The govt has no business nor right to know what firearms I own.
And before someone claims I'm worried about a govt confiscation of firearms, that's bullshit, I'm just of the mind the govt doesn't have the need to know what I own regarding firearms and here in AZ, we don't have to register our weapons, that's the way we Arizonians like it.

1. There is just the constitutional right to own a gun, not the right to keep it's existence a secret.

2. Well, the government needs to know who owns which firearms to reduce the flow of guns to criminals so you can live a safer life. Isn't that good enough a reason?

the govt has no need nor right to know what firearms I own.
End of story.

I'm a legal gun owner and have no problem with registration and I see a lot of reasons it would benefit me.

The govt has no need nor business/right, knowing what firearms I own.

Please go to aclu.org

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

please read the rest of their post/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577495/ACLU-concerned-about-background-check-in-gun-bill.html

Imagine that, some people still actually value privacy rights.

It is transparently obvious too, that some folks could care less about privacy, their own, and particularly that of others.

I'm more than happy to see you agree with what they say. I'm sure you agree with their view that the 2nd is a communal right and not a individual right. While they may oppose, or as they say are looking at it, their would be no reason for registration if the courts called it that. The individual could then be restricted from ownership for personal protection.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

this is from the ACLU

ACLU POSITION

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

ANALYSIS

Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

Also, in fairness, the Second Amendment is very vigorously defended by a number of other, better-funded advocacy organizations, and so defending it would not be a good use of the ACLU's limited resources.

ACLU.org/Second-Amendment

They have they are studying the issue based on record keeping.

Show me where " The ACLU has long opposed registration due to privacy rights"...waiting for any link you have used.

the ACLU still considers the 2nd a collective right and not an individual right, so I'm so glad you like their views.

I don't agree with their collective right views, neither does Pres. Obama, SCOTUS, nor the Democratic Party.

questions the 2nd as an individual right. See their web site.

Maybe, in 70 years or so, SCOTUS will reconsider the Heller and McDonald case. Or maybe not.

But until they do, as they say; "It's the law of the land".

As long as it gives you some form of comfort just, "keep on believing".

But the issue here is registries. They have expressed reservations about that.

you respect their opinion..........

has nothing to do with anything else they say. Look up the genetic fallacy.

I was responding to a post about the ACLU and their opinion on the 2nd.

See fallacy fallacy

the ACLU is opposed to registration based on privacy concerns. I'm opposed to it based on cost benefit analysis. Why do you support it and can you provide a compelling argument why it is a good idea. Since you are proposing a restriction, the burden of proof is on you to prove its value as a policy.

Few crimes committed in the US with machine guns that are required to be registered.

machine guns are completely banned in UK, Australia, and probably all of Europe, yet they have more crimes with machine guns than we do. In fact, bikie gangs make their own Lutzes and Stens. While Canada registered and licence handguns since 1934, machine guns didn't have to be registered until 1952 until they were banned in 1977. Was there more machine gun crime before 1952?
I guess banning them does the opposite, kind of like pot and heroin.
Australian biker gangs make their own and do drive bys with them.
Outside of the mob, the spree of machine gun crimes during the Dillinger era were with Thompsons and BARs stolen from police and NG armories. Dillinger stole his from a PD in Indiana.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/06/gun-stolen-by-dillinger-gang-coming-back-to-indiana-police/6113647/
Bonnie and Clyde had BARs. They didn't buy them at Gander Mountain.
One of the Thompsons used at the St Valentines Day massacre was used in several mob hits as far away as Detroit. The mob ran the black market.
Before NFA, there wasn't a market for machine guns for most people. What really happened was increased security in national guard armories and police armories. The roving bank robber was a short period of people taking advantage of our federal system, until bank robbery became a federal crime.

While I don't support repealing the NFA, your argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc. You use the same flimsy evidence to support your argument.

the USA is a false equivalence argument the rest is an appeal to closure.

What is it when people point to the Australian model of gun control and suggest that we should embrace it here?

doing the same thing as the other side.

when the prohibitionists bring up UK, Japan, and Australia? Yes it is.
Appeal to closure? Simply pointed out the more likely reasons other than the NFA.

How do you 'traffic' arms by not responding to a request/demand to produce them ?
How would a law read that non-production of an item is construed as illegal trafficking ?
Can't see it happening, this might be found plausable in dictatorships, not democracies.

Under my proposal, you and your guns are tied to each other.

What reasons or circumstances could there possibly be that you don't know where your guns are???
Did you sell them or gift them? No, then you would know where they are and who's the new owner.
Did you lend them? No, then you would know where they are.
Were they stolen? Well, then you would have reported the theft.

If you lose track of one of your guns (without it being stolen), then the only possible explanation left is that you passed it on to a person without you both notifying the gun-registry.
And what possible reason could a law-abiding citizen have to keep it a secret whom he sold a gun to?
Unless he wants no legal track-record connecting him to the person he sold the gun to.

When we buy a car it needs a title to show the transaction and that I'm the current owner. When I sell my car that title needs to be transferred. I also have to have a license to drive the car; a license plate and sticker every year and car insurance.

Why should guns be any different?

but not on private property. Car registration is for revenue for the state, not public safety. Gun registration costs money and there is no evidence of any benefits anywhere in the world.

Unless you have it delivered to you - wouldn't you have to drive it on public roads?

Is your private property so big that you need a car to get around it?

Come on - that's a BS argument if I ever heard one.

it isn't a BS argument. You are using a false analogy. Registration to have even in our house, or face a felony even though it is a Constitutional right vs register to simply use it on public roads and just a civil fine for a violation.

that it is illegal to register guns. Try to buy a machine gun.

I said it is pissing money away with no tangible benefit to society. I would rather see the money better spent.

But it wouldn't be my money you spend on background checks and registration for your guns.

a background check is eight bucks.

What value is registration if there is no evidence of any crime being solved, or any crime drop? It isn't. That is the difference between a liberal and conservative/SDS type progressive. A liberal believes every restriction should be as narrow as possible and only if there is a tangle benefit to society to justify it. The latter is more authoritarian. For me, it is a matter of being a consistent liberal.

but liberals in general support rules that protect society. There is a difference in liberal and libertarian.

progressive and liberal are not the same thing. All authoritarians claim to "protect society" but the reality is that they view anyone who isn't like them, or the "average person" as being too stupid to think for themselves. That is my problem with the Bible Thumpers and the likes of Thom Hartman.
A libertarian is an anarchist.
rules that protect society. How does gun registration protect society? There is no evidence anywhere in the world that it does.

Like I said, they were rarely used then. Even then they were stolen. Two logical fallacies in one sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

On the social-economic axis scale, liberalism is high social liberty, low economic liberty.

Libertarianism is high social liberty and high economic liberty, to a near anarchist level.

There are movements on the left that are low social and economic liberty, usually associated with the Communist Party movements of the 20th Century. I fall under the Liberalism definition, I'm an ACLU card carrying person who supports a strongly mixed economy with a lot of social services and support.

Gave up on their registry as a waste of money without antsy benefit.

Most get retired to off-road farm/ranch work; others are bought cheap at auctions, then towed to their final vacation home. Who wants to spend $ on registration, license, inspection, etc.?

Btw, I support all public carry of firearms should come after a fitting course (including range time) to certify competency.

I know where there's dozens of vehicles sitting without a title or registration and no tags. You only need to do that stuff if you want to drive it on the public highway.



What other rights should we pay the government for? If we have to pay for a right, is it really a right?

of unlicensed, unregistered vehicles on ones property unless the are garaged.
Happened to me I live in NY

...on lots under a certain size. The concern is that a neighbor's property value could be affected by you having a handful of rusting hulks on your lawn. Many farms and ranches have pickup trucks that never leave private property and have never been licensed, registered, insured or inspection tagged for either safety features or emissions.

property size is 1.75 acres. Just got real street numbers about 10 years ago used to be RR boxes. I live in a Hamlet which is part of a town so it goes by their rules.
Agreed mostly for urban & suburban area.

I live NJ in a Philly suburb. The building inspector stopped by to let me know I had a sidewalk block out of place and that it was a trip hazard and needed to be corrected. While I was talking to him, he said that regardless of it being my property, I wasn't allowed to park my own tagged, insured, inspected car on my own grass, garage or driveway parking only.

Seems odd but I'm not one to cause trouble or give people difficulties.

My neighbor gets around the 6 car rule (with over 30 sitting around his property) somehow.

would you consider that each gun owner would receive a licence, much like a driver's licence. There would be boxes that indicate if the person has qualified for carry- we can leave the open/concealed debate and qualification aside for the moment.

The person who has the carry box checked is allowed to carry in all 50 states, just as a person may drive on roads in all 50 states. It will be as valid in NYC as it is in rural Montana.

Private property rights and privacy rights are not for sale.

paying taxes. Good luck with that. I don't have to open my bag at the airport?

Invite them into mine, and we'll have a problem.

Is the airport your privately owned property? No?

I guess you don't get to say then.

...examine your bag, sniff your backpack, X-ray your pants or search any cavities when the airplane you board is rented, leased to or owned by you. That's at any airport even public, government owned and controlled airports.

Do you pay your taxes on your private home?

As a matter of fact it is, and absent some public action on my part, it is not subject to search, nor is it subject to governmental intrusion, without a warrant.

Guess you didn't know that huh? Or is it that you just don't care, "because gunz!"

feel free to walk or paddle on your trip.

Some of the most beautiful places and things in the world, can't be seen without walking and paddling.

The US Constitution, Amendment 4 makes that pretty damn clear.

You have no right to your home without paying taxes on it was my point.

See post 14

In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is the highest ownership interest possible that can be had in real property. Allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. Fee simple ownership represents an ownership interest in real property, though it is limited by government powers of taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fails; this is a fee simple conditional.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

Police and search rights are limited further in the United States by the 4th Amendment.

Your right to real estate property, your home, is subject to paying your local taxes. Don't and the Sheriff will take your home.

It is a condition of your ownership deed that you must pay property taxes. You do however have a right to privacy and also to not have that property taken without due process (court case) via the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I guarantee if you look at your deed, it states "Fee Simple".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

I am not interested in a "solution" that does not apply to violent criminals.

would stop a felon from being able to register as he or she would not be able to purchase a firearm to register.

or do you think the local fence or drug dealer will do background checks? You think they ask for prescriptions for heroin? Did the guy who sold the machine guns to the Charlie Hebdo and deli shooters do a background check at the Brussells train station?

Look up the Wright Rossi study, criminals don't go to FFLs.

Very rare for full autos to be used in crimes here.

Yes criminals commit crimes. We have speed limit signs that just slow down traffic some what, but do lower traffic deaths.

and even Dillinger stole his from the cops. Full autos are more common in Europe and Australia.

buying machine guns. But then those are taxed and registered. Of course traffickers care, at least enough to purchase them in states with lax laws and take them to criminals in other states to make a profit. That would, at least, reduce the number of illegal guns on the streets.

there will never be a shortage of unregistered guns for felons to buy.

speed limit. Yet, they seem to drive just fast enough not to get too many tickets. If there were no speed limits and no cops with radar the roads would not be as safe.

incremental changes will not produce significant reductions. The notion that registration would reduce illegal ownership of guns significantly is nonsense. Even if you disregard the hundreds of millions of unregistered guns, the demand for guns by criminals could be easily met through the black market. If organized crime can smuggle drugs by the truck load, supplying a steady supply of guns and ammo to those willing to pay for it would be child's play.

The biggest flaw with registration is that the people most likely to register their guns are the people least like to harm anyone while those that you should fear will simply not comply.

and terrorist, domestic like those that attack clinics wouldn't pay a premium for full autos? Where is the steady supply of those? Looks like the money isn't worth the risk for organized crime to bring them in by the truck loads.

if the demand was there, the cartels would be smuggling them into American cities next to the cocaine, heroin and meth.

use full autos in their own countries and they operate here. Yet they fear bringing those weapons here because they know the Feds would come down hard on them. No good reason they use them all of the time in Mexico, but leave them behind when they come here.

ok

what is the issue here?

If they were to start fire fights with autos the Feds would bring in the Marines.

and the Marines would not be brought in to fight drug gangs in US cities.

are still city cops. In a national emergency I think greater resource would be ok.

If the cartel needs autos south of the boarder and, as you say, it would be easy to bring truck loads in and they sure don't to any great extent.

first off, a bunch of gang bangers with no military training do not constitute a national emergency even if they have automatic weapons. With no tactical or marksmanship training, they would be just wasting bullets.

secondly, big city SWAT teams are trained to military standards - they are truly specialized. And if they needed back up, the FBI has some excellent SWAT teams.

Give me a couple of Special Forces men against a couple of dozen "trained" local cops anytime. Sure urban gangs don't know what they are doing, but Mexican Cartel fighters are ruthless.

What about a gift to a spouse? Should that require them to have a background check too? Personally, I think so but that raises other issues. What about community property? Wouldn't married couples jointly own the same guns no matter who actually bought them? What would happen if one spouse died? The other spouse would automatically inherit them. Then what? Would the guns have to be registered to the survivor, and a background check done then on them, possibly even before the survivor could sell them?

These are very personal issues for me as a wife of a gun owner who had a heart attack last year. I will inherit them if he passes before me and have to dispose of his guns in the event of his death. Oh, I would not want to go through any of those background checks, registration, in addition to just plain selling them. What a nightmare situation this would create.

spouses that are felons.

If you have access, you are in possession. Meaning, if G. Gordon Liddy's wife owns a gun, and Mr. Liddy has access to it in any way, he is a felon in possession.
If he has any NFA items, you will be facing exactly that.
If he passes, I suggest simply selling them to an FFL. Granted, you won't get full retail value but it decreases a lot of hassle.
How many does he have?

You speak about access. I suppose in a situation like Liddy's, his wife would be required to lock up her guns in a combination safe and not let G. Gordon know the combination? Problem with that is how would you enforce that? Nancy and Adam Lanza are perfect examples of that.

I do not know how many guns he has. They are locked up in a combination safe, by my request. I feel they are danger to me left in an unlocked drawer in the event a criminal breaks into the house when I am alone, finds a gun, and uses it on me. I do not know the combination, again by my request. The number is written down in a locked file cabinet (have that key) with the rest of our important papers.

I suppose what my point in this discussion is, even as a semi anti-gun person, is that all the laws on the books are not worth the paper they are written on if they are UNENFORCEABLE.

Under federal law, yes. Some countries, without a fourth amendment like UK, they actually do home inspections.
Leaving them in an unlocked drawer also violates Florida's safe storage law. That is usually enforced as an afterthought. You might want to ask around different FFLs on who will buy large collections.

Is there a Federal definition (not for Minors) on who can and cannot have access to or own a gun when mentally impaired? Our adult daughter, who stills live in NY, voluntarily put herself in a hospital and was diagnosed BiPolar, which is on the spectrum of mental illness. She cannot own a gun in NYS.

However, in Florida where we live, since she VOLUNTARILY sought treatment, and was not involuntarily adjudicated with a mental illness, means she can have access to guns. Different States. Different Laws.

The reason this ever came up with us is that she wanted to join the NYPD. She is barred from doing this in NYS. However, in the state of Florida when she visits us, my husband could leave an open gun around, and take her shooting with him. Moot since non Felon, non Mentally Impaired me wants all guns locked in a safe anyway. For what it's worth, since I have worked in Public Schools and MR/DD institutions, my jobs required me to be fingerprinted, background checked, and are on file with the FBI anyway. They could very easily run a check on me.

The problem that I see is that there is a hodgepodge of laws across the states, especially on what is considered mentally impaired and barred from access to or owning guns.

Ask a lawyer on the issue. I know someone in IL with a FOID and someone with Asperger in the UK who legally owns. But then, NYS also bans target pistols used on the Olympics and World Cup as "assault weapons".

Was Adam Lanza ever adjudicated??? No, he never was although he had a "history". This is where the mentally impaired given access to guns are falling through the cracks of the legal system. I prefer NYS's non-adjudicated law.

I would certainly prefer to err on the side of caution with mental health issues. This is why even back when our own adult daughter living with us was having mental health issues (tried to slit her wrists) before she was diagnosed voluntarily, I would NEVER let her have access to my husband's guns. I was afraid she would shoot herself, and perhaps even the rest of us in her household. Her 2nd Amendment rights be DAMNED. I prefer a LIVING child to a DEAD one, let alone a dead younger child, dead husband, and dead me.

Too bad Nancy Lanza did not realize this. She herself and those poor Sandy Hook Victims might all be alive today.

outside of what I read in the police report I downloaded. How much is real and how much was media speculation, I have no idea. All I know is that the cops said he was six feet tall and weighted 112 pounds and shot himself, according to the report the CT State Police put out. Even that could be a misprint on their part. No, I'm not a member of the Alex Jones and James Tracy fan club. It is just that the media is lazy and often stupid. Maybe he learned the combo without her knowing it. Maybe she was too lazy to buy a safe or locking cabinet. Or, maybe she had the standard "not my special snowflake" blindness.

You have a right to do whatever you think is right within your home. I would also err on the side of caution. Of course, the only loaded gun is the one on me if at all. As a kid, we never kept our guns loaded in the house. Both of my cop brothers unloaded their revolvers as soon as they got home. My brother and I continue that custom in our homes.
The same was probably true of all of the guns at my friends' houses to. The only person I know of who didn't was my grandfather. He was a very devout Methodist who didn't carry his gun loaded even while on patrol.

I would also hide the knives and ropes. However, I support everyone's fifth amendment right to due process. Of course, you are not denying her any of those rights within your home. Only the government can do that. Since guns used in slightly over half of all suicides, I hope you secure other means as well.

Do you have a reference for New York State law denying gun ownership to those with a non-adjudicated mental health history? The only requirement for a NYS resident who is buying a long gun is a Federal background check via the Form 4473, which clearly states "adjudicated."

Are you possibly thinking of the handgun permit process?

and Adam Lanza was never diagnosed as mentally ill. Note Asperger's Syndrome falls into the autism spectrum

"Peter Lanza said he does not believe Nancy Lanza feared her son Adam. She did not confide any fear of Adam to her sister or to her best friend"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator

Given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can see that Adam Lanza was mentally ill and where we think some mistakes were made by the parents. However we'll never know whether Adam successfully hid his mental illness from his mother and the mental health professionals that did see him, that she was in denial or that any abnormal behavior indicating mental illness was mistaken for his autism.

but BiPolar in my own adult daughter. If your adult child tries to slit her wrists, you would not agree that it is best to lock up YOUR guns? My daughter, later on, said to me that she was thankful that I pressured my husband to do just this. She DID admit later that she would have shot herself if she had access to them. Hello?????? Because of 2nd Amendment rights, you think in a situation like this, as an ADULT her rights were somehow infringed upon by ME her mother???? Give it up. As her mother, I cared more about HER LIFE than her 2nd Amendment rights. What do you not get that she herself does? I saved her life by "anti-gun 2nd Amendment" rights. and possibly the rest of the family too.

None of what I posted was about you, your daughter or anything else about YOUR situation.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet
These are all 11 reasons that the feds list as prohibiting criteria:
(I showed the mental provision in bold.)
--A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
--Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
--An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
--A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
--A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
--A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
--A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
--A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
--The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
--A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
--A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

1. Register your legal firearm.
2. Law changes making said firearm illegal.
3. state tells you to turn in your firearm for destruction ( I assume this was true, I dont live there)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/nyc-alarms-notice-immediately-surrender-your-rifle/

also bring back the Clinton assault weapon ban.