Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you have is someone who still has his or her name attached to that gun they sold. If that gun is used in a crime and police find the gun, they get to go back to that owner who failed to register the transference of ownership and prosecute the owner.
There needs to be consequences to ignoring the law (if there was one in place). So if a law is passed requiring the transfer of ownership to be documented and registered, there would be a trail of ownership right down to the last person who owns it, until the law is broken. Anyone breaking the law can be prosecuted. There would also have to be requirements in place to verify the new owner can legally own a gun.
Sure, if a law-abiding gun owner unknowingly sells to a criminal, or soon-to-be-criminal, that gun could be used in a crime. Nothing is perfect. But at least there would be measures in place that would require gun owners be responsible for the legal transference of ownership. Once you legally transfer ownership, you cannot be prosecuted for any crimes related to that gun. But if you fail to follow such a law, you might find yourself in hot water.
This is certainly better than what we have today.
Completely impossible to enforce on guns manufactured before the start date of the law without having a registration database.
I have a pistol made in 1965 in my current collection. The Tujuleeze1 law goes into effect on Jan 1, 2016. On Jan 2, 2016 I sell this gun for $1,000 to a guy in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Later that day he is killed while robbing a convenience store. How is that tracked back to me? Over the last 50 years the gun has been owned by a dozen people in 3 states. If they are lucky they will find the original gun store that sold it in 1965.
The only thing your law will create is a market for pre-Tujuleez1 guns. Basically any gun sold before your law goes into effect. The older the gun, the more difficult to trace than therefore a higher price in this market.
From my perspective, none. However, I expect to see the same litany of "suggestions", from registration , bans and "expanded" background checks. Mental health issues always.come up, and those who have an actual record of certain problems, who have been institutionalized, are disqualified from firearms ownership. Its the ones with severe issues, and no record, that are the problem.
The Oregon shooter bad a record of discharge from military service, that there isn't much information on, that maybe, just maybe, had there been, he wouldn't have been able to own guns to begin with. Idk. But, certain black marks on a service record do pop on a background check. If done correctly, a d not just shuffled into a general discharge, for brevity. So, laws that require certain mental conditions to be documented so they will show on a firearms BC at purchase, is one suggestion I would make.
Problem being, there is a HUGE potential for abuse of such a regulation, one that gives a lot of power and discretion to phsyciatrists. Many of whom are subsidized by federal and state funding. So, that suggestion is fraught with problems. Better discharge procedures by the military would help. Quit dumping phsyce cases back into civilian life under general discharge, and flag the DD214s of such cases, so they actually pop on a BC. Like a dishonorable discharge does. The latter bars one from buying a gun, legally.
There are holes in the system that could stand to be filled, so long as in so doing, innocent people don't get trampled. That's always a concern when talking about regulating a right. I'm not willing to grant the government carte blanche to just make any and all "mental illnesses" a disqualifying factor for gun ownership, and have fleets of doctors, on its payroll, disqualifying everyone who seeks help for something.
^^This^^ A cogent, well thought out answer. Kudos.
AFIK everything the shooter did was already illegal. IMHO it is not the laws that need to be changed but the attitude held by many of the victims that we live in a violence free society and that their parents, police and others will protect them from violence. We do not live in a violence free society. Nor do we live in a society that keeps its crazies locked up where they cannot harm others.
We live in a society where violence is all around us. In some places violence is a daily occurrence. It most places it is rare. We all have to be aware that violence can just reach right out and grab us. We have to realize that there is no place that is completely safe and there never has been. The level of risk varies but is never completely gone. We have to abandon the idea that there safe sanctuaries. There are no such places as illustrated by recent events.
The result of this situation where the society does not protect individuals and risk is everywhere is the individual is responsible for their own protection. IMHO the government is being irresponsible it has no right to limit the weaponry any sane citizen can carry anywhere they happen to be. We are responsible for protecting ourselves, our families, friends and, if necessary, total strangers being attacked by a gun wielding crazy.
The only thing your law will create is a market for pre-Tujuleez1 guns. Basically any gun sold before your law goes into effect. The older the gun, the more difficult to trace than therefore a higher price in this market.
What you have is someone who still has his or her name attached to that gun they sold. If that gun is used in a crime and police find the gun, they get to go back to that owner who failed to register the transference of ownership and prosecute the owner.
There needs to be consequences to ignoring the law (if there was one in place). So if a law is passed requiring the transfer of ownership to be documented and registered, there would be a trail of ownership right down to the last person who owns it, until the law is broken. Anyone breaking the law can be prosecuted. There would also have to be requirements in place to verify the new owner can legally own a gun.
Sure, if a law-abiding gun owner unknowingly sells to a criminal, or soon-to-be-criminal, that gun could be used in a crime. Nothing is perfect. But at least there would be measures in place that would require gun owners be responsible for the legal transference of ownership. Once you legally transfer ownership, you cannot be prosecuted for any crimes related to that gun. But if you fail to follow such a law, you might find yourself in hot water.
This is certainly better than what we have today.
How do you "document" a weapon with no serial number now and never had one?
Seriously. And think of all the people that get weapons stolen that don't even know they are gone. We had a guy hit 8 houses in my hood. In one house the elderly couple didn't even know they got hit until I asked them to look around. This dude was really slimy and slinky. In my case the guy had to actually move one of my gun cases to get to our firesafe. Had I not noticed the sliding door unlatched I wouldn't have even known we got burglarized. He pretty much took only cash and change and left everything else untouched. The wife's jewelry wasn't even touched. And no, I don't go around checking the safe guard of all of my weapons planted through out the house multiple times a day. They are all in safes. I would have eventually but the stupid law being tossed around about reporting a stolen gun is ridiculous. Of course I would report it stolen, if just for insurance, but if I don't even know it's been stolen
Anyway, I now have a security system with cameras that record. Not everyone can afford such a system though. The good news was they caught the loser.
uhm...who made marijuana (hemp) illegal in 1937.....the liberals
It was Richard Nixon who started the war on drugs and Ronald Reagan who got tougher than his predecessors. Marijuana was illegal 1937 but it wasn't causing a massive drug trade with lots of violence. Alcohol Prohibition was pushed by the Christians.
You forgot. When a Democrat does something the liberals don't like, that person was actually a Republican at the time due to the party swap.
In the case it isn't true. But yes, conservative democrats (Dixiecrat) were a real thing. I'm sorry history doesn't look kindly towards conservatives in many social aspects.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.