View Full Version : Outsider's gun control question
I try to take a balanced, realistic view of the world. I'm not from a gun-owning background, but I do enjoy shooting (soon-to-be ex-military) and know many responsible gun owners.
Like most people here, I see the idea of gun control to reduce violent crime as, mostly, a psychological band-aid for America's conscience. Obviously, criminals by definition do not follow the law and obtain guns legally. And the assault weapons ban is a joke.
However, a person once countered that with, "Well, all those illegal guns were legal at one point!" That does raise interesting questions. I mean, these criminals ARE buying guns from an intermediary, and I'm sure HK and SIGarms don't go selling guns off the loading dock illegally. So someone is taking legal guns and making them illegal.
How does this process work? What are the origins/routes of illegal gun ownership? Where could the tide be stemmed?
I'm fairly libertarian, and not for police-state monitoring for the most part, but are there any methods by which the government could hold people more accountable for their guns, thus preventing the legal-to-illegal conversion?
So, for those of you in the know...where do illegal guns come from?
MD
Edit: Mods, please move if appropriate...I realize this is a hardware forum. Just didn't see another good place to post this.
So someone is taking legal guns and making them illegal.
How does this process work? What are the origins/routes of illegal gun ownership? Where could the tide be stemmed?
MD
As a (now former) street cop, I can tell you that EVERY weapon I took off a criminal was stolen - either from an individual, a business (pawn shops, gun shops) or from a government agency (military).
Criminals, from my experience (and others will confirm this or not), either buy them from other criminals or steal them themselves. (Not talking about the waitress you stop at 0300 who confides she is packing a .32 without a permit because she is scared to be out at night.)
Other than securing both criminals and weapons better - I'm not sure there is a better point at which to stem the tide.
Kahuna5150
12-06-2004, 15:20
I'll second the vote on stolen guns. If not stolen, then sometimes a crook will get their mom/dads old gun when they die, they'll get a gun from someone who legally owns it, but needs to pay off a debt (drugs usually). Overall you're right... Crooks aren't just going into the gun store to buy a gun. Many also get their boyfriend/girlfriend to do a "straw purchase". They are legal to buy a gun, so they get it in their name and then give it to the crook.
Basically the only way to put a big damper on gun crime is to ban all guns from everyone (not one gun is allowed into the country, citizens, police, military, etc)... Obviously not going to work and a stupid idea (in my opinion). Or just enforce the gun laws on the books now 110%. Felon with a gun throw the book at them. Long prison sentence. Someone steals a gun, give them 10 to 20 years in prison, etc.
Limiting gun ownership only makes it hard for the legal citizen to get a gun. At the same time, citizens are their own worst enemies (and I'm no different). How long did I own multiple guns before I owned a safe? Guilty as charged. Luckily the only time I was burglarized I had my guns either in my locker at the PD or on my person. If they had hit the house a few months prior they would have found at least one of my guns at home under the bed. No kids at the time so I didn't have to worry about a kid getting ahold of it, but a burglar would have gotten a new pistol.
I think having a safe is a bare minimum now... I spent as much on a safe as I would have spent on 1 new gun. Took me 10 years to do it.. :)
Kahuna
Its a complicated problem with a simple solution, Everyone who legally owns a gun needs to take every precaution necessary to keep it secure. The police will continue to do everything they can to get illegal guns off the street. Hopefully the courts will hand out lengthy sentences, what else can be done?
zlmajors
12-12-2004, 01:36
I like kahuna's post. I too had two handguns for a long time prior to buying a safe. Getting married was my motivation for the safe I have now. Unlike Kahuna I actually did have a handgun stolen in a home burglary, after that I kept my guns hidden (not under the bed). But I should have bought a safe.
The original question is complex, as kahuna said banning all guns is the only absolute way and in America that'd never be a viable option.
TAC803NY
12-12-2004, 06:55
The right to keep and bear arms comes with very weighty responsibilities. Inherent in the exercise of those rights, one is legally and morally obligated to take reasonable steps to preclude weapons from falling into the hands of those persons who are a danger to themselves or others. Legislation does not imbue responsibility, although it gives the community recourse to deal with those who act irresponsibly. People who use firearms in the commission of a crime need to go away for a long time. It may not act as a complete deterrant, but at least it will take somebody dangerous off the streets.
Tac
Everyone has contributed a great deal to the subject but, I assert that there is a first time to commit a crime with a firearm, meaning that at one point in time, most criminals could legally purchase a firearm. I think a society which allows or even encourages its citizens to arm provides the first deterent against criminals using firearms. Look at any city with a ban and you'll see one with a greater firearms crime rate than one with free carry ( permit required or not). Likewise, you'll find a city with a bigger illegal weapons market.
Just food for thought.. :cool:
Renegade
12-12-2004, 17:33
When a criminal steals a gun, it is not the fault of the gun owner (even if he left it on the front porch), anymore than it is a rape victims fault for getting raped because she was walking through Central Park at night.
Sure they are smart things you can do to prevent being a victim, but it is the criminal and the criminal alone who takes responsibility for the theft.
In your example, you're ignoring the responsibility of the gun owner to account for the safety of others; he is perhaps negligent in his failure to secure an item inherently dangerous to other people.
Logically, I suppose, you could extend my thinking to make a car owner liable if his vehicle is stolen and used to harm someone/commit a crime, but I think there's a reasonable-person call that makes the difference pretty apparent to anyone. A gun is a tool for specifically for killing people, unlike cars and hammers and knives.
Anyhow, thanks all for the input...looking forward to hearing more. I saw something, and I think it might have been on Law and Order, so maybe it's fictional BS, but I vaguely recall something about I95 being a corridor for gun smuggling, where people purchase firearms legally in the south and transport them north to be sold illegally. Sound familiar to anyone? Or is it just South-bashing? I don't even know the relative ease of buying a handgun in different states.
MD
Renegade
12-12-2004, 20:03
In your example, you're ignoring the responsibility of the gun owner to account for the safety of others; he is perhaps negligent in his failure to secure an item inherently dangerous to other people.
No, I am not ignoring it; I deny any responsibility exists. Any "responsibility" is a liberal invention of the last century, as a result of failing to properly hold the actual criminal responsible, and to look for someone else to blame, probably with lots of money to be taken from them in a civil suit. I do not buy into it. I hold the criminal fully responsible for it and anything bad that occurs.
trackstar16
12-12-2004, 20:16
I hold the criminal fully responsible for it and anything bad that occurs.
I had to check twice to make sure I didn't write that statement! :D
Negligent or not, unless you physically put the gun in a criminal's hands, only the criminal should be "responsible" for whatever ignorance takes place at the hands of that criminal and said gun.
No, I am not ignoring it; I deny any responsibility exists. Any "responsibility" is a liberal invention of the last century, as a result of failing to properly hold the actual criminal responsible, and to look for someone else to blame, probably with lots of money to be taken from them in a civil suit. I do not buy into it. I hold the criminal fully responsible for it and anything bad that occurs.
Uh, oh, I'm throwing a flag on flagrant use of the "L" word...and a hop on the convenient "frivolous lawsuit" bandwagon.
I definitely see your point philosophically, and agree with the idea of the CRIMINAL being responsible for theft and harm. However, we're not living in a world of philospohy; we're living in reality, and the reality is that there ARE bad people out there, and we need to account for them.
And LE's purpose, if I may make a stretch here, is to make society and the good people safer, not just to catch the bad guys for being bad. And we're all definitely safer if criminals can't get guns as easily. (temper that with the right to bear arms...because otherwise, that logic takes you to a full-on gun ban. The Constitution is a great thing.)
To say that the gun owner should bear no responsibility for his weapon's security (note: not saying to hold him responsible for crimes committed with a stolen weapon, just require him to observe certain precautions) is to say, perhaps, that the US military shouldn't bother to guard its own armories or nuclear weapons, because if a thief, gangter, or terrorist decides to steal them, it's their crime and they'll be punished for it. Perhaps it's a slightly hyperbolistic example, but it shows the point. We're all safer if criminals can obtain fewer firearms.
As someone pointed out above, the right to bear arms comes with responsibilites. It's not unreasonable to demand gun owners take reasonable measures to secure their firearms from theft or misuse.
MD
Edit: Guess by saying LE's job is more than catching bad guys, I'm violating my idea of libertarianism. Then again, I've always been suspicious of my own "libertarian" tendencies, because while it's a great Enlightenment type idea, it may not work so well in practice...
At least no one can accuse me of not being introspective.
Renegade
12-13-2004, 11:06
As someone pointed out above, the right to bear arms comes with responsibilites.
No it doesn't. That is another recent "invention" by trial lawyers.
. It's not unreasonable to demand gun owners take reasonable measures to secure their firearms from theft or misuse.
Yes it is. What is reasonable, but seems to be losing favor, is demanding criminals be held accountable for their crimes.
No it doesn't. That is another recent "invention" by trial lawyers.
You can't seriously say that owning a gun doesn't come with a set of responsibilities. While I agree with the principle that if somebody steals that gun, it's not necessarily my fault, there are other things to take into consideration as well. The gun is left unlocked in my house and a child finds it and gets hurt, your logic suggests that it's the kid's fault he found the gun?
Renegade
12-13-2004, 12:39
This thread is about criminals obtaining guns - I say you have no responsibility as it relates to criminals.
And I'm not disagreeing with you in that aspect, but there's a bigger picture. I don't think you can NOT lock up a weapon just because legally you don't have any obligations if a criminal takes it.
No it doesn't. That is another recent "invention" by trial lawyers.
Yes it is. What is reasonable, but seems to be losing favor, is demanding criminals be held accountable for their crimes.
You're basically positing that responsibilities of gun ownership are mutually exclusive to punishing criminals who steal or use firearms.
This isn't a logical train of thought. No one is saying that criminals shouldn't be punished for crimes, nor are they trying to hold gun owners responsible for the crimes committed by criminals.
We're saying that it's logical to require gun owners to maintain their firearms in a manner that reduces the likelihood of theft or misuse. Say, requiring the owner to be present when his weapon isn't in storage (carried ready, or ready in the nighttable drawer for home defense purpose) or stored in a safe that meets certain standards for security and non-portability if the owner isn't present. This would help prevent accidents (owner is responsible for the weapon in his presence, and no kids are going to crack the safe) and make theft more difficult and possibly deterred.
MD
Edit: We're off-track here, btw...this thread wasn't supposed to be about gun owners' responsibilities or even gun control per se, but where illegal guns actually come from. I certainly don't mind the thread drift in the name of some good debate, but I'd sure like to hear from some more LE guys with experience in where criminals get their guns, if we haven't already covered that in its entirety.
Leaving a weapon on a park bench, or at a dining table at the food court in the mall is not being responsible. I fail to see how having a weapon stolen from my home, regardless of where I leave it, is my responsibility. I'm probably a bit older than many of the posters here. I remember the day when I, being a country boy, took my shotgun to school for show and tell. I raised my two children to respect firearms and trained them to use them properly. Respect for others and others' property is not an inherent trait, but a learned behavior. Accepting responsibility for ones actions is also a learned behavior, lost in a large part by failure of teaching respect. Unfortunately it seems blaming others has become the accepted behavior. Laws are only good as a deterrant, if there is a consequence for failure to obey the law.
As long as lawyers are willing to take cases on a "no fee unless we win" basis, this sort of nonsense will continue. It's like the comedian, who's name escapes me, says: When reading the instruction on a bottle of sleeping pills and it says: Warning, may cause drowsiness, you know what that means, someone was stupid enough to take the pills, then sue the company because they fell asleep while driving. There oughta be a law.
DFrost
Leaving a weapon on a park bench, or at a dining table at the food court in the mall is not being responsible. I fail to see how having a weapon stolen from my home, regardless of where I leave it, is my responsibility. I'm probably a bit older than many of the posters here. I remember the day when I, being a country boy, took my shotgun to school for show and tell. I raised my two children to respect firearms and trained them to use them properly. Respect for others and others' property is not an inherent trait, but a learned behavior.
See, my gun background is as a Marine, and I'm guided by two principles...
1) never let your weapon off your body or at least out of your reach, and
2) "If there's one thing in this world I hate, it is an unlocked foot locker...If it weren't for AHs like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world!" (not an accusation to anyone here, just a quote from everyone's favorite gunny...)
True, we can't be responsible for the behavior of others...that's why we each need to do what WE can do personally in order to make the world a better place!
MD
Edit: After thinking some more, I don't see how gun-safe regs and such would be enforcable without being intrusive on the lives of law-abiding gun owners, except after the fact of a burgulary or accident, and then trying to cite them for an offense would be adding insult to injury. So, it still works philosophically for me, but I don't see it as practical...
Believe me I could go on and on. However, some points to ponder. For some reason, the quick shot at gun control laws is that they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. This is Profundity for Idiots. Sounds meaningful and has no meaning. Under that standard every law enforced by every officer and agent is a failure. Homicide laws do not prevent people from committing homicide; drug laws do not prevent people from getting high; speeding laws etc.etc. So what do they do? Well depending on the surety with which they are enforced and the resources devoted to enforcing them they may form a deterrent or suppressant effect (thus folks might agree that ramming the gun control act down the throat of prohibited persons may supress violent crime rates - call this Project Exile). The act of ramming is called accountability. You are a career criminal, catch you with a bullet and you do a minimum mandatory 15. What is your career? Armed Robbery? See you in 15 spud.
I personally am skeptical about the stolen gun thingy. By the logic involved most hit and runs are committed with stolen cars. Persons who dump their guns on the street often use the reported theft as a half ass attempt to clear their back trail. ATF tracing studies show that significant criminal gun availability is the product of those who either in collusion with retail dealers or who acting to defraud legit dealers buy them at retail and then sell them at markup across the street, across the county line, across state lines. The reason for my skepticism is that the guns frequently traced in crimes do not match with the guns most commonly owned by straight citizens across the board. Still a lot of stolen guns out there, worked and ATF still works some pretty ugly ones where everybody working in the gun shop got executed and the inventory cleaned out. My skepticism isn't that there aren't stolen guns its that folks claim that is all that is going on out there which is often an exuse to cover that there is some minor level of industry corruption.
Locking up your gun as appropriate may keep you child or a playmate alive, but is probably not the core of keeping guns off the street. that is a product of tracing the guns you recover and ensuring that the gun control laws in your jurisdiction are actually used or enforced. If not, you live in Never Never Land and policing is always tough where there are no adults.
Jack, maybe you could shed more light on this than anyone, but what do you think about a country like Canada where nobody but cops and the military is allowed to have handguns?
I have a friend who's a cop up there and says they almost NEVER find guns on people up there, and the crime rate involving handguns supports that.
Is the only answer to regulate guns so tightly as to keep them out of the hands of everybody except the chosen few that use them for work (police, military, security)?
Just asking a question, so don't flame me gun fans.
Jack, maybe you could shed more light on this than anyone, but what do you think about a country like Canada where nobody but cops and the military is allowed to have handguns?
I have a friend who's a cop up there and says they almost NEVER find guns on people up there, and the crime rate involving handguns supports that.
Is the only answer to regulate guns so tightly as to keep them out of the hands of everybody except the chosen few that use them for work (police, military, security)?
Just asking a question, so don't flame me gun fans.
I think that you also need to account for the fact that Canada just isn't as urban or crime-ridden a place as the US...if it was, criminals might create a demand for [hand]guns that would be served by an illicit market. It's the people who are the real problem, not the guns. Still, it's not illogical to try and reduce illegal gun availability in the name of making society safer...sometimes you have to treat symptoms in lieu of or concurrently with a real cure.
I mean, look at M. Moore's Bowling for Columbine. He starts whining about how Canadians have all these [long]guns, but little to no gun-related crime and violence compared to the US. Yet, he doesn't look at the obvious fact that all these Canadian gun owners are legitimate and legal, and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the 11,000 or so dead in the US every year from guns are, in the vast majority, not shot by legitimate and legal guns wielded by legitimate and legal gun owners.
(PLEASE don't get me started on critiquing this movie...I've already written pages upon pages upon pages of analysis and criticism on other forums...ironically, it was the first Moore film I ever saw, and I was expecting a realistic and insightful look at the world, not slickly-packaged propoganda. He's a master at his craft-I put him on par with Leni Riefenschtal for his ability to span gaps and contradictions in logic with emotion-but he's a decietful SOB, and nothing clost to a 'documentarian'.)
MD
I think regulating guns that closely is a bad start to going down the wrong path. I agree with Mike's thoughts that it's the people, and not the guns, that are the primary problem. That being said, if only allowing cops and military to have handguns cut down the gun related crimes, it would only be a matter of time before somebody said "Hey, why not take THEIR guns away, too?" After all, if nobody is shooting at the cops, then why do they need to shoot back? Suddenly you've got LE walking around with no more range than their Tasers will reach, and criminals with AK-47s on the opposite side of the line. Bad juju.
One big difference between us and Canadians is that we just don't trust the gov't or its officials. Thank Washington, Madison, et al.. for that attitude. UK/Canadian police officers chuckle over the restraints placed on their American counter parts. They have a broader police power when it comes to search & seizure, warrants, traffic stops, rules of evidence, etc..
One big difference between us and Canadians is that we just don't trust the gov't or its officials. Thank Washington, Madison, et al.. for that attitude. UK/Canadian police officers chuckle over the restraints placed on their American counter parts. They have a broader police power when it comes to search & seizure, warrants, traffic stops, rules of evidence, etc..
Yeah, Euros probably wouldn't think twice about having to have government inspectors check your gun safes monthly to make sure you're in compliance with storage regulations...after all, you own a GUN for god's sake, someone had better be accounting for it!
(Note: that's pure conjecture, I know, but from my experience, Euros generally accept police power and gov't regulation much differently than we do. Attribute that to our sudden coming-into-being as a nation born of Enlightenment principles, rather than an evolution from absolutism to some form of republic/democracy.)
Actually, I am not personally moved by some of these nation to nation comparisons. One problem is that often the other countries, august and proud as they are are more analagous to a state than to the US. Some got their frontiers settled and civilization going at a point in history when LE rode big horses and wore tin suits, kind of pre gunpowder guys. Plus the gun control advocates always point up victory in terms of gun violence while ignoring defeat. There are relatively homogenous ethnic countries where guns are widely owned and can barely hold onto a central government. Canada is probably most like us without really being us. Really more in a French/English tradition which is very much culturally into shooting food but not each other. Actually, we are more into shooting food than each other too, but the ratio is not so great. My point is to watch out for the causality. Canada has a robust frontier tradition but is not into the gunfighter and was pretty non violent before it had gun control laws. Those laws are an expression of their cultural position and that is their right.
We come from a revolutionary tradition of distrust of government and authority and independent acts of conscience. Really good stuff comes from that. Also really bad. We have a great tradition of fantasizing violence and seeing it as a solution (not entirely illegitimate, either).
Doesn't mean we can't get to be peace loving. But consider that we finally decided that maybe career criminals ought to be penalized for getting guns only in the 1980's and that we ought to check that career criminals are not buying guns in the marketplace in the mid 1990's. those in favor of career criminals buying AR-15's at retail raise their hands. Gun control laws, at least the US model is far less about controlling firearms than setting up a mechanism to punish threatening people who are getting firearms. I think the great American fantasy is that a gun can make you safe. that is a luck solution to me. Owning an appropriate firearm, using it well and effectively through training and discipline and lifelong practice and understanding the tactics of gunfighting to win, while never posing a panicked threat to others is the code of the gun I was raised with, trained in and exercized. The rest is Hollywood BS.
Now after a lot of years, Jack is pretty damn sure he is right on this stuff, but open minded to learn more. I also think there is a move to a more peaceful consensus on all this. It's just not yet but if you take the long view, from 1934 to date the movement has been to accept more laws and restrictions. Some have not worked so good and have been done away with, others in spite of the hype work pretty good. Another 70 years from now we are Canada, not because of gun grabbers or gun lovers but because we are changing. By the way lots of guns in Canada now, plenty in US 70 years out.
Renegade
12-14-2004, 19:50
Actually, I am not personally moved by some of these nation to nation comparisons.
That is because the comparisons are bogus. Not only is their gun crime down, but so is their knife crime, hammer crime, rape, robbery, you name it, all of it. How does tight gun laws prevent non-gun crime?
Now if, their non gun crime was the same as the US, and only their gun crime numbers were low, that might suggest tight gun laws are doing something.
TAC803NY
12-19-2004, 17:31
Has anybody looked at the trends toward violent crime in the countries with the tightest gun laws? It's true that canada has restrictive gun laws, but citizens can still own guns....as a matter of fact, they can own almost anything with the proper paperwork (unless the government objects..like snub nose revolvers). England and Aus. had significant spikes in violent crime immediately after severe gun restrictions were put in place, and the crime wave continues. Criminals do not fear accosting/raping/robbing the private citizen because he is unable to adequately defend himself. Guns are tools, that need to be used responsibly by people willing to take responsibility for themselves. gun control doesn't work on criminals period. They are criminals....they don't care about laws (unless the local prosecutor is willing to use project exile or something equally effective, removing them from the crime continum for a long time).
Tac
TAC803NY
12-19-2004, 17:37
I also feel compelled to mention that there was an alleged study from USDOJ that was allegedly supressed. It broke down numerous catagories of crime in the US by ethnic, racial, and several sociological and demographic catagories. Anybody ever see this? It allegedly wasn't politically correct, and was sixed.
Tac
I'm following your train of thought on this, TAC. It is my understanding that in Australia, firearms related crimes have been replaced with even more violent crimes; that is to say, instead of holding you up at gunpoint for your watch, criminals are more likely to hit you with a hammer and then take your watch. In either scenario, you are less prone to resist the perp, and their goal is accomplished one way or the other. This is another side to the same roll of the dice. There has been no appreciable reduction in crime, just a reduction in firearms related offenses and a rise in "other" offenses.
k9cop21811
12-20-2004, 16:11
I didn't have time to read all the posts, but can tell you that as long as there are people willing to break the law in acquiring firearms, whether it's somebody that steals them or gets somebody to "legally" buy a gun for them (what's commonly referred to as a "straw" purchase), it will be an uphill battle. Not trying to enforce firearms law because doing so is only perceived as a "band-aid" to the overall problem is kind of like telling police to stop enforcing the DUI laws. There's so much of it out there, why try. The answer is clear; you do it because that one person you arrest for DUI may have been enough to save a life. That's no less true for every crime gun taken off the street. Thefts are an issue, but while it's a problem, it's one that can be dealt with through a "typical" police investigation. Most of the other avenues are ones that ATF has to deal with, primarily. Gun thefts have hit close to him with me on the job, however. A friend of my father, who's a licensed gun dealer, was murdered a couple of years ago during a robbery of his gun store. Because he was federally licensed it could have been a fed. death penalty case, but our office worked with the locals and they ended up getting life sentences by the state. No gun law would have changed that, I don't think. I can't help but think about the guns that were used to kill my dad's friend though and never take getting even one gun off the street lightly. Maybe that one gun lets one father, mother or child come home from a situation they might not have otherwise.
The lack of any type of paperwork requirement for a sale beyond what is purchased from a licensed gun dealer (other than in states that require handgun purchase permits and subsequent registration, like Michigan) can be a problem and the fact that a private citizen can sell his "collection" to anybody without any type of documentation is a major hurdle. That's the problem in the South, generally. Very little oversight by the states in terms of firearms sales by private persons. I could write a book on all the ways guns go from being legal to illegal. I won't because this is a public forum, but basically, if you can think of it, somebody does it and the end result is guns on the street. Add all of the ways in which folks break the law up and the end result is more guns on the street than LE can deal with effectively.
If I could implement just one mode of change it would be to require every gun sale in the US to be documented, to include private sales, so that when a gun is seized by police, we can find out who is responsible for it being there. From experience I can tell you that a majority of the time a legal purchaser is at the root of the problem (not to be confused with a responsible, legal gun owner, I'm talking about that small percentage that breaks the law in hopes of not getting caught). In my three years at this a very small percentage of the guns we have seized were stolen. I digress. It's irresponsible for anybody to sell a firearm to a complete stranger and it happens all the time, legally. I have a private gun collection and wouldn't dream of selling one of my guns to a stranger. If/when I ever sell any, I will, at the very least, take down info. on who that person is via an ID check (I actually did sell one years ago). If they don't want to show that, they can buy a gun from somebody else. I bought a gun from a friend a number of years ago and we filled out a receipt so that he had a record of who the gun went to, just incase down the road that gun ended up in a criminals hands. I did the same thing when I sold it to a guy I served with in the military. No big deal, just some simple documentation. This kind of oversight would really make it hard for a person whose intention is to committ a crime, directly or indirectly (i.e. go rob a bank OR as is the case more often, resell the guns on the street), with a firearm to do so without the gun coming back to him. As things stand now, many times investigative leads die cold due to a lack of a paper trail. As a result the person responsible for that gun getting out on the street can't be held responsible. This is all just talk though and won't mean much to anybody until you or a loved one are on the business end of one of these guns.
I don't like anything that restricts or interferes with the vast majority of the gun owners in this country who aren't just law-abiding, but damn good people at that. Fortunately, your average Joe Citizen gun owner never hears from the police. Balancing ownership rights with the need to protect the public as a LEO is a difficult one, but a battle that's worth fighting, even though it can sometimes be a major pain, simply because we have so many good people in this country that use firearms for sporting purposes and protection.
If I could implement just one mode of change it would be to require every gun sale in the US to be documented, to include private sales, so that when a gun is seized by police, we can find out who is responsible for it being there.
Sorry K9, but I can't believe that we can allow our government to force us to register as gun owners. What precidence would that set? It becomes an infringment on the rights of legal gun owners and amounts to a search and seizure issue; the collecting of personal information on the ownership of a legal product for use in future prosecution in the event a crime is commited at a later date. You may find that a good argument can be made that this is much like the national DNA database that has been attempted but shot down as violating our rights.
I agree that there is a backdoor being held wide open for criminals to purchase firearms. It's the same door that lets people with no drivers license purchase a vehicle and operate it, in violation of the law. We aren't trying so hard to create a vehicle sales database, even though we have all seen 10 time oui offenders with no operating or registration rights slam int Mr. & Mrs. Jones and their minivan full of family, killing or injuring said occupants. I don't know the statistics but I bet there's a close comparison between the two.
My bottom line is, that when SBI comes-a-knocking, I have a reciept and a DL# to give them. Yeah, they had to follow the paper trail to get to me but, I have something to give them. I feel alot better about doing it voluntarilly than having my name stuck somewhere in a gov. database for use as the gov. sees fit.
Kahuna5150
12-20-2004, 21:44
Sorry K9, but I can't believe that we can allow our government to force us to register as gun owners. What precidence would that set? It becomes an infringment on the rights of legal gun owners and amounts to a search and seizure issue; the collecting of personal information on the ownership of a legal product for use in future prosecution in the event a crime is commited at a later date.
Well this is certainly a sensitive issue and those on either side of it (pro gun control vrs. pro 2nd ammendment) are going to fight tooth and nail to get you to see their view. I would just submit that we are required to provide personal information often to own a legal product. Vehicles are probably the most common example. A car is legal, yet we are *REQUIRED* to provide our personal information to register our vehicles. By law they must be registered so you *MUST* provide the information. Same thing with licenses. You *HAVE* to have a license to drive a car, and they *REQUIRE* your personal information to issue a license to you.
As for this information being used for future prosecution. Unless there is a specific law that I'm unaware of, simply being the owner of a gun that is used in a crime is not in and of itself a crime. Now if you provide that gun to a criminal or allow it to be accessed by a minor (here in CA at least) you bare some legal responsibility. Otherwise usually a legally owned gun is only used in a crime if the owner (or someone with access to it) or a criminal (who steals it) uses it. If my handgun is stolen from my home and later is used to kill a store clerk during a robbery I'm not going to be arrested for that (provided I didn't do anything illegal to facilitate the robbery).
I know most people don't want to give more information/control to any branch of government, and I'm not posting this to say we should or shouldn't, just pointing out there are many other things we have to provide the government with information to own/use.
Kahuna
k9cop21811
12-21-2004, 10:33
JSavage,
I didn't say anything about registration. The word I used was documentation. Just like you said, "My bottom line is, that when SBI comes-a-knocking, I have a reciept and a DL# to give them. Yeah, they had to follow the paper trail to get to me but, I have something to give them." I must not have written it clearly enough, but that is exactly what I'm talking about.
It's the same thing with firearms sales for gun dealers. They are required to keep the paperwork on that transaction. If and only if we need to know who purchased that gun (i.e. because it was seized from a dope house, taken off of a murder suspect, ect.), ATF traces it from the manufacturer to the first documented purchaser. As I'm sure you know, there's no database anyone can check to see who purchased it, the paper trail has to be followed. That's all I'm suggesting private sellers do. Document who they sell to (and keep it, not send it to anybody for inclusion in some database). Although that would be nice, I am a realist and know that would never happen.
I have a hard time following your rebuttal with the crime gun/unlicensed driver scenario. It's an apples and oranges comparison. I don't know what the police are doing to try and keep suspended drivers from getting behind the wheel and I don't really care. That's their problem. My charge is to try and keep guns away from criminals and to investigate those that use guns to commit crimes. It's just discouraging to know, "that there is a backdoor being held wide open for criminals to purchase firearms" even though there doesn't have to be and it's even more discouraging to know that closing the door wouldn't violate anyone's rights or even restrict them in any way whatsoever.
I may have misunderstood what you were suggesting but, I thought that you wanted to require all gun sales, including private ones, to be documented. I took this to mean passing a law of some sort that would make it a requirement. After re-reading the posts I do think I made a bit of a leap, though I would imagine such a law would include sending a copy of the bill of sale to ATF, as one can hardly expect a person to be responsible for preserving the receipt for as long as may be neccesary to serve its intended purpose.
As far as the unlicensed driver issue, I guess I was aluding to the idea that there are many ways around the law and they often have dire consequences. It may have been a poor comparison between two BIG problems that both need attention yet the firearms issue has been demonized to what may appear to be a greater extent, even though I personally don't think it is as bad as its being made out to be. That's just my opinion, I'm no expert on the subject.
Summarily, I think I made some assumptions ( I was in a bit of a hurry to watch the game) regarding what you were implying. I apologize for that. None the less, I hope I made my position a little clearer, It's a matter of personal responsibility, not government mandate.
Thanks,
Jim
k9cop21811
12-22-2004, 09:47
Alright, I'll have to clarify my clarification. Confused? Me too. :) I am saying that it should be a requirement for private citizens to keep a record of who they sell a gun to, by way of a D/L check or some sort of government issued ID. The reason I say that is because many people don't have the same attitude towards responsibility and accountability as you do, JSavage. Which is to say that a lot of folks simply sell a gun, have no idea who they're selling to (ever been to a gun show in the South?), don't care who they're selling to and in some cases probably know that the gun they're selling probably isn't going to be used for target practice at the ole shootin range. They got their money and that's all that matters. It happens everyday. The next thing you know, that gun is recovered by a PD (fill in the blank for whatever crime) and all the original owner can say is, "I sold it." End of story. Don't know to who, don't know where they're from, didn't ask any questions and certainly didn't keep ANY kind of record, "cause I ain't go to." Very responsible. Times that story by thousands upon thousands every year and it's not hard to figure out why criminals are better armed than the police sometimes.
Nobody likes to be told what to do, particularly when it comes to guns and anything that has to do with guns. Again, documenting who you sell a gun to has nothing to do with anyone's right to keep and bear arms, but I know that it would never fly simply because too many stubborn people don't want to be told what to do even though, as in your case, it's something you're doing anyway and most reasonable people would admit it makes sense to do.
Obviously sending any record to ATF isn't the way to go because of the national registration issue it would raise. So, not looking for that. As far as how long a person would have to keep a record and all the other details of such a law if it were to be passed, I don't know. I wasn't looking to write the law, it's just an idea in keeping with the question that started this thread, which is, "are there any methods by which the government could hold people more accountable for their guns, thus preventing the legal-to-illegal conversion?" The answer is a resounding, yes. Getting there is another story.
Renegade
12-22-2004, 10:48
Honestly, what good is keeping records? Sure on TV they solve the crime in under an hour via the records, but in real life it is almost zill. The whole gun history thing is a solution looking for a problem if you ask me. 99.999% of all guns are never used in a crime, seems like a big bureacratic mess to me.
The gun used to shoot Reagan by Hinckley was traced to Hinckley in under 15 minutes, and for what? It didn't prevent the crime, nor did it solve it. Some states such as NJ have registration schemes, they do not have lower crime rates or higher solve rates though, just a waste of time, IMO. The rifle in the DC sniper case was untraceable, but good police work solved it anyway.
I agree, you should not sell to shady characters, or people you have a reason to believe might do something illegal, but keeping track of who you sell to will never work.
The reality is this is just another burden on honest people.
Oh yeah, what about records for ammo too then? Should we do that too?
k9cop21811
12-22-2004, 12:02
The gun used in the DC sniper shootings was untraceable because the dealer didn't keep his records like he was supposed to. It was solved, but did you happen to notice the manpower that was thrown at it (rightfully so given the circumstances). Suffice it to say, we can't do that for every case. To me though, ever case I investigate where somebody was hurt/killed with a gun is just as important. Don't take my word for it though, just ask the families of the victims. As far as keeping records for sold guns goes, you obviously don't spend any time working cases that would benefit from such a system. I, however, do work those types of cases and I'm telling you that it would help. It wouldn't be that much of a burden, either, unless you're buying and selling a lot of guns. And if you're doing that, guess what, you have to have a license. It's called "engaged in the business."
In fact, I have a case right now I'm working with a local detective. We did a SW on a res. (dope house) of a guy we suspect was involved in a drive by shooting of a hotel (two were killed). We seized two SKS rifles and a handgun. One of the SKS's we know was sold to a certain individual 10 years ago. When we go to interview him he'll likely tell us that he sold it.......end of story. Or maybe he developed a crack habit now and provided it to these guys (I have a case like that right now too). JSavage made some comparisons between guns and vehicles a few posts back, but if you look at any vehicles that are sold, they have to be registered, which creates a paper trail. No paper trail on guns that are privately sold.
Using one case where a gun trace didn't solve or prevent the crime is borderline ridiculous. Give me a break. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'll have to go through the Constitution and see where it says that we all have a right to not be burdened. Sure would hate to burden anybody with all this silly gun stuff in an effort to help solve gun crime. I don't recall saying that my idea will result in cases being solved in an hour, like on TV. That statement along with your sarcastic ammo sales question is where you lost it with me in the credibility department. I know gun issues are often passionate, but why is it that when somebody wants to argue against any kind of additional reguation, ect. they start using ridiculous examples or "all or nothing" type of scenarios (e.g. sure, now the gov't. wants us to document our private sales, next they'll want to seize all our guns, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!).
I'm curious, Renegade. What would you do to tighten the system up a bit? Let's throw my idea right out the window. What's better? If you say to just leave the system alone (i.e. just ingore the problem), I'll have to say that's BS. I really would like to hear some ideas. This is a discussion, after all. We can't do much with, "it will never work." What will? I'm also not concerned about the percentages of guns NOT used in crime. Conversely, a vast majority of gun owners never have to deal with the police. And I'm sure that a very small percentage of guns purchased are legitimitely resold, so what's the problem with keeping a simple record (if for no other reason than to help the police potentially find a criminal)? I'm concerned about the guns that are used in a crime and all I can tell anybody for sure is that 100% of the guns in my cases have been used in a crime.
Lastly, your argument about NJ and how guns are handled by the state is deficient due to the severe lack of state regulation in other states. That's why NJ is not what we call a "source" state for firearms. Nice try, though.
Renegade
12-22-2004, 14:34
I'm curious, Renegade. What would you do to tighten the system up a bit? Let's throw my idea right out the window. What's better? If you say to just leave the system alone (i.e. just ingore the problem), I'll have to say that's BS. I really would like to hear some ideas. This is a discussion, after all.
As someone who was an LEO in a state with a tight gun registration scheme (NJ), I can assure you it is not the solution you seem to think it is. Never knew of a case in which a felon used a registered gun, left it at the scene, and we linked it to him and made the arrest. Wish it was that easy. Most felons used stolen guns, altered guns or knives, etc. In the few cases that were registered (usually crimes of passion), there was plenty of other evidence that registration pointing to the suspect was irrelevant.
Lastly, your argument about NJ and how guns are handled by the state is deficient due to the severe lack of state regulation in other states. That's why NJ is not what we call a "source" state for firearms. Nice try, though.
Why do I have the feeling you will have an excuse for everything I write?
OK, eliminate guns from other states and you still have the same problem - stolen, altered and other weapons.
What griped me the most was revolving door justice. I recall in the late 70s a multiple felon murder defendant went before a judge at his sentencing and mouthed off to the judge, saying "we both know I will eventually be released and there is nothing you can do to stop it".This from a guy who said he killed a man, "just to watch him die". He was given 25 years to life, no parole. He served his 25 years, and yep, was released last summer. Who knows how many people he has killed and not yet been caught for. That is the problem that needs to be solved.
MakeItHappen
12-22-2004, 15:40
Guns don't kill people, index fingers do.
Treat the problem as a mental health issue. "What gives you the right to take another individuals's life?"
Don't make capital punishment such a joke within the CJ system.
k9cop21811
12-22-2004, 15:44
Renegade,
I counterpointed debate style because this is an open forum and I think it's important for lay people who happen to read it to know the other side of the issues you pointed out. From what you stated, "Never knew of a case in which a felon used a registered gun, left it at the scene, and we linked it to him and made the arrest." Well, I do and I have. In fact, we work cases like that all the time. Our start point for the case is either the registered owner or the person who purchased it from a dealer (hmmm, how did your gun get in that dope house, on that felon, ect., ect.....stolen huh, why didn't you report that, hmmmmmmmm). There's a warrant for his arrest now. He's a guy who got hooked on crack, had no felony conviction (actually he's never had ANY arrests, let alone any convictions) and when money ran low decided to use his ability to buy firearms to feed his habit. He straw purchased several handguns for his crack dealer, a felon, who kept getting caught with the guns (we only catch the dumb ones, as they say). The purchaser, my suspect, registered them with the state as you're supposed to, but I guess was too messed up to think about the guns getting seized by police and coming back to him.
What's hard for locals, who are reactive to crime in many cases due to the sheer volume of work they have, to understand is that when we, the police in general, have a crime that involves a gun, there's a good chance there's going to be another crime to investigate there as well. If the guy is a felon, he didn't buy the gun from a dealer (and if he did, that's a whole other issue/case). That gun had to come from somewhere and when we find out the fact there is very likely going to be a federal crime, if not several, which includes theft and possession of a firearm. I spend my time figuring out where that "somewhere" is. And in some cases that "somewhere" leads us to Joe Citizen, who hasn't done a thing wrong. The only problem is, the law only says that he can't knowingly sell to a prohibited person (to paraphrase), i.e. a felon, ect. Beyond that, he can sell away and when that gun is found on the street and I start working the "where did that gun come from" part of things, rather than have an investigative lead to follow that might help us catch an illegal gun dealer, drug dealer, ect. we simply get shut down because the guy has no idea who he sold the gun to. If the gun happens to be stolen, you now have a link that might help solve that theft. I'm not telling you much you don't already know, but again, most is for those that aren't quite so in the know.
I have to say I'm disappointed that you, as a former LEO who hasn't worked gun cases exclusively would shut down an idea about how best to improve a broken system based on a limited experience with the given subject. I have a limited experience with some counterfeiting issues, but can't imagine trying to debate a Secret Service agent on what would or wouldn't work in terms of better investigating/regulating the currency of the US.
Again, this thread was started with the question, "are there any methods by which the government could hold people more accountable for their guns, thus preventing the legal-to-illegal conversion." That's all I was looking to address and I'm not saying the it solves all gun problems. Obviously "good" people will still commit crimes of passion, will still steal guns and so on and so on. But again, that's not really the issue.
k9cop21811
12-22-2004, 15:52
Guns don't kill people, index fingers do.
True dat. And experience has taught me that often times a crime was commited in order to get that gun to the index finger. And thusly, I have a job with no shortage of work. In that vein, let's not do anything to improve, well.....anything. I have no shortage of work and therefore lots of job security. Hadn't thought of it that way. Forget everything I've said. :wink:
I think I have a solution. Not like we really need another gun law that won't be enforced but, why isn't it a crime to sell to a felon? Isn't that motivation enough to know your buyer? The only defense would be that you took every reasonable precaution to ensure your buyer was legal. I have only sold 1 firearm privately, and it was to a friend of my Dad. I can't say that I would ever sell to a stranger. Maybe that would change if there was an SBI hotline where you could call and give them a name/ DOB/ SSN/ DL number or something and they would give you a simple yes or no as to this persons legal right to keep and bare. I can't think it would cost that much to institute. This way, only the convicted are documented, not the legal owner, thus no registry. After that, it's the gun owners responsibility to do what most of us do, document and affirm identity.
Just a thought.
Jim
k9cop21811
12-22-2004, 16:53
JSavage,
You have my vote for Congress, Senate, whatever! Damn good ideas and by the way, it IS a crime to sell to a felon. The "snag", if you will, in the statute is that you have to prove that the person "knowingly" sold to a felon. So, if you advertise a gun in the paper, and Snoop Dog's (sorry, Snoop) look alike come and wants to buy it, you can sell it. Done. He didn't tell you anything and you didn't ask and you therefore did not violate the statute. My first few months on the job our office worked a case in which a guy, who was murdering prostitutes, got the gun he was using from some guy at a truck stop down south. Nothing illegal on the sellers part so long as he didn't know our guy was a felon (17 times over for rape and assault in the 70's). My only point in relaying that story is to point to the fact that it shouldn't be OK with anybody for a 17 time violent felon to be able to buy a gun, under any circumstances, in a damn truck stop parking lot or anywhere else for that matter and do so legally (from the sellers standpoint, that is). I think our goverment has a much greater responsible to the citizens than that.
Some states, like Michigan, require a permit to purchase a handgun. The permit process serves as the "check." Handguns are also required to be registered in Michigan. So, private sales are less of an issue here. But, low and behold, not everybody obeys the law (shocking, I know). So even here plenty of guns fall through the cracks, so to speak. Down south it's a different story. It's an open market and I don't mean just a little bit. The counties and states don't see it as there problem either, it's a "federal problem" as one Florida official said in an interview on the very subject we're talking about here. He's right, but he's only right because the state of FL doesn't do anything to help regulate. So, no laws on the books pushes the issue right over to ATF. Naturally.
Don't confuse documentation held by the seller (to cover his own rear end if nothing else) with registration. Every gun sale made by a gun dealer has documention as to who is was sold to, which is held by the dealer. That's not a registry or registration, but it is documentation. That's all I'm saying sellers should have to do.
Having a number sellers can call, if they wanted to, to check somebody's "fitness" to possess a firearm before selling it is a great idea. That's the same system used by gun dealers now. And all the dealer is ever told is the disposition of the check, which is either "proceed", "delay" (which will always end in a "proceed" or "deny") or "deny." The gun dealers aren't privy to any specifics. And if a transaction is held up for more than three days, the dealer can transfer the gun, no matter what. They don't have to, but hey, money talks and responsibility walks, often times. If it is determined that the person who bought the gun, the one in the "delay" status, is in fact prohibited (e.g. a felon), the end result is a "deny" and the info. is forwarded to ATF so an agent can go get the gun. And yes, it happens. More than you would think. Who would be that stupid, you ask. In terms of numbers, about 10 people last year out of my office, which covers 30 counties. Nothing earth shattering, but we sure could be spending that time working more important cases than some dipshit that "didn't know" he had a felony. Come on!! The answer to that problem: require buyers to wait until their status is confirmed (heaven forbid anybody have to wait more than three days to buy a gun, although most people are able to buy and walk immediately). That's a whole other animal though. Back to the issue at hand. A record should still be kept by the seller since that gun may change hands several more times before it ends up in a crime. If each seller can identify who that gun was sold to, we can work our way to the person that made it available to a criminal. It really all about accountability. You have a title for you car, which has to be dealt with legally when you sell it (i.e. documentation with the state of who's buying it), but a gun.......no requirement. Does that really make sense to people?
Renegade
12-22-2004, 16:54
I have to say I'm disappointed that you, as a former LEO who hasn't worked gun cases exclusively would shut down an idea about how best to improve a broken system based on a limited experience with the given subject.
I have to say I am disappointed that since I have "limited experience with the given subject", and have not "worked gun cases exclusively" you think my ideas are of lesser value.
I guess I will shut-up now since I am apparently not worthy to comment with my limited experience.
EDIT ADD:
Sorry, should have put a smiley on the end of that, didn't mean to sound like a sour puss.
Seriously k9, if you feel that strongly you should join the Brady Bunch or one of those other anti-gun outfits and lobby Congress to enact legislation in your favor. Why do you think the law does not exist? Because I am a member of many pro-gun organizations and have been lobbying to prevent it!
Maybe that would change if there was an SBI hotline where you could call and give them a name/ DOB/ SSN/ DL number or something and they would give you a simple yes or no as to this persons legal right to keep and bare. I can't think it would cost that much to institute. This way, only the convicted are documented, not the legal owner, thus no registry. After that, it's the gun owners responsibility to do what most of us do, document and affirm identity.
You can do that. It's called going through an FFL and recording the transfer there. The FFL records the transfer (so you have a positive record of the date of the transaction), verifies the identity (with an instant check system), and records the transaction. If the firearm sold ends up in the hands of a felon and is used in a crime, it becomes a simple matter to point the BATFE to the firearm dealer in question and locate the appropriate 4473 to verify your information.
In many states, there is no permanent record maintained of the transaction, other than by the dealer. If I recall correctly, BATFE is prohibited from turning 4473s into a registry (ah, here it is, in the appropriations bill: "Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees:"). While states may do so legally, that's easy enough to find out.
At the risk of creating a tangent, states require title and registration of motor vehicles so that they can collect taxes on them, registration fees, and get matching Fed funds for highway improvement. With such a strong gun rights lobby, such provisions will not likely ever apply to firearms, as there is no system to supprt. By system I refer to again the vehicles DMV and highway departments. Of course Fed has the ATF, which derives its funding from the Fed budget. Since the state has no comparable agency or department tasked solely with overseeing firearms and with such strong opposition from guns rights proponents against forming such a unit, there is no basis for or interest in registering firearms, with few exeptions.
Anyway, I think accountablility is long overdue. I am up to my neck in firearms (unless your in the ATF, I only have one :D ) as far as legal rights, responsibilities, and just plain sporting and hunting. This is the first time I've heard of it being against the law to sell to a felon. I wouldn't do it anyway but, what does that say for the system? It's been a long time since I was a moderator in this very forum but, didn't you get hired by ATF? How can such a law not be common knowledge? I can't help but to think that some percentage of otherwise law abiding citizens would think twice about selling to a stranger if they knew they could be breaking the law.
Now I'm just ranting. It kinda pi$$e$ me off to think that there are such simple solutions, that don't infringe upon the rights of good people, that are not being used in a practical manner!!! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I'll go away now and write my congressmen. ATF needs funds to educate the public!!
UncleSugar
12-22-2004, 21:33
[QUOTE=JSavage I am up to my neck in firearms (unless your in the ATF, I only have one :D ) as far as legal rights, responsibilities, and just plain sporting and hunting. This is the first time I've heard of it being against the law to sell to a felon. [/QUOTE]Are you serious? With all those guns that you are up to your neck in, have you never purchased from a licensed dealer? Any purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer would require that you complete a Form 4473, which asks if you are a convicted felon, and requires you to respond yes or no. Unless you got all your guns through private sales, or purchased them prior to 1968, I am baffled how you wouldn't know transfering a firearm to a convicted felon is illegal.
:o
UncleSugar
12-22-2004, 21:35
Why do I have the feeling you will have an excuse for everything I write?Obviously you have no clue what a debate is all about. :rolleyes:
Renegade
12-22-2004, 22:00
Obviously you have no clue what a debate is all about. :rolleyes:
My bad, I though this was a discussion forum. I didn't realize "911 Job Forums > General Law Enforcement Forums > Firearms & Equipment" was a debate forum.
I have no interest in debating, too busy working with my legislators to make sure none of these stupid gun laws get enacted.
TAC803NY
12-22-2004, 22:57
Having been born and raised in western New York and having had my pistol permit since 1976, I am very familiar with registration of handguns. Every handgun needs to be registered and imprinted on the back of the permit. I was surprised when I sent for a non resident permit from another state, (which has reciprocity with several states that I travel in) they didn't want to know what guns were to be carried on the permit. They didn't want serial numbers, caliber, barrel length, nor did they want a spent cartridge case to be sent to them. It was an amazing eye opener for me, in that they treat people like law abiding citizens, and not criminals.
Tac
Uncle S,
I think you missunderstood me. I have purchased firearms through dealers, private purchase and, I sold firearms at a gunshop for quite a while. I was aware that it was illegal for a felon to purchase, I didn't know it was illegal for a private citizen to sell to a felon. I know of people who have sold to felons and, needless to say, don't associate with these people for that reason. These people have never been charged with anything, and I didn't know of any law on the books, thus my frustration in learning there IS a law and it doesn't get enforced.
Jim
k9cop21811
12-23-2004, 08:17
I guess I will shut-up now since I am apparently not worthy to comment with my limited experience.
It's not a "worthiness", more of a qualification issue. I really don't have anything against you personally, your rebuttle on this particular subject just sucks, that's all. If I'm wrong, tell me how. You have yet to counter me with an idea of your won. All you can muster, however, is little barbs of sarcasm, which tells me that you don't really have anything to say here other than, "let's not do anything to try and fix a problem because doing so will infringe on my "rights" to not be bothered." I get it. Just for the record, I'm not looking to "do" anything either. It's a discussion board and we're just............discussing. If you want to call it that.
Seriously k9, if you feel that strongly you should join the Brady Bunch or one of those other anti-gun outfits and lobby Congress to enact legislation in your favor.
True to form, rather than discuss an issue you go right to a term like, "anti-gun", as if keeping a record of who you sell a gun to is anti-gun. All or nothing, like I said before.
Why do you think the law does not exist? Because I am a member of many pro-gun organizations and have been lobbying to prevent it!
Just an idea bro, not looking to bring it the house for a vote or anything. No need to picket my house or anything. Come out of the bomb shelter now, the guvmint ain't coming to git yer guns. :wink: (you see, I didn't forget to put up the smiley). What law are you lobbying against, Renegade? I'm not talking about a "law." I'm talking about an idea (you know, me, the guy who ISN'T a politician and can barely get my wife and dog to listen to me, let alone a politician who actually can make a change in the law) for a law that might help fix a problem (notice I said, "help fix", not "it will make all of our lives so safe you can unlock your doors again at night and walk in any neighborhood in the country without fear of violence.") No, no, nothing like that. Just a simple idea to keep a name and maybe an address of somebody you sell a gun to. That's it. Nothing more. Yet somehow that equals "anti-gun", which I'm not and assertions by you of how you're working to block my "law" through your pro-gun organizations. Comical.
I just figured it out a parallel here. My sister-in-law, who lives in Columbus, OH was telling me about the crazy Ohio State fans there and how much they hate U of Mich. (that whole football rivalry thing). The problem is, you see, that because their is so much hatred on their part, as soon as they hear "Michigan", they get red and don't hear anything else. All they think about is how they hate the Maize and Blue and so on and so forth. Nevermind the fact you're talking about "Michigan........State or Tech or Central Michigan, nope, don't matter, they here "Michigan" and it's all over. That seems to hold true with, "gun." You mention anything about guns that doesn't equal fewer laws and regulation and you might as well say that you're for all guns being banned because there is no middle ground. The last part there I knew coming in to this, but what can you do.
Renegade
12-23-2004, 08:36
I'm not talking about a "law."
Really? In a previous post in this thread you wrote:
If I could implement just one mode of change it would be to require every gun sale in the US to be documented, to include private sales, so that when a gun is seized by police, we can find out who is responsible for it being there
No, you are not talking about a law, just "one mode of change", requiring documented sales of guns. No law to enforce it though. :rolleyes:
You are a great spinmeister, I will give you that. Your ability to throw personal insults, selectively answer posts, and then deny your own posts is great stuff. Keep it coming.
k9cop21811
12-23-2004, 08:46
A person is in violation of the law if they KNOWINGLY sell to a felon. And just because it happens doesn't mean the police automatically know about it. It sounds like you have some calling to do, JSavage, if you know of people that have knowingly sold guns to felons. That's a federal crime, so call your local ATF office. But you gotta give em more than, "I know some people, who know some people, who rob some poeple" (thanks for the quote, Huggy Bear). :wink: Seriously though, there are plenty of laws on the books to prosecute somebody for a gun-related crime, both at the state and federal level. One of the problems (other than not enough resources.....damn, now I got Renegade working to block money for gun LE. I need to just shut-up.....no sarcastic remarks on that one, Renegade, it's a softball, but don't hit it) comes with documenting private sales and actually being able to work a case back to the person that commited the crime (the one that provided the gun TO the criminal who got caught with it). When we're able to get to that person, Lord help em. The last case where we were successful in doing that got my guy numerous fed. gun charges (dealing without a license, providing a gun to a known felon-5 counts, conspiracy-3 counts, falsifying records-5 counts, theft of a firearm, possession of a stolen firearm and transfer of a firearm knowing it would be used in a drug trafficking crime-5 counts). My point in laying that out is to show that the laws are there, we could just use a bit more help in getting to these guys sometimes. If these guns had been through the hands of an honest to goodness, law abiding citizen who sold it to somebody, privately, and he kept a record, we still would have been good to go in finding the guy who provided it to the crack dealer. Now, that same scenario where the private seller didn't keep any record........the story ends and bad guy lives to fight another day.
And way to go, guys, we (well, I) now have Renegade bloodying his fingers on the telephone rallying the troops to block legislation that doesn't exist. Nice. Call it off, Ren. It's all good, man. No need to fret.
For anyone who wants to educate themselves on the laws - 18 USC, sections 922 and 924 are what you want to look for. They're not classified, so if you're reading this you can do an internet search and find them. Knowledge is power! There's even some nice cheat sheets out there that break them down so that a regular person can undersand them, no just the lawyers! :wink:
Renegade
12-23-2004, 08:50
True to form, rather than discuss an issue you go right to a term like, "anti-gun", as if keeping a record of who you sell a gun to is anti-gun.
Typical gun banner. Right from the anti-gun playbook:
(1) Deny your gun control ideas are really gun control.
(2) Then suggest anyone who disagrees with you is nut case (Come out of the bomb shelter now, the guvmint ain't coming to git yer guns.).
(3) Of course, knowing your gun control will not work, keep door open by claiming it will just help and more is still needed (notice I said, "help fix", not "it will make all of our lives so safe you can unlock your doors again at night).
yawn.
Renegade
12-23-2004, 08:58
.
And way to go, guys, we (well, I) now have Renegade bloodying his fingers on the telephone rallying the troops to block legislation that doesn't exist. Nice. Call it off, Ren. It's all good, man. No need to fret.
More of the usual lies and denials from the resident anti-gunner. Just about everybody knows registration schemes exist in many states, already documented several in this thread alone (NY, NJ, etc.)
Everybody knows there have been attempts to close the so-called gun show loophole and force all private transactions through FFLS or NICS, and that PRO-GUN RIGHTS folks like myelf have successfully defeated it (SB890 - McCain-Lieberman Instant Check Gun Show Bill). But if you claim it does not exist, it must be true.
But hey, when losing pull out your anti-gun playbook. Let's see - Play #2, keep suggesting the PRO-GUNNER is a kook ("bloodying his fingers on the telephone rallying the troops to block legislation that doesn't exist").
Waiting for more of the same.
k9cop21811
12-23-2004, 09:55
More of the usual lies and denials from the resident anti-gunner. Just about everybody knows registration schemes exist in many states, already documented several in this thread alone (NY, NJ, etc.)
Everybody knows there have been attempts to close the so-called gun show loophole and force all private transactions through FFLS or NICS, and that PRO-GUN RIGHTS folks like myelf have successfully defeated it (SB890 - McCain-Lieberman Instant Check Gun Show Bill). But if you claim it does not exist, it must be true.
But hey, when losing pull out your anti-gun playbook. Let's see - Play #2, keep suggesting the PRO-GUNNER is a kook ("bloodying his fingers on the telephone rallying the troops to block legislation that doesn't exist").
Waiting for more of the same.
Damn, bro, it's about time. Something we can sink our teeth in to here. OK, it's very simple then, since I'm really not anit-gun or pro-gun for that matter, I wasn't even aware of any effort to force private transactions through FFL's. My idea fell far short of that, however, so why you're throwing that in the mix, I'm not sure. I'm just saying have the seller keep a record. Not go through and FFL or NICS or anything like that. Simply ask when selling a gun, "who are you and can I see some idea for my records." My poke at you was for this comment, "I have no interest in debating, too busy working with my legislators to make sure none of these stupid gun laws get enacted." Again, you want to wander off in to other areas when all I'm talking about is my one little idea.
Alright, so was the McCain-Lieberman Bill filled with other BS that the pro-gun side just couldn't live with or was it just a matter of you/them not wanting to be bothered with making sure that the person you're selling to isn't/wasn't a criminal? Because in the end, isn't that really all you're doing. The only info. kept by NICS are the transactions that end up in the "deny" category. All the buyer info. on everyone else is flushed. So what's bad about a check? Conversely, what's bad about keeping a record of your private sales. If your position is that ANY legislation on guns is bad, just say that and we'll move on.
The "I'm not a talking about a law" quote from me was in response to your, "I have no interest in debating, too busy working with my legislators to make sure none of these stupid gun laws get enacted", statement. So yes, if my idea was to become a bill, yes, only a bill, sitting there on Capitol Hill, hoping one day to be a law.............and then got signed by the President, then yes, it would be a law and again, yes, in the context of my idea actually being implemented, it would be a law. So if it were "my law" that was in committe you would be justified in leaving to go and block it from being passed. But again, right here, right now, it's still just an idea. Now, if it were passed, how do we enforce it. Well, first off, when you knock on the door to tell Joe Citizen that his gun was taken off of a crack dealer last night during a raid, please explain, he may say well, I sold it. Then we say, who did you sell it to. When he says, "I don't know, I don't have a record of that" we can say, tisk tisk, that's a violation and you're not playing nice. What's the violations worth. Who knows. Misdemeanor/small fine. Don't know. Circumstances would dictate. Knowingly not keeping the record might be the least of his problems if he's the one that actualy sold it/traded it for dope, ect. to the crack dealer.
And I'm not a spinmeister (although I like the label, it makes me feel smart, which I'm really not, so don't sweat little ole me raining on your guns, guns and more guns parade) I'm just able to stay on task while you wander all over the place like a drunk driver.
I'm talking about chewing on one narrow sliver of the pie and you want to eat the whole thing. And that's find to do if this was a discussion about the pros and cons of gun control on the whole, but the original question, in case yo missed it, asked (this is the third time I've posted it, I believe.....do you live in Columbus, OH, by chance, Renegade), "are there any methods by which the government could hold people more accountable for their guns, thus preventing the legal-to-illegal conversion?" So, we have that question and my answer.
If you could wipe the slate clean of any gun laws, Renegade, which ones would you keep?
JSavage, if you know of people that have knowingly sold guns to felons. That's a federal crime, so call your local ATF office
"It's not so simple to prove" which is what my wife’s cousin, a Maine State Trooper, told me when I called him this AM. Nobody wants to chase it because there is no way to prove they knew. This is beside the fact that it has been a while since it happened.
Now, Renegade, I think you've got K9 all wrong. I too belong to a number of groups that support gun owner’s rights. We're not the ones that the G is after, it's the guy that sells to felons and necessitates something being done. I too misunderstood K9's original idea but now, I think we need to embrace a way to mediate this problem, without forcing good people to undergo undue duress. I ask, rhetorically, would you sell to someone if you knew he/she was a felon? Of course not. Some people will.
I spoke with a member of my local constabulary today who told me of a guy that they couldn't charge even though he told an under cover officer, "I don't want to know about your past, only about your cash." The guy didn't sell and the primary reason they were looking at him was for drugs so they didn't push the firearms buy, the charge never came to pass.
These things need to be stopped. There's no reason we can't find a good compromise that targets the guilty and leaves everyone else alone.
Jim
UncleSugar
12-23-2004, 16:40
My bad, I though this was a discussion forum. I didn't realize "911 Job Forums > General Law Enforcement Forums > Firearms & Equipment" was a debate forum.
I have no interest in debating, too busy working with my legislators to make sure none of these stupid gun laws get enacted.Gee you sure seem to be doing a lot of debating for someone who is here to just "discuss" Firearms and Equipment. However, your RHETORIC is tiresome. Rather than engage the logical arguments k9cop makes with any logic of your own, you would rather toss around inflammatory rhetoric, like calling his side of the argument "excuses" rather than addressing the substance, and tossing out labels like "anti-gun" and "spinmeister" while describing any regulation of the gun industry as "banning."
Anyway, since you seem to think this forum isn't about debate, why do you continue to participate in this debate? Also, if you're too busy contacting your legislatures to be interested in this debate why have you made three more posts continuing to debate this topic?
When it comes to irrational, illogical positions in this debate, it's obvious that k9cop is not the one with the problem.
FYI,
K9 set me to finding ATF P 5300.4 (01-00) which clearly, if not dryly, outlines the law regarding selling to a felon, or otherwise disqualified person. It falls under the Gun Control Act and is a must read. Did you know you can't sell to someone if they are even facing felony charges?
Check it out at the ATF websiteATF Publication 5300.4 (01-00) (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm)
Jim
If nothing else, I like to be thorough. I also like to talk out of my a$$ but that never gets me far. So I did the work and found that DOJ has actually published statistics related to this very subject. The findings surprised me some, in a couple of different ways. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics publication entitled Firearm Offenders, 1992-1998,
“Almost half of the transfer offenses involved nonretail sales & sales through private transactions. In about two-thirds of the cases, the firearm transferred was a handgun. About 30% of the cases involved shotguns or rifles, and 13% involved assault weapons. (Defendants may have purchased or attempted to purchase several types of firearms, so that percentages add to more than 100%.) On average, each transfer offense involved 24 firearms; however, half the cases involved 4 or fewer. In 41% of the 135 cases in which the defendant was identified as a prohibited person, the defendant purchased or attempted to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer and in 36%, from sources other than dealers. In 24% of these cases the defendant participated in other unlawful activities.”
That 36% is the private transaction. That’s A LOT. Only 24% from “other” which included theft, and straw purchases.
If you want to veiw this report, it is a small PDF file on the DOJ siteUSDOJ Publication (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf)
Stay informed and stay safe
Jim
k9cop21811
12-23-2004, 22:14
I knew it was a problem, JSavage, but never have seen the actual numbers. I should have known that publication would be on the internet. Everything else is. Good find. FYI-If you take a look at 922 (d), I believe, it does say that a person is in violation if they "knowingly or have reasonable cause to believe", ect. So you could, in theory, charge somebody under that statute using the lesser burden of proof of "had reasonable cause to believe." Either way though, your friend is right, it's hard to prove. Probably anything less than an admission or having audio and video of the transaction wouldn't cut it. I love the, "I don't want to know about your past, only about your cash" line. You gotta know these type of guys are responsible for the lions share of those statistics you put up.
JRG,
You make a good point with the money issue and are right on with what I'm talking about. The only real difference being is that I don't propose private sellers provide any info. to the government. Mainly because I know that isn't a realistic goal given the level of opposition put up any time any kind of legislation on guns goes forward, reasonableness be damned. I'm sure you get that, but I just wanted to clarify, just in case.
The bottom line is, the far right fights for things they don't feel are right in terms of gun legislation and you know what, that's their right and on many issues, I agree with them. Just not on all of them. It's hard to agrue with those numbers JSavage put up, however.
US,
If nothing else, you've got some good resources from this thread (from this post, rather) if/when you get hired by ATF.
k9cop21811
01-05-2005, 11:08
Where did you go, Renegade? What's your take on the info. that's been posted since your last post?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.