Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crispy78 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.

Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?

Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.

Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?

Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Actually......

We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.

Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?

Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.

Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?

Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Actually......

We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.

That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.

For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.

 Overread wrote:

I'd think the USA might have to dedicate a separate force of police or enforcement group to carry out the massive number of inspections and to keep up with them otherwise it could seriously eat into regular police time for other duties.

https://www.atf.gov/

Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?

We have no national registry (for good reason IMO), so you have no way of knowing who owns what, outside of the NFA lists. You would literally have to go door-to-door and tear peoples houses apart looking for guns.

Probably wouldn't end well.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
My gods, you barbarians. How do you sleep at night knowing your police force ensured that a gun was in the hands of a competent and responsible adult?

People have referenced how the police can do sketchy things dealing with drivers. How do you think it would go with any other activity they perform. Especially if it's in the hands of a local constabulary.
Look at some states in the US and the carry permit process. Or how some firearm laws are applied.
New York, state and city. If you aren't connected to the ruling elite, no permit for you.
California, have you been Victim of violence? No permit for you.
Massachusetts. Got to love Massachusetts, they have minimum sentencing for gun crimes that they never intended to use unless the perpetrator was of an undesirable social class, and will not apply if someone is an emigrant (illegal or legal)because of 1+ year long prison terms can lead to deportation. The only time I am aware of the law being applied is when someone uses a weapon in self defense.
Historically. black? No gun for you.
In fact the first gun control laws were written to keep firearms out of the hands of black folk, and poor folk.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?

In my experience, meter readers read meters on your home, not in them. And even that is on the way out; most meters are now wireless and the only meter readings in person are for the tin-foil hat crowd who are convince the smart meters are just the entry point for Jade Helm chemtrail FEMA camps.

Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.

The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.

Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?

Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.

Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?

Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Actually......

We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.

That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.

For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.

Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.

 Ouze wrote:


Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.

Cops can't arrest you for possessing drug paraphernalia over here either. At most they'll take it with them if they think it's a risk you'll use it in public.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.

Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?

Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.

Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?

Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Actually......

We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.

That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.

For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.

Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.

Still, what's the point of joining a gun club if you don't have a gun?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.

Cops can't arrest you for possessing drug paraphernalia over here either. At most they'll take it with them if they think it's a risk you'll use it in public.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.

Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?

Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.

Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?

Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Actually......

We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.

That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.

For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.

Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.

Still, what's the point of joining a gun club if you don't have a gun?

Depends, some gun clubs are historic in nature and produce interesting literature. I think I used to pay more for the citadel master catalog than it costs to join the ( I'm making this one up) Glock19 lovers association. Both of which put out a yearly publication I wanted to look at.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.

Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.

I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.

How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.

They would need a warrant to search in the first place.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.

EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.

Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.

No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.

EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...

It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Depends, some gun clubs are historic in nature and produce interesting literature. I think I used to pay more for the citadel master catalog than it costs to join the ( I'm making this one up) Glock19 lovers association. Both of which put out a yearly publication I wanted to look at.

Are we still speaking about whether members of a gun club getting discounts and a handout to poor people to buy guns are anything remotely comparable?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?

Insurance companies also frequently come out and inspect. If you have doors that lead to nowhere or a large trampoline they will ask you to remove them/secure them or get a hike in rates. No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess? Obviously, there is precedence for third party home searches AND relating it to Insurance rates instead of criminal charges. That seems like a pretty clear and Market based way forward.

Now, if the search occurred after someone got shot, and was part of the investigation would people still be all crazy about Police searching and determining if a weapon was properly stored for the reason of potentially filing chrges or a criminal complaint?

 Easy E wrote:
No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess?

I think its because the meter-man can only legally check the meter. They can't decide to check other rooms in the house; go through your stuff; demand access to your computer; call up files on your criminal history etc... They come and check the meter and normally they want to be in and out and done fairly fast.

They are also not trained to look for other things either; they could walk in and smell common drug smells and not realise what it is* or even see some common drug items (eg micro scales) and not think anything of it. Basically when the meter reader (or any other 3rd party comes) you've got to go out of your way to show criminal activity for them to spot it and then contact the police.

In addition most meter and insurance and other 3rd parties have to both seek permission to enter and also will send a letter to arrange a meeting time. Of course there are legal structures in place to allow some forced entry (eg meter readers can gain entry to remove services in case you've not paid- for example) but its far more drawn out and will often come with lots of notices of final payment and the like.


About the only group as scary/empowered as the police would probably be bailiffs.



*I've no idea what cannabis or any other smoked drugs smell like having never had involvement with drugs; and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?

Few homes in the US have their meters inside the building. It’s not like the UK where you have the meter man checking inside the closet under the stairs.

 Overread wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess?

I think its because the meter-man can only legally check the meter. They can't decide to check other rooms in the house; go through your stuff; demand access to your computer; call up files on your criminal history etc... They come and check the meter and normally they want to be in and out and done fairly fast.

They are also not trained to look for other things either; they could walk in and smell common drug smells and not realise what it is* or even see some common drug items (eg micro scales) and not think anything of it. Basically when the meter reader (or any other 3rd party comes) you've got to go out of your way to show criminal activity for them to spot it and then contact the police.

In addition most meter and insurance and other 3rd parties have to both seek permission to enter and also will send a letter to arrange a meeting time. Of course there are legal structures in place to allow some forced entry (eg meter readers can gain entry to remove services in case you've not paid- for example) but its far more drawn out and will often come with lots of notices of final payment and the like.


About the only group as scary/empowered as the police would probably be bailiffs.



*I've no idea what cannabis or any other smoked drugs smell like having never had involvement with drugs; and I'm sure I'm not alone.

It's a private contractual service. If I am not contracted with the power company, they can't inspect anything.

Then we have a solution. You contract with a gun club of your choice to have your gun storage facilities at home inspected for safety.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.

Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.

No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.

The fact that the Second Amendment wasn't part of the constitution until 1791 blatantly disproves your claims: your "founding documents" weren't crafted to ensure your citizens could be armed if they wished; that was added afterwards. Stop pretending that it's impossible to decide that a certain right shouldn't exist any more. They're not god-given, they exist because society has decided that it is desirable that they do so. They're a social construct.

And while we're at it, your understanding of what constitutes "freedom" is seriously narrow-minded.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

The big difference here is when you are in your home you are on your property - where you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. When you are on a public road there are a lot more things you can't do - which is why it's a lot easier to "illegally" pull someone over. Illegally is in quotations because there is a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to determining if someone is driving recklessly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?

By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.

Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.

No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.

The fact that the Second Amendment wasn't part of the constitution until 1791 blatantly disproves your claims: your "founding documents" weren't crafted to ensure your citizens could be armed if they wished; that was added afterwards. Stop pretending that it's impossible to decide that a certain right shouldn't exist any more. They're not god-given, they exist because society has decided that it is desirable that they do so. They're a social construct.

And while we're at it, your understanding of what constitutes "freedom" is seriously narrow-minded.

The constitution is a living document - it can be changed. The second amendment is special though - "shall not be infringed" is essentially a don't remove me clause.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.

EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...

It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.

It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.

Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.

No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.

EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...

It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.

It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.

Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.

If you sell a gun in a private sale you should be recording it with a bill of sale for your own liability concerns. If you buy a gun in a private sale you should also get a copy of the bill of sale when you purchase the gun. That's easy, common sense precautions. If I was selling a gun and it was possible to run a NICS check for free on my phone/computer I would run a check on the buyer but there's no way to enforce a law that would require me to do so.

I've been to my club range frequently and other ranges too and I've never seen anyone ask about the serial number on somebody's firearm because there's a concern it was stolen.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.

Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.

This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.

EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...

It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.

It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.

I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.

Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.

Let's continue that chain. Here is the bill of sale officer friendly, sucks I'm out $300 and a rifle after It's confiscated. Let the court know I'd like restitution for his crime of selling me a stolen rifle. Or simply, here is my bill of sale officer. Lock up mister scumbag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

I remember when your monarch could walk the streets at night without a guard.
I think you had fewer firearms laws then too.

In the UK when a car is sold whether privately or by a company, there is a document to fill in and send to the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority) to ensure the transfer of ownership is recorded. This helps solve a lot of problems when vehicles are stolen or used in various offences such as wrong parking, driving without insurance, and so on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

Freedom isn't free. It costs $1.05.