Help needed for CLEO signoff database.

[kingpin008]

The fact is the antis and those with a political axe to grind against a NFA friendly CLEO (like their political opponents) aren't going to care how many times a registered machinegun has been used in a crime.

Respectfully, the "fact" is that the anti's already have an axe to grind, and they've been grinding it for years. That hasn't stopped us from throwing reality in their faces, and it hasn't stopped non-gunnies from doing their own research and drawing their own conclusions. This is no different than any other issue connected to gun ownership - the anti's will always try to skew the facts and play games with the truth, it's kinda what they do. That shouldn't stop us from doing things we want to do.

So why make it easy for the antis and the political opponents of a gun friendly CLEO by posting it online?

Once again, what information would we be giving up that isn't already available? The anti's might be ignorant, but they're not stupid. They know how to find information if they want to. All the information that would be compiled in this proposed database is already available - it's just scattered. It has nothing to do with being lazy.

Because the CLEO did you good by happily signing your F4 and you want to repay that kindness by risking his political career?

Oh come on now. First of all, nobody forces CLEOs to sign off on these forms. They don't have to, and most of them know that very well. So don't play that game, because logic dictates that if a CLEO is willing to sign, he's at least partially aware that the word that he is willing to sign will get around. Wether that means by word of mouth, phone call, chatter between shooting buddies at the local range, forum post, or database. Once again, you're not revealing anything that isn't already out there.

 

[fairfax1]

This is what happens when the anti's whine about machine guns. This was for the confirmation of Justice Alito, but it will give an example of the tactics they will use:


http://www.machinegunsammy.com/
SAMUEL "MACHINE GUN SAMMY" ALITO

is WANTED for:

-Voting to strike down the 1986 federal machine gun ban. In the 1996 case U.S. v. Rybar, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in the decision upholding the conviction of a gun dealer who sold illegal machine guns at a Pennsylvania gun show.

-Possession of an unusual and extremely restrictive view of Congressional regulatory power. Alito (also called "Scalito" by his associates because of his similarity to conservative Judge Antonin Scalia) is known to possess views that could imperil virtually every federal law that regulates firearms, ammunitions, and explosives.

-Known consortion with practically criminal organizations, including the NRA. The NRA's opinions almost completely mirror Alito's own, as they also worked to destroy the 1986 federal machine gun ban, and made plans to "actively work toward the repeal of the recent machine gun ban and will take all necessary steps to educate the public on the sporting uses and legal ownership of automatic firearms." Their efforts in that case failed.

-Threatening the future of the country. If Samuel Alito's minority opinion were to become reflected in our nation's Supreme Court, all Americans would be at even greater risk from uncontrollable firearms proliferation. In a time of increased concern from terrorist threat, Alito's views aren't just radical, they're dangerous.

"MACHINE GUN SAMMY" IS TO BE CONSIDERED
ARMED (with extreme political views)
AND DANGEROUS (to the nation's future) AT ALL TIMES!

Approach with caution, and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you approve this man's nomination to the Supreme Court.

 

[kingpin008]

So? Like any political or activist group, people expect that kind of crap from the anti's. It's not news. As I said before, the anti's will always have something to crow about, whether it's true or not (most times not). That doesn't mean that people actually believe them anymore.

Look at Heller. People are starting to see through the anti's games. And even if they weren't - the information in the proposed database is already available! That's what I don't understand about this whole thing. People seem to be of the mindset that the knowledge of whether or not a CLEO will sign off is some type of uber-secret knowledge, unavailable to the general public. Guess what? It's anything but secret or unaccessible.

 

[MGshaggy]

Kingpin, If a CLEO is willing to sign I don't assume he knows or assumes that fact is or will become widely available public knowledge. I think you make a big assumption there.

If a CLEO is willing to sign I do, however, assume they are at least neutral on the issue, or possibly progun. Afterall, they don't have to sign, so if they're anti-gun you're just not going to get a signoff.

Now I don't know about you, but I've got a good CLEO who willingly signs, and believes in the 2nd amendment. I like having a sheriff who thinks the way I do when it comes to individual ownership of guns, especially as it may relate to self-defense. I want to keep them in office, so I don't think it wise to put up info which could be detrimental to them or their political career. Sure, it may get out anyway, but why serve it up to their political enemies on a silver platter when all you have to do is pick up the phone?

 

[kingpin008]

Why do you keep coming back to the "laziness" argument?

If I want to make a phone call, is it because I'm too lazy to walk down the street to talk to my friend in person?

If I write an email, am I too lazy to scribble out an actual letter and mail it?

No. It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of convenience and efficiency. Just because something makes a task easier, doesn't mean it's for lazy people.

And why do you keep coming back to the argument that having such info available is detrimental to the CLEO's career? As I've mentioned more than a few times before, it's already easily available should one wish to find it. A database would do nothing more than collect in one spot, rather than have it scattered in different places. That's ALL having a database would do. Simple, right?

Kingpin, If a CLEO is willing to sign I don't assume he knows or assumes that fact is or will become widely available public knowledge. I think you make a big assumption there.

Why wouldn't they assume as much? You don't think people will talk amongst themselves and share knowledge? And define "widely available knowledge". Many Class III dealers wil readily supply the names of local CLEOs who will sign to anyone who asks about the process, how is that not "widely available"?

Bottom line, I simply don't think your arguments hold much water. It doesn't seem like we're personally going to be able to sway each other to our own arguments, and that's fine. For the most part, I'm done going back and forth. Not that is isn't fun, I'm just tired of arguing the same points over and over again.

 

[TX1911fan]

I sent my CLEO, Sheriff Jim Wilson of Williamson County, TX, a letter telling him I voted for him but will not ever do so again. He refuses to sign off on NFA items for "civilians." I have seen the light with respect to Sheriff elections, and will be more vigilant next time. I won't waste my vote again.

BTW, I used a trust, and it was a piece of cake.

 

[MGshaggy]

Bottom line, I simply don't think your arguments hold much water.

Nor do yours, so we agree on at least one point.

 

[kingpin008]

Nor do yours, so we agree on at least one point.

Indeed.

 

[freonr22]

A thief

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=210889
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=169129
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=220492

He is a thief

 

[Bruno2]

Why dont you post up the "trust" style of obtaining class 3 for everybody to use . This way is better your wife and kids can be on it and it DOESNT REQUIRE A SIGN OFF . I have a buddy that has the form it takes to establish the trust that an attorney put together and its just a fill in the blank form .