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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it dishonest?

It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.

We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system.

My post was about AlmightyWalrus pointing to a double standard, and why that doesn't equate to arguing dishonestly. What was your post about? How is anything you wrote related to my post?

I only ask because there is a discussion at the moment about people labelling other people as "the other side", and then firing their preprepared arguments, slogans and rhetoric at them, whether it's relevant or not. Did you even read my post?

Prestor Jon wrote:
there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.

I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns?

Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with?

If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.

So today I had a shotgun pointed at me as I walked down the street. It was rather disconcerting. Best I could tell the guy in the car was showing his wares to the guy standing next to the car. The seller wasn't well versed on his gun safety rules in that YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO POINT YOUR WEAPON AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO SHOOT! So he waived it around a bit sweeping past my legs and waist area a time or two before pumping it a few times for the buyer's benefit.

Anyway, despite that bit of stupidity I still favor private citizens having the right to own guns even though it potentially means I could be shot by some random moron or crook.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.

I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns?

Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with?

If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.

And how would a national registry address your concern?

The straw purchases are already illegal. Is it your position that the straw purchasers would correctly inform the registry when they transfer the weapons to other criminals?

 CptJake wrote:
Is it your position that the straw purchasers would correctly inform the registry when they transfer the weapons to other criminals?

Only if they don't want to be criminally liable for the weapon.

Straw purchases might be illegal, but they are very difficult to prosecute when a person can just claim that the weapon was stolen or sold privately. Making it an offence not to report a theft or transfer would make people accountable for the weapons that they buy.

Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?

How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).

I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.

 CptJake wrote:
Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?

How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).

I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.

Well, if someone is regularly reporting their weapons as being stolen and those same weapons keep ending up in the hands of criminals then it would allow you to identify a possible source of illegal firearms.

Same thing for if they sell it privately, details of the new owner need to be supplied so that in the registry the gun is switched to be the property of that new owner.

It would allow you to track the movements of legally purchased firearms throughout the population and potentially help identify illegal weapons dealers by allowing that data to be analysed and patterns identified.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?

How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).

I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.

Well, if someone is very regularly reporting their weapons as being stolen and those same weapons keep ending up in the hands of criminals then it would allow you to identify a possible source of illegal firearms.

Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?

You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.

I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.

I national registry will never happen.

Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.

Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.

 skyth wrote:
I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.

Pretty easy.

New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief.

Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard.

Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry.

But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.

 whembly wrote:
I national registry will never happen.

Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.

Not really. There's this crazy thing called federal law enforcement officers, ever heard of them?

And the second a state, city, or county LEO tries to detain a federal officer for enforcing firearms regulations/laws--expect that state, city, or county LEO's career to be over.

Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.

Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.

Pretty easy.

New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief.

Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard.

Yeah...no. That's not a "fine" material. That's prison time. This isn't someone failing to file a police report on something like a camera or the like--this is a firearm.

Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry.

They really don't trace guns "all the time".

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.

Pretty easy.

New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief.

Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard.

Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry.

But if the gun gets used in a different state then isn't there the possibility that the information about it being stolen doesn't get passed along from the local police force to the one investigating in the other state?

Also, it is a lot harder to collate and analyse data from hundreds of different sources to identify the patterns which will allow identification of repeated thefts of firearms that are later used illegally which could indicate that straw buying is occurring than it is to do it from one database.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I national registry will never happen.

Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.

Not really. There's this crazy thing called federal law enforcement officers, ever heard of them?

I've heard of them... Just not nearly enough of them.

And the second a state, city, or county LEO tries to detain a federal officer for enforcing firearms regulations/laws--expect that state, city, or county LEO's career to be over.

Good luck then!

Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.

Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line.

Then why the feth do we still have Sanctuary Cities?

 CptJake wrote:


But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.

If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.

The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it dishonest?

It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.

We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system.

My post was about AlmightyWalrus pointing to a double standard, and why that doesn't equate to arguing dishonestly. What was your post about? How is anything you wrote related to my post?

I only ask because there is a discussion at the moment about people labelling other people as "the other side", and then firing their preprepared arguments, slogans and rhetoric at them, whether it's relevant or not. Did you even read my post?

Prestor Jon wrote:
there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.

I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns?

Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with?

If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.

You remarked in your post about anti registry arguments that were posted in this thread so I rebutted.

A registry doesn't collect data on where guns go. We already know where guns go. Every gun manufactured has a serial number. Manufacturers track which guns go to which dealers via those serial numbers. Dealers track who buys which gun via serial numbers on the 4473 forms that must be filled out with every purchase from a dealer. Police track lost/stolen guns via serial numbers because without a serial number a gun owner can't file a lost/stolen gun report. When guns are recovered from crime scenes the serial numbers on the guns are run against the serial numbers in the lost/stolen database.

No registry is needed. No registry would change how the system works.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.

If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride. Again, cops currently trace guns without a national registry. What is gained by having one besides enormous cost?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.

If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.

A registry does nothing to stop straw purchases. Person A buys a gun, passes the background check, fills out the 4473 form at the dealer, leaves the store with a gun. Whether that purchase also gets recorded in a national registry doesn't matter, it's already been recorded by the dealer, there's a record of the NICS check, and a physical copy of the 4473 form. If Person A then gives the gun to Person B in a private transaction to complete a straw purchase there is no dealer involved, no NICS check done, no paper trail of the transaction. How does the government know that the transaction happened? It doesn't. There is no way to know that ownership of the gun was transferred. Unless the gun turns up at a crime scene the government is never going to interact with that gun at all. The only way to really prevent any straw purchases is to have a national registry AND do regular FREQUENT ownership checks on every gun owner in the US and account for every gun in civilian hands. That's multiple checks a year on tens of millions of gun owners to track hundreds of millions of guns and you'd have to get the law allowing frequent regular ownership checks past 4th amendment challenges in court in addition to getting all of the hundreds of millions of guns that are privately owned and unregistered to be voluntarily registered.

Straw purchases aren't even a big problem. To commit a straw purchase you have to buy a gun for somebody who isn't qualified to own one. The number of people who can't pass a NICS check or are otherwise unable to legally buy a gun is a small subset of the population. The majority of Americans can legally own guns and every gun sold by a licensed dealer is sold to a customer who passes a NICS check. There are more qualified buyers than unqualified buyers, all of the qualified buyers have a clean criminal record, why is it reasonable to assume that a significant portion of law abiding gun owners are buying guns for the minority of people in the US who are convicted criminals?

 CptJake wrote:
How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).

Pretty much as Malus said. If you sell the weapon, then you send back the form with the new owner's name and address to say that the gun has changed hands. We have a similar system here with cars, and it works quite well. Those names could then be cross referenced with other databases to flag known criminals etc...

Someone could I suppose falsely report that a gun was stolen, but that isn't going to be something that people do idly. Especially if it means getting the police involved and potentially having an officer come around and interview you. That's gonna make a lot of people think twice about buying a gun on someone's behalf. It would also likely mean breaking a number of laws, for example: making a false statement, wasting police time etc... (I assume you have equivalent laws in most states). Even if someone did want to go to all that trouble, it's not something they could do more than once before it starts to look suspicious.

 CptJake wrote:
Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?

You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.

Could you elaborate please? Who specifically would you suggest people might report to as an alternative?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Person A buys a gun, passes the background check, fills out the 4473 form at the dealer, leaves the store with a gun. Whether that purchase also gets recorded in a national registry doesn't matter, it's already been recorded by the dealer, there's a record of the NICS check, and a physical copy of the 4473 form. If Person A then gives the gun to Person B in a private transaction to complete a straw purchase there is no dealer involved, no NICS check done, no paper trail of the transaction. How does the government know that the transaction happened? It doesn't. There is no way to know that ownership of the gun was transferred. Unless the gun turns up at a crime scene the government is never going to interact with that gun at all.

The point is, if the gun does show up at a crime scene, the person who it is registered to would be held accountable. They could even be charged as an accessory. That will make people think twice about who they buy a gun for, and how much they want to risk not returning the forms when they have transferred ownership.

If the gun never turns up at a crime scene, then that's good too, no one ever cares.

why is it reasonable to assume that a significant portion of law abiding gun owners are buying guns for the minority of people in the US who are convicted criminals?

I guess because criminals keep showing up with guns. I have read that straw purchases and also crooked dealers (don't forget them) are the two easiest and most popular ways for criminals to obtain guns. Do you believe that is incorrect?

 whembly wrote:

And the second a state, city, or county LEO tries to detain a federal officer for enforcing firearms regulations/laws--expect that state, city, or county LEO's career to be over.

Good luck then!

You do understand that acting under color of law protects LEOs from arrest, right?

And that if a city, state, or county LEO unlawfully arrests a federal officer--they can be arrested.

Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.

Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line.

Then why the feth do we still have Sanctuary Cities?

You understand that "Sanctuary Cities" don't prevent police from actually doing their jobs, right?
The only thing that cannot be done is ask the suspect/arrestee about their immigration status.

You really need to get an actual understanding of what a "Sanctuary City" is. It is a buzzwordy term used to describe a city that has ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws--notably by disallowing police officers or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



But, I also think that CptJake was referring to a potential that someone would want to amend the constitution to make firearm registries a part of said constitution, which has to go under judicial review prior to implementation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

It violates the 4th amendment. There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of. It is a violation of privacy to force people to register private property with the federal gov't.

Edit: To make participation in such a registry a prerequisite to practicing a constitutionally protected right is really bad.

Amendments are not subject to Judicial Review.

 LordofHats wrote:
Amendments are not subject to Judicial Review.

Indeed... I skimmed the article I was reading a bit fast.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of.

Cars? Or is that at state level?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Cars? Or is that at state level?

State and (sometimes) lower.

I don't have to register my vehicles at all, but when I do it is with the state.

You do have to register in most cases to drive on public roads. I've had a truck I owned for a couple of years that was purely for ranch use I never registered.

And again, I have no constitutionally protected right to own a vehicle.

And I can sell a vehicle and do not have to inform the state or county about it. Next year I just don't register it. Assumedly the new owner will register it, but frankly that is no concern of mine.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".

Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

It violates the 4th amendment. There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of. It is a violation of privacy to force people to register private property with the federal gov't.

Edit: To make participation in such a registry a prerequisite to practicing a constitutionally protected right is really bad.

Boohoo. You have to register an item with the government. What an onerous burden!

Spoiler alert: It's not an onerous burden. By your logic, income tax is a "violation of privacy".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.

Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".

Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.

Your view of the right to privacy is very skewed. The Gov't has to prove a need to violate. Again there is NO other property the Federal Gov't requires to be registered. When you add in that in the case of firearms you are making that registration a requirement to exercising the 2nd amendment protected right there is no way a court allows it to stand.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".

Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.

As it stands now, in order to search or seize your property, there must be probably cause, warrants and all that legal jargon going on, no?

If you follow that that is true, let's suppose for a moment that someone commits a murder in a public space and one of the few leads to go on is that the murder was carried out with a .40 caliber firearm.

Now, let's say you own a Glock .40 cal pistol.


What reason is there, that you should be getting your person/possessions/residence searched in this situation?