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.
WTH?!...thought I was on some ood happy meds.......some of you all have some serious fun prescriptions.....
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.
On its face this is false, and I challenge you to cite your source. No grandfathered firearms have been confiscated in Canada due to the registry.
easysauce wrote: We got rid of the registry last year for a reason (actually many good reasons, it cost too much, did too little, make paper criminals of otherwise law abiding people, was hacked by criminals to make a shopping list for guns, amoung other reasons)
The long guns registry was scrapped because Harper needed to pander to farmers. No other reason. That's why the handgun registry still exists.
easysauce wrote:Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.
If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
easysauce wrote:IE the crooks are the problem, even if we regulate the honest people more, crooks are still the problem.
This is childlike in its simplicity and not at all congruent with the real world.
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.
On its face this is false, and I challenge you to cite your source. No grandfathered firearms have been confiscated in Canada due to the registry.
I bet even after I show you one of the many letters confiscating guns you will argue that no guns were confiscated.
Grandfathered guns, are not what I am talking about.
You are saying everyone who owned any of the firearms that were confiscated and banned crazy then? w e got letters from the RCMP saying turn in the newly banned gun, or else. this is not about the 50% of guns that were "banned" by "grandfathering" them so that only people with a license before the laws changed could own them, this is in ADDITION to those guns "banned via grandfathering"
you calling me a liar? no guns confiscated? why did the rcmps send out this letter of confiscation then? this is ONE model of many that has been banned and confiscated, well after ~50% of all guns were banned via grandfathering
sorry does this letter, and the similar ones for all other models confiscated, not exist in your "real world"?
you need to do your research, especially before you revert to the tactic of "im never wrong if everyone else is a liar" as I find it very offensive you would call me a liar, when you are simply not properly informed yourself.
even a cursory search would show that most recent confiscation, yet your first impulse is to insult first, and research later.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/04/29 20:55:36
Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
azazel the cat wrote: If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
calling me a liar here, is partially correct, I should technically be saying 98% of all the crime guns were 100% outside the legal licenseing and registry system (black market guns)
■There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
sorry does this letter, and the similar ones for all other models confiscated, not exist in your "real world"?
you need to do your research, especially before you revert to the tactic of "im never wrong if everyone else is a liar" as I find it very offensive you would call me a liar, when you are simply not properly informed yourself.
even a cursory search would show that most recent confiscation, yet your first impulse is to insult first, and research later.
The rifle in question, an AK knockoff, was a prohibited weapon that the bearer was not legally entitled to possess, and the rifle was confiscated.
How exactly did the registry take that firearm away, again? Are you trying to say that the registry is responsible for a person's illegally-owned rifle to be taken away because the authorities found out about it? Because after reading that letter, it would appear the person tried to register a prohibited weapon that they were not legally entitled to possess as a restricted weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
calling me a liar here, is partially correct, I should technically be saying 98%
■There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
again, just calling me a liar when I cite very easy to reference facts, is no way to win a debate.
You're misrepresenting half-truths in an extremely disingenuous way that I would call lies.
You made a claim about 95% of all gun homicides, and now you're presenting statistics that encompass ALL homicides, not just those involving firearms. And you have moved the goalposts, now referring only to long guns, rather than your original statement which referred to all firearms. Here is your statement:
easysauce wrote:Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.
"95% of all guns in crimes in canada were guns out side the system" is not supported by your source that 2% of homicides were performed with registered long guns. You said ALL GUN CRIMES. That includes handguns, and it includes armed robberies and attempted murders, in addition to merely homicides.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/29 21:17:11
the gun went from NON restricted, to prohibited, and even people with prohibited licenses could not keep it.
now you are just putting your fingers in your ears after the facts are brought up that disagree with you.
coming from a guy who thinks only farmers wanted the registry gone, I am not suprised.
I knew before you would argue with hard facts, even with ones sourced from our government, so no real suprise when even after citations are provided, you continue to simply say "liar"
It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 21:36:29
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
It also lists it as being incorrectly registered, too. So that's either due to the classification changing and not re-registering it (likely) or else because it was fraudulently registered incorrectly to begin with (less likely, but possible)
The point, however, is that the firearm was illegal to be possessed by the owner, and was confiscated as a result. Registration has no effect on that situation, other than perhaps the registry allowed the authorities to more easily track down the illegal firearm.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
thats not true, you are either deliberately reading wrong, or purposely putting words in my mouth.... how about giving the "your a liar" argument a rest? follow the forum tenants at least and be RESPECTFUL please
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/05/19207001.html
OTTAWA -- The federal government is cracking down on a small game rifle, saying it was inappropriately classified as a non-restricted weapon. (the government said it was NON restricted prior)
But one firearms activist argues it's an end run by federal bureaucrats related to a long-running court battle.
Owners of the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle received a letter from the RCMP in December saying the registration certificates for the firearm would be revoked and they had a month to dispose of their weapons - with no compensation.
As of Dec. 20, the once legally owned gun would be classified as prohibited. (oh look, the government changed its mind, now it is prohibited)
According to the letter, the decision was made because the AP80 is cosmetically similar to the AK-47 rifle.
I guess if citing a source to back up my claim (despite you playing semantics lawyer, reasonable people know that gun murder is a part of gun crime, and dont expect an unpaid forum poster to edit things to lawyer like perfection)
you also don't know what grandfathering is, it has not been done since the 12.x license (prohib) was introduced ages ago,
here is what my friend has to say about his jager being confiscated
I also received the early Christmas gift from the RCMP stating they had revolked my registration certificate for my Armi Jager AP 80 . I have owned this rifle since March 1985, and it was registered with the CFC since February 2003. I have a
12(5) Licence and own a prohibited handgun however, I have to surrender this rifle.
For me this wasn’t just a show piece, both my son and I belong to a local gun club and would shoot this rifle every couple of months. I have been a Police Officer for 24 years and have owned this rifle for 27 years. I have never heard of this model of rifle being used in any type of crime. It is offensive after owning the rifle for so many years without incident that the RCMP would force me to surrender this rifle without compensation. As a lawful gun owner and Police officer, I do not support this revocation of my permit to own the AP80 and I have lost all confidence in the long gun registry.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
It also lists it as being incorrectly registered, too. So that's either due to the classification changing and not re-registering it (likely) or else because it was fraudulently registered incorrectly to begin with (less likely, but possible)
The point, however, is that the firearm was illegal to be possessed by the owner, and was confiscated as a result. Registration has no effect on that situation, other than perhaps the registry allowed the authorities to more easily track down the illegal firearm.
absolutely false, the GOVERNMENT "wrongly" classified the weapon as non res, not the owner. the government made possesion illegal, of a once legal firearm, you need to do real research instead of talking about something you know very little about.
What part about " the once legally owned gun would be classified as prohibited" leads you to call it the "never legally owned gun?"
why are you saying that everyday canadian citizens determine the classification of a gun? It is obviously the government who flip flopped and said a previously legal gun is now illegal.
the requirements for making something prohibited all relate to the weapon either being very small, or full auto, the jager is neither. It is now prohibited because it was recently added to the list of "named variants" of the ak-47 because it LOOKS like and ak-47 despite having no similar working parts, and being the same gun (functionally) as every other semi auto .22LR
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/29 22:14:01
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
thats not true, you are either deliberately reading wrong, or purposely putting words in my mouth
No, I actually quoted you. If you want to quote statistics, then you'd best get them right. I have zero patience for people who try to distort them to suit their goals. You claimed that the long gun registry proved that 95% of all gun crime was the result of weapons obtained from outside-the-system, and then cited a source that said only 2% of registered long guns were used in the 2400+ homicides in Canada. However; the source you cited does not provide the information required for you to make your 95% claim, as you are referring to ALL firearms-related crimes, not just homicides, which is what those stats only refers to. Additionally, those 2% of registered long guns does not include handguns.
So I would say that your use of that source is disingenuous at best, however I chose to give you the credit of competent analysis and instead attribute your error to malice. If I was wrong, then I apologize for calling you a liar and you can now consider yourself corrected on the matter.
That being said, I will apologize to you on the issue of the AK knockoff. I was not aware that it had been singled outspecifically by name as an exception to the firearms act; and I agree with you that the reasoning is stupid considering it's a semi-auto rimfire, so it would appear you most definitely have me on that one, for all to see.
...however, that doesn't change the fact that an update to the firearms act does not make the registry responsible for the confiscation of the firearm. It would merely make it much harder to hide it.
thank you, I appreciate that we can at least disagree on friendly terms
however, that doesn't change the fact that an update to the firearms act does not make the registry responsible for the confiscation of the firearm.
Oh, no argument there, the registry did not "cause" the confiscation,
but there would be no confiscation without the registry.
To be fair, I made a broad general statement (95% of gun crime is not attributed to legal sources)
and supported it with a specific fact (98% of murders dont involve legal guns), because they dont have the % of gun crime attributed fact laid out for me to quote.
But I really should be using multiple specific facts to back up general statements, ergo
There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
so out of 7 million registered long guns guns, 47 (would be less, the 47 # above is both handguns(different registry), and long guns) were proven to have come to illegal purpose, through legal means. 47 out of 7,000,000 is not even on the chart % wize, even without factoring in all the registered restricted weapons that technically should be making that # lower.
Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime (Vancouver Police, Strategic Plan 2004-08).
hence why spending billions on the registry is a waste (forgetting about how it affects me and my shooting buddies personally, and legally) because we could have had billions worth of actual police, who actually save lives and prevent crime, as well as investigation ect.
In 1995, the previous government told Parliament that the firearms program, most specifically the long-gun registry, would involve a net cost of just $2 million (Auditor General's Report 2002, Chapter 10).
In May 2000, the previous government admitted that the costs had actually ballooned to at least $327 million (Auditor General's Report 2002, Chapter 10).
By March 2005 the net cost of the firearms program was $946 million and by summer of 2006, costs had exceeded $1 billion. The Auditor General stated that Parliament was misinformed about many of these costs. (Auditor General's Report 2006, Chapter 4).
The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2013/04/29 23:38:08
I'm glad you can concede that point, because that's what our discussion originated with: I was trying to point out that, like it or not, the registry was never responsible for taking guns away; it just made law enforcement's job much easier and made it much harder to break the law (such as keeping a prohibited illegal weapon, nevermind the questionable circumstances of such)
I won't argue with you on the fact that the long gun registry was a colossal endeavour into the Liberal government's incompetence. A 2 million proposal ballooning into 300+ million was just unfathomable. But honestly, I think the part that really drives me crazy was scrapping it, when the vast majority of that cost was an overhead fixed cost, and not an ongoing one. Nor will I argue that nobody ever knocks over a 7-11 with a hunting rifle. However, I do think that having the registry was a good idea on its face; for the reasons I listed much earlier:
1. It makes it easy for police to trace provenance.
2. It informs police of the potential of a firearm coming into play during response calls.
While #2 is a nice perk for the police, it's #1 that concerns me the most, as I insist on accountability of all firearms, and #1 is the best way to ensure that.
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
Good news! Selling guns to people who shouldn't have guns is ALREADY a felony! So... good game everyone let's call it a night.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
Good news! Selling guns to people who shouldn't have guns is ALREADY a felony! So... good game everyone let's call it a night.
And selling beer to people under 21 is also illegal. But instead of just pretending that people will tell us that they are under 21 we require that all people have to show ID. So pretending that people will tell a seller that they are a felon is pretty dang stupid and requiring background checks for private sellers at gun shows is a pretty basic idea that doesn't require the kind of psychic powers regarding felon buyers that you seem to possess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/30 02:40:23
Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.
I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.
But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.
The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate gun-rights supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both gun owners and sellers.
Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.
The focus on background checks should not distract gun owners from the positive provisions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.
It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.
It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.
It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.
To my mind, the Manchin-Toomey proposal needs additional improvements to satisfy the demands of certain gun rights advocates. These changes might have helped save the proposal, which was supported by 54 senators — six votes short of the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster.
The proposal prohibits the attorney general (as head of the Justice Department) from creating a firearms registry, but this prohibition should be broadened to cover all government agencies.
The proposal should also exempt certain rural residents who live too far from a licensed gun dealer for a background check to be practicable.
Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill. And more F.B.I. staff members to manage the database would also help expedite the process.
In the current proposal, background checks at gun shows would be given priority over checks at gun stores. The government needs to hire enough staff members to promptly conduct checks at both places.
Current law denies gun permits to anyone who uses, or is addicted to, a controlled substance. The punishment for omitting this information on a background-check form is up to 10 years in federal prison — a penalty that is too harsh for someone who has merely smoked marijuana.
In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.
Robert Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and author of The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
One law. That's it.
You can't do it. I knew that before I started asking. You don't know the laws to begin with, and you're buying into the nonsense gabble of anti-gun folks who also don't know the law. People whine about the NRA preventing the ATF from being able to inspect dealers more than once a year, but can never quite remember which law that prevents them from enforcing, or how it goes about preventing the enforcement of that unnamed law.
I'm never going to understand why you don't want to make sure you know what you're talking about before you wade into these things. I get why the sources you use don't - they've got an agenda to push, and they're not going to get any feedback from people who don't already rabidly agree with them - but why not you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
Why on earth do you want background checks for internet sales? Are you under the impression they're not required by law currently?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/30 04:08:29
Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.
I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.
But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.
The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate gun-rights supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both gun owners and sellers.
Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.
The focus on background checks should not distract gun owners from the positive provisions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.
It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.
It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.
It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.
To my mind, the Manchin-Toomey proposal needs additional improvements to satisfy the demands of certain gun rights advocates. These changes might have helped save the proposal, which was supported by 54 senators — six votes short of the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster.
The proposal prohibits the attorney general (as head of the Justice Department) from creating a firearms registry, but this prohibition should be broadened to cover all government agencies.
The proposal should also exempt certain rural residents who live too far from a licensed gun dealer for a background check to be practicable.
Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill. And more F.B.I. staff members to manage the database would also help expedite the process.
In the current proposal, background checks at gun shows would be given priority over checks at gun stores. The government needs to hire enough staff members to promptly conduct checks at both places.
Current law denies gun permits to anyone who uses, or is addicted to, a controlled substance. The punishment for omitting this information on a background-check form is up to 10 years in federal prison — a penalty that is too harsh for someone who has merely smoked marijuana.
In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.
Robert Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and author of The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
If it was that bill specifically, with no other changes... I'd be in favor of that.
*shrugs*
The problem is... it's an emotional issue... as a voting public, we're incapable of having an adult conversation right now (no different than ACA/Universal HealthCare).
The failure of an amendment to expand background checks on gun purchases — the signature piece of a legislative package backed by the White House to curb gun violence — ends a journey that began in late December when 20 children and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut.
Studying the path from Newtown to the vote on the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that came up short of the 60 votes it needed is an instructive exercise in how Washington works.
We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what the failure of the background checks compromise means.
* Newtown didn’t change things. For weeks after the massacre in Connecticut, there was a broad sense — among Democrats and Republicans — that something fundamental had changed when it came to the debate over the proper place for guns in society. Unlike Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora, the slaughter of 20 children meant that the government would have to act — the American public would demand it.
But then time passed. And, as Newtown receded as a top-of-the-mind issue so, too, did the predictions that what happened in Connecticut had changed the political math on guns. The White House’s proposed gun legislation was stripped of a renewal of the assault weapons ban and strictures on the sale of high-capacity magazines, an acknowledgement from Democrats that adding either measure to the overall package would doom it.
The belief was that expanded background checks was the one major pillar of the gun legislation that might be able to make it through the gauntlet of Republican opposition and wariness from Democrats up for re-election in conservative states in 2014. That belief proved to be wrong.
* The 2014 map mattered more than the national polls. Expect the White House to turn blame on Republicans in the wake of the failure of Manchin-Toomey. The truth, however, is that this amendment was doomed as much by an unwillingness of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 to get on board with it as by Republican opposition to it.
Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) simply did not want to vote for this background check amendment and, by holding off their support, made the math absolutely unworkable once the likes of Republican Sens. Dean Heller (Nev.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) came out against it.
And, why did they not want to vote for it? Because of the belief that doing so would hurt their chances of winning re-election next November in states that President Obama lost by significant margins and that contain large swaths of rural areas where gun rights are considered sacred.
If you are a gun control advocate looking to assign blame, Senate Democrats (or at least some of them) deserve as much of it — if not more — than their Republican colleagues.
* Passion is the sine qua non of politics. We — and everyone else — has been asking one question over and over again these past few weeks: How is something, like expanded background checks, that is supported by between 80 and 90 percent of the American public not a no-brainer for Congress to pass?
The answer is passion. That is, the number of people who prefer more gun control rather than less don’t — by and large — feel that way with a deep burning desire in their soul. Those who support gun rights and see any attempt to limit them as a slippery slope toward confiscation, on the other hand, feel incredibly passionate about the issue. The gun-rights supporters are a smaller but far more vocal and active group than those who want more restrictions on guns.
All of the above means that politicians believe — whether they are right or not is up for debate — that they face more negative consequences for voting against gun-rights legislation than voting against gun-control measures.
The fate of the overall gun package remains to be seen. And, there is a possibility — albeit a slim one — that the Senate could re-consider the Manchin-Toomey amendment at some point in the future.
But, it’s been clear for weeks that the White House and gun-control advocates had put all of their hopes on the expanded background checks provision. If that doesn’t make the final bill, the effort will be regarded as a failure by many who believed that new gun-control legislation’s time had come.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
Licensed dealers must do the background checks at gun shows...
I believe in some states, non-gun dealers AT gun shows are NOT required to perform any background checks.
I have no clue on the internet sales... they won't ship to you directly unless you have a FFL... and some states are more restrictive. Maybe it's to standardize the process for all states? (that's how I read it)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/30 04:52:55
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
On the gun show front:
Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.
Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
You misunderstand. I'm not asking for a single law demonstrating that the NRA has successfully managed to limit the ATF's - or anyone else's - powers (as there are lots of those, the NRA's quite a successful lobbying arm), I'm trying to figure out which laws you think the ATF is being prohibited from enforcing thanks to NRA intervention.
And I'm genuinely curious about this, because the initial claim that started us down this rabbit hole is that the NRA has prevented the government from enforcing federal firearms regulations already on the books. I see that claim thrown around a lot, and all I'd like is one specific example of a federal firearms statute that has become unenforceable due to NRA interference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/30 05:00:45
Think this is the number one site for internet sells. Info you seek as at the bottom...thats their policy....your state policy takes precedence over theirs. Which I do believe the weapon has to be shipped to a License Firearm Dealer/store. Think KM might know more about this. Last I heard...rumor mind you...you can have the weapon shipped to your residence if the weapon does not have the bolt.....bolt shipped on a different day and carrier.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
This is part of the problem. Nobody else has any idea what they're talking about, either. As Hordini pointed out, internet sales already have background checks built into them due to the illegality of shipping a gun sold on the internet to anyone but a licensed FFL, who is prevented by law from handing it over until he's done a NICS check.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
On the gun show front:
Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.
Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.
Internet sales: No idea.
Yup... that's how it is in MO.
The problem is that this "Gunshow Loophole" isn't adequately explained. What folks hear is this: "We're going to make it harder for you get buy/trade guns at the trade shows", when it should really be said " let's advocate that the GUN SHOW operators perform the same background checks". I think in some states, you can do that when you buy your admission ticket... or, just like you said in your art show (wall ball?) thing, when the art (weapon) is purchased, take it to a processing area where not only they process your transactions (cash or credit), but perform that check.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
You misunderstand. I'm not asking for a single law demonstrating that the NRA has successfully managed to limit the ATF's - or anyone else's - powers (as there are lots of those, the NRA's quite a successful lobbying arm), I'm trying to figure out which laws you think the ATF is being prohibited from enforcing thanks to NRA intervention.
And I'm genuinely curious about this, because the initial claim that started us down this rabbit hole is that the NRA has prevented the government from enforcing federal firearms regulations already on the books. I see that claim thrown around a lot, and all I'd like is one specific example of a federal firearms statute that has become unenforceable due to NRA interference.
Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?
There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such. So in effect, unless the BATFE is able to go after dealers found to be violating the existing laws and prosecute them to the fullest without restrictions not afforded to any other indicted individual, nothing will change and the existing laws will not be enforceable. Now, that doesn't mean that any new ones will, either. In effect, what is really needed (other than eliminating the private-sale straw purchase loophole) is to remove the multiple riders attached to budgets over the years so that the BATFE actually gets its power back and gets to be a real law enforcement agency again.
azazel the cat wrote: Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?
Yes, but I don't think it's an apt analogy. Most of the "NRA restrictions" have been on reporting to entities not immediately connected to an ongoing investigation, such as academic institutions for the purposes of research, etc. They've actually worked to strengthen systems like NICS.
There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such.
That's...a really bold claim. I doubt you'd be able to find any evidence that practically all federal firearms statues have become unenforceable. I doubt you even mean it, as you seem to be focusing on a very narrow selection of firearm statues related to dealers.
So in effect, unless the BATFE is able to go after dealers found to be violating the existing laws and prosecute them to the fullest without restrictions not afforded to any other indicted individual, nothing will change and the existing laws will not be enforceable. Now, that doesn't mean that any new ones will, either. In effect, what is really needed (other than eliminating the private-sale straw purchase loophole) is to remove the multiple riders attached to budgets over the years so that the BATFE actually gets its power back and gets to be a real law enforcement agency again.
Here's where we run into problems, because none of that is true. The ATF still has all the powers necessary to investigate dealers - the gun-walking scandal showed us that much. They're not overly interested in doing so, is the issue. Nor criminal buyers, for that matter. It isn't NRA roadblocks that keep us from prosecuting people who willfully lie on a NICS check form, it's, in Biden's words, the lack of time. Bigger fish to fry.
