Will having to register your guns stand up in court?

[Puddle Jumper]

Or! Or! You could come up with your own reasonable solution and not use the previous solution as a starting point. That's a pretty novel idea isnt it?

Sure, how about we legalize full auto weapons, silencers, and short barreled rifles with no tax penalties or additional restrictions in exchange for closing the so called gun show loophole. That's a reasonable compromise I could live with.

 

[exdeath]

Yup. By advocating "not using the previous position as the new starting point" you are saying eliminate current laws first so we can start at 0% each time .

 

[HumblePie]

What is reasonable?

No such thing as "reasonable" only logical. That is a logic fallacy right there. Using the term reasonable or sensible as your argument is an argument based around emotional appeal.

What do I find as "logical" gun restrictions for legal and law abiding citizens for gun ownership? Easy...

1) Required background checks and registration. I do not mind as this is not an infringement upon law abiding citizens. So long as I can BUY any type of firearm, which includes full auto if I wanted.

2) Provide incentives for those willing to undergo firearm safety and training courses. This is not the same thing as forcing such training as forcing training as a means to "ownership" is an infringement upon ownership. Incentive would be some thing like lowering home owner insurance rates for those with legally owned and registered firearms in their homes as an example. Do not have higher rates for those that do not take training for legally owned guns in their homes without taking courses as that would be infringement.

3) Enforce laws that provide fines and actions against legal fire arm owners that do not take proper protections, such as a gun safe, for legally owned firearms that end up stolen and used in a crime. Most states have these laws, but not all.


That's pretty much it for logical "gun control" for law abiding citizens. Everything else is just fear mongering.

 

[xj0hnx]

Sure, how about we legalize full auto weapons, silencers, and short barreled rifles with no tax penalties or additional restrictions in exchange for closing the so called gun show loophole. That's a reasonable compromise I could live with.

I could go for that.

 

[HumblePie]

I could go for that.

same here and I think all gun owner or advocates of gun owners.

Having to "register" legally purchased guns at the time of every purchase, so long as there is no "registering fee" at the time of the purchase doesn't infringe at all upon gun ownership. With the mention that any gun purchase can be made without restriction.

 

[ivwshane]

No such thing as "reasonable" only logical. That is a logic fallacy right there. Using the term reasonable or sensible as your argument is an argument based around emotional appeal.

What do I find as "logical" gun restrictions for legal and law abiding citizens for gun ownership? Easy...

1) Required background checks and registration. I do not mind as this is not an infringement upon law abiding citizens. So long as I can BUY any type of firearm, which includes full auto if I wanted.

2) Provide incentives for those willing to undergo firearm safety and training courses. This is not the same thing as forcing such training as forcing training as a means to "ownership" is an infringement upon ownership. Incentive would be some thing like lowering home owner insurance rates for those with legally owned and registered firearms in their homes as an example. Do not have higher rates for those that do not take training for legally owned guns in their homes without taking courses as that would be infringement.

3) Enforce laws that provide fines and actions against legal fire arm owners that do not take proper protections, such as a gun safe, for legally owned firearms that end up stolen and used in a crime. Most states have these laws, but not all.


That's pretty much it for logical "gun control" for law abiding citizens. Everything else is just fear mongering.

"reasonable" was the term you used, I merely repeated it.

Two question about your solution; why would you not force gun owners to go through mandatory training? We do it with cars and the amount of traffic accudents that have occurred have decreased. There already is optional gun training one can take, your proposal wouldn't change anything.
Why shouldn't insurance rates be higher for gun owners versus non owners? Doesn't owning a gun increase the chances of a gun accident in the same way that a fast sports car increases the risk of accident and carries a higher premium? Why would a gun owner get an insurance break versus a non owner?


You may have some reason that I just haven't thought about.

 

[classy]

If its legal for the governement to force you to buy health insurance, its a slam dunk that its legal for the government to force you to register your weapons.

 

[exdeath]

And BIG IF I was willing to support registration, it cant be anything as draconian as NFA where they finger print you, can invade your home any time to surprise inspect, sit on your application for months, or even just simply say no without justification.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure, how about we legalize full auto weapons, silencers, and short barreled rifles with no tax penalties or additional restrictions in exchange for closing the so called gun show loophole. That's a reasonable compromise I could live with.

Gee I wonder why anti gun people would start at zero guns then. It's crazy, you complain about them starting at the extreme and yet, you start at the extreme.


But I'll bite. So exactly how would your solution limit gun violence? I'm looking for facts, studies, real world examples, etc.

 

[Fern]

I don't see any valid reason for gun (more) gun registration because:

1. I can't see how any of the recent terrible acts would have been prevented by (more) registration. Furthermore, I've posted at least twice an article (Edit: I've now posted the link to his article below) by some guy who is supposed to be the foremost expert on guns used in crimes (IIRC, he's an ex-FBI/DEA type who teaches LE type groups). According to him many of weapons used in crimes would be unaffected by registration efforts (e.g., illegal sales by illegal gun dealers) or have been acquired in a manor than render registration moot (borrow gun from family member or friend).

2. We already have gun registration, not sure what more is to be accomplished here unless it is to modernize the database.

Aside from the 'politics' I see no one touting any practical benefits that make (more) registration a compelling argument. Maybe someone here knows of a (new) valid practical benefit to registration?

Edit: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

I also changed some wording.
Fern

 

[HumblePie]

"reasonable" was the term you used, I merely repeated it.

Two question about your solution; why would you not force gun owners to go through mandatory training? We do it with cars and the amount of traffic accudents that have occurred have decreased. There already is optional gun training one can take, your proposal wouldn't change anything.
Why shouldn't insurance rates be higher for gun owners versus non owners? Doesn't owning a gun increase the chances of a gun accident in the same way that a fast sports car increases the risk of accident and carries a higher premium? Why would a gun owner get an insurance break versus a non owner?


You may have some reason that I just haven't thought about.

Because cars, unlike gun ownership, is a privilege and not a right. Gun ownership is a right of every law abiding citizen in America. Driving a car in public is a privilege of every law abiding citizen. Of course car ownership is a right. I can legally OWN any car I want and never have to take a mandatory test. Nor if I want to only drive my car on my own property. If I want to drive that car in public that is a privilege.

One argument, as always brought up, is that taking a gun out in public should require mandatory training too. That is a very good argument and most states have that as a law. So anyone taking their gun into a public setting with the intention to possibly use the gun in a public setting for defense is required to have mandatory training. See how that works?

 

[HumblePie]

I don't see any valid reason for gun (more) gun registration because:

1. I can't see how any of the recent terrible acts would have been prevented by (more) registration. Furthermore, I've posted at least twice an article by some guy who is supposed to be the foremost expert on guns used in crimes (IIRC, he's an ex-FBI/DEA type who teaches LE type groups). According to him the majority of weapons used in crimes would completely bypass registration efforts (e.g., illegal sales by illegal gun dealers) or have been acquired in a manor than render registration moot (borrow gun from family member or friend).

2. We already have gun registration, not sure what more is to be accomplished here unless it is to modernize the database.

Aside from the 'politics' I see no one touting any practical benefits that make (more) registration a compelling argument. Maybe someone here knows of a (new) valid practical benefit to registration?

Fern

As to the practical merits of registration? I agree with you. I doesn't reduce gun violence in the least or gun crimes. On the flip side, gun registration doesn't infringe upon ownership either so long as there is no additional cost incurred for the registration. And if the only "practical" benefit of mandatory registration is to shut up gun grabbers and make them sleep better at night then I can go for it.

 

[ivwshane]

And BIG IF I was willing to support registration, it cant be anything as draconian as NFA where they finger print you, can invade your home any time to surprise inspect, sit on your application for months, or even just simply say no without justification.

I don't see anything wrong with finger prints but are you serious about the other stuff?

Surprise inspections at your home? No, that's going to far. "smogg checks" of your weapons? Hmm...

Unnecessary waiting for your permit? Not acceptable unless there is reasonable cause.

Denying your application? Not unless there are reasons why one would be denied that are provided before the process begins so that there are no surprises.

 

[exdeath]

Oh and any revamping of gun laws as extreme as we talking like exchanging registration I'm trade for abolishing NFA needs a clause that forbids further restrictions and forbids governtment from using the database for harassment or confiscation.

Basically once we ALL agree on something it's set in stone so you can't come back later and try to get more.

Law or better an amendment forbidding government from confiscating or restricting of guns for now and forever would likely alleviate most gun owner's opposition to registration, since "they will just know who to take them from" is the common argument against registration.

If I was allowed to make and register my own home made full auto conversions and silencers add many and whenever I wanted for personal use (I'm an engineer I would like making that kind of thing just for fun) or buy a brand new full auto M16 for the same MSRP as the police department, in a reasonable amount of time like 1-2 days ONLY for these types of weapons, I would support registration in a heartbeat.

 

[exdeath]

I don't see anything wrong with finger prints but are you serious about the other stuff?

Surprise inspections at your home? No, that's going to far. "smogg checks" of your weapons? Hmm...

Unnecessary waiting for your permit? Not acceptable unless there is reasonable cause.

Denying your application? Not unless there are reasons why one would be denied that are provided before the process begins so that there are no surprises.

Yup this happens already. The BATF and NFA are evil. The hoops that a citizen with no criminal record has to go through to register and own a machine gun are just outright insulting.

You need a letter from the police chief oking it among other things. If you have a liberal police chief, or for whatever reason that person can just unconditionally say no, and that's the end of the line for you. Too much power and abuse of authority.

 

[ivwshane]

Because cars, unlike gun ownership, is a privilege and not a right. Gun ownership is a right of every law abiding citizen in America. Driving a car in public is a privilege of every law abiding citizen. Of course car ownership is a right. I can legally OWN any car I want and never have to take a mandatory test. Nor if I want to only drive my car on my own property. If I want to drive that car in public that is a privilege.

One argument, as always brought up, is that taking a gun out in public should require mandatory training too. That is a very good argument and most states have that as a law. So anyone taking their gun into a public setting with the intention to possibly use the gun in a public setting for defense is required to have mandatory training. See how that works?

You didn't address the question. If there is no practical purpose for registering guns other than shutting up the anti gun crowd then it's not only a waste of time but it's also a waste of money and it's not logical.

If you don't want to be logical then it's you and your type that's walking away from the table and you can't complain when the emotional majority get their way.

 

[HumblePie]

You didn't address the question. If there is no practical purpose for registering guns other than shutting up the anti gun crowd then it's not only a waste of time but it's also a waste of money and it's not logical.

If you don't want to be logical then it's you and your type that's walking away from the table and you can't complain when the emotional majority get their way.

The bolded has hit the nail on the head. For LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of LEGALLY purchased firearm, registration does nothing. Absolute zilch.

Here is the whole problem with gun control advocates. What guns are you trying to control? Answer that question honestly and you'll understand the other side of your stance.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh and any revamping of gun laws as extreme as we talking like exchanging registration I'm trade for abolishing NFA needs a clause that forbids further restrictions and forbids governtment from using the database for harassment or confiscation.

Basically once we ALL agree on something it's set in stone so you can't come back later and try to get more.

Law or better an amendment forbidding government from confiscating or restricting of guns for now and forever would likely alleviate most gun owner's opposition to registration, since "they will just know who to take them from" is the common argument against registration.

Laws are meant to change, typically it's for the better (or at least it should be).



I don't own guns so I'm not aware of these institutions you are talking about but if they are as bad as you say they are then it's no wonder the pro gun crowd would be against any type of restrictions.

If we continue with the same proposal I would say that the new system would be under one department with plenty of internal/external auditing and restrictions. Like voting, there shouldn't be unnecessary hopes a legal person should have to go through.

 

[HumblePie]

Laws are meant to change, typically it's for the better (or at least it should be).



I don't own guns so I'm not aware of these institutions you are talking about but if they are as bad as you say they are then it's no wonder the pro gun crowd would be against any type of restrictions.

If we continue with the same proposal I would say that the new system would be under one department with plenty of internal/external auditing and restrictions. Like voting, there shouldn't be unnecessary hopes a legal person should have to go through.

Again I ask and want you to answer honestly.


WHAT GUNS ARE YOU TRYING TO CONTROL?

 

[ivwshane]

The bolded has hit the nail on the head. For LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of LEGALLY purchased firearm, registration does nothing. Absolute zilch.

Here is the whole problem with gun control advocates. What guns are you trying to control? Answer that question honestly and you'll understand the other side of your stance.

I'm not trying to control guns, so that's your first problem. I'm trying to limit either the amount of mass shootings or limit the amount of people killed from them, I'll also add that I'd love to lower the amount of gun accidents as well.

 

[exdeath]

Laws are meant to change, typically it's for the better (or at least it should be).



I don't own guns so I'm not aware of these institutions you are talking about but if they are as bad as you say they are then it's no wonder the pro gun crowd would be against any type of restrictions.

If we continue with the same proposal I would say that the new system would be under one department with plenty of internal/external auditing and restrictions. Like voting, there shouldn't be unnecessary hopes a legal person should have to go through.

If there is any kind of registration it needs to be protected from future abuse. The common argument against registration is that it can be eventually used for confiscation. A registration program protected from and forbidding confiscation wouldn't be a problem.

Also after giving an inch and taking an inch, we need to make sure the other side keeps their end of the deal and doesn't press for more later.

 

[FDF12389]

You need a letter from the police chief oking it among other things. If you have a liberal police chief, or for whatever reason that person can just unconditionally say no, and that's the end of the line for you. Too much power and abuse of authority.

You can set up a NFA trust without local permission. It will also give you legal framework to pass on your NFA items when you pass.

Just an FYI. If you're looking to own NFA items, a trust is the best way to go.

 

[ivwshane]

If there is any kind of registration it needs to be protected from future abuse. The common argument against registration is that it can be eventually used for confiscation. A registration program protected from and forbidding confiscation wouldn't be a problem.

Also after giving an inch and taking an inch, we need to make sure the other side keeps their end of the deal and doesn't press for more later.

There are already property rights in this country I don't know why guns would need special rights. Your property shouldn't be seized without very good reasoning. Of course if you break laws then you agree to waive those rights.

 

[Fern]

I'm not trying to control guns, so that's your first problem. I'm trying to limit either the amount of mass shootings or limit the amount of people killed from them, I'll also add that I'd love to lower the amount of gun accidents as well.

Exactly how does (additional) gun registration help with any of the objectives you listed?

That was my first question/post in this thread. I do not believe it has been addressed, much less answered.

Fern

 

[exdeath]

You can set up a NFA trust without local permission. It will also give you legal framework to pass on your NFA items when you pass.

Just an FYI. If you're looking to own NFA items, a trust is the best way to go.

Right, but the real issue for me personally is 1986. I can't afford to blow $25,000 on a worn out 50 year old gun.