Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control

[slackmaster]

36. My objection is the potential for "control" leading to the unjust taking of property

First, I have no problem with requiring background checks on all transfers of modern firearms. I think it's great that we have a system that requires checks on all original buyers of new firearms, i.e. the Brady Act and the National Instant Check System (NICS) in spite of its flaws. Obviously there is room for improvement, particularly in the prompt reporting to the federal government of ALL events that disqualify a person from owning a firearm, including mental incompetence adjudications and involuntary commitments.

That said, please let it sink in for a moment and calm down. Again, I am in favor of background checks on all transfers of modern firearms.

The BIGGEST weakness in the present system is that THERE IS NO WAY in most states for individuals who have used firearms to sell, to check the background of a prospective buyer. Some states like California require sales to be done through federally licensed dealers, but MOST do not and except for three states there is no provision for a sale to voluntarily be done through a dealer, i.e. with a background check.

NICS is not available for use by non-licensees. I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics) and even I can't use it. It's for dealers (type 01 FFL) only by federal law. THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, and I think that is the best opportunity to improve "gun safety" or "prevent gun violence" or whatever the current euphemism is.

OK?

I am dead-set AGAINST permits because permit lists can be misused. One way that can happen is what recently happened in two counties in New York, which released wholesale lists of pistol permit holders to a White Plains newspaper called the Journal News. Because that can happen, I cannot trust any government body to keep confidential the names and addresses of permit holders.

Another form of permitting is "registration." In 2000 and 2001 the state of California flubbed up registration of a certain type of rifle, which led to a court case and a cluster operation that ended in the state ordering people who had in good faith registered their rifles, to either dispose of them or surrender them to the state. The state never followed through because there would have been a big mess in court considering that the people who got the confiscation letters also had letters from the state telling them their rifles were lawfully registered, but obviously the potential is there.

As for further limits on the types of firearms that are available, I'll simply say that the line was drawn correctly in 1934 with the National Firearms Act and that there is no reason to change it.