10-03-2017, 12:21 PM
(10-03-2017, 12:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I sent my policy memo to my elected officials.
A couple of problem with your proposal. First it requires private sellers to actually care to go through the background check. If they do not, you'll never know. The other issue is that most gun owners, the vast majority of them, will not go through the process and are adamantly opposed to a national gun registry. The answer to why is very simple, but will be dismissed as paranoia by many; they don't want a list by which the government could easily proceed to confiscation. If you don't think confiscation is a potential issue then one need do no more that listen the past day and a half. Australia comes up as an example of a country that "took action" after a mass shooting to, according to them, great success.
If you want gun owners to buy in to any proposal like this it must come with tremendous safe guards to prevent future abuse. If you don't then you've just passed a law no one will follow. In Connecticut they passed a law that owners must register AR type rifles, their compliance rate is abysmal to the point that lawmakers have admitted they've passed a law that no one is following. I'm fairly certain a similar thing will happen here in CA. There is one, sure fire, way to absolutely cut down on gun related crime, put criminals who use guns or are found to be carrying them illegally in prison for a very long time. Chicago has gone the exact opposite route with predictable results. California is trying out the same failed tactic, so far with predictable results. BTW, I've seen thousands of arrests for gun related crime, from murder down to possession, in every instance in which the criminal had a magazine that held more than ten rounds not once, ever, did I see the DA charge them with possession of an illegal magazine. This leads one to ponder, why is that a law in the first place?
