President Obama outlines executive orders for gun control (text of proposal on pg5)

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.

**Kanluwen**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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?

Look up Terry Stops, exigent circumstances, yadda yadda yadda.

There are exceptions to the 4th Amendment that are upheld, just like there have been court cases protecting the 4th.
One notable thing is that, unlike the 2nd Amendment, the judges are actually keeping up with the times when it comes to the technology. Maryland v. King in 2013, for example, upheld the constitutionality of swabbing for DNA upon arrest, holding that it was something that could be considered noninvasive or unburdensome like taking fingerprints and mugshots.

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.

Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?

Because there has been evidence thrown out by courts based upon similar circumstances utilizing motor vehicles registered via the DMV.

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

Warrants are very narrow in scope when issued, and things outside of the scope of the warrant tend to be inadmissible unless certain circumstances would apply(Plain View/Open Fields doctrines for example). It's really not that hard to believe that there are protections which could apply with the existence of a national gun registry.

Additionally, the existence of a database is not the same as your person/possessions/residence being searched. They would have to acquire some kind of evidence implicating you to search your home or person.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kanluwen wrote:

Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?

No, but they'd certainly search by caliber, and if you owned a Glock .40, guess what? you'd be there.

Warrants are very narrow in scope when issued, and things outside of the scope of the warrant tend to be inadmissible unless certain circumstances would apply(Plain View/Open Fields doctrines for example). It's really not that hard to believe that there are protections which could apply with the existence of a national gun registry.

Additionally, the existence of a database is not the same as your person/possessions/residence being searched. They would have to acquire some kind of evidence implicating you to search your home or person.

And again, if there's a national registry that you put your name to ownership of a firearm, and a law enforcement agency searches it, they now have "evidence" to implicate you: possession of a firearm potentially used in a crime.

You may think my example is fething stupid, but I believe it's already been mentioned that the NY concealed carry license that was put out in a newspaper had negative consequences, as well people who end up on the Sex Offender list end up being targeted as well because of the nature of such a list. I really don't think it's that hard to see these problems applying to law abiding firearm owners as well, if they were made to register.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?

No, but they'd certainly search by caliber, and if you owned a Glock .40, guess what? you'd be there.

And? They would cross reference that information with people who knew the victim or had motive to see if there were any hits. This gives them a quick route to identifying potential suspects and doesn't rely on the suspect telling the truth about whether or not they own a firearm.

If you had no connection to the victim, beyond owning the same calibre gun as the murderer, then they won't come knocking unless there is other evidence putting you at the scene and if you did have a connection then they'd probably come to interview you anyway, even without there being a registry, and one of the questions which would be asked is "Do you own a .40 calibre firearm?"

**stanman**

My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

**whembly**

stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

It's not unheard of...

In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

It's not unheard of...

In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.

Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

It's not unheard of...

In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.

Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.

And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.

Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

It's not unheard of...

In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.

Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.

And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.

Yup.

When you post trash articles that include statements like:

“I’m very concerned that this may be a back-door attempt to create the Eric Holder gun registry,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, referring to the U.S. attorney general. “Missourians are very much opposed to this type of government overreach and intrusion.”

It goes to show that you don't actually read what you post links to. You seem to just find something that ostensibly supports your position and then fire it off into the ether, hoping for the best and someone to not call you out as the partisan hack you are.

By the by? There's a ton more juicy quotes that show that it was nothing but Republicans trying to play fearmongerer in spite of the party claims about wanting to eliminate misuse of government funds(the CCL registry was given over to a Social Security Administration agent who was conducting an investigation into disability fraud regarding mental illness claims) and the timeline of the article (April 11, 2013) lining up with the discussions post-Newtown.

stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.

Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.

Yes, they were trying to get named donors from the political organizations that were being audited.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.

It's not unheard of...

In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.

Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.

And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.

Yup.

When you post trash articles that include statements like:

“I’m very concerned that this may be a back-door attempt to create the Eric Holder gun registry,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, referring to the U.S. attorney general. “Missourians are very much opposed to this type of government overreach and intrusion.”

It goes to show that you don't actually read what you post links to. You seem to just find something that ostensibly supports your position and then fire it off into the ether, hoping for the best and someone to not call you out as the partisan hack you are.

By the by? There's a ton more juicy quotes that show that it was nothing but Republicans trying to play fearmongerer in spite of the party claims about wanting to eliminate misuse of government funds(the CCL registry was given over to a Social Security Administration agent who was conducting an investigation into disability fraud regarding mental illness claims) and the timeline of the article (April 11, 2013) lining up with the discussions post-Newtown.

Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.

It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

stanman wrote:
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.

It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.

Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.

Yes, they were trying to get named donors from the political organizations that were being audited.

**stanman**

Once a list of any sort is established then it can easily become a political weapon regardless of party. All the privacy laws in the world won't mean squat if somebody wants to abuse their access to it and by the time that breach is addressed it's likely too late to repair the damage that the breach is likely to cause.

People on lists can be excluded from jobs or barred access to all sorts of aide or just about any government or private program simply because their name pops up on a list (which may or may not be accurate). Lists can be a devistatingly powerful tool should it be misused. It's happened many times before and it'll certainly continue to happen in the future.

One of the first efforts of fascist, dictatorships, and oppression usually begins with list building under the guise of "for the good of the people" I certainly don't think the US is there, but it's something we need to be vigilant in watching for because once the cat is out of the bag its very hard to change the course of action.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:

Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.

You "living" somewhere isn't automatically going to mean you know everything about the situation.

At least that's the kind of trash you threw my way when I was discussing the voter ID laws in my state.

It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.

Find me something other than a Concealed Carry Permit which requires some kind of psychological evaluation or competency test.

The whole point of the investigation was to look into claims of mental illness being fraudulently used as a disability claim for social security.

National Organization for Marriage won a suit regarding the IRS improperly disclosing their donors...

Which is not the same as the IRS investigating the donors because of the lists, now is it?

**Kap'n Krump**

I might be misunderstanding your statement, but to my (limited) knowledge, CCPs don't require psych evals. At least the ones in Oklahoma and Colorado don't, because I went through the process for both. The only competency test was being able to hit a target from like 10 feet.

**Kanluwen**

Kap'n Krump wrote:

I might be misunderstanding your statement, but to my (limited) knowledge, CCPs don't require psych evals. At least the ones in Oklahoma and Colorado don't, because I went through the process for both. The only competency test was being able to hit a target from like 10 feet.

You're right in that they don't require a psychological evaluation in the normal sense, but generally CCPs aren't issued to those with mental illnesses--would you agree or disagree?

**Kap'n Krump**

I agree they shouldn't, and I certainly hope they aren't, and now that I think about it, there was a background check as part of the process.

I assume that mental illness history would be a red flag for the CCP issuance, but I honestly have no idea - I think it was more for checking for felonies.

Any rate, my point was only that there wasn't any active screening for mental illness (just checking against past records), least my in two states.

**d-usa**

I know it doesn't really fit in the topic, but we are pretty far off the topic anyway and I didn't want to start another gun thread, so:

Oklahoma foster parents sue DHS over firearms policy

Two foster parents are suing the state Department of Human Services in Oklahoma City federal court over an agency rule they claim is unconstitutional because it prohibits foster and adoptive parents from legally possessing firearms for self-defense.

The married couple, Stephen and Krista Pursley, of Moore, state in the lawsuit that they "are prohibited by the OKDHS policy ... from possessing or carrying firearms in their vehicles or while their foster/adopted children are present."

The Pursleys, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, filed the lawsuit against DHS Director Ed Lake. The Pursleys belong to the foundation.

The Pursleys claim the rule violates the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment and the equal protection provisions in the 14th Amendment. They also state in the suit that it violates the Oklahoma Constitution.

"The Plaintiffs only seek to be treated the same as other law-abiding Oklahoma residents," the lawsuit states.

"This mandate for foster parents is not just restrictive, it's ridiculous," said Alan M. Gottlieb, the foundation's founder and executive vice president. "Why should a foster parent be stripped of his or her right to self-defense, or ... ability to defend their foster child simply to appease some bureaucrat's anti-gun philosophy? ... How would it look for Oklahoma if foster children came to some harm because (DHS) regulations disarmed their foster parents?

"We're asking for an injunction against this requirement because it puts foster families at serious risk while denying parents their constitutional rights."

The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container.

"Our agency policy does not prohibit gun ownership by foster parents," said Sheree Powell, the DHS communications director. "It does, however, require reasonable safety measures to protect the children in DHS care, many of whom come from traumatic and tragic circumstances.

"Agency leadership has, in fact, been diligently working in recent weeks to review and, if necessary, revise its foster care weapons policy in order to address the interests of foster parents who are appropriately permitted to possess firearms. Any revisions to agency policy, however, will always make the safety of children its first and foremost priority."

Powell said Friday that DHS has reviewed the lawsuit but has not been served.

The Pursleys have been and are foster parents to 34 children in Oklahoma. "They have adopted one of the foster children and are in the process of adopting a second foster child, plus having one other foster infant and a natural child in their home," the lawsuit notes.

Stephen Pursley is a graphic designer and Krista Pursley is an administrative assistant for the Moore school district.

Stephen Pursley has had a concealed carry permit for 15 years. The lawsuit states the couple "would possess and carry loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they (are afraid of) their foster and adoptive children being taken away."

They allege the weapons agreement has no exceptions for foster parents with a concealed carry permit.

"It is completely unconstitutional and unfair that those persons who are providing a better life and environment for children through the State's DHS foster care and adoption process would have to give up the fundamental rights of self-defense and defense of family in order to do so," said Illinois attorney David G. Sigale, who is representing the parents and foundation.

"DHS's policy that severely restricts the firearm possession of these good people must be struck down," Sigale said.

The Second Amendment Foundation is a Washington state non-profit membership organization with more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The foundation promotes a better understanding about the Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms, according to the organization's mission statement.

The foundation's website states it performs many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate. The website shows numerous lawsuits filed nationwide over the years regarding gun rights.

The foundation also launched a media campaign last week against President Barack Obama's recent executive action on gun control. The foundation was founded in 1974.

The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.

You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.

You "living" somewhere isn't automatically going to mean you know everything about the situation.

At least that's the kind of trash you threw my way when I was discussing the voter ID laws in my state.

Oh, so it's tit for tat then? Is that how it's going to be from now on?

It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.

Find me something other than a Concealed Carry Permit which requires some kind of psychological evaluation or competency test.

The whole point of the investigation was to look into claims of mental illness being fraudulently used as a disability claim for social security.

I'm going to be brief: Its. Against. The. Law. Here. In. Missouri. To. Disclose. That. List.

What you're arguing is essentially justifying "a means to an end".

National Organization for Marriage won a suit regarding the IRS improperly disclosing their donors...

Which is not the same as the IRS investigating the donors because of the lists, now is it?

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:

I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.

You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.

I think the state can set whatever standard they want for both scenarios honestly. It's about the kids, not the potential parents.

That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.

It is hilarious though to see a gun advocate say "What will happen if someone breaks into the house and there's no guns?! Think of the children!"

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.

You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.

I think that while the state may retain custody, wouldn't the temporary guardianship grant certain levels of "custody" over the children placed in the home? I kind of agree with you that the rather temporary nature of foster care goes with what you're saying, but at the same time, I think that the family does have something of a case here.

Isn't Oklahoma the deepest, darkest shade of red imaginable? I would think that state of politics would lend things to favor the foster family's chances.

**d-usa**

LordofHats wrote:

That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.

And it sounds like that is what they were doing:

"The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container. "

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
LordofHats wrote:

That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.

And it sounds like that is what they were doing:

"The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container. "

You may not know this... but why is even the DHS involved in this?

**LordofHats**

Why wouldn't the Department of Human Services be involved in foster kids? That's kind of what they do. EDIT: DHS isn't the federal agency. The Department of Health and Human Services is abbreviated as HHS, not DHS. DHS is usually used to refer to state level agencies.

Or is this just a sly joke about Daemonhunters

**d-usa**

"Department of Human Services", so they are the folks in charge of removing kids and fostering them if needed.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Why wouldn't the Department of Human Services be involved in foster kids? That's kind of what they do. EDIT: DHS isn't the federal agency. The Department of Health and Human Services is abbreviated as HHS, not DHS.

Nevermind. Carry on...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
"Department of Human Services", so they are the folks in charge of removing kids and fostering them if needed.

Cool... I thought it was referring to Dept of Homeland Security. Seems like every state has it's own abbreviation nuances.

I just didn't connect Dept of HUman services to DHS in the original article.

**Prestor Jon**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
I agree they shouldn't, and I certainly hope they aren't, and now that I think about it, there was a background check as part of the process.

I assume that mental illness history would be a red flag for the CCP issuance, but I honestly have no idea - I think it was more for checking for felonies.

Any rate, my point was only that there wasn't any active screening for mental illness (just checking against past records), least my in two states.

Reporting laws vary by state. Having some form of mental illness doesn't make a person a criminal and wouldn't necessarily be entered in the NICS system if the only people aware of the mental illness are the patient and medical professionals due to HIPAA. Stripping rights away from people as a condition for getting help doesn't help combat the stigmatization of mental health issues or improve mental health care. The bill of rights isn't limited to only covering "healthy" people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
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.

A weapon ends up in the hands of a criminal every time a weapon is stolen due to the fact that stealing is a crime. There are already reporting laws in the books and the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?

So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun, so he sells it to his friend Tim, who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim, who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with her boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly, and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted, and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member), to settle a debt. Omar loses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx (another gang member), who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg (a convicted felon), who gives the gun to Mikey (a 15 year old kid). Mikey then uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...

Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.

**LordofHats**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun so he sells it to his friend Tim who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with he boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member) to settle a debt. Omar looses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx, who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg, how gives the gun to Mikey. Mikey uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...

Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.

This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home

**Smacks**

LordofHats wrote:
This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home

That's not a bad idea, maybe I should pitch it to them...

**Vaktathi**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun, so he sells it to his friend Tim, who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim, who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with her boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly, and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted, and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member), to settle a debt. Omar loses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx (another gang member), who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg (a convicted felon), who gives the gun to Mikey (a 15 year old kid). Mikey then uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...

Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.

Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

There are gun registries in the US, the number of crimes they help solve is practically nonexistent.

**Smacks**

Vaktathi wrote:
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place. Tim and Sue and Kim, should have been aware that there was an issue with the gun when she moved to Europe. Had they reported it lost/stolen then it would probably have been recovered. Or if ownership were transferred to Jason, then Tony it should also have reported it lost/stolen, or transferred it to Larry. Larry is a shady character, but he isn't stupid enough to give a gun with his name on it to a fethup like Rizzo. And if he did, he would have reported it stolen right away when it went missing. Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo, and possibly Omar and recover the gun yet again. (they're probably looking for something to bust Omar on anyway).

EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.

**Relapse**

LordofHats wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun so he sells it to his friend Tim who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with he boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member) to settle a debt. Omar looses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx, who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg, how gives the gun to Mikey. Mikey uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...

Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.

This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home

There was actually an old movie called "The Gun", if I remember correctly, a long time ago that traced a gun from it's manufacture through a series of owners to when a kid accidently shot himself with it at the end.