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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


I agree with this post.

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.