Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   ( divider line
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8172 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

453 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

2013-07-09 06:48:18 PM  

Aldon: The point is that, with one exception, you always have to register the owner and status (functioning/non-functioning) of a car.The one exception being cars built from scratch in a private area that never leaves that private area or transfers ownership.

That's not the one exception.  There's more than that.  From what I saw online when you make a 'non-use' statement to the DMV you're not actually saying that the vehicle won't be used.  You're saying that it won't be used on 'public roads and ways'.  You can then deregister it.

I'm not 100% sure what you are referring to when you say "de-register" but the DMV keeps the serial numbers on file along with the last owner of any non-operational car.And again if the ownership is transferred it needs to be recorded with the DMV.

De-registering is just that:  Not having it registered with the state of California anymore, just like if you move out of state, export it out of the country, break it up for parts, or just never plan on having on a public road again.  Like if you're converting it into a non-street legal track race car.

The DMV might keep some, and it can be a smart idea to let them know you've sold it(so any violations it might rack up don't come back to you), but at that point you don't have to notify them if you sell it.

What I'm saying is that cars and guns are materially very different in many ways.If you want to have equivalent laws for cars and guns then transporting non-operating guns would have very strict rules.Not rules like carrying on a flatbed but something like the gun will have to be disassembled.

Why dissembled?  I actually suggested cased, but unloaded could also be considered roughly equivalent.  As you say, they are different.

I'm just reacting to the idea that gun owners would love to have the same rules as they do for cars, they/you wouldn't.

And I'm telling you that if you make it 'as close as possible' it wouldn't regulate guns to the extent you think.

Aldon: Sounds like you are for gun registration, surprising.Good for you.

*snerk*  You haven't answered this post yet...  I might be willing to accept registration in exchange for being able to buy any gun I want, having my CCW recognized in every city and state, not having any real limitations on what I can do with my guns(outside of standard 'don't harm others or their property' disclaimers), but that doesn't mean that I think it wouldn't be an expensive boondoggle.
2013-07-09 08:12:43 PM  

I would rather see strictly enforced universal background checks and better, strictly enforced gun storage laws before registering guns like we do cars.

But it does boggle my mind though that we don't keep track of firearms as well as we do cars. The outliers, non-street legal non-registered functioning cars (like a race car) can be handled differently, like muzzle loader cannons or guns built before 1880 or so would be. Everything else (probably 99+% of firearms) could be registered like 99+% of cars built.
2013-07-09 08:33:03 PM  

Aldon: But it does boggle my mind though that we don't keep track of firearms as well as we do cars.

I know, weird isn't it?  And it's not like all my examples were US ones.  Both Canada and Australia have had difficulties with their registries, and Australia is one of the subjects that comes up whenever somebody says 'But a registry won't lead to confiscation!'.

Then again, 3 of the 7 people in my workcenter that have actually owned multiple cars have experienced registration trouble.

My supervisor currently doesn't have a license to drive because the state suspended it because they refuse to believe that he sold the car then moved out of state(despite sending them copies of the signed title transfer).  They suspended it due to him canceling the insurance when he sold it.

Another got hit up for registration taxes for pretty much the same thing, and the third they somehow 'forgot' his vehicle existed in the first place.  Heck, my dad has received ticket notices for vehicles owned by other people more than 200 miles away.  Car registration, it seems, is far from 'perfect' itself, and an (estimated) error rate of over 10% is highly troubling when you start attaching criminal penalties to stuff.

On universal background checks - I agree with it in theory, but feel that all proposals thus far have been highly flawed.  The one that made it the 'furthest', for example, placed the cost of private transfers too high, too intrusive, and had insane requirements even for temporary loans.  We're talking if I met somebody at the range and wanted to try each other's rifles out we'd technically need to go to a FFL, pay an $80 fee each for the background check.  Or if I wanted to lend a rifle to my father/brother if he came up to hunt with me.  Etc...

Keeping in mind that I think there are multiple options with varying positive/negatives, so this is just a general idea:
What do you think about this idea:  Given that gun owners are extremely shy of anything smacking of 'registration', how about a 'firearm acquisition' license/permit?  A CCW or similar automatically qualifies.  In order to provide somebody with a firearm outside of specific circumstances you would simply check their permit.  Many people voluntarily do something this now with private sales - refusing to sell to anybody without a CCW.

This way 'the government' doesn't have a firearm registration because it doesn't know whether any given FAL possessor has the permit because they're buying firearms, thinking about buying firearms and wants to be ready, is renting a firearm at the range or only borrowing from somebody.  If it expires it doesn't make the person an automatic felon/criminal for illegal possession(because it's only for acquisition).  It doesn't know how many weapons a person has.  But the person has been checked.

Alternatively, make the background check requirement be only for actually buying a firearm, but make it free and set it up (somehow) so you don't need to visit a FFL for paperwork that could amount to registration if the government collects up all the forms.  Maybe have the check be done over a phone or through an internet browser.

In either case, go after people who knowingly provided to a disallowed person.
Displayed 3 of 453 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.