Background Checks, Hi Cap Mags...

E

Exit_Wound

New member
Etc...

I'm a relatively new, but fervent, gun owner with some questions about these issues... I realize this might be a controversial post, but I write this in good faith, not just to instigate name calling, hostility, or the like...

I am a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment, and also of personal responsibility. I just wonder what the argument is against legislation requiring background checks for gun owners and limits on hi cap magazines.

It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks. It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.

Is there something I'm missing?

As far as high capacity magazines, I read on one of these forums that if you need more than x number of bullets in your gun, your problem isn't the lack of bullets in your magazine, it's lack of people fighting on your side.... seems logical to me, no?

Five children escaped the sandy hook tragedy while the maniac changed magazines, if he had to do that more often, it seems logical that more lives would have been spared. Or at least given a non-insane, responsible gun owner time to react and defend...

All I'm saying is that, while the specific terms of the background checks, or the actual number of bullets in the legislation can be debated (i.e. 10 vs 15 shot mags, or if owing taxes should or shouldn't not be a factor), the practicality of such legislation seems logical.

Again, I just want to say that these are real questions in the hopes of getting thoughtful, intelligent replies.

If your response is that 15 round mag limits mean that the terrorists win, or that background checks will include a requirement that Obama punches you in the throat, you can save it.

Thanks in advance!
 
You might want to study more about the 2A and why it was considered so important that it was only superseded by the first. Background checks are just another way for the government to introduce more restrictions up to, and including, confiscation down the road.

Before 1968, you could order a gun from a magazine and have the USPS deliver it to your door with no strings attached. You could also carry a gun onto an airplane with no issues
 
I hope we have a decent discussion but the last sentence in the OP was a touch confrontational.

1. While rare, a gun fight might be of high intensity and a higher capacity magazine is useful. I can cite an African-American who used a full magazine during the disorder over civil rights to protect his house from racist night riders.

2. We do have background checks for all FFL sales. If you want to debate private sales that is a different subset of the argument.

If you wish that background checks keep records, it is clear that in several countries and American states - the kept records were used for confiscations.

3. The better solution to trying to charge someone during a mag change is to allow carry in the schools. That is the efficacious way to deal with the mad person. Waiting for a reload has been done. However, why not just shoot the mad person as the fight starts? Not suggesting carry as a solution means the OP is not really cognizant of the dynamics of a school shooting.

4. The idea of having rifles or pistols roughly equivalent to those of the government is a buffer against tyranny. Some antigunners or naïve progun folks suggest that this is not the case. I disagree.
 
Welcome to the forum Michael.

UBC's? Check, we have that.
Illegal to sell to a felon? Check, we have that.
Straw purchases? Check, we have that.

"Five children escaped the sandy hook tragedy while the maniac changed magazines, if he had to do that more often, it seems logical that more lives would have been spared. Or at least given a non-insane, responsible gun owner time to react and defend..."
You can thank little Billy Clinton for the 'Safe SHooter Zones' where maniacs can shoot unarmed people undisturbed. Before then, teachers and students had firearms in and on school grounds. A shooter, or axe weilding maniac couldn't do much damage.
What wrong with standard capacity magazines? No idiot can tell me ahead of time how many rounds may be needed for any given circumstance. It's a moot point.
Late on taxes, gestapo kicks your door down to confiscate your firearms? No person in his or her right mind would stand for that.
 
Owing taxes or default on fed loans=prohibited person? You're going to have to explain your reasoning on that one. Should those people lose the right to vote, free speech, 4th amendment protections etc etc also?
 
To the question about being behind on taxes or federal loans...history tells us that many factors,including incompetent and wrong political administrations,can cripple our economy.During those times,law abiding people of good character who represent no threat to society can suffer economic woes.
By what stretch of your imagination would Presidential Incompetence justify violation of the 2nd and 4thAmmendment of an individual? I am troubled by your thinking.You believe having a student loan and being cut to 29 hours wages justifies disarmament?

To universal background checks:For decades all gun sales through an ffl have required back ground checks and a form 4473.
I do not know about all gunshows,but in Colorado,the ones I attend,require NICS checks and a 4473 for all firearm sales including private sales,with form 4473s.Parking lots,etc are patrolled and private sellers will be prosecuted.

Problems with UBC for private transfer are "The devil is in the details".It is naïve/stupid to believe in "reasonable intentions".

The ONLY means to enforce a background check on all transfers would be an inventory of all of your firearms.Then the only way to prove compliance would be the firearms in your possession exactly match the registered inventory.What is the next step after an inventory?(note,inventory of all firearms is part of the UN Treaty proposals.Not farfetched)

Seems a lot like being guilty till you prove yourself innocent.

How do you teach a kid to shoot?Handing them a .22 is a transfer.

I can't pass an M-1 carbine to my daughter with the original magazines...

One more thing,if you count down your rounds,and that becomes subconscious,you do a mag change while there is one in the chamber.

Well intentioned emotional ignorant people make bad,stupid law.Then there are those who actually want to break the Constitution who manipulate ignorant,emotional people into supporting an evil agenda.


Question anything you want,but,I suggest ,or I hope,you will set your principles based on what the Founders wrote in our Constitution for generations to come.Do not compromise their Liberty.It is not yours to compromise.
 
Last edited:
Good points made here by everyone. "A huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment" should truly understand its meaning and the intentions of our founding fathers.
 
We already have background checks. Universal checks was to create a registration. Most crimnals steal their guns, including Newtown...

Befor you go supporting high capacity bans ask yourself how many rounds do YOU need in self defense?
 
Five children escaped the sandy hook tragedy while the maniac changed magazines, if he had to do that more often, it seems logical that more lives would have been spared.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but is that what happened or what people say might have happened? There's a big difference.

We do know from after-action reports that most of the dropped magazines were half full or more. At no point did Lanza fire a full magazine before reloading.

It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks. It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.
Click to expand...
Skipping past the troubling clause at the end, let's examine how folks think such a thing would work versus how it actually does work.

First off, criminals don't obey laws. That's the very definition of "criminal." The black market will be unaffected by such a law. Criminals will continue to get guns from family members or bypass the system through straw purchases. It's in a criminal's best interest to avoid contact with a system that conducts background checks. That much should be obvious.

So, who does this affect? Folks who are already law-abiding. We're not the problem, but we're the ones being punished.

Second, the background-check system is simply broken as it is. We hear numbers quoted for "criminals denied firearms purchases" and such. Phooey. Those numbers are denials, which can happen for any number of reasons and most of which (as in 92%) are false positives for some reason.

The current system suffers from a lack of data coordination and from woefully incomplete records on mental incompetence. It is poorly managed, and the rare denial with merit is almost never prosecuted. Why? Because such cases "lack jury appeal."

The third problem lies with the enforcement of such a law. There is simply no way to enforce a universal background check system without a registry of all privately-owned firearms. None. How does law-enforcement know I had a background check done on a given gun? I could tell them I got it from my buddy before the law passed. They have no way of checking. The only way is to have a database of guns.

Aside from the historical precedents Glenn mentioned, there are huge logistical problems with enacting a registry. Guns are classified by make, model, action, caliber, and serial number. If any of that information gets jumbled, things get hairy. If you think law enforcement gets this stuff right, let me disabuse you of that notion right away.

I've seen police reports for Glock model 9mm revolvers. I've been asked to trace Springfield Smith & Wesson pistols, serial number .40SW. I've sat in court and heard a prosecutor refer to a model Bersa forty manufactured by Thunder. I've had to explain the difference between assembly numbers and serial numbers to ATF agents.

Now, imagine you have to register a gun, and your data gets jumbled like that when they enter it. Congratulations! The gun in your possession doesn't match the one registered to you. I know of no jurisdiction requiring registration in which you would not be charged with a crime. Meanwhile, the gun Torgo holds to the back of your head while you're fumbling for your wallet remains blissfully unregistered.

Neither of these proposals would have stopped the horror at Sandy Hook. The politicians pushing for these laws know this. They've admitted it. The simple math is this: something horrible happened, and they are using it as an opportunity to harass gun owners because it's politically expedient to lampoon and villainize us.

So yeah, you can imagine why we're not only opposed, but more than a little resentful of such proposals.
 
Exit Wound said:
It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks. It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.

Is there something I'm missing?
Click to expand...
It appears to me that you are confusing "right" and "privilege." Do you really mean that you believe people who owe taxes or haven't paid off a loan are not entitled to defend themselves from assault with deadly force?

Do you understand the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"?

Exit Wound said:
I am a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment,
Click to expand...
With respect, Sir ... No, you are NOT a "huge" proponent of the 2nd Amendment. The fact that you are apparently serious about accepting the restrictions ("infringements") you ask about is all the proof we need to see that.
 
Exit_Wound said:
I'm a relatively new, but fervent, gun owner with some questions about these issues... I realize this might be a controversial post, but I write this in good faith, not just to instigate name calling, hostility, or the like...
Click to expand...

Everyone who has replied negatively, needs to reread this opening remark. Twice, if you don't get it.

Do not assume the gentleman knows what you know.

Do not assume the gentleman knows the history of our culture, as you know it.

Do not assume the gentleman is some kind of troll.

Do take the above at face value and take this as an opportunity to educate, not lambast. :(
 
Exit,

On a more practical level, the attempt to control behavior by banning devices leads to a patchwork of laws that criminalizes very basic mistakes on the part of entirely civic minded people. You can have this gun in this state, but not its neighbor. This rifle is legal, unless you replace a broken part with a foreign one. Magazine limits that are none, 15 or 10. You can bye a rifle over state lines but not a pistol. This one is grandfathered, this one is not. And what is "sporting" anyway?

The attempt to control guns doesn't control anything and makes regular people have to become legal scholars just to figure out if the rifle they've owned for 20 years can move with them to a new state. And for every rule there are multiple exceptions, all of which raise prices, cause hording and favor the wealthy.

There is no single device that you can ban that would have saved those children. Sandy Hook would have been a bloodbath with a pump shotgun or just a machete.

So aside from the danger and inconvenience halfway bans impose on regular people, the entirely false sense of security and accomplishment gun control proponents get by passing more laws just masks the real problems and real solutions.

Many of us worry about living in a country that holds individual liberty dear while trying to combat obesity by making forks illegal. It is a total breakdown in cause and effect.
 
As to the "incident" at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it is now eleven months later and, so far, NOBODY outside of the Connecticut State Police Department knows what really happened, so it is unwise to base any speculation on what the news media reported. They changed their story several times within the first 48 hours, and a number of times later on.

Somewhere I saw an article just a few days ago quoting the Connecticut governor as being "frustrated" (I think that was the word) that the State Police have not yet released their official report. The sense I had from the article was that the governor has not even received a behind-closed-doors briefing ... which I find incomprehensible.

Also, just last week I encountered a guy who operates a tactical training company catering primarily to police officers. He has contacts within the Connecticut State Police and he intimated that, when ("if") the official report is ever released, we will find a LOT of surprises in it.

It's not good policy to make policy on the basis of incomplete, muddled, contradictory, preliminary information.
 
Last edited:
Do take the above at face value and take this as an opportunity to educate, not lambast.
Click to expand...

I apologize if my use of the word 'idiot' was mistaken as a jab at the OP. It wasn't. I was being short on words.
Only a person that has no concept of 'rights' or 'freedom' would just give them up.
Here's an article on comprimising the OP might like. http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

If you want an insight into how the country will fare if you give up all your rights to the criminals in the perceived concept of more safety.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
 
I'll turn off the cloaking device and delurk for this one.

The OP asks valid questions, and being able to explain why someone takes a position on any issue is important. After all, if the pro 2A side is correct, then we all should be able to explain why.

Background checks.

Sounds good in theory. In theory, who wouldn't want a system in place that could predict bad behavior and prevent those who would do wrong from being able to do so before it happens. If we had such a system, there would be no reason to limit its application to the 2A. Every person could be screened and stopped before they commit whatever future transgression they are destined to commit. See the Minority Report for more information.

But as you, I and everyone knows, that system doesn't exist. Instead, the concept to background checks is based on the assumption that certain past transgressions *might* affect future behavior, and based on those assumptions, we limit the rights of those who committed those transgressions. Another aspect of background checks is putative in nature too, as part of the punishment for certain actions, rights are stripped away. If you're convicted of a crime, you lose the right to freedom via incarceration. If you're a felon, you lose the right to vote. And so on.

Turning back to background checks, there are always two questions I ask. The first is what, specifically, do you believe should be the criteria in determining whether someone passes or fails a background check. Assume you're writing the law. I suspect that whatever list you come up with will be both over and under inclusive, meaning it will prohibit people who would never harm anyone and fail to prohibit people who do.

The second question is could the use of background checks be used for an agenda. If you're not involved in the 2A debate, its easy to miss this aspect. But the bulk of those who push for background checks don't give two hoots about preventing any crime. The underlying agenda is to put up as many roadblocks as possible to gun ownership. When you look at the history of background checks in that light, you'll be able to understand a lot better why there is so much resistance to it. I strongly suggest you do the research yourself too, as all of this can be validated.

When background checks first started, the disqualifications were pretty simple. Convicted felons could not own firearms. But it was expanded. Any crime involving domestic violence was added. While it sure sounds good, in reality it mean that if your spouse accuses you of anything, and there is any conviction other than a complete dismissal, odds are you will lose the right to own a firearm forever. Since a lot of these accusations occur in the context of a divorce where revenge and vindictiveness runs rampant, the abuse runs rampant. Mind you, the same accusation by a non spouse would not result in the same penalty.

But it didn't stop there. Disqualifications were expanded to include misdemeanors too. They did this by saying if someone convicted of a misdemeanor could have been punished with a jail term exceeding one year, then that's close enough to a felony, and were disqualified. Even if they didn't serve that time. In other words, you are accused of some petty crime whose sentence runs from a 100 dollar fine to 13 months in jail. Not wanting to risk jail time, you agree to plead guilty and pay 100 bucks. That could result in being on the no no list, since the possible jail time exceeded one year.

But it didn't stop there. As time went on, more old records were added to the disqualification data base, and there are now a growing number of people in their 60s and 70s who are suddenly being denied for minor criminal infractions that occurred 40 and 50 years ago. I think its fair to say that if someone who go into a bar fight when they were 18 should not be disqualified to own a gun 50 years later, assuming that is the only transgression. Yet that's what's happening when they "strengthen" background checks.

There's more, but you get the idea. Please feel free to verify this information yourself.

So on background checks, how would you answer these two questions. (1) What are the specific criteria, and (2) how do you prevent background checks from being used as a tool by those who sole agenda is to ban firearms.

I'll post again later as to standard cap magazines.
 
It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks. It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.
Click to expand...

The problem we have with universal background checks is the politician's tendency to say one thing and mean another.

The Democrats had their chance to implement reasonable universal background checks. When I tried to understand the lengthy bill, I was horrified at what it actually contained. It required us to register on any transfer, a background check was required to hand my guns down to my grandson (since he is under 21, he would automatically fail said background check), if I went on a 8 day business trip my guns would automatically transfer to my wife without a background check (making us both felons).

This bill was actually so bad that many Democrats refused to vote for it.

Now, when my government says reasonable universal background checks, we automatically say NO.

It's not a matter of us being against checks, it's a matter of lost trust.

Five children escaped the sandy hook tragedy while the maniac changed magazines, if he had to do that more often, it seems logical that more lives would have been spared. Or at least given a non-insane, responsible gun owner time to react and defend...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when my home is invaded by 5 bad guys, and I stop to reload my 7 or 10 round magazine, they can rush ME.

How many reports have you read where the police fired 60 to 100 rounds to overcome a few bad guys?
 
A few thoughts...

I am for background checks at gun dealers, but to try to mandate them between private individuals would require an INSANE amount of
bureaucracy. In the end this would only succeed in making the lives of everyone who is following the law miserable and not actually accomplish what they say it will do. In order to make those universal background checks work everyone would have to register their firearms. Remember criminals don't play by the same rules as the rest of us, they won't register a thing. Pass all the laws you like, they won't follow them. If they did we wouldn't every have to worry about heroin or meth on the streets, stolen vehicles, burglaries, bank robberies, etc. If the Fast and Furious gun running debacle is any indication of how well our government is able to keep track of a few people and a few weapons, can you imagine the disaster that would entail if they had to keep track of everyone that had a gun? All in the name of stopping a few criminals.
There are other things that could be done to step up efforts that would be of no inconvenience to law abiding citizens. How about putting some money into the background check system so that it is a bit more modernized and ties together all the assorted agencies so there isn't some "oops, this should have popped up in the check but didn't" moment? How about actually going after violent criminals aggressively and locking them up. Something just doesn't seem right when a guy can rob a carryout with a gun and be back on the street a year later. How about some sentences with some damn teeth? Back taxes or defaulting on federal loans?? That really is more of a civil matter and should not have any more effect on your right to own a gun than it should to your freedom of speech or right to vote.

Magazine capacity...
Why do the military and law enforcement get to use high/full capacity mags??? Probably because there is no telling what threats they may run into and we all want them to have the most advantages possible. As a society should we also not be afforded the same advantages to protect our lives? Think in terms of a single mom who lives in a not so nice neighborhood because that is all she can afford. She buys a gun for self defense in her home and visits the range maybe twice a year. She isn't going to be a trained marksman or some tactical cyberninja, but she is proficient with safety and function of her firearm at the range. Should she ever need to use that firearm to defend her or her children's lives, I would want her to have every advantage in doing so. Lets be honest, even law enforcement/military folks who have had extensive training are not always the best marksmen when a situation arises where they need to fire their weapon. If they need all those rounds in their weapon to ensure that they are able to eliminate/stop the threat, wouldn't it seem logical that your average single mom might need that as well? To assume that should something ever happen you would only have one threat that you would need to worry about and that your aiming skills are going to be perfect everytime is plain ignorance.

You mention Sandy Hook and five children surviving because he had to change magazines and had he had to do it more often PERHAPS some non-insane responsible gun owner could have done something. I suppose that is true to some extent except there is one small detail that you may have overlooked. Any non-insane, responsible, and most importantly LAW ABIDING gun owner would not have been on school property with a firearm as the law prevents them from doing so.

Your stance seems to be that law abiding folks should have to bend over backwards to fix problems, while the criminal side can carry on with business as usual. If there were any strong leadership in our governments, whether it be federal, state, and local levels along with the funding, a lot of these problems could be fixed without passing any new laws. Just simply enforcing what is already in place...I know its a crazy idea but it might actually work. The money to fund these things is there, they just need to stop allocating it to everybody and everywhere else and keep that money here.

Everyone is so quick to jump on guns, high capacity magazines, background checks, how civillians don't NEED this or that item, etc and how law abiding gun owners are practically the scourge of the earth and its our fault everytime something bad happens. Drunk drivers kill people. Speeding cars kill people. Untrained people working on electrical wiring can kill. Space heaters can kill. Carbon monoxide can kill. Too many double cheeseburgers can kill eventually. Cigarettes kill. The list can go on and on, the point I am making is it comes down to the individual in control of these situations. Nobody says Ford and Chevy have to make their cars inoperable if you have over a certain amount of alcohol in your system. We all know there are no positives to cigarettes, yet we allow them to continue to be sold. In these situations we have no qualms about placing responsibility on the individual for their actions, why do we not extend the same courtesy to firearms?

Its funny how people are so quick to trample over the 2A, or say its OK if we come up with a bunch of new laws all in the name of safety. Background checks...hmmm...they say it is because they want to make sure you are who you say you are and that you are ok to have a gun. OK, I'll buy that. But when it comes to another right, say voting for instance...imagine if you were forced to provide ID so that they could verify you are who you say you are. I believe that has been tried in some states and people screamed bloody murder about how it disenfranchises voters. Considering how instances of voter fraud they have been finding in recent years perhaps its something to look at. Maybe its just me but I think some of the folks that have been voted in, or issues passed have caused far more damage to this country than me or any of my firearms ever could. I would hate to find out later on that some of this could have been prevented if we just would have checked ID's at the polling places. All the proposed rules, regulations, and laws that have been brought up about guns during my lifetime never seem to address the criminal side of things and how to deal with them, only more of the same what restrictions can we place on this or that. If their intentions truly are about safety why are they not directly going after the criminals who break laws and ruin lives, instead of worrying about whether or not my AR-15 has a bayonet lug on it or how many bullets my Glock can hold.
 
LancelotLink said:
When background checks first started, the disqualifications were pretty simple. Convicted felons could not own firearms. But it was expanded.
Click to expand...
Actually, with the exception of the domestic violence language, all those disqualifications go back to the 1968 GCA. Not much has been added over the years.

cryogenic419 said:
I am for background checks at gun dealers
Click to expand...
They don't even work for gun dealers. Ask anyone who's been wrongly denied. The appeal process can be lengthy and expensive, and this is for someone who has done nothing wrong. Then there are the folks who wrongly pass the check because of poor implementation of the system.

There is no evidence that the NICS system has improved anything or reduced crime in any way. It has simply made life more difficult for the law-abiding. In what other area of life would we find this acceptable?
 
Exit Wound,

Let me back up and say welcome to the forum. I hope you don't feel we are jumping all over you. It's just too easy to forget we are many, and you are one.

Let me leave you with this thought:

I am 66 years old, and I have served my country and obeyed the law. If I ever decide to commit a crime, I won't do it with one of my guns.

I'll do like the criminals and buy an untraceable gun. Not at a gun show, but on the fringes of society where they buy theirs. No law that has been passed, or ever will pass will cause me the slightest inconvenience in buying this gun. All of those laws will only inconvenience the law abiding citizens trying to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
 
Exit, I respectfully pose the answer to your questions is that you are looking at things backwards. We should not have to provide reasons to the government as to why it should not restrict us. Instead, those wanting to restrict us must prove that their proposals have more positive effects than negative ones. The universal background check and magazine limit agendas both fail to provide significant positive effects, and definitely have negative effects.

We don't have to prove worthy of owning a car that can go above the speed limit (who "needs" one of those?) We don't have to prove a need to own a house larger than some arbitrary size. etc. etc.

Magazine size:
If I want to compete in certain competitions, hunt prairie dogs, or eliminate feral hogs (serious problem in large parts of the country), I would likely choose a magazine with more than 10 rounds. I would also pick that as a defensive weapon, should the need arise.
From the political side, magazine bans are not only arbitrary, but really are a "slippery slope" as NY state proved. Colorado has a 15 round limit, California has a 10 round limit...and worst of all, New York politicians felt they could get even closer to their goal by moving their previous limit from 10 to 7. While I'm sure there are people who honestly think "15 rounds are the most any good person would ever need," there are good people who need more and there DEFINITELY are people who see 15 as a step toward 10, as a step toward 7, as a step toward 5, and eventually they want to get to a complete ban.
Now, I claim to be a reasonably good shot. If attacked by one person or predatory animal, I could probably stop them with 7 rounds from a handgun (realizing it often takes more than one well-placed bullet to stop an attacker). If you go to more than one attacker (or LARGE animal), I would likely lose against a determined group, if limited to 7 rounds at a time.
Further more, find me evidence that it makes a difference to criminals. Most murderers use surprise and close distance more than massive number of rounds fired. During the previous federal ban, the number of victims per incident and number of victimizations did not significantly change (according to the National Institute of Justice study). I posit that magazine restrictions have more effect on the good guys, as they are usually only walking around with one or just a couple magazines. Criminals and mass shooters (I repeat myself) have the luxury of preparing for their attack, as evidenced by Virginia Tech (two guns, and many magazines), Northern Illinois University (4 guns), Columbine (multiple guns and bombs), Newtown (multiple guns and many magazines), and New Life Church (something like 1,000 rounds of ammo with the shooter, before he was shot by a CCW holder working volunteer security).

Background Checks:
As pointed out before, the devil is in the details. I have no problem with the theory, as I certainly wouldn't want the insane or violent criminals to have legal access to guns. Unfortunately, to enforce the law, you would need 100% registration (that is highly likely to be used nefariously). It is also unlikely that even that would prevent violent crimes, as most criminals get their firearms illegally even now. Further, definitions of "transfer" and "possession" can be twisted into forms that criminalize good people. What happens when grandpa wants to teach junior how to shoot with dad's gun? Some proposals would make them all felons for that! What about letting your spouse take your gun to the range for the day? Some bills criminalize that, too!
Even if you get past those kinds of issues, you still get a very marginal (at best) effect on criminals, as most don't follow the law on firearms matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top