PDA

View Full Version : Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009



Belinda Barfield
02-27-2009, 11:08 AM
I'm not sure we will be able to keep this an apolitical discussion, but it is not my intent to start one. I'm just curious about how many hunters here are aware of this pending legislation.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text :mad:

Michael L. Martin
02-27-2009, 1:11 PM
I was made aware of this and I immediately sent off an email to my local Congressman. I hope they all are aware there are a lot of people watching their actions. Better not say any more for fear of crossing the line.

Benjamin Dahl
02-27-2009, 1:53 PM
Belinda, I am not sure how this would specifically be a problem for hunters but maybe I am missing something?
It seems that the bill is requiring that you have a license to buy a handgun or a semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device.
I don't want to get into a political discussion either. I own firearms but I don't see how this legislation would a burden on me. I could be wrong since legal language is a bit confusing but I think this applies when you buy a weapon, not for what you already own.
Ben

Burt Alcantara
02-27-2009, 2:03 PM
Picked this quote up from thehighroad.org


Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

There are still bills pending regarding ammunition stamping which could be as bad as gun banning.

Burt - gun owner

Belinda Barfield
02-27-2009, 2:13 PM
Belinda, I am not sure how this would specifically be a problem for hunters but maybe I am missing something?
It seems that the bill is requiring that you have a license to buy a handgun or a semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device.
I don't want to get into a political discussion either. I own firearms but I don't see how this legislation would a burden on me. I could be wrong since legal language is a bit confusing but I think this applies when you buy a weapon, not for what you already own.
Ben

Understood Ben. One point that concerned me is the section that requires any gun to be locked away in a home with a child under 18. (paraphrased, I don't remember exact wording). That just seems a little extreme to me Don't jump on me, I understand the danger to small children, but know lots of young men and women who have unloaded shotguns, etc., on a rack in their room.

Al Willits
02-27-2009, 2:28 PM
Its been stated that the objective of the anti gun crowd (no I'm not gonna go look for it, you'll have to trust me, look yourself or just disreguard my statement) anyway, its been stated the goal is to remove all guns from the public.
That's you hunters too.

So you may be safe today, but I wouldn't bet on tomm....imho

Al...yup another gun owner/carry permit included

Doug Sewell
02-27-2009, 2:39 PM
Did I miss something? Where in all that does it tell you what guns (broad statement) are. Could we have issues with a nail, staple gun or a ramset? I don't want a polictial prombem here on the Creek either. I was just rambling with my two cent worth.

Doug

Eric DeSilva
02-27-2009, 2:43 PM
One point that concerned me is the section that requires any gun to be locked away in a home with a child under 18. (paraphrased, I don't remember exact wording).

If I read it right, it says you have to take a written test of safe storage practices and certify that you will store your firearms safely; I don't read it as requiring any specific locking practices.

As a parent, reading about all these kids taking guns to school that their parents haven't secured properly, and working in a city that has historically had one of the higher murder rates in the country, I'm not sure I have a problem with that.

Before anyone jumps on me, I own two Sigs and a Beretta.

Then again, maybe you should jump on me because I don't hunt and have no pretensions or aspirations about defending my hearth and home from burglars or foreign invaders. I just like loud noises and stuff blowing up.

Bruce Page
02-27-2009, 2:46 PM
Did I miss something? Where in all that does it tell you what guns (broad statement) are. Could we have issues with a nail, staple gun or a ramset? I don't want a polictial prombem here on the Creek either. I was just rambling with my two cent worth.

Doug

Maybe the term "Firearm" in the title?

Belinda Barfield
02-27-2009, 3:11 PM
If I read it right, it says you have to take a written test of safe storage practices and certify that you will store your firearms safely; I don't read it as requiring any specific locking practices.


Matter of interpretation I suppose Eric. To me "secured storage or safety device" means a lock.

Doug Sewell
02-27-2009, 3:16 PM
OK , you got me I flat out missed the ''firearm'' thing. It's been a rough day. Ramsets required a gun permit in the state of Mass. when I lived there but its been a long time ago. I'm just asking where does Uncle Sam draw the line. Its always up to the lawyers, nothing is ever cut and dry with the feds.

Eric DeSilva
02-27-2009, 3:25 PM
To me "secured storage or safety device" means a lock.

That section is an exemption to liability if your child shoots someone with your firearm or if you have knowingly or recklessly disregarded the risk that a child could have access to a firearm (and that its illegal or you have knowingly or recklessly disregarded the risk your child will shoot someone).

In other words, "secured storage or safety device" is a safe harbor. It is not required.

Belinda Barfield
02-27-2009, 3:28 PM
That section is an exemption to liability if your child shoots someone with your firearm or if you have knowingly or recklessly disregarded the risk that a child could have access to a firearm (and that its illegal or you have knowingly or recklessly disregarded the risk your child will shoot someone).

In other words, "secured storage or safety device" is a safe harbor. It is not required.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Eric. I don't speak fluent legalese.

BTW, I brought this up to the hunting community simply because most hunters own guns, unless they are strictly bow hunters, of course.

Lee Schierer
02-27-2009, 4:55 PM
Understood Ben. One point that concerned me is the section that requires any gun to be locked away in a home with a child under 18. (paraphrased, I don't remember exact wording). That just seems a little extreme to me Don't jump on me, I understand the danger to small children, but know lots of young men and women who have unloaded shotguns, etc., on a rack in their room.

As a matter of safety, all firearms should be under lock and key at all times except when they are being used. More people are shot with unloaded guns each year than you would believe. Displaying a gun doesn't preclude that it be locked or in a locked rack.

Gene Howe
02-27-2009, 4:59 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for me Eric. I don't speak fluent legalese.

BTW, I brought this up to the hunting community simply because most hunters own guns, unless they are strictly bow hunters, of course.

I'm an arrow hunter.
Never lost a bow.:D

Greg Peterson
02-27-2009, 6:00 PM
Don't own a gun, not interested in owning a gun, don't understand why someone would own a gun, and don't see a reason why any civilian 'needs' a gun, and certainly don't believe for a minute that there is a vast conspiracy to separate people from their guns.

Just enforce the laws on the books. Plenty of responsible gun owners out there. Just need to worry about the bad ones.

What's wrong with requiring a gun owner to adhere to some basic, safety practices? Every state requires testing and licensing for operating a motor vehicle.

If a parent fails to properly secure a firearm and their kid takes one to school and accidentally discharges it, harming or killing someone, then the parent(s) should be held liable in criminal and civil court. Seems reasonable to me. What is unfair or unjust about having negative consequences for disregard for public safety?

Kevin Arceneaux
02-27-2009, 6:08 PM
Don't own a gun, not interested in owning a gun, don't understand why someone would own a gun, and don't see a reason why any civilian 'needs' a gun, and certainly don't believe for a minute that there is a vast conspiracy to separate people from their guns.

Just enforce the laws on the books. Plenty of responsible gun owners out there. Just need to worry about the bad ones.

What's wrong with requiring a gun owner to adhere to some basic, safety practices? Every state requires testing and licensing for operating a motor vehicle.

If a parent fails to properly secure a firearm and their kid takes one to school and accidentally discharges it, harming or killing someone, then the parent(s) should be held liable in criminal and civil court. Seems reasonable to me. What is unfair or unjust about having negative consequences for disregard for public safety?

Greg, don't know where you live or how you grew up. My Mom would not let a gun in the house, but she did not object to me hunting. I worked out a deal with a friend's Father who I would go hunting with. To me it is a good way to learn a bit of responsibility and have a lot of fun. You shoot, you clean it - both the game and the gun. When I moved to Louisiana, I found it a great way to get with my cousins and uncles who I used to only see a couple of weeks a year. And yes, I still own guns. Where I work, 90% of them hunt.

That being said, I do not see the need to have a military type weapon. I can vision someone hunting with a Uzi. Going to go hungry.

Clifford Mescher
02-27-2009, 6:18 PM
Its been stated that the objective of the anti gun crowd (no I'm not gonna go look for it, you'll have to trust me, look yourself or just disreguard my statement) anyway, its been stated the goal is to remove all guns from the public.
That's you hunters too.

So you may be safe today, but I wouldn't bet on tomm....imho

Al...yup another gun owner/carry permit included
That is their ultimate goal. Clifford.

Ben West
02-27-2009, 6:36 PM
The accident and injury rate of tablesaw users is much higher than that of gun owners. Besides, very few of us really need a tablesaw...for most of us, woodworking is just a hobby.

So, let's go ahead and ban tablesaws too. Our next generation will be much safer. Bored, perhaps, but safe!

Al Willits
02-27-2009, 6:38 PM
As a matter of safety, all firearms should be under lock and key at all times except when they are being used. More people are shot with unloaded guns each year than you would believe. Displaying a gun doesn't preclude that it be locked or in a locked rack.


Sorry lee, can you tell me of one case where a unloaded gun shot, much less killed anyone?

Lock and key, what about defensive firearms?

Personally I'd say guns should be kept in a secure location accessible only to those that own them or have a reason to access them.

And greg, I've run almost a half million rounds though various firearms in my life, 99+% of them in one shooting sport or another, with no mishaps.
I'm not so sure many woodworkers can say the same.
I wouldn't be so quick to deny anyone something you know little about maybe.imho

Al

Greg Peterson
02-27-2009, 6:57 PM
And greg, I've run almost a half million rounds though various firearms in my life, 99+% of them in one shooting sport or another, with no mishaps.
I'm not so sure many woodworkers can say the same.
I wouldn't be so quick to deny anyone something you know little about maybe.imho

Al

Huh? Whose denying anything? I don't get the whole gun culture, but to each his own. I just don't believe it is onerous to expect gun owners to be safe in storing their guns. And if they don't want to keep them under lock and key thats fine, just don't expect the courts to spare you any sympathy should the gun(s) fall into the wrong hands.

Neal Clayton
02-27-2009, 7:06 PM
first off, i don't own any guns, but i don't have a problem with other people owning guns. i don't really care one way or the other.

but...

we have a problem. the problem is stolen guns winding up in the hands of criminals.

and the only means of solving it that i can come up with is a means of licensing each gun, and tracking the transfers of ownership.

as others have said, everyone has to license their vehicles. that doesn't stop anyone from buying a vehicle, and doesn't stop private parties from trading vehicles either. it just allows us to know whether a vehicle is stolen or not. doing the same thing with guns would definitely help stem the trade of stolen guns, which represents a huge amount of our crime problem.

Chris Padilla
02-27-2009, 7:16 PM
Sorry lee, can you tell me of one case where a unloaded gun shot, much less killed anyone?l

That is a shot (pun intended) at the fact that folks using (loose term here) the guns THOUGHT they were unloaded and obviously weren't and someone was hurt. This is a common saying that I hear all the time.

Dennis Peacock
02-27-2009, 7:19 PM
Just a gentle word of warning here....Take Extreme Care in what you post in this thread. It's already headed in the direction to be pulled or at least Locked.

Greg Peterson
02-27-2009, 7:34 PM
It's never the loaded gun that accidentally kills someone.

No one is advocating restriction of gun ownership. But is there anything wrong with at least enforcing the laws that are on the books?

Paul Ryan
02-27-2009, 8:11 PM
I my self go back and forth on this. I have multiple firearms from AR-15's to handguns. I hunt, shoot competativly, and just plain like to shoot. All of my firearms, except for a .22 stashed high in the closet (for shooting pests, I live in the hills), are locked up in a safe. I have one child who is 18 months, he will never learn the combination to the safe until he has passed gun training and is 18. But I do not have a problem if the govenment wants me to have a license for my firearms, even my shotguns. I also agree that if you have young people in the home they should be properly stored preferably locked. Every time I have purchased a hand gun or a semi-auto magazine firearm I have had to reapply for my permit (MN does not charge for this). The permit is good for one year, and I dont buy that often. But what I have a problem with is the government wanting to charge me to have A.K.A. new license. The lines about the Attorny General determining that price is absurd. I have paid enough, I have my permit (free permit), I have my hunting license now I have to buy another license, all I have to say is STICK IT.

John Keeton
02-27-2009, 8:22 PM
.... everyone has to license their vehicles. that doesn't stop anyone from buying a vehicle, and doesn't stop private parties from trading vehicles either. it just allows us to know whether a vehicle is stolen or not. doing the same thing with guns would definitely help stem the trade of stolen guns, which represents a huge amount of our crime problem.Neal, vehicles have been licensed for years - you may have not noticed, but car theft is rampant. A vehicle is stolen every 26 seconds! Not sure how much more proof you need that registration/licensing means nothing to a criminal.

If my guns "fall into the wrong hands" it is because some no good thief stole them from me - while I was not home - because he would not have made it past the front door if I were home!

This really just comes down to increased governmental intervention and voluntarily surrendering a liberty. As Benjamin Franklin astutely observed - “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Curt Harms
02-27-2009, 8:28 PM
is that in my mind it follows the same course as "illegal drug control". Why, one can't find illegal drugs in southeastern PA....unless one don't get overly concerned with legal niceties in which case one could probably buy about any quantity of about any "feel good" stuff one's heart desired after a 90 minute drive or less. Point being one can make laws 'til the cows come home but if someone wants something bad enough, that someone will find a way to get it.

Of course if legal gun supplies are restricted enough, it will provide yet another smuggling opportunity. It seems to me that those who are most prone to gun crimes are those least deterred by legal sanction. Hope this doesn't cross any lines.

Curt

Rick Moyer
02-27-2009, 8:34 PM
first off, i don't own any guns, but i don't have a problem with other people owning guns. i don't really care one way or the other.

but...

we have a problem. the problem is stolen guns winding up in the hands of criminals.

and the only means of solving it that i can come up with is a means of licensing each gun, and tracking the transfers of ownership.

as others have said, everyone has to license their vehicles. that doesn't stop anyone from buying a vehicle, and doesn't stop private parties from trading vehicles either. it just allows us to know whether a vehicle is stolen or not. doing the same thing with guns would definitely help stem the trade of stolen guns, which represents a huge amount of our crime problem.

Help me understand your point: If the problem is stolen guns and criminals, and a crime is commited using said stolen gun, how is the fact that it is registered to someone help eliminate this problem? Are you saying criminals only steal unregistered guns? Maybe registering the gun give law enforcement a starting point. Is that what you mean? either way, it seems to me the problem is the criminal more so than the weapon.

Neal Clayton
02-27-2009, 8:45 PM
Help me understand your point: If the problem is stolen guns and criminals, and a crime is commited using said stolen gun, how is the fact that it is registered to someone help eliminate this problem? Are you saying criminals only steal unregistered guns? Maybe registering the gun give law enforcement a starting point. Is that what you mean? either way, it seems to me the problem is the criminal more so than the weapon.

i don't disagree that it's a multi-faceted problem.

i'm reminded of a quote from a drug dealer on The Wire, the cop show on HBO...

it ain't the drugs that bring em down on us, it's the bodies.

except in real life, that seems to be the opposite. everyone's all fired up to have a news conference when someone seizes a truck full of dope and dirty cash, but when's the last time you heard of someone cracking down on the guy around the corner that sells stolen guns to all the hoodlums? don't know about everywhere else, but virtually never here.

i honestly don't care about the dope either. if people wanna sit around and snort white powder all day, hey, go ahead. i'd much rather see police set up raids on stolen gun dealers than drug dealers. for every 15 year old drug dealer they take off of a corner there's another 2 to replace him. i'd suspect the stolen gun dealers are not nearly as well represented in the population.

it's the bodies that bother me, not the drugs.

but either way, i don't think accurate registration of gun ownership is a bad thing. it won't hinder legitimate gun owners from having guns, but it could assist police in tracking the flow of stolen guns.

Ben West
02-27-2009, 8:49 PM
Greg,

I agree with you completely about enforcing existing laws. We need a system to quickly and easily deny firearms purchases to felons and those with mental illnesses. And, when and if a felon attempts to make a purchase, they should be immediately arrested. This is not being effectively enforced right now.

The tricky issue here is that of "proper storage". People have a problem with that because 1) it makes it difficult to have a firearm for personal protection. How useful is a pistol for personal projection if locked away in a vault? and 2) Many people feel the government is overstepping its bounds by legislating behavior inside one's own home.

I do believe that parents have a legal responsibility to protect their children from guns inside their home. However, I don't at all buy into the idea that I'm responsible when and if an adult steals a gun from me and then uses it in a crime. That, to me, is akin to holding me responsible if someone steals my car and then kills someone in it, or if someone breaks into my shop and chops his fingers off on my tablesaw. I don't believe I'm responsible in either case.

As Dennis alludes, this is a very tough issue to discuss without rousing bad feelings. People have the same passion about the gun issue as others do about abortion, evolution, and gay marriage. If no one else, I'm confident Creekers can can discuss it civilly!

Al Willits
02-27-2009, 9:14 PM
Huh? Whose denying anything? I don't get the whole gun culture, but to each his own. I just don't believe it is onerous to expect gun owners to be safe in storing their guns. And if they don't want to keep them under lock and key thats fine, just don't expect the courts to spare you any sympathy should the gun(s) fall into the wrong hands.


We can argee I think on people being responsible for their actions or neglect, whether guns, cars, whatever.

Al

Al Willits
02-27-2009, 9:26 PM
That is a shot (pun intended) at the fact that folks using (loose term here) the guns THOUGHT they were unloaded and obviously weren't and someone was hurt. This is a common saying that I hear all the time.

Yes and its used to much, its not loaded or unloaded guns that kill people its the idiots using them, cute little saying like unloaded guns killing people is a falsehood and should be stopped...imho

Every state that I know of that's enacted tougher gun laws invariably sees a rise in crime, state that have enacted shall carry or permits to legal people generally see a drop in crime, it ain't the guns folks, blame a too lenient justice system, doctor spock and a "we need to be sensitive" attitude, there's where the problem is.

Al

John Keeton
02-27-2009, 10:21 PM
I was raised with guns in the home, my kids were as well. There is one rule - EVERY gun is loaded! I learned to shoot and properly handle a gun at the age of 7, owned my first gun at the age of 10, hunted by myself at the age of 11. My children were brought up the same way. We have 13 grandchildren, and most of them are being raised similarly. Those that were not raised in similar fashion just can not understand this issue.

A properly stored gun is one I can lay my hand on in less than 3 seconds, which is about the amount of time it takes some drug crazed idiot to kick my door in at 2 am in the morning.

Or, you can dial 911 - better known as dial-a-prayer!

Jack Dickey
02-27-2009, 10:48 PM
Been around them all my life ..

How is registering my firearms going to reduce crime ??

Dont think for one minute that the government does not want private firearms ownership revoked .. Hitler and Stalin took them all and look what happened there ..

OK I'l stop , before I keep going ..

Mike Cutler
02-27-2009, 11:58 PM
Don't own a gun, not interested in owning a gun, don't understand why someone would own a gun, and don't see a reason why any civilian 'needs' a gun, and certainly don't believe for a minute that there is a vast conspiracy to separate people from their guns.

Just enforce the laws on the books. Plenty of responsible gun owners out there. Just need to worry about the bad ones.

What's wrong with requiring a gun owner to adhere to some basic, safety practices? Every state requires testing and licensing for operating a motor vehicle.

If a parent fails to properly secure a firearm and their kid takes one to school and accidentally discharges it, harming or killing someone, then the parent(s) should be held liable in criminal and civil court. Seems reasonable to me. What is unfair or unjust about having negative consequences for disregard for public safety?

Greg

If I could let me address this a little bit.

The reasons to own a gun are myriad. Some folks use them for hunting, some for home/personal protection, some are inherited and have no value except to the owner. Some guns are an investment, they increase in value over the years, and ironically, sometimes, when new legislation is introduced. Example; The original Barret .50 caliber almost doubled in value with the passing of the Brady bill. Antigue firearms is a very lucrative field.
Some folks are just target shooters. There is a very existential, Zen like state associated with target shooting. To truly master it takes a significant degree of discipline and mental focus. These people will never shoot anything other than paper, or silouettes,and the guns can cost 10's of thousands of dollars. Certain shotguns for hunting, skeet, trap and sporting clays can cost 10's of thousands of dollars and even go over a hundred grand.

You are correct in that there is no conspiracy to disarm the populace at large. It is a publicly stated position by some politicians. No conspiracy involved, It is in the open. To some very prominent politicians. all gun owners are bad. Some politicians in the past have tried to have gun ownership classified as a disease. These were, and are very publicly stated opinions.

I could be wrong, but I do not know of a state that doesn't require some form of hunter safety course prior to going hunting, buying a hunting rifle, or shotgun. Most require an NRA approved handgun safety course, in concert with an extensive background check to grant a license to purchase a handgun. The days of walking into a gun store, and buying a pistol have, for the most part gone away. All firearms sold for retail have been registered since the late 60's. Transferring ownership via a private sale now also requires paperwork for the large part.

I have a license for purchasing a firearm, just as I have a license to drive. All of my firearms are registered, just as my car is registered. Of course my firearms and hunting licenses don't generate as much revenue as my car does for the state.;)

Holding the parent responsible for the child with respects to firearms as you outlined is fine as long as we hold them accountable for baseball bats, cars, motorcycles, ATV's. boats, etc. Not too practical But parents have been held responsible for their childs behavior with respect to guns. It has happened.

For the record. I have many shotguns, close to a dozen I think. All but two are Over/Under shotguns that carry only two shells that need to be manually extracted before they can be reloaded. The other two are a pump action shotgun, and a gas operated semi automatic shotgun that federal law prohibits the ability to carry more than three shells while engaged in hunting migratory waterfowl.
I also have a .22 rifle, a really crappy Remington,and a 9mm Baretta.

I have no automatic weapons, don't see the point personally. Very expensive,and as for home protection. I'm jumping out the window and calling the police and fire department from my cell phone.( Of course those shotguns are always there too if that plan fails.)
We will never stop the criminal element from obtaining firearms, they don't care about obeying the law to begin with. But we do need to not make innocent law obiding people into criminals with gun legislation.

It's a polarizing subject,and unfortunately not much middle ground.

Pat Germain
02-28-2009, 12:01 AM
FYI, I was reading about the Blair Holt bill recently. All indications are it will die in comittee for the second time. It simply doesn't have enough support to get anywhere. Leaders in the Democratic Party believe they will lose a lot of support if they start passing gun laws and they don't want to give up their majority in two years. The earlier quote from rep. Nancy Pelosi would seem to support this.

I'm stating this as facts which I've read and I'm honestly not trying to be political here. Thanks for sharing this information, Belinda.

Alan Trout
02-28-2009, 12:38 AM
I have known about this legislation for over 6 weeks. I have written my congressman as soon as I found out. It took 6 weeks and a phone call to his office just to get a response that said nothing. I am an avid hunter and competitive shooter. I shoot many years in excess 60K rounds of shotgun shells in pursuit of my sport and shoot with many people from around the world. This is very scary legislation, In my opinion this is a way for many of our representatives to test the waters to see what they can get by the citizenry. We all need to be proactive and contact your representatives on this or in the end we will end up like Great Britain.

Alan

Greg Peterson
02-28-2009, 1:19 AM
Some people believe in bigfoot, some believe in aliens, some believe in the flying spaghetti monster, some think the first part of the 21st century was nirvana and some believe the government wants to take away their guns.

I just finished watching Religulous for the second time. The closing summary was spot on. With all the crazies out there, perhaps having a gun isn't such a bad idea after all.

Frank Hagan
02-28-2009, 2:54 AM
I agree with you completely about enforcing existing laws. We need a system to quickly and easily deny firearms purchases to felons and those with mental illnesses. And, when and if a felon attempts to make a purchase, they should be immediately arrested. This is not being effectively enforced right now.


This is problematic (not the felons part, but the "mental illness" part). Privacy laws for medical conditions are pretty strict, so it would be pretty hard to implement something like this.

The current law is that owning guns is a Constitutional right, so any restrictions have to be on the same level of restrictions you would have for things like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, voting rights, etc.

John Keeton
02-28-2009, 5:25 AM
I could be wrong, but I do not know of a state that doesn't require some form of hunter safety course prior to going hunting, buying a hunting rifle, or shotgun. Most require an NRA approved handgun safety course, in concert with an extensive background check to grant a license to purchase a handgun. The days of walking into a gun store, and buying a pistol have, for the most part gone away. All firearms sold for retail have been registered since the late 60's. Transferring ownership via a private sale now also requires paperwork for the large part.Mike, I agree with your principal positions, but I did want to correct a few things.

We owned a hunting store for 12 years (closed in Dec 2007), and sold firearms as a large part of our business.

Most all states do require a hunter safety course to hunt, but not necessarily to purchase a firearm. In KY, for example, one must be 18 to purchase a long gun, and pass the NICS instant background check. You must be 21 to purchase a handgun, and pass the NICS.

There is no national registration of firearms. There are some states and cities that require registration. In many states, private sales require no paperwork and no background check.

The background check is not registration. The serial number of the gun is not even provided during that check, nor is the model of gun - only whether it is a long gun or hangun. The check involves a cross check against a variety of databases and normally a convicted felon is denied immediately. Straw purchases are the real problem - again, you can not stop a criminal with laws - thus, the term criminal.

The form that is completed stays with the dealer, unless the dealer cancels his Federal Firearms License. Then they are boxed up and sent to a storage facility. They are used to trace a gun in the event one is used in a crime. The FBI calls the manufacturer and traces the firearm backwards through the chain to the retail sale by a series of phone calls. The dealer is required to provide a copy of the Form 4873 to the BATF upon request.

Michael Morgan
02-28-2009, 5:38 AM
This topic is probably one of the most debated there is. Some people own guns (for various reasons) and try and defend their right to keep them. Others can't believe that there is any reason for anyone besides law enforcement or military to own one. I think the determining factor for which side of the fence you sit is how and where you grew up and were raised. I for one was raised around firearms and have always had guns. My entire family target shoots, trap shoot, sporting clays, and hunt, and sometimes just plink. But really no matter what side of the fence you sit shouldn't matter and there should be no debate. Simply because of this "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

John Keeton
02-28-2009, 6:00 AM
And, Michael, the Supreme Court agrees with you. In the recent case of District of Columbia, et al vs. Heller, the court struck down the DC ban on owning an unregistered firearm, stating - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

That case involved the DC law which banned "handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."

The Court also ruled "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Might add here that this law had been in place for many years, and DC has historically been one of the most dangerous cities in America. Just doesn't correlate very well, does it??

Curt Harms
02-28-2009, 6:41 AM
Along with rights come responsibilities. There are a WHOLE lot of people out there whose knowledge of firearms comes primarily or wholly from Hollywood. A requirement that new purchasers at least demonstrate that they know which end the bullet comes out of (and safe handling, storage etc.) before taking possession of a firearm is not unreasonable, I think. Those of us who grew up on farms and in rural areas likely have a clue about such things. Someone who grew up in an urban area might very well not.

Rod Sheridan
02-28-2009, 8:54 AM
I always find it interesting that people equate owning firearms with safety.

I'm Canadian, and we have far fewer firearms per capita than our American neighbours, and we have far fewer deaths by gunshot than Americans experience.

I'm not anti gun ownership in any way, until two years ago I owned two rifles and a shotgun, and had grown up in a rural area of British Columbia.

Living in a major metropolitan area, I no longer used, or needed the firearms so they were sold. I now no longer need a gun storage "safe" either, which generated some extra space in the basement.

I understand the use of rifles and shotguns as hunting tools, it's the ownership of handguns that I'm more critical of. These are the types of weapons that are most used in crimes, often after they've been stolen from legitimate owners.

It would seem to me that any improvement in storage (locking safe etc) would reduce the number of stolen handguns.

It seems reasonable to me that responsible owners would be interested in improving registration and storage of firearms.

Regards, Rod,

Belinda Barfield
02-28-2009, 8:59 AM
First, I'd like to thank you all for your responses. It was very interesting to read your various viewpoints. Thanks also for keeping things civil. I was away from my computer last night so I couldn't participate, and I've had my slap on the wrist for starting the thread.

Not to bore anyone but I thought I might share a little background. I come from a long line of hunters and military men. Like some others who have posted, I grew up around guns and hunting. One of my grandfathers kept a loaded shotgun propped in the corner beside the door, both front and back doors. I went hunting with my grandfather as well. At one point I was married to an avid hunter and we enjoyed quail hunting together.

When I was a junior in high school I was stalked for somewhere around six to eight months. Law enforcement finally caught up with the stalker. Because of other crimes he had committed, rape being one of them, he ended up in prison. Fast forward, I get a call informing me that he is going to be released. I won't say I was terrified, but I was afraid. So, I bought a small handgun for personal protection. I kept it in my nightstand. Fast forward again, I come home from work one afternoon. Some young men had broken into my house, and they were still inside, with my gun. Luckily, I wasn't killed with my own weapon. Bought another gun and, needless to say, that one doesn't stay in the nightstand drawer.

The stolen gun was later used to commit a crime. I understand the thinking that had I not had the gun in the first place, possibly the crime would not have been committed, but I don't feel responsible for the crime. I have no problem with proper training, licensing, registration, etc. As others have noted though, I don't think the stalker or the burglars were too much concerned with laws. IMHO, enforce the laws we have. Then, if those done work we can make some new ones.

Jack Dickey
02-28-2009, 9:29 AM
Registration does nothing to stop any crime .. All it does is give the government a list of names of firearms owners .. Mine are registered on my computer , so if they are stolen , then I have the serial numbers to give to authorities ..

Storage ?? I have a safe with a few in it , but I keep a handgun in the bedroom and one in front of me at my desk .. If it's locked away and you need it , it's useless to you .. Mine are loaded , an empty firearm , again , is useless ..

I live in a very rural area , and by the time the authorities answer an emergency call , it would be too late ..

My wife has had an experience , not unlike Belinda's , and I'm not counting on the authorities to protect her when she is here alone or out in the community ..

Jim Becker
02-28-2009, 10:03 AM
This is the last reminder that discussion on this topic tends to draw in political bent. That is prohibited here at SMC. We moderators just do not have time to continue to edit individual posts, etc., and will unquestionably close or even remove this thread if there is any more political commentary. (If some comments still exist in some posts it's simply because we don't have time to deal with it) Your opinions on the topic can be expressed without going in that direction.

Please note that there may be serious consideration to banning topics like this completely because of the work load they cause for our unpaid, volunteer moderation staff. Keep that in mind. This is not a democracy...it's a privately owned forum and the owner's rules apply. If you want to be able to continue to start discussions on topics like this here in OT, you must do so within the boundaries of the TOS and the site owner's purview.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Jim
SMC Moderator

Rob Bodenschatz
02-28-2009, 10:05 AM
Jim, how is it possible that this not get political? If threads about table saw regulation get slapped around, this one should go in the toilet.

Von Bickley
02-28-2009, 10:10 AM
For all the people that think their local police will protect them, they are mistaken. Ask your county sheriff, your local police chief, a state patrolman or anyone in law enforcement, if they can protect you or any member of your family. They can't.
The protection of your spouse, your children, your parents, your loved ones may depend on you. You may be the only person that will be in a position to protect them. And this is not extreme, watch your local news or read the newspaper. Violent crimes are happening all over this country.
Owning a gun or carrying a gun is not something for everyone to do. I have made a decision to carry a gun and do whatever is necessary to protect myself and my loved ones.

Jim Becker
02-28-2009, 10:13 AM
Jim, how is it possible that this not get political? If threads about table saw regulation get slapped around, this one should go in the toilet.

Thinking men and woman should be able to discuss their views thoughtfully and in a factual way without dragging things into the political morass, Rob. Discussion about moderation, like politics, is also prohibited at SMC.

Jim
SMC Moderator

Jack Dickey
02-28-2009, 10:37 AM
So far I dont "see" anything political .. No one has really hammered anyone for their viewpoints , seems that there's two sides to this discussion , and each is merely expressing their belief or viewpoint ..

No different than opposing views on a tool , except you dont classify it as political ..

Now if someone on either side started really bashing someone for a comment or a personal attack , then I can see locking the thread or whatever ..

Roger Bell
02-28-2009, 11:10 AM
It is hard to believe that I have read four pages of commentary about this kind of issue on a forum that is strict concerning discussing politics.

We should congratulate ourselves on our ability to do this with civility.

Dennis Peacock
02-28-2009, 11:31 AM
OK....now it's time to move on to other topics. Please consider this topic CLOSED.

Paul Brinkmeyer
02-28-2009, 11:49 AM
I must of been writing this as he closed it ... sorry

jerry nazard
02-28-2009, 12:42 PM
Paul,

No gun comments at this time from me: however, I notice that you are in Green Valley. I am planning for retirement down in Patagonia. During my last visit, I shopped in your big grocery store. That is one of the nicest groceries! What a fantastic community! Looking forward to my winters in AZ!

-Jerry

Belinda Barfield
02-28-2009, 2:20 PM
As Dennis said, let's just agree to disagree and move on.