Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Everyone can claim victory and relax.

===

That won't happen. The anti gun crowd is emotional and relentless.
They will just keep trying to add more and more restrictions - death
by a thousand cuts.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 2:35 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:25:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I finally got around it by having the police visit my house, verify the
VIN number and take copies of the documentation I had. The DMV accepted
it and created a title for it.

===

At one time, and it may still be true, you could title just about
anything in Georgia by showing a bill of sale. You can then transfer
the Georgia title to the state of your choice.



Yup. Alabama was like that also.

We lived in Puerto Rico for two years while in the Navy. The base was
littered with old cars that people had owned but left when
they were transferred. One of the "Mustang" officers was a
self-appointed dealer for the cars when the owners left. If they ran
he'd buy them for cheap bucks and then sell them to new arrivals for
a modest profit.

I bought a 1958 Bentley (of all things) while we were there along with
a couple of other cars. He arranged for plates and registration for a
fictitious address in Andalusia, Alabama. I thought it was unique until
I realized that about half of the people on the base were driving cars
with Alabama plates on them.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 2:36 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

===

A database and accurate registry is total anathema to those who firmly
believe in the 2nd ammendment and its original intent. Why? Think
about France and the Scandinavian countries after they were overrun by
the Germans in WW2. Think about East Germany and Poland after they
were annexed by the USSR. Think about eastern China after they were
overrun by the Jappanese. Think about Venezuela after their former
democracy was co-opted by a left leaning ultra socialist dictator.
Think about the possibility of widesperad rioting and civil
insurrection in this country.

Can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure about that.



Just for the sake of argument:

The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the
SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be
interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and
legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a
"militia".

As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think
the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what
difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-)

Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess
but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away.



...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be
the ultimate purpose of the legislation below?


Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer
Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly).

The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer
Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer
product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as
other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles,
car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically
excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.”

http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf



To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed
legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-)

In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way
handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every
model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria
in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim
of the Attorney General.

It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models.
They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state.

This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually
legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with
lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are.
Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland.
Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts.

So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little?
Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more
restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax.


Go with the liberal flow to please the liberals...in the short term.
If and when the anti-gun liberals in Virginia get powerful enough to
change the law, then I'll live with it. Doesn't mean I'll agree with
it, or think it's the right way to go.

You have a lot more faith in that 'give a little' argument than I do.

I'd really like to see the testing which showed Kimbers 'unsafe' in
your state.



From what I've read the testing involves several things including drop
tests and other more destructive testing criteria. There are also
mandatory feature requirements that specify trigger pull and types of
safeties. I remember reading that one Ruger model was not approved
because the serial number was not put in the prescribed place. (weird
given that Ruger is made in Massachusetts.)

I believe the manufacturer is required to submit a minimum of five guns
of the model they would like to be certified as legal for sale in the state.

Many manufacturers have told the state to stuff it.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 2:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.


I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to
keep the cops off my ass.



No. The main reason for registration and a chain of custody is to
provide a means of identifying who *last* legally owned the gun.
Once it goes underground it becomes untraceable. By mandating
registration, it will help reduce the number of guns that end up in the
wrong hands. Responsible owners of legally obtained firearms should
have no problem with that, in my mind. But they do. 2A stuff.

Your bill of sale works for you, but what about 5, 10 or 20 years from
now? Where will your Kimber .45 that you give to your nephew or
someone in 2018 end up in 2029?

That's what I am talking about.

I've already determined where my guns will go if I still have any when I
kick the bucket or become too senile to be responsible for them. I've
already told my family to take the guns to the local police department
and turn them in. I should add that to my will, I suppose.

If any of my sons or relatives want a gun, they can go through the
process like everyone else does. Actually, one son probably has more
guns than I do and both he and his wife went through a much more
extensive training course than I did. The other son has no interest in
guns. He's a nature photographer, not a hunter.

My daughter doesn't need a gun. She could beat the crap out of you with
her bare hands. Cracks me up.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 1:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/16/14 12:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one,
for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on
the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped
down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still
done in the inner city.


I have the original bill of sale on paper and electronically for every
firearm I've ever bought or sold, along with a photo of each showing the
serial number, and receipts and FFL documentation. When my dad died in
the 1970s, I gave his firearms to one of his old buddies, a New Haven
cop. I should have kept his High Standard target pistol, made locally. :(



Good puppy. (pat on head) ;-)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 1:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
Your homemade bill of sale*might* keep you off the hook if a gun you
previously owned ever ends up being used in a crime and it's traced
back to you, but there's no guaranty of that. Anyone can make up a
bill of sale or transfer document and claim they sold or gave the gun
away. It also doesn't tie that firearm to subsequent owners.
If I have the guy's signature, description, and address at the time of
transfer (based on a driver's license or personal knowledge) the cops
will have a good start. There's still a requirement to prove me guilty
of the crime. (Unless my name is Bill Cosby and Harry Krause has
already found me guilty.) Your paperwork doesn't tie that firearm to
subsequent owners either, unless they are very law-abiding.


Harry Krause hates Cosby because he is black. I'll bet if you ask him,
he will say he dislikes Herman Cain and Dr. Ben what's his name. Harry
appears to be a hard core racist.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:00:40 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:36 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

===

A database and accurate registry is total anathema to those who firmly
believe in the 2nd ammendment and its original intent. Why? Think
about France and the Scandinavian countries after they were overrun by
the Germans in WW2. Think about East Germany and Poland after they
were annexed by the USSR. Think about eastern China after they were
overrun by the Jappanese. Think about Venezuela after their former
democracy was co-opted by a left leaning ultra socialist dictator.
Think about the possibility of widesperad rioting and civil
insurrection in this country.

Can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure about that.



Just for the sake of argument:

The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the
SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be
interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and
legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a
"militia".

As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think
the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what
difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-)

Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess
but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away.



...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be
the ultimate purpose of the legislation below?


Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer
Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly).

The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer
Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer
product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as
other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles,
car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically
excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.”

http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf



To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed
legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-)

In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way
handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every
model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria
in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim
of the Attorney General.

It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models.
They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state.

This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually
legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with
lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are.
Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland.
Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts.

So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little?
Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more
restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax.


Go with the liberal flow to please the liberals...in the short term.
If and when the anti-gun liberals in Virginia get powerful enough to
change the law, then I'll live with it. Doesn't mean I'll agree with
it, or think it's the right way to go.

You have a lot more faith in that 'give a little' argument than I do.

I'd really like to see the testing which showed Kimbers 'unsafe' in
your state.



From what I've read the testing involves several things including drop
tests and other more destructive testing criteria. There are also
mandatory feature requirements that specify trigger pull and types of
safeties. I remember reading that one Ruger model was not approved
because the serial number was not put in the prescribed place. (weird
given that Ruger is made in Massachusetts.)

I believe the manufacturer is required to submit a minimum of five guns
of the model they would like to be certified as legal for sale in the state.

Many manufacturers have told the state to stuff it.


And I'll bet Kimber was one of them.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.


I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to
keep the cops off my ass.



No. The main reason for registration and a chain of custody is to
provide a means of identifying who *last* legally owned the gun.
Once it goes underground it becomes untraceable. By mandating
registration, it will help reduce the number of guns that end up in the
wrong hands. Responsible owners of legally obtained firearms should
have no problem with that, in my mind. But they do. 2A stuff.

Your bill of sale works for you, but what about 5, 10 or 20 years from
now? Where will your Kimber .45 that you give to your nephew or
someone in 2018 end up in 2029?

That's what I am talking about.

I've already determined where my guns will go if I still have any when I
kick the bucket or become too senile to be responsible for them. I've
already told my family to take the guns to the local police department
and turn them in. I should add that to my will, I suppose.

If any of my sons or relatives want a gun, they can go through the
process like everyone else does. Actually, one son probably has more
guns than I do and both he and his wife went through a much more
extensive training course than I did. The other son has no interest in
guns. He's a nature photographer, not a hunter.

My daughter doesn't need a gun. She could beat the crap out of you with
her bare hands. Cracks me up.

Before I die, I'll have given my guns to my kids or grandkids, maybe
some nieces and nephews.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 3:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has
a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact
the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it
to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill
of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day
they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been
around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a
dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold
it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it
from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin
with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over
the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of
a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a
note on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to
have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own
ass.


I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to
keep the cops off my ass.



No. The main reason for registration and a chain of custody is to
provide a means of identifying who *last* legally owned the gun.
Once it goes underground it becomes untraceable. By mandating
registration, it will help reduce the number of guns that end up in the
wrong hands. Responsible owners of legally obtained firearms should
have no problem with that, in my mind. But they do. 2A stuff.

Your bill of sale works for you, but what about 5, 10 or 20 years from
now? Where will your Kimber .45 that you give to your nephew or
someone in 2018 end up in 2029?

That's what I am talking about.

I've already determined where my guns will go if I still have any when I
kick the bucket or become too senile to be responsible for them. I've
already told my family to take the guns to the local police department
and turn them in. I should add that to my will, I suppose.

If any of my sons or relatives want a gun, they can go through the
process like everyone else does. Actually, one son probably has more
guns than I do and both he and his wife went through a much more
extensive training course than I did. The other son has no interest in
guns. He's a nature photographer, not a hunter.

My daughter doesn't need a gun. She could beat the crap out of you with
her bare hands. Cracks me up.



Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:17:33 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/16/14 12:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one,
for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on
the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped
down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still
done in the inner city.


I have the original bill of sale on paper and electronically for every
firearm I've ever bought or sold, along with a photo of each showing the
serial number, and receipts and FFL documentation. When my dad died in
the 1970s, I gave his firearms to one of his old buddies, a New Haven
cop. I should have kept his High Standard target pistol, made locally. :(



Good puppy. (pat on head) ;-)

Don should be saying that.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 3:27 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:00:40 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:36 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

===

A database and accurate registry is total anathema to those who firmly
believe in the 2nd ammendment and its original intent. Why? Think
about France and the Scandinavian countries after they were overrun by
the Germans in WW2. Think about East Germany and Poland after they
were annexed by the USSR. Think about eastern China after they were
overrun by the Jappanese. Think about Venezuela after their former
democracy was co-opted by a left leaning ultra socialist dictator.
Think about the possibility of widesperad rioting and civil
insurrection in this country.

Can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure about that.



Just for the sake of argument:

The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the
SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be
interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and
legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a
"militia".

As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think
the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what
difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-)

Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess
but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away.



...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be
the ultimate purpose of the legislation below?


Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer
Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly).

The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer
Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer
product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as
other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles,
car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically
excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.”

http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf



To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed
legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-)

In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way
handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every
model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria
in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim
of the Attorney General.

It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models.
They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state.

This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually
legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with
lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are.
Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland.
Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts.

So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little?
Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more
restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax.


Go with the liberal flow to please the liberals...in the short term.
If and when the anti-gun liberals in Virginia get powerful enough to
change the law, then I'll live with it. Doesn't mean I'll agree with
it, or think it's the right way to go.

You have a lot more faith in that 'give a little' argument than I do.

I'd really like to see the testing which showed Kimbers 'unsafe' in
your state.



From what I've read the testing involves several things including drop
tests and other more destructive testing criteria. There are also
mandatory feature requirements that specify trigger pull and types of
safeties. I remember reading that one Ruger model was not approved
because the serial number was not put in the prescribed place. (weird
given that Ruger is made in Massachusetts.)

I believe the manufacturer is required to submit a minimum of five guns
of the model they would like to be certified as legal for sale in the state.

Many manufacturers have told the state to stuff it.


And I'll bet Kimber was one of them.


Yawn.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a
serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to
if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of
sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they
might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty
box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from
you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the
years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a
friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note
on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have
FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.


My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 3:35 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a
serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to
if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of
sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they
might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around"
and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty
box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from
you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the
years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a
friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note
on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have
FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.




My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Damn! Communication is difficult sometimes. I am not talking about
having a gun to protect your ass. I agree with that.

I am talking about the chain of custody and the responsibilities of gun
ownership. John is satisfied with typing up a bill of sale that he
figures will keep *him* off the hook should one of his transferred guns
ever be linked to a homicide or a gun crime in the future. Protects his
ass from any potential liability in his mind.

I am suggesting that gun ownership has a further responsibility. It
includes taking whatever steps necessary to avoid having one of the guns
you owned falling into the wrong hands in the first place. A background
check requirement on *all* transfers and a transfer record to a state or
federal data base by the seller or transferee for each and every
transfer of ownership will help in that direction.

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:32:55 -0500, Harrold wrote:

Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I think "ballistics tests" are more of a hoax than a science.
Certainly I agree, if you have a fresh bullet to compare to one
recently fired from a suspect gun, you can get a reasonable match but
if you are comparing a bullet fired from a new gun to one fired
several thousand rounds later, I doubt it would match all that well.

I have said before, how much difference would there be between 2 guns
that came off the same line on the same day. If you can believe all of
that "tool mark" forensics we hear about,. 2 barrels made by the same
machine sequentially should have very similar tool marks. It would
definitely be closer than one of those barrels that had a few thousand
rounds worth of barrel erosion.

That may be why Maryland has yet to solve a crime from all of those
bullets they have been collecting.

BTW why would I need a bill of sale for guns I own?
I might understand it for one I sold, if it traced back to me somehow
but I probably only have 2 that could be and I have no plans to sell
them.


To help your lawyer prove that a gun wasn't in your possession when a
crime was committed with it.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:27:40 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
Your homemade bill of sale*might* keep you off the hook if a gun you
previously owned ever ends up being used in a crime and it's traced
back to you, but there's no guaranty of that. Anyone can make up a
bill of sale or transfer document and claim they sold or gave the gun
away. It also doesn't tie that firearm to subsequent owners.
If I have the guy's signature, description, and address at the time of
transfer (based on a driver's license or personal knowledge) the cops
will have a good start. There's still a requirement to prove me guilty
of the crime. (Unless my name is Bill Cosby and Harry Krause has
already found me guilty.) Your paperwork doesn't tie that firearm to
subsequent owners either, unless they are very law-abiding.


Harry Krause hates Cosby because he is black. I'll bet if you ask him,
he will say he dislikes Herman Cain and Dr. Ben what's his name. Harry
appears to be a hard core racist.

Yup.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 3:35 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a
serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to
if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of
sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they
might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around"
and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty
box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from
you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the
years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a
friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note
on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have
FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.




My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Damn! Communication is difficult sometimes. I am not talking about
having a gun to protect your ass. I agree with that.

I am talking about the chain of custody and the responsibilities of gun
ownership. John is satisfied with typing up a bill of sale that he
figures will keep *him* off the hook should one of his transferred guns
ever be linked to a homicide or a gun crime in the future. Protects his
ass from any potential liability in his mind.

I am suggesting that gun ownership has a further responsibility. It
includes taking whatever steps necessary to avoid having one of the guns
you owned falling into the wrong hands in the first place. A background
check requirement on *all* transfers and a transfer record to a state or
federal data base by the seller or transferee for each and every transfer
of ownership will help in that direction.

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

Taking responsibility for guns not falling in to the wrong hands. How has
that worked with cars, boats, bank accounts, etc.?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 3:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or
changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.







I guess I am middle of the road on this one and admit I pretty much take
Luddites side on this one. I have no problem with the govt knowing where
these things are, just like cars and explosives... Even don't have a
problem with a system that says I can't have a gun cause I smoked a
joint 35 years ago, well, maybe a little but I don't need guns anyway.
My problem is the system being fixed so heavily in favor of the far left
who believes in using information like that as a weapon against me... My
honest question last week was serious. Do you think a judge should take
the inevitable slippery slope and continued attempts by the left to
erode the constitution thing into consideration when interpreting a law
that in it's worse case "could" be used by the left to build a database
and eventually go for confiscation?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:29:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.



I have an interest in the next owner of my firearm. I don't have an
interest in the owner after him.

I am '...concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns...' period.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 3:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has
a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact
the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it
to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill
of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day
they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been
around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a
dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold
it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it
from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin
with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over
the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of
a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a
note on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to
have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own
ass.


I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to
keep the cops off my ass.



No. The main reason for registration and a chain of custody is to
provide a means of identifying who *last* legally owned the gun.
Once it goes underground it becomes untraceable. By mandating
registration, it will help reduce the number of guns that end up in the
wrong hands. Responsible owners of legally obtained firearms should
have no problem with that, in my mind. But they do. 2A stuff.

Your bill of sale works for you, but what about 5, 10 or 20 years from
now? Where will your Kimber .45 that you give to your nephew or
someone in 2018 end up in 2029?

That's what I am talking about.

I've already determined where my guns will go if I still have any when I
kick the bucket or become too senile to be responsible for them. I've
already told my family to take the guns to the local police department
and turn them in. I should add that to my will, I suppose.

If any of my sons or relatives want a gun, they can go through the
process like everyone else does. Actually, one son probably has more
guns than I do and both he and his wife went through a much more
extensive training course than I did. The other son has no interest in
guns. He's a nature photographer, not a hunter.

My daughter doesn't need a gun. She could beat the crap out of you with
her bare hands. Cracks me up.



Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

Hey, TOAD, you'er sucking up pretty hard there!

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 3:35 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a
serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to
if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of
sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they
might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around"
and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty
box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from
you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the
years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a
friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note
on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have
FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.




My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Damn! Communication is difficult sometimes. I am not talking about
having a gun to protect your ass. I agree with that.

I am talking about the chain of custody and the responsibilities of gun
ownership. John is satisfied with typing up a bill of sale that he
figures will keep *him* off the hook should one of his transferred guns
ever be linked to a homicide or a gun crime in the future. Protects his
ass from any potential liability in his mind.

I am suggesting that gun ownership has a further responsibility. It
includes taking whatever steps necessary to avoid having one of the guns
you owned falling into the wrong hands in the first place. A background
check requirement on *all* transfers and a transfer record to a state or
federal data base by the seller or transferee for each and every
transfer of ownership will help in that direction.

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.


I won't feel responsible for what any owner after the one I transfer
to does with the firearm.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

===

You probably have more guns than any of us.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 4:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

===

You probably have more guns than any of us.


I wouldn't know, but it's not the number of firearms one owns that makes
one a gunnutzi, it's the objection to licensing owners and creating a
paper trail for every firearm. I am strongly in favor of both, along
with mandatory training before getting aforementioned license.

My firearms collection is fairly small by any "collector's" standard.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 4:15 PM, KC wrote:
ot rid of it.

I guess I am middle of the road on this one and admit I pretty much take
Luddites side on this one. I have no problem with the govt knowing where
these things are, just like cars and explosives... Even don't have a
problem with a system that says I can't have a gun cause I smoked a
joint 35 years ago, well, maybe a little but I don't need guns anyway.
My problem is the system being fixed so heavily in favor of the far left
who believes in using information like that as a weapon against me... My
honest question last week was serious. Do you think a judge should take
the inevitable slippery slope and continued attempts by the left to
erode the constitution thing into consideration when interpreting a law
that in it's worse case "could" be used by the left to build a database
and eventually go for confiscation?


Demonstrably crazy, short-tempered morons like you should not be allowed
to possess firearms.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 4:19 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 3:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has
a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact
the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it
to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill
of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day
they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been
around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a
dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold
it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it
from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin
with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over
the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of
a friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a
note on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to
have FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own
ass.


I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to
keep the cops off my ass.



No. The main reason for registration and a chain of custody is to
provide a means of identifying who *last* legally owned the gun.
Once it goes underground it becomes untraceable. By mandating
registration, it will help reduce the number of guns that end up in the
wrong hands. Responsible owners of legally obtained firearms should
have no problem with that, in my mind. But they do. 2A stuff.

Your bill of sale works for you, but what about 5, 10 or 20 years from
now? Where will your Kimber .45 that you give to your nephew or
someone in 2018 end up in 2029?

That's what I am talking about.

I've already determined where my guns will go if I still have any when I
kick the bucket or become too senile to be responsible for them. I've
already told my family to take the guns to the local police department
and turn them in. I should add that to my will, I suppose.

If any of my sons or relatives want a gun, they can go through the
process like everyone else does. Actually, one son probably has more
guns than I do and both he and his wife went through a much more
extensive training course than I did. The other son has no interest in
guns. He's a nature photographer, not a hunter.

My daughter doesn't need a gun. She could beat the crap out of you with
her bare hands. Cracks me up.



Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

Hey, TOAD, you'er sucking up pretty hard there!


Anything that sets off trash like you is...good.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/16/2014 3:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or
changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.







I guess I am middle of the road on this one and admit I pretty much take
Luddites side on this one. I have no problem with the govt knowing where
these things are, just like cars and explosives... Even don't have a
problem with a system that says I can't have a gun cause I smoked a
joint 35 years ago, well, maybe a little but I don't need guns anyway.
My problem is the system being fixed so heavily in favor of the far left
who believes in using information like that as a weapon against me... My
honest question last week was serious. Do you think a judge should take
the inevitable slippery slope and continued attempts by the left to
erode the constitution thing into consideration when interpreting a law
that in it's worse case "could" be used by the left to build a database
and eventually go for confiscation?


Careful. Some here will accuse you of drinking Kool-Aide made from the
same groundwater as me.

If this country ever deteriorated to the point where the government
decided to confiscate everyone's guns, there's not much anyone is going
to do about it. Even John with his ever increasing arsenal of weapons
doesn't stand a chance.

The whole concept of background checks and registration is intended to
start the process of making guns less available to the criminal, not to
the general population. It isn't intended to create a confiscation
list, but that's all you'll hear.

I have guns primarily for home defense because I am getting to be an old
fart and a gun is a hell of a lot more efficient than a baseball bat.
The chances of ever having to use a gun in self defense is pretty slim
though.

I go to the range occasionally to practice and stay mentally aware of
the operation and safe handling of the guns I have.

I've attended a few of the monthly meetings the club has but they really
didn't appeal to me much. Not all, but a high percentage of the people
just sit around discussing gun laws, the 2A and how the government is
trying to take their guns away.

Just not into that culture.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 4:18 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:29:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.






I have an interest in the next owner of my firearm. I don't have an
interest in the owner after him.

I am '...concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns...' period.


You've made both of your points and limit of interest very clear.
Personally I think it's self serving and selfish, but you have the right
to your opinion.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 4:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 3:35 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger
wrote:


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a
serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold
who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they
will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to
if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of
sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's
what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing
registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they
might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around"
and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty
box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in
touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold
again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from
you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the
years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions
before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to
unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago
that went
bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had
one, for a
gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a
friend
in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note
on the
wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have
FFL
transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You
plopped down
pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is
still
done in the inner city.

I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought
most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks.
I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business.
Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business
by Bass Pro Shop.
I don't have paperwork on any of them.


Another good reason for a state by state or national data base.

Only if he needs the paperwork.

Greg - do you need the paperwork?



That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass.




My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Damn! Communication is difficult sometimes. I am not talking about
having a gun to protect your ass. I agree with that.

I am talking about the chain of custody and the responsibilities of gun
ownership. John is satisfied with typing up a bill of sale that he
figures will keep *him* off the hook should one of his transferred guns
ever be linked to a homicide or a gun crime in the future. Protects his
ass from any potential liability in his mind.

I am suggesting that gun ownership has a further responsibility. It
includes taking whatever steps necessary to avoid having one of the guns
you owned falling into the wrong hands in the first place. A background
check requirement on *all* transfers and a transfer record to a state or
federal data base by the seller or transferee for each and every
transfer of ownership will help in that direction.

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.


I won't feel responsible for what any owner after the one I transfer
to does with the firearm.


Some don't care who the first person is.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Wayne...the Wolverine...

snerk



--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:46:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

===

Sign me up.

Have your folks call my folks. :-)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 8:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Wayne will butter his butt and tell the government troops he's a biscuit.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:21:39 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 8:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Wayne will butter his butt and tell the government troops he's a biscuit.

===

You certainly are clamoring for attention aren't you weenie boy.

We're you neglected as a child?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/16/14 8:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Wayne will butter his butt and tell the government troops he's a biscuit.


You seem to have this thing for male butts.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:01:41 -0500, wrote:

I had a similar problem with my Jon boat when I moved here. I simply
forged a certificate of origin, using a copy of one I had for a car as
a model. It flew right through. (a true cut and paste on a copier)
The tax collector didn't care that it was a shady looking document,
they just needed to check a box.
My neighbor is facing the same sort of thing ... for a $150 boat.
That is not even a decent grocery bill yet Florida wants to title it.

===

Governmental make work bureauacracy at its best.

Georgia still works as far as I know.