You can narrow down who did it by who owns that type of gun in a nearby vicinity. Also helps for when people murder then throw away the gun, you can prove somebody owned that type of gun before a murder.

Similar to registering vehicles helps solve crimes.

Personally I think it's a dumb idea, but there are arguments for a list. I think it is just one step towards gun grabbing.

Thinking on both sides of an issue helps you make informed decisions.

Otherwise you're just full of shit (not you).

I personally think gun registrations are a bad idea, but I think there's an argument to be made for them. I also think car registrations are useless.

The goal is to make the right solution for a problem and I don't think a registry solves anything except creating jobs in bureaucracy.

is identified on the registration. So they can identify THE OWNER of the weapon in question.

So you would end up with a list of people who live nearby, that likely had nothing to do with the shooting.

That's a different discussion and depending on how it was stolen.

Gun left on front seat and stolen? Liable.

Gun safe broken into and stolen? Not liable.

Let civil juries decide and we'll see a heck of a lot less stolen guns.

report the theft, then he's got a problem!

The crime solving aspect of vehicle registration depends on more than just registration. Without the requirement for a state issued highly visible placard, having a vehicle registered would be much less useful. Therefore to have a better analogy, there would need to be a law that you attach a 6 x 12 metal plate to your Glock 29.

I'm sure the following statement will be universally unpopular but I'm not a big fan of license plates. When police observe a car violating a traffic ordinance, a license plate does not assist in apprehending the driver. But hey, drive on a public road maintained with public funding, obey the rules of the public.

It has been reported several times in group that various instances of jurisdictions with registration requirements report that such registration contributes little to nothing in solving crimes. Canada comes to mind.

In general I have an issue with laws which burden the individual with a cost and compromise of privacy for the suggestion of making police work easier. Recent court cases and public denouncement of law enforcement using things like stingrays and metadata come to mind.

Also, the registration of vehicles includes a fee (aka a highly regressive repetitive tax). I might be okay with a fee that was scaled from $0 for a single mom making $30,000/year to maybe a fee of $60,000/year for Tim Cook who has an income over 12,000 times higher.

But in reality, no. Most murders in the US, especially with firearms, are gang related or some other criminal killing each other over drugs or money. They don't go gun stores or gun shows.

...an image on a screen is as close as they've ever gotten to a gun.

When I went to my dentist recently, he had a new X-Ray machine. He told me how the registration process for the device works.

The registration on my car had to be renewed a couple of months ago. It was pretty easy and took just couple of minutes and a small reasonable fee.

Years ago, I owned a sailboat. To register it, (it had an engine), all I had to do was fill out a form and mail it to the state with a nominal fee.

I have a driver's license and a US passport. They're easy to obtain and provide ID as well as their obvious functions.

When I travel on commercial airlines, I must prove who I am. When I buy alcohol, I have to prove my age (much less often these days!). To secure employment, many- if not most- jobs require proving you're eligible by providing a Social Security card.

All of these activities and more require some form of governmental registration. Why are guns different? Why are guns unique? Should cars be unregistered? How about private aircraft? What about land and home ownership? Medical professionals must have state-issued licenses; should doctors and nurses and other health-care professionals be exempt?

Personally, I don't really care about guns. They don't interest me but obviously many other people want them. However, why should such potentially dangerous devices not receive similar registrations?

I don't know the answer to this rhetorical question but I am certain it is not found in the Second Amendment.

My company I used to work for doesn't bother to register any of the cars we have. THe reason is they never leave company property. You register a car because taxes go to pay towards public roads. If you don't want to drive on public roads, you don't have to register them.

I'm not against doctors getting a license, I'm a CPA, and I have to maintain my license. I have no problem renewing my CPA. Its there to show that somebody working on your accounting has a certain level of knowledge, but I believe the AICPA wants to make it difficult to get because it keeps salaries high for existing CPA's, and I'm ok with that too.

Canada is ditching their long gun registery. they spent a billion dollars on it, and found out that is doesn't solve crime.

I bought an out of state vehicle to restore (65 Mustang). To be able to be the owner, I had to get insurance and register it even though it sat in my garage for 4 years and will for a couple more. The registration card is in effect my title and only document to prove I own it. I have to renew it every year, otherwise I may never be able to sell it except for parts.

We had titles in our name, although that was a one time fee

We didnt have plates or auto insurance, it just wasnt worth the money. We had several million in umbrella insurance though.

Where I live you can have a title, but not have registration, and not have insurance.

I had a motorcycle that was used as a drag bike for a few years, so it had no plates, and no insurance (it wasn't street legal, so it was hauled to a drag strip and back), but the title proved it was mine. I later sold it, and it was converted back to street legal, and they were able to register it.

Older vehicles don't get titled. The transferable registration is the only proof of ownership and to get it you need insurance. It's just a catch 22. I did have a bit of trouble at the DMV. Six or seven trips before they accepted the documentation from the previous owner. He had lost his original title and had a letter from the Rhode Island DMV.

Your only option to get a title would be going to Rhode Island DMV. I went through this once in PA with a car titled in Georgia.

...in Texas, they are called "ranch rockets."

Are the reasons for such registrations of other devices consequent to the government having a legitimate nexus to the operation of the devices?

Again the question is to establish the reason(s) specifically for registration of firearms. I suggest that saying "I have to register my car, why not your gun?" establishes a false equivalence between the car and the gun which remains as yet legislatively suspect and legally unsound.

Boarding a commercial flight binds you to whatever rules the airline, airport and aircraft operator include in their contract of carriage and any rules enforced by law at an airport open to the public.

You ask, "Why are guns different?"; I say, "Show me that they are the same." There is a protected right to keep and bear arms along with certain rights to privacy and protections against self-incrimination.

This question is not rhetorical in the least. There are numerous political factions that seek to establish new bureaucracies and use any subsequent affects to their benefit in future elections.

You know which doors need kicked down.

...you know which politicians need unelected based on their voting record on such propositions.

To come for your guns. NRA sells its list of members to anyone with $.

The hard core ones with the bumper stickers. Average guy with one gun for hunting, not so much. Ted Nugent friends and owners of military type weapons, for the most part, are life members.

The membership of the NRA surpassed 5 million members a few years ago. But there are more than an estimated 300 million guns owned by American citizens. Even though many gun owners have more than one weapon, it seems mathematically correct that most of those owners don't belong to the NRA.

It's a small but interesting point. More importantly, I think that we don't generalize gun owners in caricatures.

That even gun owners support universal back ground checks. Mean while the NRA claims those background checks will lead to some form of registration.

and barely passed in Nevada.

weapons?

You mean such as this one???

?v=8CC7F04A93951A0

Spears and shields.

a few modern semiautomatic rifles. None of them are "military type". However, the Mauser 98 I pictured above is a real live battle rifle actually used in war.

Trump is part of the set of topics that has little or no intersection with the topic of the OP.

Good to see you around.

1) To facilitate removal of firearms from people who become prohibited persons after acquiring a firearm.
2) To increase effectiveness of a UBC requirement.
3) To enable future imposition of taxes or fees on registered property.
4) To facilitate confiscation of items that are subsequently banned.

(Caveat: Personally, I'm weakly negative on registration. I'd consider #1 and maybe #2 a reasonable argument-for registration, with #3 and #4 firmly in the argument-against category...)

1) Anyone becoming a prohibited person should have recourse to the finding and prohibition. (Due process, etc.) Thus, an ample reason for a warrant to search your home and vehicles shouldn't be a problem. Shouldn't this be SOP for everyone on becoming a prohibited person?

2) UBC enforcement would be no more effective than laws against stealing firearms. I infer that the objective of a UBC would be to prevent prohibited persons from gaining the possession of a gun. Enlisting the support of existing gun owners by making the UBC a free or nearly free exercise which could be conducted at a local law enforcement location on a voluntary basis would likely have better results than some heavy handed enforcement plan.

3) Regressive taxes should always be an important liberal objective.

4) Bans and prohibitions are spectacular money makers. Check with any Colombian cartel.

would never say out loud anyway). Bus as for #1 and #2:

I can accept that but can we discuss some specifics? Please give some examples.

I'm not sure all cases of #6 should be on the list nor should all felonies nor crimes punishable by 1 year plus terms. Bank robbers and rapists should always be prohibited. Possession of stolen property or forgers maybe not.

*I agree with the time limit as well.

Registration actually already occurs every time a legal purchase is made from a FFL holder ("gun dealer&quot .

The name of the purchaser, with identifying information, is recorded by the FFL together with a description of the firearm purchased including serial number. The ATF requires that information to be maintained in a "book" which must be kept by the FFL and transferred to any successor in interest.

Here's the rub. The FFL does not provide that information to any law enforcement agency. This means that the government has no idea who purchased a firearm until AFTER it is used to kill/hurt someone and AFTER the weapon is recovered. In other words, we have the information already, we just can't use it.

So I guess your question is: What would law enforcement do with this information if they had it in a single master list?

Well, one thing they would be able to do is to assemble a list of who is purchasing firearms and what kind of firearms they are purchasing. From such a list, they would be able to identify potential "straw purchasers" and non-licensed (non-FFL) dealers by checking to see how many weapons (and what kind of weapons) are being purchased by a given individual. For example, if Buyer A has purchased 40 Glock 19s over the last 6 months (or even 2 or 3 over the last week), law enforcement might well want to take a closer look at that individual to see if they are either: (a) intentionally purchasing weapons for individuals who they know to unable to legally possess such weapons (you know, folks like convicted felons); or, (b) running an illegal "gun store" where they sell firearms in what the claim is a person to person transaction (and thus free from the "hassle" of background checks, maintaining the "book" etc.) Both of these are violations of federal law and many state laws. More importantly, contrary to the myth some have pushed here, it is from THESE sales, NOT by stealing them, that most "professional" criminals obtain their weapons. Alerting law enforcement to such potential criminals allows it to target further criminal investigations. Cutting off this supply of guns is a good thing.

Another thing it would allow is to permit government to identify the demographics of gun purchasers to account for troubling social developments that the government might want to address. For example, the government might (oh, say it ain't so) discover that the overwhelming majority of gun purchases are made by white suburbanites who have been persuaded to accept the racist meme that they face a danger from "those people" sneaking into their suburban communities and doing them harm that is greater than the increased danger created by the mere presence of an additional firearm in their home. Addressing the spread of racist myths is a legitimate government interest.

Well, there's a couple for you anyway.

It's law in all 50 states that interstate firearm transfers take place between an FFL and an eligible possessor. The straw purchase law exists to backup the law requiring the FFL to perform an NICS inquiry.

Shooting someone (aside from self-defense) is minimally assault, against which there are a number of laws. Shooting someone in the commission of an assault is generally a felony. But, if you're not already a felon, nut, dishonorably discharged serviceman, etc. you can legally purchase a gun from an FFL by passing the NICS check. So it's "legal" to buy a gun to shoot your first victim not any others.

I have yet to understand why folks that have demonstrated and been convicted of serious acts of violence are let out of prison at all.

New one: use gun registrations to infer that buyers foster racist ideas about "those people". What then?

No doubt because you really have no grounds whatsoever for opposing a requirement that all information gathered by an FFL at the time of sale be kept in a centralized database. But, wth, I'll play.

First, let's talk about the group of people who benefit from straw purchasers and unlicensed gun dealers (1) Felons (well, that's only TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE, but, hey, what 20 million people with a new gun compared to the danger that jack-booted thugs will leave you incapable of watering the tree of liberty); (2) those previously adjudged mentally ill; (3) non-resident aliens; (4) those subject to a protective order for domestic violence; (5) those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; (6) drug addicts; (persons fleeing justice regardless of whether they have a prior conviction; (7) persons under indictment, even if they haven't been convicted . . . Oh DANG, it looks like 10's of millions of people benefit from straw purchasers and unlicensed gun dealers. Reading your post, it really sounded like unlicensed dealers and straw purchasers weren't people we need to know about and arrest BEFORE THEY SELL because there just weren't that many people who need to buy from them.

Second, let's talk about tracking the demographic trends among "self-protection" gun purchasers as a manner of detecting patterns of increasing racism and/or other socially-destructive belief systems. Here's some facts for you. Setting aside the militia-minded ( he "But I need my gun to protect my liberty from Obama" types), the vast majority of new gun purchases from FFLs (the kinds of purchases which would be accumulated in a national database) are by white suburbanites. White suburbanites, however, face a statistical risk of becoming the victim of violence (at the hands of anyone other than the family member who purchased his/her firearm on the same jaunt to the gun shop when the victim purchased theirs) that is actually less than the increased risk of serious bodily injury or death from the discharge of that weapon due to accident/mistake, suicide, and/or the actions of the family member the victim helped arm. So, if they are not in any REAL danger, why are they buying a gun? Hmmmmmmmmm Could it be that they have bought into the dangerous and racist meme that there are hordes of people who do not look/think/pray like them that are just waiting to harm them?

Let's hear your better explanation.

Since these white folks aren't in real danger, why are they scarfing up guns like candy? Be sure and have your roll on the floor smilie ready for that one.

One more thing . . . our criminal justice system is racist by design and effect as are harsh sentencing laws.

1- Felons: I very much don't want violent felons buying guns and, if they were locked up for life as they should be, this wouldn't be much an issue. OTOH I don't give a fig if some non-violent felon does or doesn't own a gun. Martha Stewart is a felon and probably could negatively impact more people by buying Sturm Ruger Co than by buying a ruger mini-14.

2- mentally ill: They should be on the NICS prohibited list.

3- non-resident aliens (can I call them NRAs ) yeah fine.

4 & 5- OoP subjects & convicted abusers: no argument as long as they have due process; life without parole for the violent.

6- drug addicts: if they are judged as a danger to self or others they should be involuntarily held until medically cleared. I suggest not allowing gun shops to operate inside drug rehabs.

7- fugitives, subjects of indictments for violent crimes or pending charges such charges: sure, should be on the NICS list.

Making an NICS check available to current gun owners would do more to limit the folks who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Keeping the violent confined would fix more of the effects of crime on society than inventing new crimes.

"Could it be that they have bought into the dangerous and racist meme..." maybe or maybe they're engaging in a sport or hobby.

The simple fact is that guns are the subject of these types of restrictions because they are the most efficacious tool to select when planning a robbery or murder. They are also the most efficacious tool to use in your own self-defense which is principally why most law enforcement carry a gun. They are frequent targets of violent folks.

If guns were somehow removed from humanity altogether, another weapon would become "the most efficacious tool to..." and that isn't an argument to protect people from themselves.

The simple fact is that guns are simple tools. Those who can't see that are also simple tools...

...and they're being used by politicians who just want to be elected or reelected.

to be sure.

Highly efficient tools that increase the volume of harm that any one person can do, hence the reason they are used for war, as opposed to say baseball bats or cars ( to use two popular distractions) and without which the volume of harm is decreased.

And indeed they are also the tools of politicians. . . in particular those who tell a shrinking majority that they are the key to maintaining a power they forged on the backs of the enslaved.

They average between 10 to 15 pieces. The sale is between me and the seller. Generally it is a all or nothing deal. That being so, I will purchase the entire collection to get the one or two I want.
The remaining I sell. Sometimes at shows, sometimes to dealers or to other collectors. I am not a dealer. I sell 10-12 firearms a year. Trade for 2-3 a year.
Been doing this for over 20 years.
According to current law I am not a firearms dealer, simply a collector.
I have a log of each and every purchase, and sale.

Am I one of your "illegal dealers"?

Under current law, you are not a dealer. It follows, then, that you are not an illegal dealer.

The question posed by the OP and explored by my response, however, was not who should be considered a dealer, but whether a person who is a dealer should be required to report the information they collect already to a national database. As that applies to someone like yourself, that question becomes whether the law enforcement interest in knowing who is purchasing (for example) 3 handguns every couple of days or who is making regular large firearm purchases without an FFL is outweighed by your interest in them not knowing that you purchase 15 weapons a couple of times a year.

IMHO the answer to that question is "no."

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"...rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms..."

Waiting for Obama to come and get their guns???

I wasn't aware there were ever any at all.

...belching?

In an effort to provide law enforcement with modern crime fighting tools, a new patentpending bullet identification technology known as the Ammunition Coding System (ACS) has been developed. ACS assigns a unique code to every round of ammunition manufactured, and by recording sales records, law enforcement personnel will be able to easily trace the ammunition involved in a crime and have an avenue to pursue and solve even the most difficult cases. The key to ACS is the unique code that is micro-laser engraved on factory-produced ammunition. This laser engraving is etched on both the projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing. Each code will be common to a single box of cartridges and unique from all other ammunition sold.

There are 91 unique characters on a standard computer keyboard. The ACS technology uses these characters in five, six, or seven columns. Typically, ammunition comes in boxes of either 50 or 20, and all bullets in a box will be coded alike. There are 12 common handgun and assault weapon calibers. This means that ACS can accommodate over 21 quadrillion unique bullet codes. Since it is estimated that there are approximately 10 billion bullets sold annually in the United States, and 20-30 billion bullets sold worldwide annually, the ACS has the capacity to keep pace with the current rate of sales for decades to come.

...register every box of ammo sold.

It's nothing that can be accomplished immediately, but I think legislation should proceed in that direction if supported by forensics.

1. Ammo boxes can be uniquely bar-coded by the manufacturer.
2. All boxes would have their codes scanned at point of sale.
3. ID's, examined by the seller, can be scanned at point of sale.

I'd want to first see independent studies that laser etching the BASE of the projectiles works from a forensics standpoint, but it seems feasible to me. It wouldn't necessarily need to be laser etching, but some other type of identifier at the base of the projectiles... the area less likely to be severely damaged upon impact.

I'd like government researchers to work on it, with no privately-held patent on such technology.

Would it be illegal to buy ammo for someone else?
Would it need to be reported if I left a box of .30-06 on the truck bumper by mistake and drove away?
Would reloaders who buy bullets in bulk and fit them to reused casings need some special permit?

I think this might be a huge and expensive project that may never convict anyone.

As long as that kind of technology is proven to work, I'd like to see it happen.

People who would do stuff like remove the projectiles, file down the base and put them in new cases? I think that would be rare. If people go to that much trouble, they're probably going to find better ways to kill others anyway.

People who are careless with their ammo? I assume it would be similar to investigations of people who had their ID'd guns stolen that were later used in a crime.

First, you'd be relying on commercial enterprises like Cabelas and Walmart to collect personally identifying info, verify that it's correct, transmit it to the government and then not retain the information. All you get from all of that (assuming everything goes as planned) is the prosecutor's ability to add to any other evidence he has, "We have solid evidence that Mr Smith bought the bullet used in the murder." To be believable by a jury there would need to be some short interval between the purchase and the murder. A few hours would be rather strong, a few years OTOH wouldn't.

I wasn't thinking of anyone removing the bullets from the casings. Those that shoot larger calibers and shoot often will buy equipment to reload their spent cases. I spent several days reloading some .30-06 prior to an extended trip to an outdoor range. You remove the spent primers from the casing you collected, inspect and resize the cases, add powder and new primers and press a new bullet into each casing. Buying these items in bulk and saving your brass to reload can save you money. We favored 150 gr copper jacketed spitzers. Altering or obliterating the markings would be simple.

Consider this scenario. I shoot often and favor .22 lr since it's cheap and light. I buy a dozen bricks of 500 rounds each when they go on sale. I meet 2 friends at the range for some plinking. Friend #1 brings his 22 revolver and friend #2 brings a ruger 10-22 rifle. We all use the same small cheap ammo. Friend #2 runs out of ammo and I give him 2 50 round boxes from one of those bricks which I bought 5 months ago and tell him he's buying me lunch. He shoots most of one box and tosses the one full and other partial box into his range bag. He locks the bag in his trunk and we meet for lunch at a diner. Returning home that evening he drops his range bag in hes driveway and a box of that ammo falls out unnoticed. Anyone can grab the box. I don't see that this guy has done anything wrong and he shouldn't have testify in court that he may have lost a box of .22.

actually tested instead of some press release from a corporation trying to sell it.

Even in terms of law enforcememt, little is gained. A gun used in a crime is unlikely to be registered to the criminal. If it is traced to the original purchaser, the weapon is by then most likely sold off or stolen. Better use, imo, is made of tracing ballistic signatures and serial numbers.

I do think BG checks, incorporated into official state i.d.s, may serve to thwart obvious illegal purchases.

So when the rules change later, they know who has the "newly" illegal items..

Like the formally compliant California SKS owners....This is why, registration is a complete NON-STARTER for me, registration, does indeed lead to confiscation.








Anyone who says fears of confiscation are unfounded, are LYING to you.

that the confiscation of ILLEGAL weapons is not a possibility.

Aside: the question of whether the CA "assault weapons" ban was good public policy is an entirely different matter and one upon which you might find some surprising allies.

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

the confiscation of ILLEGAL weapons is the problem, but registering LEGAL weapons, then at a later date, the state decides to make them illegal, then confiscates them with little/no compensation. Or, to reinterpret the law, like the AG did in ?MD?.

ETA: MA, not MD.

But that "no compensation" thing is a problem for both me and the Founding Fathers. Takings clause = just compensation. If that's the issue, he's right!

Cranial gastritis kicking in.

I know if a gun was registered to me I would be much less likely to transfer it to someone else illegally....a simple data base check will show its origination.
Also, when someone is found with a gun, it can be more quickly determined if he owns it legally. If not it can immediately be confiscated and removed, & perhaps a criminal charge applied (depending on self-incrimination rulings).

The problem is the 10s of MILLIONS of guns out there that will never be registered. Only through attrition will they be ever be affected, though they may be more apt to be kept tucked away(?).

Would it be illegal to "lose" a gun or have one "stolen"?
If you would report a gun lost or stolen, would there be search of you home, business or vehicle to confirm the loss?

"All of these activities and more require some form of governmental registration. Why are guns different?"

Because there's no Constitutional right to own a car or sailboat - there is a Constitutional right to own a handgun, however.