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?