A Federal Firearms Operator's License

[Recursion]

This forum, I don't need to explain that so much (I've xposted to GD and Gungeon Jr.). I really think that's the answer.

[Travis_0004]

1. Some states already do this

In some states if you have a CCW license, you don't need to have a background check run.

Also, when I sell guns, I list them on a concealed carry forum, and when I sell them, I ask for the CCW license, which proves they are allowed to buy guns.

[Recursion]

2. Exactly. I want to expand and formalize that.

I think this is a workable idea.

[Eleanors38]

4. When you list guns-to-sell, is this a legal requirement? How about for CCW request?

[Eleanors38]

3. Something like this has been proposed for state action...

Which is within their respective jurisdictions. The possibility/probability that this could be used at the Fed level as the basis for future gun registration will probably sink it at the national level.

Whether state or national, how could this proposal be instituted to avoid registration?

[Recursion]

5. The driver's license is entirely separate from the vehicle registry

The simple fact that I have a driver's license doesn't tell DC what cars I do or don't own.

[Bazinga]

6. Here's an alternative

I have to admit I don't know all of the details, but this send like a workable alternative.

What if the NICS was opened up to public notaries? A simple document with a notary seal and signature would indicate that the buyer is not a prohibited person, and a copy of that document is kept by the seller. In this way the government (ie the public) gets to perform a prudent check on who may own firearms, but there is no record of who actually does or what weapons they own, there is little added cost as the NICS is already in place, the privacy issues of opening the NICS to the public are avoided, and private individuals are still allowed to sell their private property privately.

The major sticking point with UBCs is determining what constitutes a transfer. I'll admit I don't have the answer to that, but I can say this. I would distrust any definition that would require me to run a background check on my wife in order to go on a business trip for longer than two weeks.

My working principle is this; the government has a vested interest in who may own weapons, but no right to know who actually does.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. "A simple document with a notary seal ..."? In Illinois, a particular real estate agent notarized

the signatures for at least two particular false documents. His notary license didn't seem to inhibit him from doing so. Nothing will happen to him. He's politicially connected.

[rdharma]

7. Why the irrational fear of "gun registration"?

There has to be a system put in place to track these weapons. Car ownership is registered....... why not guns?

[Recursion]

8. Personally I'm for gun registration

I think the first step of a well-regulated (in the 1789 sense of "regulated&quot militia is knowing who owns what gun.

I'm also a pragmatist, and I know that's a political non-starter right now. Licensure seems to do better.

A freeper friend of mine suggested trading firearms licensure for Voter ID. I'm not ecstatic, but that's a thought.

[rdharma]

9. Why should "gun registration" be a "trade off' for voter disenfranchisement?

That's one of the stupidest RW ideas I've ever heard of.

[Recursion]

10. Because we'd like to pass it

You're joking, right? You don't really get why we should offer something to the other side to get something to pass?

The talking points are easy: "they're both a civil right, and now we'll make sure only the appropriate people can exercise both."

In fact it's an attempt to abridge both civil rights as much as realistically possible. That's how this works.

[rdharma]

11. No. That's only the way it works in the RW mind.

And no....... voting rights and firearms ownership aren't equivalent and a "trade off deal" is absurd.

[Bazinga]

16. Short answer, cars aren't constitutionally protected

whether or not guns should remain protected is the crux of the gun debate, but until the 2nd amendment get's repealed, we have to give them some level of deference vs cars.

IMHO, the "fear" of registration does hinge on the threat of confiscation. The rationality of that fear is still up in the air. Do I think the government will use a registry to confiscate legally owned weapons? No. Has it occurred in the past? Not really, though the threat was levied in CA when SKS rifles were banned. And therein lies the fear of many regarding registries. The promise that "legal" weapons will never be confiscated is severely undermined when there is the possibility that "legal" weapons can be legislated as "illegal" weapons and then confiscated. In any case, it would do much better to address that concern (which I trust can be done as a part of any registration bill, perhaps with an explicit grandfather clause) rather than dismiss the concern and those who raise it as "irrational."

A second element, of course, is the fact that those who are on the registry have done nothing wrong, and those who do wrong things are not on the registry. Now there is some merit for tracking weapons in the case of once-law-abiding gun owners, however, I have a hard time justifying the tracking of the law-abiding on the basis of crimes they might commit in the future.

[rdharma]

18. No. The "rationality" of a feared gun "confiscation" is NOT "up in the air".

It's just plain delusional fear mongering.

No black helicopters and no jack-booted thugs coming to get your guns.

BTW - Do you think you should be able to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater?

[Bazinga]

22. Absolutely, if something is on fire.

Look, I agree that the probability of confiscation is remote at best. But I put forward a legitimate concern about government overreach (as well as a potential solution), so we can either work together to address it, or we can call each other names. Well... you can call me names, because I'm not really interested in the latter.

As for the crowded theatres, we already limit the 2nd amendment in the way we limit the 1st. You can't say something that would injure or defame someone else, and you can't bear arms in a way that would do the same. But can I yell "fire" to save someone's life? Absolutely. Can I also bear arms in defense of life and liberty? Absolutely. Let's criminalize criminal acts, not inanimate objects.

Here's an honest question, though. What would be the specific goals of a firearms registry? I've not seen or heard them enumerated, and I'm curious what you would hope to accomplish by knowing the names of every firearms owner.

[rdharma]

25. No. Your concern of "firearms confiscation" is NOT a "legitimate concern"!

It's a phony NRA talking point.

BTW - Nobody called you any names....... nice try! You must have looked into your hat and pulled that one out.

[Bazinga]

26. If the concern has been addressed

then I agree that it is no longer rational to uphold it. I am simply saying I haven't seen the safeguards that would prevent future confiscation (again stipulating that confiscation is currently a non-issue). If you know of proposed safeguards I would be more than happy to hear them, as that would constitute working together. However, if you simply wish to dismiss the conversation altogether on the grounds of the "NRA talking points" pseudo-rebuttal, then there's not much I can do.

I would like to hear what your thoughts are on opening up the NICS to public notaries as a way to expand background checks to private-party transfers. I think the idea has merit, but I would appreciate input.

BTW-To be fair, I didn't actually say you (or anyone else for that matter) called me names. I said that you could should you choose not to work together on addressing issues. I will admit that the dichotomy was false in a way, as it did not allow for the possibility of you choosing to smear a third-party, to wit the NRA. And while I don't condone name-calling as a rhetorical device, I can understand the sentiment.

Edit to Add: You also failed to address the question I posed in my last post. I'm not sure if that was purposeful, but I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the aims of a registry.

[rdharma]

31. Are you aware that you keep repeating the "firearms confiscation" nonsense........

......... even as you admit it's a "non-issue"? Strange that!

Opening NICS to public notaries? Sounds reasonable to me. Though I would limit it to notaries who are certified and licensed to perform such checks.

The purpose of firearms registration? It would serve the same purpose as automobile titles....... a method to determine legal ownership. It works in Switzerland and Israel.

"However, if you simply wish to dismiss the conversation altogether on the grounds of the "NRA talking points" pseudo-rebuttal, then there's not much I can do."

Sure there is! You can stop repeating the NRA's fear mongering irrational talking points.

[gejohnston]

32. works in Switzerland...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Conditions_under_the_1999_Gun_Act
Worked quite well before then too.

[rdharma]

34. Sure it did!

Only changes made in 1999 were minor adjustments to conform to the Schengen treaty. Go back to your wiki article and see what those changes were.

The gun nuts like to portray Switzerland as a gun owning "nirvana" until they are confronted with the fact that firearms are registered and controlled in Switzerland. Same story with Israel.

BTW - Israel isn't awash with privately owned weapons as the gun nuts would like you to believe. Only one in thirty people own a private firearm...... and those are strictly licensed and registered.

[gejohnston]

35. the Schengen treaty was signed

nine years after the 1999 law. Thanks for playing here is your consolation prize.

[rdharma]

37. So ...... guns aren't registered and regulated in Switzerland?

Thanks for playing....... but YOU lose!

[gejohnston]

39. as regulated as they are in Michigan.

Registered? Prior to 2008, private sales were not.

you lost.

[rdharma]

54. You keep playing with that word "registered"......

I'd suggest you read Artikel 9 Absatz 2 of the Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 über Waffen, Waffenzubehör und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG)

And see what was required for a "private sale of a firearm" in Switzerland.

Artikel 9 Absatz 2 ......... Die Waffe oder der wesentliche Waffenbestandteil darf jedoch nur übertragen werden,
wenn die übertragende Person nach den Umständen annehmen darf, dass dem
Erwerb kein Hinderungsgrund nach Artikel 8 Absatz 2 entgegensteht. Die übertragende
Person muss Identität und Alter des Erwerbers oder der Erwerberin anhand
eines amtlichen Ausweises überprüfen.

Artikel 8 Absatz 2 ........ Keinen Waffenerwerbsschein erhalten Personen, die:
a. das 18. Altersjahr noch nicht vollendet haben;
b. entmündigt sind;
c. zur Annahme Anlass geben, dass sie sich selbst oder Dritte mit der Waffe gefährden;
d. wegen einer Handlung, die eine gewalttätige oder gemeingefährliche Gesinnung
bekundet, oder wegen wiederholt begangener Verbrechen oder Vergehen
im Strafregister eingetragen sind, solange der Eintrag nicht gelöscht ist.

So basically the private seller had to conduct his/her own BACKGROUND CHECK on the buyer. Criminal records are public data in Switzerland and there is a requirement that the "Strafregister" is checked before a private sale.

[gejohnston]

57. but the guns were not registred

not what the English translation says. If you can provide evidence such information is public that any Swiss person can obtain, you might have a point. Other than that, it pretty much sounds like the Gun Control Act in the US.

[rdharma]

58. Once you bought it....... they had to be "registered".

Since you like to play with that word........ you had to obtain a "license" (Waffenerwerbschein)!

I guess that requirement isn't the same as "registration", eh?

[gejohnston]

62. no, it could be a

purchase permit like North Carolina and Michigan, which simply tells the store clerk that you passed the background check.

[rdharma]

63. No. It's not like that!

Keep diggin' and hopin'!

[gejohnston]

65. Nope, I'm guessing your grasp of Swiss laws are up there with

Pat Robertson's grasp of history and geology.

[rdharma]

66. And you would be wrong!

But don't believe me .......go to Switzerland's version of the NRA...... http://www.protell.ch/

And find out for yourself!

[gejohnston]

67. I did.

Mandatory registration was not part of the 1999 law. It is part of the treaty. I'll give you points for knowing what ProTell is.

[rdharma]

68. Explain the difference between "licensing" and "registration"!

I ask that of you because you seem to think there is a difference.

[gejohnston]

69. seriously?

as do most other people, or at least everyone with one possible exception.
NFA items are registered, but one does not require a license to own them. IL requires a license to own, but the guns are not registered.
Take Canada for example:
From 1934-present, you need a license to own a handgun. Since 1977, a "restricted" PAL to own and the gun is registered.
From 1952-1977, machine guns had to be registered, but did not require a license to own them. Since 1977, a "prohibited" PAL to own, and the gun is still registered.
"unrestricted" firearms require a "unrestricted" PAL to buy and possess them (although a minors permit may possess them and buy ammo, but not the gun) but the gun is not registered.

[rdharma]

70. Yes, seriously! So my vehicle is an NFA item?

Any more games you want to play with the word "registered"?

[gejohnston]

71. were we talking about cars?

You are the one playing games, but then I could be just giving you the benefit of doubt.

[rdharma]

72. No. You were playing with the word "registration"!

And apparently you didn't think "licensing" and "registration" were the same......

[gejohnston]

73. do you have a valid point to make,

or just continue to act like a boorish troll?

[rdharma]

74. Just made it.........

..... and you have no counter!

[gejohnston]

75. ummmmmmm no

you just showed how poor your vocabulary is. So, I guess it is time to renew my fishing registration

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/registration
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license

[Bazinga]

36. A little more concern for the words that *are* there

and less concern for the words that *aren't* there could help out our little discussion. IE, the word "future" in reference to the confiscation that I am concerned about, and the the word "currently" in reference to the confiscation that is a non-issue. In other words, if a registration were enacted now I have no doubt that it would not be used to confiscate legally owned weapons. However, there is currently no proposed safeguards which prevent future abuse of that registry.

I understand that you don't want to address this element of the discussion, but please note that my repeating it is not a function of my adoration for Wayne LaPierre and his rhetorical genius ( ), but rather due to concern that it has not been sufficiently addressed. It is apparent that the "NRA talking points" pseudo-rebuttal has become so ubiquitous that it is actually believed to be sufficient. If that is the case, I will seek elsewhere to resolve the particular concern of future abuse of registries, I do believe, however, that I have adequately answered the question "Why the 'irrational' fear of registries?"

As for the goal of registries, if it is simply a matter of establishing ownership, then I'm not sure what good it will do. The purpose of a car title or the deed of a home is to establish ownership for financial reasons. No one can claim that my house or my car is theirs because I have a title that says it's mine. This is especially pertinent to homes and cars that are financed at a high percentage of their worth and the question of ownership is more nuanced, ie the lender can claim that the car actually belongs to him and repossess it if payments aren't made. I don't think the financing of firearms is nearly on par with cars, and the analogy fails. Furthermore, car registry (which is completely separate from a title indicating legal ownership) is for the purpose of levying taxes based on the use of public resources. That purpose seems entirely unsuitable as an analogy for gun registry, as the legal use of firearms requires no public resources.

If on the other hand, the goal is to establish a list of who owns firearms so that they may be found and punished should they commit a crime with one, then we have a different debate. Namely, the extent to which we should monitor the exercise of a right as a means to attenuate its possible misuse.

[rdharma]

38. LEGAL OWNERSHIP

"if it is simply a matter of establishing ownership, then I'm not sure what good it will do"

You're kidding aren't you?

[Bazinga]

41. If that's a joke then it must be over my head.

I thought the "legal" was implied. How would one establish the illegal ownership of something?

In any case, legal ownership of firearms is not disputed in the same way legal ownership of cars and houses are. Therefore titles would not serve the same purpose. Also, registration of cars does not perform the same function as registration of guns, as the goal of firearms registration is clearly not a tax on their use.

I guess I have to ask for a little clarification as to where exactly you disagree with what I've said.

[rdharma]

43. I think you're trying to be silly now.

"How would one establish the illegal ownership of something?"

Since there currently is no universal background check or registration requirement, there are MANY ways to establish "illegal ownership" of a firearm.

[Bazinga]

55. I think we're using "establish ownership" differently

You seem to be referring to the process of obtaining a good. I, on the other hand, am referring to the process by which a person demonstrates that they own the good and no one else.

I fully agree that a person can obtain a weapon illegally quite easily (hence the reason for this thread), and that person would then illegally own that weapon. However, when you refer to a title or registry to establish ownership, you are referring to the latter usage. My confusion regarding illegal establishment of ownership can be understood in that context.

Now what I think you want to say, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you would like a registry of firearms to establish or determine who owns firearms legally and who owns them illegally. I agree that that would be the goal of a registry and the beginning of the debate of whether a registry is justified. However, this is not the purpose of car registry.

Car titles are meant to establish who owns a car, not whether or not it is legal for that person to own it. Registration is entirely different from that, to determine who owns a car so that taxes may be levied on that person. Guns have neither of these issues. There is never a question of "who" owns a gun, only whether or not it is legal for him to do so. Guns also require no taxes to be levied on their owners.

I was neither trying to be obtuse not silly, I was simply trying to demonstrate the differences between car registration and gun registration. Your original argument was that because we register cars we should be able to register guns. I have tried to demonstrate that car registration does not have the same purpose as gun registration, therefore the justification for one is not adequate justification for the other.

I apologize for my verbosity, and I hope I don't end up with the same reputation as jimmytheone, but brevity is not one of my gifts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. "NRA talking points" is the equivalent of a papal bull ("ex cathedra") for certain people.

That is, once it's uttered it becomes **TRUTH** and is not to be doubted, denied, or disbelieved.

[Straw Man]

120. Talking points.

"NRA talking points" is a talking point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. The confiscation of *registered* SKS rifles in California is no "NRA talking point".

Because it certainly happened:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30710-30735

30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in
possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before
January 1, 2000:
(1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant
to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281.
(2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant
to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the
Statutes of 1989.
(3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285,
as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994.
(b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest
or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies
with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it
read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as
subsequently amended.
(c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this
section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department.

Will you be using an excavator, Bobcat, or plain old shovel for your backfilling?

Once again, "NRA talking point" is demonstrated to be the equivalent of "ex cathedra"...

[gejohnston]

29. strip mine sized excavator

[rdharma]

33. No jack-booted thugs for you!

Tell me...... how many SKSs were confiscated?

Why did you leave this portion of the CA code out?

"30710. Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section
30510, an "SKS rifle" under this article means all SKS rifles
commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to
accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and
sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in
this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun
dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997."

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. What difference does it make? You've denied the reality of confiscation more than once:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172122052#post18

No. The "rationality" of a feared gun "confiscation" is NOT "up in the air".

View profile
It's just plain delusional fear mongering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172122052#post31

rdharma (1,717 posts)
31. Are you aware that you keep repeating the "firearms confiscation" nonsense........

You lot are neck and neck with young-earth creationists as far as playing fast and loose with
facts. The only difference I can discern is the "Jesus rode a velociraptor" crowd seem to
actually believe the nonsense they spout...

[rdharma]

47. What difference does it make?

You mean you can't show that a single SKS was "confiscated"?

It looks like it's YOU who is spouting the nonsense.

You're not from CA, are you?

[Bazinga]

78. The fact that they passed the law

is enough to undermine confidence that registries would never be misused, regardless of whether they enforced the law or not. And that was my original premise. The other thread regarding the credibility of gun control legislators is pretty indicative, IMO.

[rdharma]

79. Confiscated SKSs?

Still can't come up with those?

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. The law is there to read. Quit telling us it does not say what it does.

[rdharma]

113. Please don't tell me about "confiscated SKSs".......

If you can't document them!

[Bazinga]

91. My point is I don't have to.

it doesn't matter that the law was not enforced. The registry starts as legal gun owners, a promise is made that it won't be used to confiscate legal guns, a new law is passed that makes formerly legal guns illegal, and then the registry is used to threaten those on the registry who own those weapons. Even if they don't follow through, how does that not undermine confidence?

[Howzit]

139. Intent to confiscate should be convincing enough, or are you calling Democrats liars?

At 19 minutes 50 seconds into the video the CA politician states that no one wants to make criminals out of people, but that since there will be a ban on the sale, manufacturing, transportation, importation and use of semi-autos, it makes sense that ownership will be illegal too. As such, they will be kind enough to let us turn in our guns and so avoid becoming felons. If you want to argue that declaring mandatory surrender of guns is not the same as having them forcibly confiscated I rest my case:


[url]

?t=19m52s[/url]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. Looking for the background re the confiscation of an SKS?

Start with this:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/THE-DINGMAN-CASE-3099018.php

Then go to the Dingman case where the California upheld the confiscation and the conviction of an SKS owner:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_dingman.txt

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. I'm sure it's important to you to note that SKS owners could sell out of state...

...or simply destroy their rifles, therefore few, if any might actually been confiscated.

A distinction without a difference.

[rdharma]

88. SKS confiscation that never happened!

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Do you think if you keep repeating it you'll convince someone? Or get your credibility back?

Your words remind me of the large river in this map:

[rdharma]

96. Do me a favor. Document ONE SINGLE CONFISCATION!

[Straw Man]

121. Don't have to.

The state said, "Get rid of them or we will confiscate." People got rid of them. Wouldn't you?

The state used registration lists to contact the owners. The owners knew that they couldn't expect to keep their firearms with impunity, so they complied.

The state had the legal power to confiscate, and they knew who the owners were. The end result was the same: People who once owned these firearms legally could no longer do so.

Whether any physical confiscations took place is irrelevant. Registration lists allowed the state to target owners and give them the choice to divest themselves of their firearms or face charges and confiscation. It's the same end result. Any fool can see that.

[rdharma]

127. No. Wrong on all counts.

"The state used registration lists to contact the owners."

No "registration" lists existed.

"The state had the legal power to confiscate, and they knew who the owners were."

No and no...... The state bought back about 350 for $230 a pop. Owners could dispose of them by other means. And once again.... the state had no owner registration information.

"Whether any physical confiscations took place is irrelevant."

No. Since no "confiscations" took place ...... it is QUITE RELEVENT!

[Straw Man]

131. Let me get this straight.

No "registration" lists existed.

The state bought back about 350 for $230 a pop. Owners could dispose of them by other means. And once again.... the state had no owner registration information.

Are you claiming that CA did not require registration of "assault weapons"?

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

[rdharma]

132. No registration of the SKS "Sporter" took place in CA.....

.... Are you "straight" now?

[CokeMachine]

133. How about the Colt Sporter?

When will Dharma and Greg be back on the air?? I miss your comedy!!

[rdharma]

134. The Colt is not an SKS Sporter.

Lay off the Coke!

[CokeMachine]

137. Nice snappy reply.

You kinda remind me of salmon fishing. Pulling a lure behind a moving boat -- what do they call that?? BTW I've never done drugs in my life but that was a nice insinuation -- it's kind of what I expect from you -- no substance, no nothing but keep it up you are good for a belly chuckle.

I collect Coke machines as well as UP trains, Balsa Airplanes and Pennies. Got any smartass comments for my other hobbies?

May Dog be with you!!

[rdharma]

138. No. Completely normal hobbies!

[Straw Man]

135. Actually, it's worse than that.

Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 01:00 AM - Edit history (3)

No registration of the SKS "Sporter" took place in CA.....

On further investigation, it appears that you are right -- up to a point. Registration of "assault weapons" allowed continued possession through grandfathering. SKS Sporter owners never had that chance, since the CA DOJ initially told them their rifles were not "assault weapons," and allowed them to be purchased after the registration window had closed, only to reverse themselves after the fact.

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) was
passed in 1989 and became operative on January 1, 1991.
That act contained a specific list of rifles defined as
"assault weapons" and identified by the manufacturer's name
and model. Those rifles that are defined as "assault
weapons" are prohibited from sale in California.
Individuals in possession of these firearms are required to
register them with the Department of Justice. Among the
rifles requiring registration is a model known as the "SKS
with detachable magazine." The SKS model "with a fixed
magazine," however, is not on the "assault weapons" list
since only an SKS with a detachable magazine is required to
be registered.

In 1992, a new rifle came on the market known as the "SKS
Sporter" which is designed to accept a detachable magazine.
Since the firearms appeared after the implementation date
of AWCA, it could not be registered. Questions were raised
about whether this new version of the SKS was required to
be a registered firearm under AWCA.

In January of 1992, the Department of Justice began
informing the firearms industry and retail buyers that the
SKS was not regulated by the AWCA even though it contained
a detachable magazine. The department reasoned that the
"SKS Sporter" was a new firearm because it was not
mentioned specifically by name in the statute. The
department also made clear that the original "SKS with a
fixed magazine," which was not on the AWCA list, could
still be sold even though a new detachable magazine was on
the market that allowed this firearm to be converted to an
SKS rifle with a detachable magazine.

Between 1987 and 1997, at least three hundred thousand SKS
rifles with fixed magazines were sold in California.
Between 1992 and 1996, more than five million detachable
SKS magazines were produced and sold in California allowing
the SKS rifles with fixed magazines to be converted to
accept a detachable magazine.

In September of 1996, the Attorney General filed an amicus
curiae brief on behalf of the defendant in People v.
Dingman, involving an SKS detachable magazine, and
requested the California Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Court of Appeal. Chief Deputy Attorney
General Stirling, in his brief, explained that "[t]he
impact of the court's opinion cannot be overstated because
of the millions of SKS rifles and aftermarket magazines
currently in circulation. Tens of thousands of California
citizens may become criminal simply by using a perfectly
lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without
adequate notice that such activity brings them within the
proscriptions of the AWCA."

In September of 1997, the Attorney General suddenly
withdrew his amicus brief in support of the defendant in
People v. Dingman , stating that it now "inaccurately
reflects the view of the Attorney General."

In November of 1997, the Department of Justice advised, in
a mailing to 350 potential owners of SKS Sporters and SKS
with detachable aftermarket magazines, that the
department's position had changed and those rifles are now
considered assault weapons and "must be relinquished to a
local police or sheriff's department."

On December 19, 1997, the Department of Justice notified
licensed firearm dealers and law enforcement officials
about its revised position on the SKS rifle. There have
been at least 10 prosecutions for violation of the AWCA as
a result of the revised position of the Department of
Justice.

Tens of thousands of, if not several hundred thousand,
innocent people are now at risk of criminal prosecution,
and all the related costs, time, and trauma because they
detrimentally relied on the representation of the
Department of Justice that the SKS Sporter and the
detachable magazine for the SKS were legal purchases under
current law.

--legix.info/us-ca/measures;1997-98;ab0048/analysis@1998-08-28;senate

Then came an amnesty from prosecution, contingent on surrender or disposal of the rifle.

The state allowed the SKS Sporter to be sold and then banned it. Nothing "straight" about it. If the state's error allowed them to be sold, the state should have allowed owners to register them and keep them. Don't you think?

[kudzu22]

126. Forced turn-ins are confiscations

quit playing with semantics.

[rdharma]

128. No forced turn in.

The state offered buyback program or weapon could be sold elsewhere were legal.

What happened with grandpa's Thompson?

[gejohnston]

129. Grandpa's Thompson?

Given the price, about the same as a new car, lack of utility, and low wages Grandpa didn't own a Thompson. When Colt put the BAR, the full auto one, on the commercial market they sold zero. Dillinger got his from the Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff, which was on loan from another PD. Most SMGs were stolen from national guard armories. The mob, Al Capone's gang specifically, set up dummy security companies. Capone used one called "Gopher Mining Corporation.
http://chestertontribune.com/PoliceFireEmergency/stolen_thompson_submachine_gun_returned.htm

[rdharma]

130. Tax stamp is still $200

And it can be willed/past on to relatives without further taxation.

[Straw Man]

136. Forced disposal.

No forced turn in.

Why pretend that forced disposal is any different? Turn-in was one of the options, and the ban had and still has the force of law.

[beevul]

111. How many confiscations does it take before it becomes wrong? N/T

[rdharma]

114. Hey! Document even ONE! eom

[beevul]

118. Answer my question, and I'll address your request. N/T

[rdharma]

119. I already know the answer.......

Zero SKS "Sporters" were "confiscated".

[beevul]

122. You only know the embarassment of your own bias.

Which is why you choose not to answer a simple question. And that by itself is all anyone that cares needs to see and know. It says everything about your position, and the weakness of it.

How many confiscations does it take before it becomes wrong?

Do have any courage of your convictions at all?

Then answer the question.

The bottom line is this:

The state used registration lists to contact the owners and threaten them with the options of confiscation, or removing their sks rifles from the state.

That fact is indisputable, and all the evidence necessary to support it has been provided to you.

This is why 99 percent of us wont hop on the "registration" bandwagon.

And in this case, "confiscated" versus "forced to get rid of", is a distinction without a difference.

[rdharma]

123. No "confiscations.....

I knew you would come back "empty-handed"!

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Depends on two things...

1. Is the theatre on fire?

OR

2. Is it in the script?

[rdharma]

56. No. The point is........ no right is absolute....... and can be regulated.

Try to argue your constitutional first amendment right to disseminate kiddy porn!

[Bazinga]

76. Wasn't that addressed in post #22? nt

[rdharma]

81. Yes!

But SOME didn't seem to get it!

[Bazinga]

92. Ha! Apparently! nt

[rl6214]

20. Car ownership is not registered

You only need to register if driving on public roads.

[rdharma]

23. Titled/Registered

Try selling your car without a title....... you'll see how "registered" it is!

[rl6214]

24. It is the purchasers responsibility to get it titled/registered

I have sold a number of vehicles without current registration and I don't know or care if they ever got them registered.

[Jenoch]

40. Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor .

[rdharma]

46. "News anchor?"

Sun News? Did you mean "FOX News North"?

Did you find that clip on Glen Beck's "Blaze" site?

[Jenoch]

50. No. No.

[rrneck]

12. How would you compel

people to use FFOL verification on private transfers and prosecute violaters?

[Recursion]

13. How do we do it with alcohol?

We require an age limit on alcohol transfers, even private ones.

[rrneck]

14. But what happens if people simply don't care one way or the other?

An FFOL is a fine idea, and much better than trying to identify and disqualify people without due process, but at some point in a transfer somebody has to ask somebody else for their license. What would be the penalty if they do not and how would you prosecute those who don't?

[Recursion]

15. Well we highly limit cocaine transfers, too

I don't think anybody has a solution for literal back-alley illegal sales

[rrneck]

17. That's true.

But there are severe penalties for dealing and using cocaine at all. And generally speaking, those that deal cocaine are not upstanding citizens. The relationship between dealer and user is considered in this country, and for all I know most every other country in the world, to be inimical to the common good.

Should we consider the relationship between those who transfer a firearm to be universally corrosive to the public good as well?

Analogies regarding firearms are always hampered by the nature of the object itself. Every aspect of any gun facilitates its use for great harm or great good, depending on which way it's pointed, who's doing the pointing and why. So anti gunners frequently compare guns to prohibited substances and pro gunners compare them to safety equipment. The gun is the same, but the relationship between "pointer" and "pointee" is an endlessly fluctuating thing that defies easy definition. The same holds true for transfers of guns. The gun doesn't change, but the relationship between transferees depends on near uncounted factors that are beyond the control of those wishing to regulate them.

That's why exceptions are already understood for close family members and the Manchin/Toomey legislation focused on gun shows and internet sales. The underlying criteria was the nature of the relationship of transferees. If people know each other well enough to know whether or not one of them should have a gun, then it's none of the governments business what they transfer between themselves. But if it is just a chance meeting at a public event or an internet hookup, the assumption is that someone is trying to acquire a firearm for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, people who know each other can transfer firearms for nefarious purposes, and people who would never dream of breaking the law can meet and complete a transfer who may have only met for five minutes. The law was trying to posit the potential for misuse based on intimacy without regard for the intent of the transferees, because it's impossible to do that. The issue always goes back to due process.

If the state wants to regulate the transfer of an object that has no universally understood inherent danger to the public good, it has to evaluate that danger using the intent of those possessing the object. That evaluation is very problematic without a previous record of malfeasance and due process to deny the transfer. Given the number of guns in the United States that are never used at all, much less the number of guns that are used for the wrong reasons, the infrastructure required to evaluate the relationships of people who transfer them seems to me to be an unnecessary invasion of privacy with almost non existent remedy for that invasion.

[rl6214]

19. I would have no problem with that

I have already had my background thoroughly checked when getting my C&R and CC licenses.

[rdharma]

21. Now I've heard it all! Registration "unnecessary invasion of privacy".

Riiiiiiight!

[hack89]

30. That is the ACLU's argument against registration. nt

[Half-Century Man]

27. FOID

Illinois has a Firearms Owner Identification card (F.O.I.D.). One must apply for and receive this photo ID before you can purchase a firearm. Handguns still have a 5 day waiting period.
This allows the state to process a request to own without a deadline of 5 days. A more careful check is possible. I don't know if medical practitioners/organizations are required to report to FOID management if a mental instability is discovered. One would hope so. I personally know hundreds of people in Illinois who own firearms. There are FOID holders who have no guns. The amount of guns owned is undocumented. FOID only documents the legality of ownership on a person by person basis. The fear of an owner database used by the government to seize your firearms seems to be debunked.

[DonP]

42. Slight correction: Handguns in Illinois are a 3 day waiting period, long guns are 1 day.

Odd things, like an AR lower receiver, are treated the same as a handgun, 3 days, since some folks turn them into pistols.

Even with the FOID, every sale, store or gun show goes through a NICS check.

[Half-Century Man]

48. Cool..been a while since I lived in Il.

I still think the FOID card as a compromise on background checks is viable. Get the background check, get the card, and take whatever action you feel is appropriate.
If you acquire a firearm through inheritance or an illegal buy and fail to get a card. You knew the rules, man up (or woman up as the case maybe) and take your lumps.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Getting a FOID card involves getting a background check.

[rdharma]

59. As it should! eom

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. Are you looking for someone to disagree with you?

[rdharma]

61. Huh?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. Unless I'm mistaken,

"As it should!" indicates an advocacy position. I'm merely stating what the Illinois practice is without advocating for or against it. It's just a matter of fact.

[rdharma]

90. You're right. "As it should!" indicates an advocacy position. eom

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. "don't know if medical practitioners/organizations are required ..." If a person is self-committed

to hospital for medical care for abuse of marijuana or other drugs, the self-committment does not preclude practitioners/organizations from turning their names in to the State of Illinois. The State of Illinois, in turn, revokes their FOID card for at least five years.

Marijuana, in contrast to 'roids which cause many cops and others to engage in unnecessary and excessive violence, does not seem to cause violence.

[rdharma]

64. If you don't know, maybe you should research it!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

89. I do know. I put quotation marks around the statement of the poster to whom I was responding.

[Deep13]

77. In states that currently have licensing for pistol ownership...

...I'd like to see how many gun crimes are committed by licensed owners versus illegal owners. If the difference is not great, then we need to look elsewhere. If it is a big difference, then you might be on to something.

[rdharma]

80. You'll never see those figures.

Suppressed by the NRA!

[Deep13]

82. Okay, I will assume then that licensing makes a big difference. nt

[rdharma]

85. You don't need to assume........

.... the facts speak for themselves.

[Deep13]

98. Well, what are the facts? nt

[gejohnston]

102. That's the best he can do

although he did try to pass himself off as an expert gunsmith once.

[gejohnston]

83. I'm sure there is a very big difference

http://books.google.com/books?id=onazHNIEopEC&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

[rdharma]

95. Yawn!

"Kleck's research, which purports to show that guns are used to prevent millions of crimes each year, is often touted by conservatives in media as evidence for looser regulation of firearms.

But an investigation into his research by Harvard Injury Control Research Center director David Hemenway concluded that Kleck's study was conducted with "serious methodological deficiencies" leading the self-defense figure to be "an enormous overestimate." In fact, Hemenway found that the defensive gun use number is so high that it is a mathematical impossibility. If Kleck's figures are correct, victims of burglaries would have to use a gun to defend themselves over 100 percent of the time."

[gejohnston]

99. let's see

"Kleck's research, which purports to show that guns are used to prevent millions of crimes each year, is often touted by conservatives in media as evidence for looser regulation of firearms.

the science is solid. That research was funded by DoJ, and Kleck received the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for that work. Hemenway got a free dinner and a plaque a gun control group.
http://smartgunlaws.org/19th-anniversary-dinner-june-14th-2012/#more-14821.

He isn't touted by many progressives because he goes against the ideology. If a conservative, since Kleck is a liberal, admits that Austrian economics is a croc, he will be touted by progressives and shunned by conservatives. Too many people put ideology above the truth. That is very unfortunate.

But an investigation into his research by Harvard Injury Control Research Center director David Hemenway concluded that Kleck's study was conducted with "serious methodological deficiencies" leading the self-defense figure to be "an enormous overestimate." In fact, Hemenway found that the defensive gun use number is so high that it is a mathematical impossibility. If Kleck's figures are correct, victims of burglaries would have to use a gun to defend themselves over 100 percent of the time."

which was funded by the Joyce Foundation, and was creamed by Kleck's counter. Hemenway's "research" isn't legitimate nor is it objective.

A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[14] Kleck reports, however, that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed the conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year. (Although Hemenway himself chose not to report these estimates, they can easily be computed from the numbers he did report).[15] Hemenway nevertheless concluded that "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones."
Kleck also noted that many other surveys (at least 20) have likewise shown that defensive uses are common enough to outnumber criminal uses.[15] Critics, including Hemenway, asserted that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias".[16] In another article, Hemenway claims that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. Hemenway's claim, however, was false - Kleck drew no such conclusion, and specifically cautioned against the use of his data to estimate the frequency of narrow subtypes of defensive gun uses, such as those associated with sexual assaults. In the same article, Hemenway also claims that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.[17] This claim was also false - due to the small sample of defensive gun uses, one cannot derive from the Kleck data meaningful estimates of the frequency of defensive gun use involving a wounding of the criminal, and therefore cannot meaningfully compare such numbers with the total number of reported woundings. Kleck also points out that Hemenway mischaracterized the 100,000 figure in a crucial way - it does not reflect the total number of nonfatal woundings, but rather only the subset of woundings treated in hospital emergency rooms. Criminals wounded while committing a crime are not likely to seek professional care for wounds that are survivable without such care, since medical personnel are required to report gunshot woundings to the police. Therefore, the total number of woundings, professionally treated or not, is likely to be considerably higher than the number treated in emergency rooms, and thus would be more in line with the results of Kleck's survey.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck#Defense_of_criticism

Hemenway is shill, kind of like this guy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2797571

Like it or not, Kleck is a respected criminologist. If he shows up at an NRA convention, let us know.

[rdharma]

100. No he's not!

"Like it or not, Kleck is a respected criminologist" Nope.....he's not!

And guns are still registered and strictly controlled in Switzerland and Israel!

[gejohnston]

101. who said anything about Israel?

In criminology circles, he is. In criminology circles, Hemenway is a joke.

[rdharma]

103. No. In RW gun nut circles Kleck is DaMan........

So guns aren't registered in Switzerland? Is that what you're claiming?

[gejohnston]

104. until they

learn his opinions on everything else.
Since 2008 they are. Prior to signing the treaty, that is not how I interpret the law. Since your debating ability is about half a teaspoon deep, I seriously doubt you have a clue.

[rdharma]

105. No......... they've been tracked in Switzerland for a long time!

But nice try! Most of your RW buds won't know the difference.

They couldn't find Switzerland on a map if their lives depended on it!

[gejohnston]

106. the military weapons

because until they are converted to semi auto, they are government property. You haven't proved your point.
Since you seem to be an expert in all things right wing, I'll take your word for it.

[rdharma]

107. No........ private purchases of non-military too!

To get a Waffenschein (weapon permit) you needed a Strafregisterauszug (criminal record check). Cost CH 20.00. This has been in effect for a long time.

Seems your very limited knowledge of Swiss laws is showing!

Obtaining a weapons permit is the same as "registration"........ keep trying to play games with that word. But it's not working.

[rdharma]

109. Simply reading an English translation?

Where did you get it.

"Yes the purchase permit has been required since at least 1999." If you mean in Switzerland, it was required WAY before 1999!

Troll? Who's posting the RW propaganda and talking points here, eh?

[gejohnston]

110. just a second

Where did you get it.

I can read. My son knows German, and I also know how to use Google Translate.

"Yes the purchase permit has been required since at least 1999." If you mean in Switzerland, it was required WAY before 1999!

probably, but you provided no evidence of that.

Troll? Who's posting the RW propaganda and talking points here, eh?

Sound science, funded by Clinton's DoJ, has nothing to do with ideology, not should it.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20troll
Troll? Who is posting irrelevant and banal nonsense for no productive purpose? Who calls well received (by fellow criminologists, Harvard economists not so much) and award winning science "RW propaganda", even though it was done by a self described liberal Democrat?

[rdharma]

112. Your son reads German?

Then have him translate the Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 über Waffen, Waffenzubehör und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) for you!


Need the URL?

[gejohnston]

115. reading it now.

If I print it out, my android also translates. BTW, so far it still uses "purchase certificate" which still reads like NC and MI. Haven't come across registration of the weapon itself.

[rdharma]

116. What translates to "purchase certificate'?

Do tell!

[gejohnston]

117. show me where it says

register the weapon.

[legendleague3]

97. I don't see what the big deal is?

So....we register the guns so we know what everyone has... then we ban the mass murder machines and confiscate them later? Why are any Democrats against a National Registry again?

[geek tragedy]

124. A federal gun regulation bureacuracy?

I'm sure the NRA wouldn't demagogue that one.

[gejohnston]

125. they have been since 1972

when it stopped being part of the IRS.