Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[hollodero]

(03-27-2019, 09:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The only flaw in that statement is that universal background checks require registration to function.  Unless you are using definitions of licensing and registration that are completely out of touch with what I am familiar with.  If the government is supposed to be immediately apprised of what you own and when, then how is that different from registration, absent a possible (likely) fee?

I don't know... my driving licence doesn't tell the government if I own a car, or how many or which ones. I wonder why this model cannot be applied to guns. I would find it reasonable for a society to say, well ok you can get your potentially deadly tools (be it cars or guns), but just have some kind of proof you know how to handle them and aren't completely crazy.

(I feel like I said this already once before... can't remember if there already was that exact debate)

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 12:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know... my driving licence doesn't tell the government if I own a car, or how many or which ones. I wonder why this model cannot be applied to guns. I would find it reasonable for a society to say, well ok you can get your potentially deadly tools (be it cars or guns), but just have some kind of proof you know how to handle them and aren't completely crazy.

(I feel like I said this already once before... can't remember if there already was that exact debate)

Couldn't a required license suppress the disadvantaged from owning such fire arms?

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Couldn't a required license suppress the disadvantaged from owning such fire arms?

Yeah well, probably... so?

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 12:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, probably... so?

You're denying someone a right based on income. 

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You're denying someone a right based on income. 

lol... but really, I feel his income is the adressable problem then, not me or licences. The second amendment might give someone the right to bear arms, it doesn't obligate government to make said arms available to anyone no matter his economic situation.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 01:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: lol... but really, I feel his income is the adressable problem then, not me or licences. The second amendment might give someone the right to bear arms, it doesn't obligate government to make said arms available to anyone no matter his economic situation.

You have no idea how much we agree. Many rights come with a degree of responsibility. 

[hollodero]

(03-28-2019, 01:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You have no idea how much we agree. Many rights come with a degree of responsibility. 

I had a hunch... 

...is there some kind of intellectual trap I overlooked? I feel like getting prepared for a huge gotcha, but I am just a deeply insecure and paranoid person... :) probably because I have no gun

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2019, 09:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The only flaw in that statement is that universal background checks require registration to function.  Unless you are using definitions of licensing and registration that are completely out of touch with what I am familiar with.  If the government is supposed to be immediately apprised of what you own and when, then how is that different from registration, absent a possible (likely) fee?

I'm not using different definitions, but I do have a policy solution that would allow for universal background checks, licensing, and no registration. I've mentioned it before on here, but I'll try to lay it out as best I can.

It begins with a federal law requiring each state to implement this program. The funding source should be a tax on ammunition and/or firearms. However, given this program would just expand an already existing system, the additional funding source shouldn't be too high.

Each state would implement a Permit to Purchase (PP) program. Each PP would be contingent upon a background check conducted at the local level law enforcement/court system, depending on the state's preference. It would be a "shall issue" situation contingent upon a firearm safety certification and passing a background check. If a person already holds a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP), then that will substitute for the permit. Each permit shall be valid for a period of no less than one year and no more than five. On each permit shall be a license number as well as a phone number for contacting the issuing locality to check the status of the permit (in cases where it could have been revoked but not surrendered). States may also choose to implement a secure portal for checking the status of permits, though it should have no identifying information in it beyond the license number and the status.

Upon transfer by any person to any person, the phone number (or portal) shall be utilized to check the status of the permit. The permit shall also be verified against a photo identification card to ensure the permit belongs to the person receiving the firearm. The transfer shall be recorded by the previous owner for their own records. This should include the make, model and serial number of the firearm, as well as the date, license number, and locality that issued the permit. If a firearm is stolen it must be reported to law enforcement within 72 hours.

Once a firearm is found, law enforcement shall contact the manufacturer to determine the first transfer location. From that point, each transfer should be recorded by the individual and held in their records. Law enforcement can verify that the permit was checked using the records of the locality. It requires more legwork than just looking at a database for registration information, but the end results will be the same and prevents central registration.

Any person who transfers firearm ownership without checking the permit information or fails to report a stolen firearm within the allowable window shall be subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor (using Virginia's system here, it's what I'm familiar with) on the first offense and a Class 6 felony on any subsequent occurrences.

This allows for universal background checks and licensing without any registration. This also includes a built in waiting period since it requires preparation to obtain the permit. The reason this is important is because waiting periods are proven to reduce firearm suicides. This needs to be a federal law because any state not implementing something like this becomes a beacon for straw purchases in the region. Lastly, the reason this occurs at the state and local level is because background checks conducted at those levels are more effective than those that rely only on NICS.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2019, 01:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: lol... but really, I feel his income is the adressable problem then, not me or licences. The second amendment might give someone the right to bear arms, it doesn't obligate government to make said arms available to anyone no matter his economic situation.

He is talking about any fee that might come along with it, and comparing it to voter ID laws where someone might have to pay a fee to acquire a proper ID therefore making poor people disadvantaged in that they may not be able to afford the ID.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-27-2019, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Shooting animals can be kind of fun too.  I've shot some.

I know it's bad.  But still . . . .

Not if you eat it.

[GMDino]

(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not if you eat it.

Yep.  

I've never hunted but have no problem with those who actually use the animal for food.  We have a local program where hunters cna donate their processed game meat to the food banks too if they get more than they want/need.

[fredtoast]

The argument that we cant have registration laws because they will lead to confiscation laws is laughable. If we have the votes to pass confiscation laws then we have the votes to pass registration laws. So there is no connection between the two.

It is like saying we cant have dui laws because they will lead to prohibition.

[Beaker]

I've always considered registration and licensing laws for guns and exercise in futility if you are considering them as a method to eliminate gun violence. They simply work more as a revenue stream for govt then anything else.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Couldn't a required license suppress the disadvantaged from owning such fire arms?

Indegency waiver.  I am willing to give them out for free to indegent citizens.

I have no ulterior motives like republicans who refuse to provide free voter ID.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 10:51 AM)Beaker Wrote: I've always considered registration and licensing laws for guns and exercise in futility if you are considering them as a method to eliminate gun violence. They simply work more as a revenue stream for govt then anything else.

Actually they would be the single best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 10:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually they would be the single best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Not unless you can eliminate the myriad of illegal ways to obtain firearms.

[GMDino]

(03-28-2019, 10:55 AM)Beaker Wrote: Not unless you can eliminate the myriad of illegal ways to obtain firearms.

That kinda goes for most laws.  People still find drugs, used to get abortions, got liquor during prohibition, etc.

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not if you eat it.

That's always been my rule. 

My son will be leaving for the Army in a few months. I took him hunting a few times when he was younger, but he liked fishing more, so that's usually what we did. He decided he needed to hunt something before going into the military, though, so yesterday he went squirrel hunting. He's pretty stoked about his tree rat stew. 

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: That kinda goes for most laws.  People still find drugs, used to get abortions, got liquor during prohibition, etc.

Exactly. But a registration law has very little deterrent effect. More comprehensive laws against use of guns while committing crimes, and stricter sentencing is more likely to result in possible reduction since fewer people may want to risk the consequences. 

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 10:51 AM)Beaker Wrote: I've always considered registration and licensing laws for guns and exercise in futility if you are considering them as a method to eliminate gun violence. They simply work more as a revenue stream for govt then anything else.

Well, here's this issue with that.

Several countries with low gun violence rely on some basic education and licensing. Like Japan. More than 100 million people, about 10 gun related deaths per year. Why? Because idiots aren't allowed to have guns. 

Not that people are prevented from owning, just idiots.

You want a gun, you go to an all day class and prove you can handle a firearm. And you go through a mental health screening. And every three years you repeat the process.

And that's the point of licensing: it's not about restricting your right to own a gun as long as you're a stable person, it's about keeping them out of the hands of crazy ass people. 

They do have some pretty restrictive laws as far as types of guns, but the heart of reducing gun violence is making sure dumb people have a harder time getting access.

I think most people agree with the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra, but we make it took easy for people looking to kill people to have access. 

Background checks and licenses work. It's one of the simplest, most cost effective ways to handle the situation.