Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.


Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.

The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.


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.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.


Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.

The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.


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.

As long as I have a record of transfer, I don't really care if the
cops come by.

On 11/16/2014 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.


Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.

The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.


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.

As long as I have a record of transfer, I don't really care if the
cops come by.



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.

Cars used to be able to be sold with a simple bill of sale. Now you
need the title in most states. The title reflects a chain of custody
or ownership and proves that the vehicle was obtained legally and not
stolen.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:55:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.


Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.

The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.


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.

As long as I have a record of transfer, I don't really care if the
cops come by.



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.


Cars used to be able to be sold with a simple bill of sale. Now you
need the title in most states. The title reflects a chain of custody
or ownership and proves that the vehicle was obtained legally and not
stolen.


I don't think there are any references to cars in the Constitution.
Now the paperwork for cars is used primarily for taxes and fees. How
big a bureaucracy has that created?

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.

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.

On 11/16/2014 1:52 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:55:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.


Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.

The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.


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.

As long as I have a record of transfer, I don't really care if the
cops come by.



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.

John will still have his bill of sale. That 4473 at the dealer might
be more elusive, particularly if the dealer moved.
A lot of times, the FFL is not really the business owner and he is the
one charged with maintaining ther transfer records. My machine gun
dealer was using a Lehigh pawn shop as his address but that shop was
long gone. We was working out of his van and home as best I could
tell. This is a class III dealer, not just a garden variety FFL.


Cars used to be able to be sold with a simple bill of sale. Now you
need the title in most states. The title reflects a chain of custody
or ownership and proves that the vehicle was obtained legally and not
stolen.

Yeah, nobody steals cars anymore and they only kill about 43,000 a
year.
Cars are simply an example of how states are using the tag and title
process as a profit center.
Do you really think, driving around the block when you were 16 and
parking the car proved you were ever (or are still) a good driver?
You don't want to go down that "road"



I don't know about Florida but try to put a car on the road without a
title up here. You can't. There used to be a grandfather clause that if
the car was over 10 years old a Bill of Sale was good enough. No more.

When I bought the "General Lee" (1969 Dodge Charger) from a car museum
in Florida several years ago I ran into a major problem getting it
registered to put it on the road. It originally came from a shop in
Michigan who supplied Warner Bros. with some of the cars and it didn't
have a title. Plenty of provenance and a paper trail that
showed subsequent ownership but no official title.

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.

So, it's not just tax money they are looking for.

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.

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.

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.