Gun Rights and Politics

[LoArmistead]

Here's something I thought of too.

 

Once you have purchased a gun, do you ever have to check them back in with a local authority, much in the form of an audit? This could work for a number of reasons:

 

1) It would require all guns be marked in a similar way to a VIN. Granted, it would have to be a clever method to prevent removal, but it could help. After all - cars are weapons too and these are taxed and insured etc by law. (btw guns vs cars as weapons is silly ... how many deaths by a gun are an accident against the number that are murders? Cars will likely be the exact opposite percentages)

 

2) Crime could potentially be solved faster, what with gun identification.

 

Maybe... but I don't see how it is possible to put a serial number on the gun that can't be removed. It's too easy to file the number off or replace the part the number is on. I guess the government could control the means of production for all gun parts and accessories to ensure that everything is somehow coded... but we won't even go there.

 

3) If a gun is lost, the owner is responsible and is fined heavily as a disincentive; theft of guns would require a crime reference number. Both of which, would be required by the local authority (by contacting them).

 

On paper it sounds great, but really that incentivizes owners to lock their guns in a safe, which also negates the intended use of a home defense gun. "Oh, sir, don't rape my wife yet, let me go get the gun out of my safe real quick." Also, if someone leaves a weapon safely in their own home (say, in a sock drawer), and a dirt bag breaks in and steals it, why should the gun owner be punished for leaving his private possession on his private property out of public view? If someone knew you owned guns and wanted them badly enough, there's nothing stopping them from getting them, not even a safe. This sounds like a law that criminals and enemies would use to punish undeserving people. Let's use a local example for this: two white trash neighbors in a trailer park get in an argument over who is the better nascar driver - Dale Jr or Tony Stewart - and one of the inbred pieces of white, nascar-watching, trash decides he wants to get back at his neighbor for liking a different driver. One day while the neighbor is working at Jiffy Lube, the white trash breaks into his house and steals his guns that he has hidden away in the closet of his trailer, knowing that if the neighbor reports them stolen, he'll be fined severely.

 

4) It would definitely create a lot of jobs across the country.

 

What kinds of jobs? Government jobs? If you want to call those "created" in a Barack Obama sense, then I guess so, but what sort of marketable, private sector, perpetuating jobs would be created by this? I've never thought of anything like this so I'd honestly like to know.

 

5) Law abiding citizens who genuinely have a need for a gun, will NOT be bothered, as nobody will be prising their hands away from their precious guns, merely checking that they are still in the hands of their rightful owner.

 

If there could be some right to privacy upheld with this, similar to medical records, I might consider it, though the pressure from the left to publish the names of gun owners and conceal carry permit holders in public newspapers would be intense (we don't even have a national registry right now and they're still trying to do publish names). As long as society would understand that peoples' gun records are completely private and will never be made public, I might be OK with it... but this is government. They can't even keep the social security numbers and medical records of their veterans safe from thievery, therefore I have to say I couldn't agree with this measure.

 

6) Stolen guns could be returned to their owners.

 

That would be fantastic if we could find some way to stop serial numbers from being removed.

[LoArmistead]

I said nothing of it being a crime, or even wrong. I merely pointed out that to me, it's very interesting.

 

 

Well, as you've proven with this very post, not all replies need to be long-winded. I'm almost certain that you are able to manage a topical discussion without having to fish out 101 facts and figures.

 

I'm not following...

 

It's a book, a well-researched book, that points out that gun crime across the country is overall lower as more people own guns. The book makes a good argument. I pointed out that those who are against private ownership of guns (Feinstein) would never read it.

 

I didn't know something so shallow and simple had to be as long-winded as the posts relating to the core discussion on previous pages...

[Silverfox]

Serial numbers are flawed, we know this. Which is why I said in my post that something smarter would be needed. In a worst case scenario, filed serials mean that crimes couldn't be traced back; but genuine owners wouldn't fear a thing. The principle of audits still makes sense in my opinion.

 

Read my post again. Stolen guns would be reported with a crime reference number to the authority so they can track and note that your gun was stolen. That's not a punishment, is it? And you know full well what I meant, as did every other person who read it. If it's merely mislaid, then yes - you deserve to be punished/fined for being irresponsible.

 

Think about it.

[LoArmistead]

Read my post again. Stolen guns would be reported with a crime reference number to the authority so they can track and note that your gun was stolen. That's not a punishment, is it? And you know full well what I meant, as did every other person who read it. If it's merely mislaid, then yes - you deserve to be punished/fined for being irresponsible.

 

Think about it.

 

Gosh, sorry. I read your post and took it seriously, I just read it to mean that anyone who lost a gun would be fined severely.

[jammin]

Gosh, sorry. I read your post and took it seriously, I just read it to mean that anyone who lost a gun would be fined severely.

 

Which is exactly what he was saying. Lost and stolen aren't the same thing, are they?

If you just "lose" your gun, then you probably deserved to be fined, yes?

 

And yes, you could argue that if your gun was stolen, that could also be described as lost, but I thought the context was made clear?

[Silverfox]

Gosh, sorry. I read your post and took it seriously, I just read it to mean that anyone who lost a gun would be fined severely.

 

 

So you lose a gun (not stolen from you). Imagine a child finds it and shoots someone, or itself. Your gun. You deserve to be punished for not taking gun ownership seriously and 'misplacing' a gun.

 

Do you disagree? If so, I'm not going to say you're wrong, rather ask you to elaborate.

[LoArmistead]

I guess I don't draw as clear a line between lost/stolen as y'all do. I don't see something being "lost" as being misplaced or inherently being the fault of the owner, which is where I can definitely see there was a misunderstanding. If by lost you meant accidentally or intentionally left within the reach of a child, there are already some strict laws on the books in the states for that. If someone leaves his gun loaded within reach of a child, and the child kills himself, the person who left the gun out can go in for negligent homicide, and can can get the same punishment as a person brought in on charges of manslaughter.

[ExRoadie]

What if the person you're selling to is a felon, or otherwise not legally allowed to buy your gun? I'm not implying that you (the seller) are at fault, but certainly you can see this as a gap in the system? All these safety checks in the system to make sure people can buy a gun first-hand but a gaping back door left open on second-hand sales.

I guess common sense dictates that a seller will always ask that question since I've never known someone to sell a firearm without asking that question of the buyer. I've been asked every time I've done a private purchase.

 

There have been civil judgements against individuals that unknowingly sold firearms to felons but the criminal law has nothing to say on the subject.

 

There is a "straw-man purchase" where the original buyer has the intent to provide a legally purchased firearm to a known felon that can not own a weapon. This results in a felony crime since both parties are acting to circumvent the system.

 

The bottom line is that if a felon possess a gun knowing that it would violate their probation or sentence structure the felon is at fault.

[LoArmistead]

There is a "straw-man purchase" where the original buyer has the intent to provide a legally purchased firearm to a known felon that can not own a weapon. This results in a felony crime since both parties are acting to circumvent the system.

 

The bottom line is that if a felon possess a gun knowing that it would violate their probation or sentence structure the felon is at fault.

 

Dit-to. Every gun shop in NC has those laws hanging up on the wall.

 

"If you purchase a firearm for a person not legally allowed to purchase one, you and the recipient are committing a felony."

[Silverfox]

I guess I don't draw as clear a line between lost/stolen as y'all do.

 

I merely use the dictionary definitions for both. I didn't ever realise that lost and stolen could have ever been confused with one another.

 

Lost: "No longer in the possession, care, or control of someone or something: a lost pen."

 

Stolen: "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

 

It was never meant to confuse anyone or cause such problems in comprehension.

 

 

I guess common sense dictates that a seller will always ask that question since I've never known someone to sell a firearm without asking that question of the buyer.

 

You can ask, but in reality, is a felon going to honestly say, when asked that very question,

"Shucks, you know, I can't actually buy this 9mm pistol from you good sir, because I am a convicted felon".

 

It would be nice, but highly unlikely. So yes, the felon is at fault ... but what can you do about that? Perhaps regulate private sales?

[LoArmistead]

I merely use the dictionary definitions for both. I didn't ever realise that lost and stolen could have ever been confused with one another.

 

Lost: "No longer in the possession, care, or control of someone or something: a lost pen."

 

Stolen: "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

 

It was never meant to confuse anyone or cause such problems in comprehension.

 

I realize that. But in what fashion does it come about being "lost?" (This is why I'm not a lawyer) If someone lost it and wanted to get out of a fine, couldn't they report it stolen? I'm just seeing a lot of gray area here, particularly in the regard that I can think of scenarios where a gun being 'lost' isn't the fault of the owner.

[Kash]

There are legal distinctions between lost, mislaid, and stolen property. Each type is treated slightly differently. I don't see how something like that couldn't be easily applied to the gun situation.