Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Blair's Bill" - National registry/licensing

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Cellar Dweller, Jun 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cellar Dweller

    Cellar Dweller Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Apparently not far enough outside Emperor Daley's
    OK, just saw this on ABC7Chicago.
    Rush proposed a national registry of firearms and national "possessor" licensing (including mandatory gun safety training of some sort), comparing it to a driver's license and car registrations. Since one can own any type of motor vehicle AND since one can drive it anywhere, including government-owned land or parking it on government-owned property, or, for that matter, one can drive/park onto private employer property...OK, instead of fighting it, how about amending it when it is submitted to include:

    1. Scrapping NFA '34 and the bad parts of FOPA '86, since all firearms will be registered anyway. Select-fire, SBS/SBR, AOW, suppressors, attachment of a shoulder stock to a pistol, etc. No taxes or additional fees, no limitations, all state and local rules to the contrary get struck down. New MGs can be purchased by anyone.
    2. CCW AND open carry in all 50 states, no government-regulated Criminal Empowerment Zones. Private employers CAN restrict carrying in the workplace but CANNOT restrict leaving weapons in the vehicle - but are liable for break-ins and theft.
    3. Training at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time - no "Government Facility that has a 20 year waiting list, takes 2000 hours and costs $10k, plus $5k per weapon or attachment, yearly training and yearly fees." Basically, using average or mean existing CCW qualifiers. I'm not gonna lose sleep over whether it should be 35 hours, 40 hours or 41.647 hours, and cost $50/5 years, $40/4 years, or $50/4years.

    Embrace it with amendments, then publicly chide the hoplophobes why they are not rushing to pass this important legislation to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. [sarcasm] After all, they're only anti-gun-violence, not anti-gun. [/sarcasm]

    Oh yeah, 300+ million guns and what, 100+ million lawful owners? Ya think the registry might just collapse under all that weight? :evil: Show them that to save money, register owners instead. IL and NJ already have FOID, some states have handgun permits, and isn't CCW a "government license" already? Would you openly acknowledge that you're a gunowner (as opposed to making the gov't work for it) in exchange for new goodies AND striking down most of the "20,000 gun laws" already on the books?
     
  2. wjustinen

    wjustinen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    Beaumont, AB Canada
    Terrific Idea

    We did that in Canada circa 1978. Firearms Aquisition Certificate. It didn't do anything to prevent introduction of the "long gun registry."

    For what it is worth 2A says "shall not be infringed." Insist on NO INFRINGEMENTS. In every battle, every compromise should be a move closer to the ideal. Never accept a move that causes more infringement.
     
  3. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Two words: massive non-compliance

    ;)
     
  4. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    Registration on a federal level is a violation of the FOPA. Wont pass, and will go nowhere like HR1022 or Dennis the Menaces handgun ban. AWB are a touchy area enough.
     
  5. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    How about instead of showing them a national gun ID card, I just show them my middle finger. The extended digit is straight and representative of a gun barrel. It means that I own a firearm. Anyone who gives a similar sign to a national firearms registry is signaling to the authorities that they too are in possession of a firearm. I think message will be clear to all authorities.
     
  6. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    I totally agree. If even California doesnt have a FOID, what makes him think the rest of the country will go the way of IL? It wont.
     
  7. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    The thing with bills like this is that they sound good on paper. "Oh, we'll all register our guns, crime will go down." The trouble is, from just a pure practical standpoint is that the implentation of registration would be too expensive. Big city liberals tend to think that gun owners number in the 100,000s. Just a couple small bubbas in the South with a mossy oak 12 gauge and a couple grandpas with Garrands up north. Figure 150 million gun owners in America, average of 5 guns per gun owner... 750 MILLION firearms to register. Probably more than that. I'd bet the number floats in the billions if you count guns not yet sold (and to be registered by dealers or manufacturers.). It would cost probably a hundred billion dollars or more to register everything. Figure national (tax-payer funded of course!) ad campaigns to inform everyone that their guns needed to be registered. There'd have to be a year-long amnesty. Employees hired to register the guns... couple that with people hired on low wages and who probably would enter things wrong. Don't forget lawsuits AFTER the registration for weapons that people thought were registered but were not. Investigations into criminal activity... How about we save the cash and just arrest the damn criminals. Since liberals tend to get all their info from movies, they all need to watch "Minority Report". Pre-crime units don't work!
     
  8. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    I am a paranoid type, and even I believe this wont go anywhere.
     
  9. SaMx

    SaMx Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Location:
    back and forth between PA and VA
    prince, your number is over twice as big as the real number. 250-300 million guns and about 80-100 million gun owners. The average gun owner has 3 guns.

    But in the end, what does a registry give you? You get a great big list of people who are allowed to own guns. AKA a big list of people who aren't likely to ever hurt anyone. Even if you can put the list together it's pretty useless. We can already trace who bought what gun, that's why you have the model and serial number on the 4437.
     
  10. Caimlas

    Caimlas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    SD
    I don't know what FOPA is, but I know it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If you have to register something (probably before taking it home or a f2f purchase), then you don't have a right to it. You are being allowed it.

    It might. But probably not. Our government isn't as half-arsed as California's when it comes to large databases and information management.
    We most certainly have more cars and drivers than we do gun owners in this country, and we've got more people in the Social Security database than either. Even if there are 500 million guns in the country, it would still be possible: they would simply do the registration per-state, and of course that works out to make things easier for them (the more populated states are, in general, the ones with fewer per-capita firearm owners). Credit card companies? Yeah, there is that much information being collected and kept by multiple state and federal agencies, as well as private interests, already.

    And as for Canada's firearm registry? The reason that never worked is because they didn't do it the right way. For one thing, the database backend they used was Microsoft Access, which isn't "enterprise" level database server.

    In short, universal firearm registration is quite possible. The technology is available for a police officer to be able to pull up pictures of the bring-back K98 Mauser your grandfather or father gave you, as well as your entire genealogical tree, if they so wanted to. The only limitations would be the man power to implement the infrastructure, and that's trivial.

    On this bill itself: those crafty bastards! They're trying to get the support of firearm owners who just like the nifty toys and don't have much regard for the 2nd, or simply don't realize that such a law will ultimately result in fewer rights. There are a lot of firearm owners out there who dont hold the 2A to be in such high regard that they wouldn't trade it in for a silenced full-auto MP5 (tactical tommies, anyone?), and probably even more who don't have a clue that this bill will even violate the 2A.

    That's utter nonsense. What we have now in SD is "reasonable", and anything more is restrictive: fill out a short form, submit form with $10, and you get back a CC permit in the mail in 10 days. Even if the guidelines say that it's supposed to be "reasonable", or that shall-issue permits shall be granted within a month or whatever, there will still be very populous parts of the country which would ignore those guidelines (NYC and LA, for instance, but there'd be others).
     
  11. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    Three words: cold dead hands.

    We are already winning, there is no need to compromise and give any ground to the gun grabbers. Since Chicago wants a federal law to solve a Chicago problem, why don't we have a national corrupt politician registry instead?
     
  12. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    I think you would probably have 100,000,000+ criminals overnight.

    And massive non-complience describes it perfectly, the constitution already says that it is the right of the people to bear arms, and the government cannot interfere with that right like it has already.
     
  13. Kali Endgame

    Kali Endgame member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    In a constant state of confusion.
    If they can register the cars, then they can easily register the guns.

    Here's an idea: How about we ban crime and register criminals. Oop, that isn't working, is it?

    Why do they continue to target law abbiding citizens? Criminals, by definition, don't abide by the laws.

    I just wasted two munutes of my life writing this. Oh well.
     
  14. Gifted

    Gifted Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,009
    Location:
    Missouri
    I looked at the cars/guns comparison. I think it'd be great. Did you know you can own a car without a driver's license? You can also drive one on private property without any registration.

    So, like cars, you'd have classes of license according to what you're carrying and how you're carrying it. Concealed pistol, open pistol, long arm, heavy weapons, possibly up to howitzer size. Like a car, you have to have the license to carry, register the gun, and you'd have to have insurance, though I'm not sure what that would be. Add in some protection for traveling(you don't need to license a car to carry it on a trailer), and such as that. Everything else goes bye-bye.

    And this would be shall issue, just like driver's licenses. You can go to the store, buy your gun, and take it home. Take it to the range, whatever. Hunting guns would need to be registered, and you'd need a hunting license, and of course CCW.

    I haven't thought it all out, so I'm sure there's a few things I'm missing. There's a bunch of crap in there that'd we'd need to go through, possibly a few things we wouldn't want. I think it might be worth looking into though.
     
  15. THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR

    THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    163
    Location:
    Southern RI
    I don't agree. I don't think anyone but me should know what guns I own and why. It's my business, and If I get pulled over and a LEO runs my name and comes up with too many guns, he might think I'm something I'm not (Not bashing LEOs, most of you guys are great)

    Anyway, like it has been said before 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Whether I own a .22 revolver or a 155mm howitzer, It's my business and not the goverments. And as for public safety, I think that if the govenment as a whole is working properly there should be no crime. Criminals should be too afraid to commit crimes, and if the odd psycho should pop up here or there he's gonna get blasted by everyone, because everyone should have a gun, and have it with them.

    None of this matters anyway. When america wakes up and the SHTF, I'll be there to put things right and go back to basics.

    And I hope you'll all join me when it comes time to do that thing that we aren't supposed to talk about!
     
  16. Caimlas

    Caimlas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    SD
    Hmm, I might consider working for the government again after all...

    That said, there are very few instances of problems with driver license and unintentional ID confusion (ie other than ID theft). Any problems with the system will likely be intentionally put in place by people involved with the effort who would rather not see it go through successfully.

    Yes, but what of the median gun owner? There are many, many people out there who own literally hundreds of guns. I know of a guy who has "a drawer full of .357 magnums" meaning the deep desk drawer variety.

    I just find it very, very hard to believe that there is less than 1 gun per person in this country (given that we just broke the 300 million person limit) given that any gun owning household is likely to have at least two generations of firearms at this point.

    Anyway, the reason they want to create this database is because they want to cow us by turning us into criminals. If, in addition to the existing criminal population, the population of "I haven't done anything wrong, hwat have I to fear?" types will decrease by at least a million. In doing so, the government creates 100 million people who would then be living in fear of the government, and therefore more easily controlled. "We have dirt on you, and if you don't roll on that guy who believes on the Constitution, we'll put you in jail instead."

    Gifted: NO NO NO NO NO! I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong on so many levels. First, car ownership and the ability to acquire a driver's license isn't a right. And you can very easily buy and drive a car on public roads without a license (just don't get caught - not that hard to do in much of the country). And, realistically, the federal government will not make it easy to do anything - is it generally hastle-free to deal with the government at any capacity, in your opinion?

    There's also the whole "we now have a list of every known firearm in the country and the people who possess them; we can clean out certain state firearm ownership - except for the criminals - in the more urban states in a couple months using police force if we want, now!" side of things.

    Huh? What are you talking about? Crowing corn and making whiskey? :p
     
  17. illspirit

    illspirit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Virginia
    I don't support the idea of a national registry, but I do think Cellar Dweller had the right idea on flooding it with fun amendments. If only to use as a poison pill. On top of those mentioned, how about:

    * Having classes/endorsements like motorcycles and commercial vehicles do on a drivers license, only for machine guns and destructive devices instead.

    * If we're really treating them like cars, make all the licensing stuff a State function.

    * Building on the car analogy, have mandatory gun safety training in high school a la drivers ed. (This might be a fun idea as its own bill anyway)

    The antis would flip out over the last one. Then we would be the ones asking them why they don't want kids to be safe. :p
     
  18. Cellar Dweller

    Cellar Dweller Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Apparently not far enough outside Emperor Daley's
    Caimlas

    Congressman Bobby Rush does not care about Constitutional issues nor does he care what firearm owners think. I would expect "his" license to be expensive and hard to get; probably with some sort of "demonstratable needs" provision - and of course it does nothing to reduce "gun violence." Criminals (aka more than a few of his constituents), by definition, won't need one.

    Instead of the usual "call your Congressman to oppose" (who can Mr. Rush's constituents call?) and letting the antis dictate what is a "reasonable" compromise, I'm suggesting a preemptive strike. Trade the registry (CCW, FOID, C&R and "permits to purchase" are government licenses, BATFE can inspect 4473s at whim, so unless all your purchases are off-paper you're in a government database) for the striking down of just about all odious gun control laws. It should also include verbage regarding confiscations and future proposed gun control as "not gonna happen, so don't even THINK about suggesting it."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What will likely happen is the bill will be drafted by a staffer, as bad as you or I can imagine, then Congressman Rush will introduce it. NFA, GCA, FOPA (the bad parts), AWB I, Brady Bill, and Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (to name a few) all became law...
    Like a select-fire weapon which must have been made prior to 1986 (that is the "bad part" of FOPA I was referring to)? Or the the "allowance" of a SBS/SBR/AOW/suppressor, as in permit to purchase + registry + tax + fingerprints + kidney + lung + first-born child? :evil:
     
  19. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    The FOPA - Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986. It protects FFLs from unreasonable searches from the ATF, forbids a federal registry database of firearms, but unfortunately Democrats at the time (remember - Reagan had a Democratic controlled Congress his whole time in office) put in the freezing of the MG registry.

    I doubt Booby Rush even realizes his act is illegal. Oops, thats right he probably doesnt care.
     
  20. 30 cal slob

    30 cal slob Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Location, Location!
    Well, I was thinking of using my bare posterior instead, since both of my middle fingers will be wrapped around my pistol (when they aren't up my nose).
     
  21. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm also taking into account guns sitting in dealer's inventories. I don't know when the cencus was last taken, but I'd still bet that my number was closer to the real one. I'm going to bet (given the attitude I've seen on THR) that most of us under-report the number of guns we own :) . So between under-reported ownership and dealer inventory, the 750 million mark probably isn't that far off.
     
  22. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Wild spin off, I know, but I am thinking, yeah, why not just do what the UN proposed for Iraq and provide gun ownership only with government approval? If that's where it's headed, why not cut to the chase? Who is fooled by this stuff?
     
  23. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    opening up a registration on owners/guns basically gives any politician a huge database for taxation/confiscation/2A infringment gone wild, fight it and fight it hard. gun control and crime control are basically apples and avacados, always have been, and always will be.
     
  24. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    Historical analysis proves that Registration always (without fail) leads to confiscation.
    I am not going to put all of my research on here so don't ask for it.

    Jefferson
     
  25. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    How do you know?

    All such numbers are merely estimates.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page