 4473, but it's kept in a *bound book* by the dealer.
No one else has that data unless and until ATF has a reason to come looking
for it. And they won't know unless they start with manufacturers' shipments.
Then to the wholesaler, who one hopes also has good records, and so on. It's
a bitch and it all has to be done by hand, going through paper.

"As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for
ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the
official NICS response to the dealer. The requirement that approved
purchaser information be destroyed within twenty-four hours has been
included in the appropriations bills funding the Department of Justice
(which includes ATF and the FBI) every year since 2004.5 Each of these acts
contains additional provisions which restrict disclosure of data obtained by
ATF via crime gun traces. In 2006, Congress failed to pass H.R. 5005, which
would have codified and made permanent the restrictions on disclosure of
crime gun trace data.

"As a result of these restrictions, ATF inspectors are no longer able to
compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the
dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice Inspector General has
noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt
firearm dealers to avoid detection."

The FBI keeps records of those who failed the background check.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-...check-records/

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

I've heard that the 4473 yellow form is supposed to be stored at the gun
store, not turned in to the Fed. Not sure when the business closes. I've
also heard on the radio that BATFE guys have been known to show up and copy
or take with them the 4473.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

==================================================

That's what they're SUPPOSED to do, fer chrissake. The 4473 is retained by
the dealer so that ATF can trace a gun used in a crime. They shouldn't have
to show up and copy it. They should have it in their database.

When the business is sold, the bound book is passed on to the buyer of the
business. If the business is closed, the bound book is sent to the US
Attorney General, who probably uses it for a paperweight. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


..

"Steve W." wrote in message
...

The Federal 4473 form that is the form used for ALL dealer NICS checks
is not destroyed for a minimum of 20 years.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

See page 3


That means that anyone who bought any type of NICS check weapon from a
dealer since 1992 is on file.

--
Steve W.

Ed Huntress wrote:

Yeah, I know about form 4473, but it's kept in a *bound book* by the
dealer.
No one else has that data unless and until ATF has a reason to come looking
for it. And they won't know unless they start with manufacturers'
shipments.
Then to the wholesaler, who one hopes also has good records, and so on.
It's
a bitch and it all has to be done by hand, going through paper.

"As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for
ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the
official NICS response to the dealer. The requirement that approved
purchaser information be destroyed within twenty-four hours has been
included in the appropriations bills funding the Department of Justice
(which includes ATF and the FBI) every year since 2004.5 Each of these acts
contains additional provisions which restrict disclosure of data
obtained by
ATF via crime gun traces. In 2006, Congress failed to pass H.R. 5005, which
would have codified and made permanent the restrictions on disclosure of
crime gun trace data.

"As a result of these restrictions, ATF inspectors are no longer able to
compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the
dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice Inspector General has
noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt
firearm dealers to avoid detection."

The FBI keeps records of those who failed the background check.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-...check-records/


And you BELIEVE that they actually destroy the computer record?

As for the ATF, I have witnessed them come into a dealer, open the book
and start writing down the names and addresses of EVERYONE who owned any
type of firearm they didn't like. They were there for over 6 hours and
when an employee questioned them about it being illegal HE was told that
unless he left the building immediately HE would be arrested for
violating the law himself.

I have also been told similar accounts from other dealers.



--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Yeah, I know about form 4473, but it's kept in a *bound book* by the
dealer.
No one else has that data unless and until ATF has a reason to come looking
for it. And they won't know unless they start with manufacturers'
shipments.
Then to the wholesaler, who one hopes also has good records, and so on.
It's
a bitch and it all has to be done by hand, going through paper.

"As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for
ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the
official NICS response to the dealer. The requirement that approved
purchaser information be destroyed within twenty-four hours has been
included in the appropriations bills funding the Department of Justice
(which includes ATF and the FBI) every year since 2004.5 Each of these acts
contains additional provisions which restrict disclosure of data
obtained by
ATF via crime gun traces. In 2006, Congress failed to pass H.R. 5005, which
would have codified and made permanent the restrictions on disclosure of
crime gun trace data.

"As a result of these restrictions, ATF inspectors are no longer able to
compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the
dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice Inspector General has
noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt
firearm dealers to avoid detection."

The FBI keeps records of those who failed the background check.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-...check-records/

================================================== ================
(SW)

And you BELIEVE that they actually destroy the computer record?

================================================== ================
(EH)

WHICH record? They don't destroy records of those who fail. The FBI keeps
them, under the law. As for those who pass, do you have some reason to
believe they DON'T destroy them? That's the law. Why would they risk their
careers, and jail, for the sake of keeping records that do them no good,
personally, and which are prohibited by law?

Or are you just generally paranoid? Wait, don't answer that...d8-)

================================================== =================

(SW)

As for the ATF, I have witnessed them come into a dealer, open the book
and start writing down the names and addresses of EVERYONE who owned any
type of firearm they didn't like. They were there for over 6 hours and
when an employee questioned them about it being illegal HE was told that
unless he left the building immediately HE would be arrested for
violating the law himself.

I have also been told similar accounts from other dealers.

--
Steve W.

================================================== =================
(EH)

Any firearm "they didn't like"? And what makes you think they don't "like"
it? Or is it a type of firearm that's been used in some crime(s) they're
investigating?

It's their prerogative, Steve. The records are kept for the ATF (and, I
think the FBI, but I'm not sure about that) to investigate at ANY TIME in
the service of law enforcement. Part of that is checking to see if the FFL
holder is selling suspicious numbers of certain types of firearms, to
probable straw purchasers. The law on that is pretty extensive.

Keeping it in a book at the dealer is a nutty, paranoid reaction by the
extreme right wing of NRA members, which NRA lobbied for and won. It is,
IMO, crazy. It's as if they intended to defeat any attempt to prosecute the
chain of unlawful transactions that put guns in the hands of criminals. And
then they blame the ATF for failing to enforce the law. Neat trick, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
...


I don't trust

snip

I don't think

snip

I don't think

snip

I don't think

snip

I don't think

snip

God doesn't think

On 1/31/2013 4:08 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:

Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.



Hey, Ed -



Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.



What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.



You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even

*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold

outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to

be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is

stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other

criminal.



The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was.

*IF* the gun is recovered and tied to the crime. So, what does that get
you? Specifically: how does it prevent any gun crime? That's supposed
to be goal, remember?



If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility.

You might be able to prosecute the owner for some kind of criminal
negligence, but you still have the fact that the gun was used in a gun
crime - the crime wasn't prevented. What good did registration do? None.


If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such.

Suppose he reports it, and the gun is still subsequently used in a
crime. What good did registration do? None.


If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle.

Where's the enforcement? This is effectively the same as if it had been
stolen. What good did registration do? None.


What's so difficult about that?

The registration had *ZERO* effect in preventing gun crime. That's
*supposed* to be the goal.



Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are.

How often?


It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that.

It wouldn't prevent any gun crime. That's *supposed* to be the goal.
That's what the gun-grabbers are touting as the benefit. In fact, there
is *NO* benefit in terms of gun crime prevention - *ZERO*.


Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.

Only if what you consider to be the "right direction" is ultimate
confiscation. That's the only thing it might help to achieve.

On 1/31/2013 6:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your
rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your
writing is very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't
keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the
hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions
on any law-abiding person to bear arms.

You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even
*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold
outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to
be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is
stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other
criminal.

The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

================================================== ============

Let's see what a sound program would be. By the way, this system is
something like the one we will almost inevitably have, sooner or later,
so we'd might as well get it all out now.

First, universal background checks. To have background checks for
purchases from FFL holders, but not from the "collectors" gag who sell
at gun shows, is insane. Even Wayne LaPierre stumbled and bumbled trying
to explain it, knowing that it's sheer lunacy. The background check
system has stopped well over a million illegal purchases. How many just
turned around and bought from a "private" seller? We don't know. We
don't have the stats. There is a claim that only a couple of percent of
guns recovered in crimes came from gun shows, but that refers to guns
bought from FFL holders who sell at shows. We don't know how many came
from "private" sellers. We can't tell.

Second, make the background check rational. In other words, provide
enough money to police and mental health institutions to get the
databases up to date and fairly complete. Since conservatives believe in
direct fees for users in opposition to funding things from general tax
funds, finance it with a tax on guns and ammo. I'd go along with that.

Third, 100% registration at the time of sale, [...]

No. There is no sound rationale for that whatsoever. It's nothing but
a step toward ultimate confiscation, not to mention muckraking
journalists posting names and addresses of gun owners. Absolutely not -
non-negotiable.



All of that will put a damper on strawman sales.

No proof of any such sales.


Regarding the provision of money to make the databases up to date:


California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people

Despite being able to take weapons owned by felons and the mentally ill,
state officials say staff shortages and funding cuts have slowed seizures.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2013, 6:18 p.m.
SACRAMENTO — California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned
by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages
and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to
disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley,
chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice,
testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff
to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state's Armed
Prohibited Persons database, he said.

The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being
convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the
state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the
Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000
names are added to the list.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,418551.story


It is simply a lie that the government doesn't have the money to do
this. What they don't have is the organization and the will. More
money isn't necessary.

On 1/31/2013 9:31 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message
...


I don't trust

snip

I don't think

snip

**** off, ****.

"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
...

On 1/31/2013 6:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your
rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your
writing is very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't
keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the
hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions
on any law-abiding person to bear arms.

You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even
*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold
outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to
be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is
stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other
criminal.

The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

================================================== ============

Let's see what a sound program would be. By the way, this system is
something like the one we will almost inevitably have, sooner or later,
so we'd might as well get it all out now.

First, universal background checks. To have background checks for
purchases from FFL holders, but not from the "collectors" gag who sell
at gun shows, is insane. Even Wayne LaPierre stumbled and bumbled trying
to explain it, knowing that it's sheer lunacy. The background check
system has stopped well over a million illegal purchases. How many just
turned around and bought from a "private" seller? We don't know. We
don't have the stats. There is a claim that only a couple of percent of
guns recovered in crimes came from gun shows, but that refers to guns
bought from FFL holders who sell at shows. We don't know how many came
from "private" sellers. We can't tell.

Second, make the background check rational. In other words, provide
enough money to police and mental health institutions to get the
databases up to date and fairly complete. Since conservatives believe in
direct fees for users in opposition to funding things from general tax
funds, finance it with a tax on guns and ammo. I'd go along with that.

Third, 100% registration at the time of sale, [...]

================================================== ============

(DB)

No. There is no sound rationale for that whatsoever. It's nothing but
a step toward ultimate confiscation, not to mention muckraking
journalists posting names and addresses of gun owners. Absolutely not -
non-negotiable.

================================================== ============

The "confiscation" is noise in your head -- pure paranoia. It doesn't happen
in the US, nor is there any reason to expect that it will, except among the
delusional. Even the California case that required registration of ARs only
threatened confiscation for those who DIDN'T register. (They were not
criminally charged, however.) I prefer to live an evidence-based life, and
I'm not worried about it, based on the evidence and US law.

Beyond that, not having registration creates about four problems for law
enforcement, two of which are serious. One is strawman purchases. As it
stands now, without registration, once a gun changes hands through a private
sale, the trail is lost. The police have no one to charge. If they go
through the onerous process of finding the first retail purchaser, they have
no required record-keeping or background checking and certification that
would enable them to find the next purchaser, the first *private* purchaser.
Remember, all of these guns were sold with a background check and identity
certification at least once. If the trail is kept secure, through background
checking and registration, they will be able to follow the trail of most
guns to the first case of negligence or criminal sale. As with all laws, one
expects that serious prosecution and a higher likelihood of getting caught
will restrain the flow of guns from legal to illegal marketplaces.

The second serious problem is that, without registration, there is no
practical way to follow up on a person who is adjudicated mentally unstable
and dangerous, or who becomes a felon, and who also has a gun bought before
these conditions occur (under federal law; a few states have ways of dealing
with this). California says that some thousands of nuts and felons have guns
they bought legally, but the follow-up to disarm them is onerous and
expensive. Registration and coordinated databases would make it practical to
get guns out of the hands of those nuts and felons. The felons would face
another felony charge as a result. They'd be disarmed and off the street.

The journalists are another problem, which I believe will soon cease to be a
problem at all.


All of that will put a damper on strawman sales.

================================================== =============
(DB)

No proof of any such sales.

================================================== =============
(EH)

?? Where did you get that idea? Look up where the Columbine killers got
their guns (hint: look up Robyn Anderson and "private seller" purchases from
the Tanner Gun Show. She was the straw purchaser for the shotguns and the
carbine.)

An ATF study of guns traced in NYC, back in the '90s, showed that 40% of
them came from straw purchases in southern states.

And so on.

================================================== =============
(DB)

Regarding the provision of money to make the databases up to date:


California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people

Despite being able to take weapons owned by felons and the mentally ill,
state officials say staff shortages and funding cuts have slowed seizures.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2013, 6:18 p.m.
SACRAMENTO — California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned
by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages
and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to
disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley,
chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice,
testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff
to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state's Armed
Prohibited Persons database, he said.

The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being
convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the
state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the
Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000
names are added to the list.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,418551.story


It is simply a lie that the government doesn't have the money to do
this. What they don't have is the organization and the will. More
money isn't necessary.

================================================== ===================

(EH)

A couple of points the article in the LA Times missed: When the system
started operation, in 2007, there were suddenly over 15,000 people on the
list. They showed up because, prior to that time, CA operated like every
other state, with paper records and no system for cross-indexing felons and
crazy people with gun ownership. Their APP database is the first in the
country. It only includes handguns and ARs. So that fact alone tells us the
magnitude of the problem ATF has to work with, since their records are
mostly paper, too, and the federal laws (thanks, NRA!) don't allow them to
keep much of the data to begin with. (A Univ. of CA Criminal Justice expert
estimates there are 190,000 felons and nutjobs, which make up 35% of the
ineligibles, in the US as a whole.) Half of the data is on paper, in bound
books, in the hands of somewhere around 60,000 FFL holders (there are
132,000 total FFL holders, but only half are significant in terms of gun
sales records). The other half of the data, the felon/nutjob records, is a
mess, because the states that are supposed to supply it, often don't.

Another thing is that Lindley's department in California, as of Feb. 2011,
consisted of 20 people. Total. For the entire state of California. The
database they set up is great, and a model for the country. But if you're
going to have a database, you need enough people to run it, and then you
need the people in the field, to collect the guns. A lot of the ones they
want to collect from are violent felons. Lindley sends out teams of four
armed officers at a time. They're among the 20 people on his staff. The
enforcers are supposed to include local police departments, but California
has slashed their staffs, too, and those police officers already have a job.
Most of them don't even check the database, let alone doing anything about
it.

When I started in publishing I managed a database of around 2,000,000
records, half on paper and half on an IBM 360 system that allowed me access
once a week. My system was a hell of a lot better than anything anyone
(except CA) has for guns, and I had similar kinds of cross-referencing to
do. I had 9 clerks and 6 keypunch operators just to enter and maintain the
data into the computer, including changing over the paper records to
computer records. None of them had to go out in the field with guns on their
hips. g We were not overstaffed. California gun sales run around
500,000/year. I don't know the total size of the database, but their
per-year additions are about equal to the per-year changes I had to deal
with. I feel for them.

California's staffing for their felon/nutcase/gun system is farcical.
Lindley estimates it will cost him $25 million in staffing to catch up with
the backlog -- most of which appeared on day one of the operation.

Now, about the money: do you know people who will do this work for free?
California is busted on its ass. The local cops who were supposed to be part
of the system really don't have the resources. Their backs are already
against the wall.

So, although California has created an exemplary model, somebody forgot that
you need a staff to implement it. Nevertheless, they're doing better at it
than any other state, and it's exactly the kind of thing that I believe must
be, and eventually will be, implemented on a national basis. Paid for by the
users. That's us gun purchasers.

--
Ed Huntress

It's been years since I read about this, but I remember that the yellow
forms are kept at the gun store, and no copy is forwarded to BATFEABCDE.

As such, the ATF doesn't have a data base, and would not have the
information unless they showed up and copied the forms.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

I've heard that the 4473 yellow form is supposed to be stored at the gun
store, not turned in to the Fed. Not sure when the business closes. I've
also heard on the radio that BATFE guys have been known to show up and copy
or take with them the 4473.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

==================================================

That's what they're SUPPOSED to do, fer chrissake. The 4473 is retained by
the dealer so that ATF can trace a gun used in a crime. They shouldn't have
to show up and copy it. They should have it in their database.

When the business is sold, the bound book is passed on to the buyer of the
business. If the business is closed, the bound book is sent to the US
Attorney General, who probably uses it for a paperweight. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 1/31/2013 4:08 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:



Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.







Hey, Ed -







Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.







What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.







You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even



*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold



outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to



be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is



stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other



criminal.







The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.



What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was.



*IF* the gun is recovered and tied to the crime. So, what does that get

you? Specifically: how does it prevent any gun crime? That's supposed

to be goal, remember?







If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility.



You might be able to prosecute the owner for some kind of criminal

negligence, but you still have the fact that the gun was used in a gun

crime - the crime wasn't prevented. What good did registration do? None..





If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such.



Suppose he reports it, and the gun is still subsequently used in a

crime. What good did registration do? None.





If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle.



Where's the enforcement? This is effectively the same as if it had been

stolen. What good did registration do? None.





What's so difficult about that?



The registration had *ZERO* effect in preventing gun crime. That's

*supposed* to be the goal.







Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are.



How often?





It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that.



It wouldn't prevent any gun crime. That's *supposed* to be the goal.

That's what the gun-grabbers are touting as the benefit. In fact, there

is *NO* benefit in terms of gun crime prevention - *ZERO*.





Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.



Only if what you consider to be the "right direction" is ultimate

confiscation. That's the only thing it might help to achieve.

By your logic, there should be no laws at all. Yes, it is illegal to murder, but that doesn't prevent even a single murder. It is illegal to drive over the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent speeding. It is illegal to rob a bank, but what good does that do?

So, why not just abolish all laws?

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:31:54 AM UTC-5, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

...





I don't trust



snip



I don't think



snip



I don't think



snip



I don't think



snip



I don't think



snip



God doesn't think

Thanks. You gave me a laugh.

"Max Boot" wrote in message
...
On 1/31/2013 9:31 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message
...


I don't trust

snip

I don't think

snip

**** off, ****.


Blow me, faggot.

On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 1/31/2013 4:08 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:



Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.







Hey, Ed -







Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.







What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.







You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even



*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold



outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to



be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is



stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other



criminal.







The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.



What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was.



*IF* the gun is recovered and tied to the crime. So, what does that get

you? Specifically: how does it prevent any gun crime? That's supposed

to be goal, remember?







If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility.



You might be able to prosecute the owner for some kind of criminal

negligence, but you still have the fact that the gun was used in a gun

crime - the crime wasn't prevented. What good did registration do? None.





If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such.



Suppose he reports it, and the gun is still subsequently used in a

crime. What good did registration do? None.





If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle.



Where's the enforcement? This is effectively the same as if it had been

stolen. What good did registration do? None.





What's so difficult about that?



The registration had *ZERO* effect in preventing gun crime. That's

*supposed* to be the goal.







Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are.



How often?





It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that.



It wouldn't prevent any gun crime. That's *supposed* to be the goal.

That's what the gun-grabbers are touting as the benefit. In fact, there

is *NO* benefit in terms of gun crime prevention - *ZERO*.





Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.



Only if what you consider to be the "right direction" is ultimate

confiscation. That's the only thing it might help to achieve.

By your logic, there should be no laws at all.

No, that doesn't follow from my logic at all. That would only follow
from your comical and *illogical* understanding of my logic.



Yes, it is illegal to murder, but that doesn't prevent even a single murder.

The illegality of murder *does* prevent many homicides. It does so
because murder is punished upon conviction, and the punishment is a
deterrent.


It is illegal to drive over the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent speeding.

See above about murder.


It is illegal to rob a bank, but what good does that do?

See above.



So, why not just abolish all laws?

Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the
goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with
preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for
trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/31/2013 4:08 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:



On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:







On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:







Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.















Hey, Ed -















Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.















What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.















You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even







*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold







outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to







be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is







stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other







criminal.















The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.







What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was.







*IF* the gun is recovered and tied to the crime. So, what does that get



you? Specifically: how does it prevent any gun crime? That's supposed



to be goal, remember?















If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility.







You might be able to prosecute the owner for some kind of criminal



negligence, but you still have the fact that the gun was used in a gun



crime - the crime wasn't prevented. What good did registration do? None.











If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such.







Suppose he reports it, and the gun is still subsequently used in a



crime. What good did registration do? None.











If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle.







Where's the enforcement? This is effectively the same as if it had been



stolen. What good did registration do? None.











What's so difficult about that?







The registration had *ZERO* effect in preventing gun crime. That's



*supposed* to be the goal.















Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are.







How often?











It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that.







It wouldn't prevent any gun crime. That's *supposed* to be the goal.



That's what the gun-grabbers are touting as the benefit. In fact, there



is *NO* benefit in terms of gun crime prevention - *ZERO*.











Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.







Only if what you consider to be the "right direction" is ultimate



confiscation. That's the only thing it might help to achieve.



By your logic, there should be no laws at all.



No, that doesn't follow from my logic at all. That would only follow

from your comical and *illogical* understanding of my logic.







Yes, it is illegal to murder, but that doesn't prevent even a single murder.



The illegality of murder *does* prevent many homicides. It does so

because murder is punished upon conviction, and the punishment is a

deterrent.





It is illegal to drive over the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent speeding.



See above about murder.





It is illegal to rob a bank, but what good does that do?



See above.







So, why not just abolish all laws?



Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the crimes.

But, you'll disagree with that so...

OK, then let's drop the ball in your court. What do YOU think would help to prevent gun violence? What do YOU think would help to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes?

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/31/2013 4:08 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:26:44 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:



On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:







On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:







Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.















Hey, Ed -















Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your writing is very well thought out and to the point.















What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions on any law-abiding person to bear arms.















You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even







*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold







outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to







be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is







stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other







criminal.















The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.







What you DO know (with registration) is who the last registered owner was.







*IF* the gun is recovered and tied to the crime. So, what does that get



you? Specifically: how does it prevent any gun crime? That's supposed



to be goal, remember?















If he loaned it to someone, it would still be his property and his responsibility.







You might be able to prosecute the owner for some kind of criminal



negligence, but you still have the fact that the gun was used in a gun



crime - the crime wasn't prevented. What good did registration do? None.











If it was stolen, it would be the owners responsibility to report it as such.







Suppose he reports it, and the gun is still subsequently used in a



crime. What good did registration do? None.











If it was sold outside dealer channels, well, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about? The registration would have to be transferred, just as it is for a motor vehicle.







Where's the enforcement? This is effectively the same as if it had been



stolen. What good did registration do? None.











What's so difficult about that?







The registration had *ZERO* effect in preventing gun crime. That's



*supposed* to be the goal.















Guns are frequently not recovered from criminals, but they sometimes are.







How often?











It is, with the NRA's help damn near impossible to trace those guns back to determine how they got into the hands of the criminals. A registration mechanism would help with that.







It wouldn't prevent any gun crime. That's *supposed* to be the goal.



That's what the gun-grabbers are touting as the benefit. In fact, there



is *NO* benefit in terms of gun crime prevention - *ZERO*.











Obviously, it's not going to eliminate all crime, but it's a significant step in the right direction.







Only if what you consider to be the "right direction" is ultimate



confiscation. That's the only thing it might help to achieve.



By your logic, there should be no laws at all.



No, that doesn't follow from my logic at all. That would only follow

from your comical and *illogical* understanding of my logic.







Yes, it is illegal to murder, but that doesn't prevent even a single murder.



The illegality of murder *does* prevent many homicides. It does so

because murder is punished upon conviction, and the punishment is a

deterrent.





It is illegal to drive over the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent speeding.



See above about murder.





It is illegal to rob a bank, but what good does that do?



See above.







So, why not just abolish all laws?



Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. A background check might help there, but not registration.



But, you'll disagree with that so...

Of course I'll disagree. Registration is in no way a deterrent to gun
crime. I've demonstrated why it isn't.



OK, then let's drop the ball in your court. What do YOU think would help to prevent gun violence? What do YOU think would help to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes?


I'm more interested in trying to prevent gun crime in the first place.
I support universal background checks. That's not entirely going to
prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have
them, but it will prevent some ineligible people from buying guns legally.

"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:


snip


Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more
difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the
crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. A background check might help there, but not registration.

================================================== ====================
(EH)

Registration is about restricting the transfer of guns from legal purchasers
to criminals. If you have registration and a good database, and a criminal
is picked up in possession of a gun, you first get the criminal on the
possession charge, even if he didn't use it to commit a crime. Then you've
got him on a possession of *stolen property* charge. Depending on how he
pleads, you may also get him on a burglary or other theft charge. Or, you
have him on an illegal purchase charge. Depending on the state, all of these
are usually felonies.

In addition, you have the last legal owner on a charge of illegal sale or
failing to report a gun theft -- again, depending on the state. And if the
first retail buyer wasn't really legal, you have HIM on an illegal purchase,
and the retail seller, probably, on an illegal sale.

That's a lot of jail time. That's a pretty good deterrent at each end of the
transaction(s).

And there is much, much more that can be done to dry up criminal sales if
registration is followed up with some good laws. Gun nutz frequently refer
to gun laws in Switzerland and Israel as "good" examples. Here are some
follow-up laws those countries use to make it hard for criminals to get
guns.

In Switzerland, if your gun is stolen, you have 24 hours to report it. No
exceptions, no excuses. You're expected to be in constant control of your
guns. If you fail to do so, there is a heavy fine.

In Israel, almost any Israeli can get a gun, even BORROWING THEM FROM THE
POLICE!, for chrissake. Great law, huh? Here's the rest of it: If you fail
to get a license (with registration), and you're found in possession of a
gun, it's one year or two years of mandatory jail time, depending on the
circumstances. No parole. No early outs. So you have to get through the
license check and registration of the gun.

If your gun is lost or stolen, it's an automatic misdemeanor with a
substantial fine. No excuses. It doesn't matter if you report it right away,
because losing your gun or having your gun stolen is considered a prima
facie case that you "negligently failed to maintain control" of your gun. If
it's stolen from your home, you're guilty of a crime. If it's stolen from
your car or your person, you're guilty of a crime.

If these laws were universal in the US, former NRA Board member Sanford
Abrams would be in prison now for "losing" 650 guns from his gun store in
Parkville, Maryland.

Switzerland and Israel can enjoy easy access and fairly open possession and
carrying of guns because they don't have crazy laws, like ours, that
practically invite illegal transfer of guns to criminals. They have tough,
tough penalties for any transgressions. Responsibility, including legal
methods for transfer of possession, and requirements to secure possession of
guns you own, are part of their culture and their laws. Our gun nutz deny
responsibility because they have "rights," not responsibilities. With the
support of the NRA, they gut or resist our responsibility requirements on a
frequent basis, as part of a campaign of lunacy. They want to be able to
shoot Congressmen if they decide they're "tyrants," and they don't want
anybody to know that they have the means to do so.

That's the difference. That's why our lack of registration and the enabling
laws to discourage illicit transfer of guns results in a vast criminal
market of guns, and it's a large part of our culture and our outrageous
rates of gun crimes.

Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress







But, you'll disagree with that so...

Of course I'll disagree. Registration is in no way a deterrent to gun
crime. I've demonstrated why it isn't.



OK, then let's drop the ball in your court. What do YOU think would help
to prevent gun violence? What do YOU think would help to capture and
prosecute people who commit gun crimes?


I'm more interested in trying to prevent gun crime in the first place.
I support universal background checks. That's not entirely going to
prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have
them, but it will prevent some ineligible people from buying guns legally.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:31:54 AM UTC-5, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

snip
I don't think



snip



God doesn't think

Thanks. You gave me a laugh.

Libtard morons lies always make other libtard morons laugh.

RogerN

"CockSuckingmachinisT" wrote in message
news:cMudnYM7qd3bdZbMnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@scnresearch. com...


"Max Boot" wrote in message
.. .
snip

****


me, faggot.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If your gun is lost or stolen, it's an automatic misdemeanor with a
substantial fine. No excuses. It doesn't matter if you report it right away,
because losing your gun or having your gun stolen is considered a prima
facie case that you "negligently failed to maintain control" of your gun. If
it's stolen from your home, you're guilty of a crime. If it's stolen from
your car or your person, you're guilty of a crime.

If these laws were universal in the US, former NRA Board member Sanford
Abrams would be in prison now for "losing" 650 guns from his gun store in
Parkville, Maryland.

Switzerland and Israel can enjoy easy access and fairly open possession and
carrying of guns because they don't have crazy laws, like ours, that
practically invite illegal transfer of guns to criminals. They have tough,
tough penalties for any transgressions. Responsibility, including legal
methods for transfer of possession, and requirements to secure possession of
guns you own, are part of their culture and their laws. Our gun nutz deny
responsibility because they have "rights," not responsibilities. With the
support of the NRA, they gut or resist our responsibility requirements on a
frequent basis, as part of a campaign of lunacy. They want to be able to
shoot Congressmen if they decide they're "tyrants," and they don't want
anybody to know that they have the means to do so.

That's the difference. That's why our lack of registration and the enabling
laws to discourage illicit transfer of guns results in a vast criminal
market of guns, and it's a large part of our culture and our outrageous
rates of gun crimes.

Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)


Ed, if someone steals your car and commits a crime or injures someone
with it, should you be charged with a crime? How about the axe in your
woodshed? The knife in the kitchen?

What do you propose to do about the guns already in criminals hands?