Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 6:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 6:04:52 PM UTC-5, KC wrote:
On 11/24/2014 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:55:52 AM UTC-5, True North, harrys cock boy wrote:

Like you backpeddeled when I traveled up to your backyard and called you out, two years ago.

You were two HOURS away, mouthing off in a Strip Club, big man. What a joke you are.


Hey, he waited for 90 minutes :)

He probably contracted a Male Escort for the night.


Yeah, well we all know he was never there...

Ping: KC
 

KC
- show quoted text -
"Yeah, well we all know he was never there... "

You don't know ****, you little simpleton.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

Ping: KC
 

On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:07:51 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:

There's something stupefyingly synergistic about posts in which the two
Scotties give each other reach-arounds.


.....and you waiting to fluff.......

Ping: KC
 

On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:27:01 PM UTC-5, True North wrote:
KC
- show quoted text -
"Yeah, well we all know he was never there... "

You don't know ****, you little simpleton.

Looks like he struck a nerve, dicklicker.

Ping: KC
 

On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:28:47 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/24/14 8:27 PM, True North wrote:
KC
- show quoted text -
"Yeah, well we all know he was never there..."

You don't know ****, you little simpleton.



Actually, he knows nothing but ****.


Just like krause gets donnie to wipe the **** off of his prick after he pulls out of dicklickers ass.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 10:11 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:27:01 PM UTC-5, True North wrote:
KC
- show quoted text -
"Yeah, well we all know he was never there..."

You don't know ****, you little simpleton.

Looks like he struck a nerve, dicklicker.


Funny to hear donnie call someone simple. He is the only one here who
writes like he didn't finish high school...

Ping: KC
 

On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:20:26 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I just think there should be a
chain of custody for something like a firearm that, if it falls into the
wrong hands could be used for purposes the original owner never
envisioned.

Can you tell us what you think that would accomplish preventing firearm deaths? Or maybe just clear up what that sentence was supposed to mean. :-)

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 10:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:20:26 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I just think there should be a
chain of custody for something like a firearm that, if it falls into the
wrong hands could be used for purposes the original owner never
envisioned.

Can you tell us what you think that would accomplish preventing firearm deaths? Or maybe just clear up what that sentence was supposed to mean. :-)



Sure.

You buy a gun from a FFL. A record of the sale is kept that identifies
you as the purchaser and owner. That is required now by federal law.

Five years later you decide to sell the gun to a friend. It's a private
sale so no background check is required and no record of the transaction
is required. You might do an informal bill of sale but there is no
record of the transaction anywhere else.

2 years later your friend sells it to someone else. Again, no
background check and no record kept of the transaction.

That person happens to be a criminal. He holds up a store, shoots the
proprietor killing him, drops the gun in his haste to escape and it's
found by the police.

The police check the serial number with the manufacturer. It tracks
that gun to the FFL who sold it to you. They check the FFL records.
Says you are the owner of that gun.

That's one potential result. The other is that the fact that without
any form of record keeping (chain of custody) the gun can quickly
become completely untraceable.

Keeping records of each transfer doesn't mean it will necessarily
prevent any crimes or deaths but it makes it more difficult for the
criminally minded to get a gun and may make it possible to determine who
committed the crime. Won't solve things overnight but in time it will
reduce the number of untraceable firearms available.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:12:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That person happens to be a criminal. He holds up a store, shoots the
proprietor killing him, drops the gun in his haste to escape and it's
found by the police.

===

That doesn't seem to happen very often in real life, more of a
contrived CSI scenario.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new.
That part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

Ping: KC
 

On Monday, November 24, 2014 10:36:07 PM UTC-5, KC wrote:

Funny to hear donnie call someone simple. He is the only one here who
writes like he didn't finish high school...

dicklicker is krauses Marionette.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 11:14 PM, KC wrote:
Is
there an organized sub-culture of indivduals who specialize in selling
guns to gang bangers?

I'll bet there is.

Ping: KC
 

F*O*A*D
- show quoted text -
"You think and write like you never went to high school. "


I agree with this post.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:12:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:20:26 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I just think there should be a
chain of custody for something like a firearm that, if it falls into the
wrong hands could be used for purposes the original owner never
envisioned.

Can you tell us what you think that would accomplish preventing firearm deaths? Or maybe just clear up what that sentence was supposed to mean. :-)



Sure.

You buy a gun from a FFL. A record of the sale is kept that identifies
you as the purchaser and owner. That is required now by federal law.

Five years later you decide to sell the gun to a friend. It's a private
sale so no background check is required and no record of the transaction
is required. You might do an informal bill of sale but there is no
record of the transaction anywhere else.

2 years later your friend sells it to someone else. Again, no
background check and no record kept of the transaction.

That person happens to be a criminal. He holds up a store, shoots the
proprietor killing him, drops the gun in his haste to escape and it's
found by the police.

The police check the serial number with the manufacturer. It tracks
that gun to the FFL who sold it to you. They check the FFL records.
Says you are the owner of that gun.

So what? I have a transfer document, and the third person down the
line, Toad, sold the gun for $2000 cash and reported it stolen.

That's one potential result. The other is that the fact that without
any form of record keeping (chain of custody) the gun can quickly
become completely untraceable.

Keeping records of each transfer doesn't mean it will necessarily
prevent any crimes or deaths but it makes it more difficult for the
criminally minded to get a gun and may make it possible to determine who
committed the crime. Won't solve things overnight but in time it will
reduce the number of untraceable firearms available.

Wow. Such assumptions.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 12:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of
purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns
the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new. That
part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

I wonder what regulating the law abiding owners of guns has to do with
lessening the criminal use of guns?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 8:57 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.


In that case, it goes back to who last legally owned the gun.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:04:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 8:57 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.


In that case, it goes back to who last legally owned the gun.


Stolen.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 9:01 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of
purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns
the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or
transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new. That
part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

I wonder what regulating the law abiding owners of guns has to do with
lessening the criminal use of guns?


If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 9:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:04:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 8:57 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.


In that case, it goes back to who last legally owned the gun.


Stolen.



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:01:29 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/25/2014 12:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of
purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns
the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new. That
part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

I wonder what regulating the law abiding owners of guns has to do with
lessening the criminal use of guns?

There is a chance that the chain of ownership documents could help
establish where the criminal who accidentally dropped his gun while
fleeing got his gun in the first place if the paperwork shows him to
be the last owner. The cops could just call whichever government
office is responsible for tracking gun ownership and 'voila', the
criminal is caught!

Unless the last owner wasn't law abiding.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Unless the new owner finds them more attractive because they were not
registered and then "he" can say they were a family heirloom.


That would be unlawful. Who would do such a thing?

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 9:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:04:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 8:57 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.


In that case, it goes back to who last legally owned the gun.


Stolen.



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

Chain is still blown out the window.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 8:14 AM, True North wrote:
F*O*A*D
- show quoted text -
"You think and write like you never went to high school."


I agree with this post.

Who cares?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 9:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 9:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:04:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 8:57 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:52:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:31:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't know the answer to your questions. I think it may deter some
people with criminal intent from acquiring a gun if they were required
to have it registered to them.

Simple, they buy a stolen one.

It just doesn't make sense that when you buy a gun from a dealer it is
automatically registered to you but if you sell it or transfer it, it
quickly becomes untraceable.

BTW, I forgot to add to my reply to your previous question regarding
proving a gun is grandfathered from registration ... if you currently
own a gun that is not registered and you never sell or transfer it, it
remains unregistered. It would only be registered when you sold or
transferred it.

Assuming you recorded the transaction.
Otherwise there are simply 300 million unregistered guns that will
remain unregistered and move along in the market place under the
radar.
.



The 300 million unregistered guns will only remain unregistered if they
are never sold or transferred under the proposed "grandfather" clause.
If any of them are sold or transferred (legally) they become registered
to the new owner.


Assuming the sellers and buyers are 'law abiding'. Otherwise the chain
is blown out the window.


In that case, it goes back to who last legally owned the gun.


Stolen.



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

Chain is still blown out the window.

CYA report all your guns stolen, then sell them at the gun show.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 9:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 9:01 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of
purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns
the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or
transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a
lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new. That
part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

I wonder what regulating the law abiding owners of guns has to do with
lessening the criminal use of guns?


If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


There's a third option, and a fourth option.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 9:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:01:29 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/25/2014 12:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:15:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:02:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:25:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

All I am advocating is background checks for all types of
purchases or
transfers (FFL and private) and a record of who currently owns
the gun.

Eventually it will happen. Just a matter of time.

===

What do you propose doing with existing firearms?



I'd go with grandfathered from registration until sold or transferred.

===

That might be a half reasonable approach, and avoids creating a lot of
felons, but it leads to all kinds of sticky issues with proving that
a gun is legally grandfathered.


Just establish a date. Any sale or transfer after that date requires
registration.


===

I'm thinking more in terms of what happens if a person is accused of
having an unregistered gun. How do you prove that it was
grandfathered?


I guess if what I proposed ever became law you could take a picture of
your gun on a newspaper that shows the date. Good question though.

Not to keep bringing Massachusetts up but that situation exists already
up here in terms of types of guns owned. It's the ban/pre-ban thing.

If you purchased or acquired a gun prior to 1998 that is now banned it
is grandfathered and you can legally own it. You can also legally sell
or transfer it as long as it was always in Massachusetts since new. That
part doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how they wrote the law.

I think the state reporting of private sales and transfers also started
in 1998, so if you purchased it before then in a private sale there's no
record of it.

I wonder what regulating the law abiding owners of guns has to do with
lessening the criminal use of guns?

There is a chance that the chain of ownership documents could help
establish where the criminal who accidentally dropped his gun while
fleeing got his gun in the first place if the paperwork shows him to
be the last owner. The cops could just call whichever government
office is responsible for tracking gun ownership and 'voila', the
criminal is caught!

Unless the last owner wasn't law abiding.

Nah. What are the chances?;-)

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

That is true and I would even promote increasing the penalties for
possessing a stolen gun. In most places it will just be "property" and
one of the charges that gets traded away or simply absorbed in a
concurrent sentence.
You still might have the issue that people don't know their gun is
missing for quite a while. If this is a daily carry gun or something
you have hanging on the wall, it will be apparent right away but most
people are required by law to have their guns locked away.
I have one gun safe that I may not open more than once or twice a year
and it is far out of sight.



I would argue that as a responsible gun owner it is your duty to know
where your guns are at all times.

"Gee, I know I had a 1911 .45 around here someplace. Wonder were it went?"

Ping: KC
 

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.

I heard on the radio yesterday, that something like 42% of suicides are
male with prostrate and testicular cancer mostly. But are Cancer victims.

Ping: KC
 

Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.

I heard on the radio yesterday, that something like 42% of suicides are
male with prostrate and testicular cancer mostly. But are Cancer victims.

Maybe we need to follow Oregon lead and have death with dignity laws.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:48:36 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I heard on the radio yesterday, that something like 42% of suicides are
male with prostrate and testicular cancer mostly. But are Cancer victims.

Maybe we need to follow Oregon lead and have death with dignity laws.

===

Absolutely right. It's not clear that one way is more painless than
the other, but the clean up is a lot easier.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 2:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:27:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

That is true and I would even promote increasing the penalties for
possessing a stolen gun. In most places it will just be "property" and
one of the charges that gets traded away or simply absorbed in a
concurrent sentence.
You still might have the issue that people don't know their gun is
missing for quite a while. If this is a daily carry gun or something
you have hanging on the wall, it will be apparent right away but most
people are required by law to have their guns locked away.
I have one gun safe that I may not open more than once or twice a year
and it is far out of sight.



I would argue that as a responsible gun owner it is your duty to know
where your guns are at all times.

"Gee, I know I had a 1911 .45 around here someplace. Wonder were it went?"


Some of us do not take our guns out and caress them every day like
Harry.

I am in a state that requires that my guns be locked up and I do not
have any reason to actually get them out unless I am planning on going
someplace to shoot.
That might only be once a year with something like my skeet gun and I
haven't actually fired my .44 in 30 years.


What part of "I have one gun safe that I may not open more than once
or twice a year and it is far out of sight" is so hard for you to
grasp?



I understood that. You also made the statement:

"You still might have the issue that people don't know their gun is
missing for quite a while."

Those are the "people" to whom I was referring.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:23:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.


You are certainly talking about "taking away anybody's right to own
firearms". Then the question becomes "who gets to decide"?



Well, luddite already decided I shouldn't have one long ago.. Like most
libs, "good for me, not you"...