I am F*CK*NG PISSED. Michigan Gun Laws Written by the Mob?!?!?

[IdaBriggs]

I made a couple of phone calls this morning. The first was to our County Sheriff Department to find out if "gun permits were public information."

Per the Records clerk, NO -- Gun Permit information in Michigan is NOT public.

I explained that a newspaper in another state had published information about owners with their addresses, and she said gun permit information in Michigan is "private." I asked who could clarify the point since we had differing views. I also asked if she was allowed to keep "a database of gun permit people" and she clarified that the Michigan Law changed on December 18, 2012 (lame duck session).

She referred me to the Michigan State Police Department. I called and spoke to a very nice person who answered my questions.

I Am F*CK*NG PISSED - and if you are offended by the swearing, I will apologize later when I calm down, because what I learned is borderline INSANE.



NEW RULE: If it is over "26 inches" it is NOT a pistol, and you don't have to have a permit or register it. In Michigan, we apparently only register pistols. AR-15s are considered "rifles". I am not a gun-nut, so they will have to chime in on all of the other "toys" that are "not pistols" because they aren't, like, *DANGEROUS* or anything!



BACKGROUND CHECKS: Only performed on THE PURCHASER and NOT on the other members of the household. I posed the following scenarios/questions -

"ME: So, if I have a felon boyfriend fresh out of prison living with me who is not allowed to buy guns, and I go buy FIVE of them, there is no way to keep local track of the fact somebody just bought FIVE guns, let alone at an address where a felon lives?"

HIM: "That is correct, ma'am."

"ME: So, if I give them to my boyfriend, and he sells four of them to his buddies for cash, you have no idea where the guns are unless they turn up in the commission of a crime?"

HIM: "Ma'am, you aren't supposed to give guns to a felon."

"ME: Yes, I get that, but how do you know I still have five guns? Or more, since you aren't keeping track of how many I am buying, as long as they aren't pistols?"

HIM: "Well, its against the law for you to do that."

"ME: Yes, but do you have any tools to ENFORCE the law?"

HIM: "Um, no."

"ME: So, you just have to TRUST that someone living with a convicted felon who is buying lots of pistols or rifles or whatever *isn't* going to give or sell or loan them to other members of the household?"

HIM: "Uh, yes. Because it is against the law."

"ME: Speeding is against the law! This seems INSANE! Are you saying we have laws but no tools to actually ENFORCE THEM?"

HIM: "Um, yes."

So to summarize --

1) Local law enforcement doesn't get to keep track of who is BUYING guns that aren't pistols.
(Still not sure local/state/federal sharing of information occurs - I was told the feds aren't *allowed* to keep a database of this *critical* information by law.)

2) Local law enforcement doesn't get to know who *has* the guns of any type *once they are purchased*; for all intents and purposes, they disappear into "the zone of we trust you" because why the heck not?

3) Background checks are only performed on the payer who "buy" the guns, and not on the other members of their households, or their associates/spouses/immediate family.

4) If it isn't a "pistol", Michigan law enforcement gets to be "surprised" - even by what the local drug lords are using to defend their property!!!

5) Laws without the ability to enforce them are F*CK*NG USELESS!!!

In essence, we can keep track of COLD MEDICINE PURCHASES because the abuse of them is a threat to public health, but my neighbor can buy half a dozen high powered military quality "rifles" while screwing around with a paroled felon, sell them as if they were garage sale bargains, and nobody gets to know about it until after a crime gas been committed.

These rules have to have been written by MOB LAWYERS. There simply isn't any other logical explanation. Cars and cold medicine get more regulation than "rifles" that KILL ON PURPOSE.

I'm in fume mode. Livid. F*CK*NG. PISSED! Where were the SANE people when these "laws and rules" were being passed?

WHERE WERE THE GOD DAMNED GROWN-UPS???

Oh, yeah - cowering in fear of the MOBBED UP NRA!!!

[Denninmi]

1. Would you expected better from the Tbaggers in Lansing?

Quite the fine lot they are indeed.

[heaven05]

59. nope

and remember, 'proud' michiganians voted these psychos, synder included, into their position democratically and legally. We are reaping what was sown with those votes. And the election wasn't even close. on edit. Also NOTHING can be done about the 400million plus guns in the homes and on the streets, both legally and illegally with legislative restriction or not, in america. NOTHING! And I am not pro-gun for everyone.

[FightForMichigan]

82. Yeah, well,

you know who ELSE was elected into power?

... I'm sorry, I had to. But you're right. People in our state made a big mistake. I'm working hard to make sure they don't repeat it.

[heaven05]

84. sorry

I don't 'get' the "who ELSE".

[FightForMichigan]

90. I was just being silly

It's an internet meme. The answer is Hitler. Examples:

Person 1: "I can't believe my neighbor was a mass murderer. He seemed so nice, he even liked his dogs!"
Person 2: "Yeah, well, you know who ELSE liked his dogs?"

Person 1: "I can't believe she doesn't recycle. She's a vegetarian!"
Person 2: "Yeah, well, you know who ELSE was a vegetarian?"

etc.

I was just being goofy. It's a Monday.

[heaven05]

98. Got it

you're right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Some clarifications

1) Permits are not public information in most places. The Journal News fiasco, in addition to nearly killing the paper, exposed LEOs and others who should not have outed. The result is that where permits have been public, there are now moves to restrict access to the data.

2) MI is not the only state that differentiates between long guns and handguns.

3) There is no state anywhere that does background checks of the entire household. Neither does the Feds. However, it is a felony for someone who has lost their firearms rights to have access to guns or ammunition. To use your example, if the GF locks her pistol up and the felon boyfriend does not have access, its fine. If he does have access its illegal and both can and should be charged.

4) There is no definitive list of who has what anywhere. Its been pretty much that way for generations

[IdaBriggs]

5. When a "background check" is done for the FBI or other government entity

when *a programmer* wants a job, they check the other members of the household.

There are on-line search engines that show the names/addresses of other people living in a house - I think Yahoo! people search even has the feature, but don't quote me on that, since I haven't looked at it for a while.

Cross-checking an address with a parolee or felon list should be a "no-brainer" - asking the person buying the gun to list the other members of the household could even shorten that (but I say double-check).

Your point #4 is a problem for me - it seems STUPID and INSANE. It is a reality that needs to be changed.

In fact, #2, #3 and #4 all need to be changed - I could live with #1 being private, as long as *all level of law enforcement* had access to the information.

This seems to be common sense; I remain livid.

(But thank you for the thoughtful reply - it is helping me to calm down.)

[WinkyDink]

7. Owning a gun is not a government job.

[IdaBriggs]

12. Tracking them - like we do cars and cold medicine - should be. nt

[Recursion]

32. Cars are regularly seen in public, guns aren't. That's the big problem.

People regularly drive cars on public roads and have visible licensing devices that police can look up -- even given that, the number of improperly titled and registered cars is shockingly high.

The cold medicine thing didn't remotely work. Or did our meth problem disappear?

[momrois]

52. In foster care

Background checks are required of everyone in the home over the age of 14 and FBI background checks of everyone over 18, plus a background is required of all frequent visitors to the home in order for someone to be a foster parent. Updates are required every two years. I don't know why this type of system, with cross referenced addresses, could not be instituted for firearms. If anyone in the home is a felon, no firearms could be legally bought by anyone in the home.

[IdaBriggs]

54. ^== This. The systems are in place. USE THEM.

They are freaking common sense.

[galileoreloaded]

3. It's pretty much like that in the entire country.

Except Chicago, NYC, Philly and California and other large urban spots.

[Recursion]

35. Even in DC during the gun ban you didn't have to register a rifle or shotgun

You just had to keep it disassembled at all times in your home.

[Recursion]

4. AR-15's are considered rifles because they are rifles.

Are you saying they should be called pistols?

Law enforcement generally doesn't care much about rifles because they are only used in a very small fraction of crimes. Handguns really are where almost all of the gun violence is.

[IdaBriggs]

8. I am saying they should be called GUNS and I want GUNS tracked.

I am especially saying I want law enforcement at all levels to be able to run a "how many GUNS are at *this property* and then get a print-out.

I also want parole officers to be able to pull up the list, and then I want law enforcement people to be able to make sure they are *all there* and haven't been "loaned" to criminals.

Do you have any other questions about what I am saying?

[Recursion]

15. What incentive will the drug dealers have to register their guns?

Maybe I misread you but I thought you were talking in the context of the police not knowing what guns the local drug dealer had in his house.

But, yes, registration upon purchase would be a decent idea.

[IdaBriggs]

21. You are pretending to play the fool.

Right now "straw men" are not identified. Right now once a gun is sold ONCE, it disappears into a black hole of "trust me - this weapon will not be used in the commission of a crime (until it is)."

This needs to stop. I think registering *all* guns is a pretty simple first step - I don't care if you call it a pistol, a rifle or a freaking UZI, if its a gun, I want local law enforcement to know who bought it, how many they bought, and how many they are keeping in their house.

Since it is already gainst the law to "sell it", annual registration and validation of ownership proves the Law Abiding Citizen has it (and not the local drug dealer).

[Recursion]

22. How small do you think the number of currently illegally-owned guns is? (nt)

[IdaBriggs]

37. One guy tried to bring a plane down with a bomb in his shoe.

Now we *all* take off our shoes at the airport. It is inconvenient and a waste of time for millions of us, but we do it to enhance the perception of public safety.

Tens of thousands of people have been KILLED AND WOUNDED using GUNS in the last ten years. Apparently, law abiding gun owners will need to be "inconvenienced" a little bit for the cause of public safety.

Do you understand the analogy, or should I clarify it further?

[Recursion]

39. I do not understand the analogy

I'm asking what you think any law is going to do about the sea of currently-illegal guns out there?

[IdaBriggs]

61. Stop if from increasing, of course. Duh. nt

[Recursion]

79. Oh, Lord no. This would increase it significantly

Mandatory registration would wind up with an absolute shit-ton of guns being lost in tragic boating accidents.

[IdaBriggs]

80. ROFL! And then when a law abiding citizen took them to a shooting range...

Because they found them (of course) ....

[atreides1]

55. You seem to want a lot?

Good luck with that...

[WinkyDink]

6. You are being OTT in asking for "Household members" Background Checks. ESPECIALLY with your

"boyfriend" example. So what's to stop you from changing felon boyfriends every week post-gun purchase?

[IdaBriggs]

10. I disagree. If its good enough for employment, then its good enough for guns.

And the "felon boyfriend" who is on parole lists an address - if you've got an arsenal (define it yourself, because I am clear on what that means to me), I would like his "parole officer" to verify he can't access it.

I think this is where the COMMON SENSE OF ANNUAL REGISTRATION comes in - JUST LIKE WITH A CAR.

Cross-indexing addresses of felons with this type of list is a doable IT project.

[beevul]

93. But it just isn't "just like a car".

In the great majority of places in America, one need not register a car simply to own it.

Registration is required to USE IT IN PUBLIC.

Apples and oranges.

[michreject]

9. The state of MI registers pistols

Many many states don't register any guns. It's cash and carry.

My UZI, being under 26" with the stock extended WAS considered a pistol in MI only. The feds always considered it a rifle.

Under the old law, if sold in MI, the new owner would have had to register it. It is now considered a rifle by both the feds and the state. However, it is grandfathered to me as a pistol in MI only. While I have never did it, I'm allowed to have it fully loaded in my truck. in the open, as it is covered under my carry permit.

If I ever sold it, I would have to inform the state police that it is no longer in my possession, as I have had to do whenever I sold a pistol, either in or out of state. The new owner would not have to register it as it is now a rifle.

As to the feds, they don't know what kind of gun people are buying when a background check is performed. Just that someone is buying a gun. No make or model is ever mentioned.

[IdaBriggs]

11. Why does this make me want to throw up?

Thank you for the clarification.

It seems Insane and Crazy and Stupid.

A gun is a gun is a gun.

Your reply is thoughtful and coherant. Thank you for writing it.

[michreject]

17. Thank you

I would like to add:

If you share the same living quarters with a felon, you are required to keep all guns secured with the felon not having access to them. If they are stored in a safe, the felon cannot have the combination/key. If they do have access, then there will be two felons living at the same address.

In some states, the non felon cannot even keep a firearm under the same roof as a convicted felon.

[IdaBriggs]

26. When I asked how the police verify this, the answer was "they don't/can't."

It is a toothless law, based at best on "TRUST" that people won't break the law.

I think we have enough gun violence in this country to have determined that such "TRUST" is misplaced.

The rules should be "Trust, but Validate."

I *trust* that everyone obeys the speed limit, for example. But I regularly see police officers *stop* people after they have *validated with tools* that someone is breaking the law and speeding.

Stupid. Insane. Sick. Criminal. Take your pick of adjectives - they all fit.

[Recursion]

30. OK, what's a way they could verify that?

I'm down with the goal, I'm skeptical of there being a practical means.

[IdaBriggs]

40. The internet has search engines.

Here is a link to one of dozens: http://www.whitepages.com/reverse_address

Logic dictates that law enforcement could/should have access to better ones.

[Recursion]

41. Law enforcement tends to contract with the exact same services

How do you compile this more accurate database?

[IdaBriggs]

43. How about we start with RUNNING THE CHECK IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Right now we don't even do that - we all just TRUST.

Step 1 - Stop pretending it is an insolveable problem.

Step 2 - FIX IT.

[Recursion]

44. What check? There's no check they can run

You're basing this on the idea that someone, somewhere actually knows where people on the fringes of society live, and they don't. If somebody did, I guarantee you that debt collectors would be using it right now, let alone law enforcement.

[MessiahRp]

46. I have to disagree here.

Sex Offenders have to register with States for every address they move to and in some cases, local law enforcement has to inform the neighbors of their impending arrival and allow for a public meeting on it. Now at a slightly lesser level it's not hard to keep tabs on violent crime felons on the same way by forcing address registration with the state (you can likely skip the neighborhood contact and meeting portion of the above law) and then during any registration process for gun buying, cross reference that felon database versus the address on your application.

I am sure there will be shady fuckers who get around that aspect of the application by falsifying address information, however they would open themselves to a major felony themselves during a raid of some sort. Short of a GPS install on every firearm, I can't think of a 100% foolproof way to track every gun but a violent crime felon address database would be very easy to institute considering the framework is already there for sex offenders.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I assume the logic behind it is triage.

A pistol is much more concealable than a long gun. Handguns are used in somewhere around 70% of homicides committed with a firearm. So, that law seems to be crafted to target the most likely guns to be used in crimes.

[IdaBriggs]

49. A gun is a gun is a gun. Parsing seems stupid, especially when you can "parse" UZIs -

as another poster has pointed out. Or AR-15s.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. If a gun is a gun is a gun

why are some types of guns, like the AR-15, which is the most popular center-fire rifle in the united states, used in less than 3% of all gun-related homicides?

I would argue your contention that a 'gun is a gun' is not reflective of the real world, with regards to public safety. I would have to step back to 'a gun is a tube that uses expanding gasses to propel a projectile at high velocity' for a 'gun is a gun' to become valid.

[IdaBriggs]

51. 3% x 10,000 = 300 per year. 300 x 10 years = 3,000.

1 Failed Shoe Bomber x 500,000,000 Passengers x 10 Years = Suck It Up for Public Safety.

In ten years AR-15s killed the same the same number of people as died in the World Trade Center.

A gun is a gun and they should all be treated the same - pistols and "rifles" alike.

Suck It Up for Public Safety.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Less than that, actually.

That 3% number is all rifles. Including entirely 'mild' sporting rifles. (all non-shotgun long guns, I think is how the FBI defines it)

Plus you've scaled up the homicide rate, etc, minor quibbles I guess, but w/e.

Out of curiosity, since we don't have a by-weapon breakdown of the 60-100 thousand lawful defensive gun uses per year (per the US DoJ) does any percentage of lawful non-sporting public safety promoting use of these rifles offset your concern about that number?

[IdaBriggs]

60. The Common Sense suggestions promoted in this thread so far --

are addressing laws that are already on the books, and should have no real impact on any non-criminals other than a very minor inconvenience factor.

I really don't see your point. Do you object to background checks for household members? Do you object to LEO knowing how many guns (all calibres and types) are in your home? Do you object to felons not being allowed access to guns?

I am inconvenienced on a daily basis for a lot less benefit. What is your point?

[AtheistCrusader]

62. I don't object to background checks at all.

In fact, I don't object to repealing the 1986 GOPA and instituting a national registry. Simple solutions for big problems. I don't know if the 'all household members' thing would fly though. That was an interesting and thought provoking point.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. In a background check, the feds know what sort of gun you're buying

Somewhere in the conversation with the NICS operator, the sales clerk will mention "pistol" or "long gun". I don't know if the classification has any bearing on the outcome (deal, or no deal).

I never dealt with the MI state police on any gun matter, just the city police department. Dunno if that green "inspection" card gets recorded into any database.

[michreject]

36. It does for pistols

Since rifles aren't registered.

When I went through my divorce, My wife's attorney petitioned the state police for a list of all my handguns. since they were recorded with the state.

It was an asset assessment thing.

[HockeyMom]

24. Florida has no registration at all

The only permit required is for CCW. Yes, there are background checks, BUT not for a gift of a gun. A person can buy a gun themselves, have a background check done on them, and then give the gun as a gift (no money exchanges) and it is legal and there is no way to know who that recipient is or what their criminal or mental background is. Slipping through the cracks.

My husband offered to do this "for" me at a gun show since he has his CCW and the background check would be faster for him than me. That should be outright ILLEGAL, even if the recipient of this "gift" is an adult and could on their own pass a background check, never mind somebody who COULDN'T. As a pro-gun controls person, this made me furious to how easily people could slip between the cracks here.

Florida is a LOT worse than Michigan. The entire country knows about SYG and what happened to Trayvon Martin. That is just the one that got the PUBLICITY too.

[Recursion]

31. I agree 100%. Private transfers are a real problem.

There should be a background check every time a firearm changes ownership.

[michreject]

34. MI has the same SYG law

Open carry is not legal in FL. In MI, open carry is completely legal in public schools. Concealed carry is illegal in a public school.

[HockeyMom]

38. I wish they had open carry

so I would know who to avoid in public.

[Kennah]

91. "My husband offered to do this "for" me at a gun show since he has his CCW"

I hope you declined this because THAT action would constitute a straw purchase and be a violation of FEDERAL LAW.

[HockeyMom]

103. Of course

IF I ever wanted a gun for myself, I would do it and get a background check myself. I have worked in public schools in 2 states for a decade and have been fingerprinted and cleared by the FBI. Fear a background check? Ludicrous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The background check only covers the purchaser

NICS is federal. So you want to go from 60% compliance to 100% will be a huge thing. You want to include the rest of the adults in the household, ain't gonna happen. (Even if it's not a bad idea)

Oh I forgot, straw purchases are illegal and it changes from state to state...some you can have a fire arm with no access to a con living under your some roof. Some require you surrender your guns.

[IdaBriggs]

14. Why not? It is COMMON SENSE and the only people with a problem are criminals.

"Law abiding citizens" shouldn't even have to notice it, right?

We already have search engines that do this - cross checking them should be easy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It may be common sense

But these are done for purchaser only. Closing that huge loophole is important.

Now let's say I bought a gun, I pass NiCS, no reason I should not...and I bought it for Johnny, living in my home, who is intending to commit a robbery with it...it goes bad, somebody dies. His is a state crime. I am liable, since I never reported stolen, and straw purchases are a federal offense. That is how it is death with.

The straw could be done for somebody at home. Or for your neighbor, te woman buying for uncle bill, who killed the fire fighters. She's facing federal charges.

Why an owner should always report a weapon missing when they notice it.

[michreject]

23. You're mostly correct

Straw purchases are a Federal crime. They don't change from state to state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Read post 20

[AngryAmish]

16. Article I, Section 9 : no bills of attainder

If you live with a felon or related to one, you cannot have your rights limited. So if you live in a house with a daughter who is a felon you can have a gun. She can't, you can.

[HockeyMom]

27. Therein is the problem

Honor system for the family member purchasing the gun. That was my point in my previous post. Policing you own family members.

[IdaBriggs]

29. I don't trust the "honor system" - I am a "trust, but verify" person.

Your Florida post - shudder - when Michigan is made to look sane in comparison... (shudder)

[JVS]

18. Do you think that registration of place of residence should be obligatory for all citizens?

Because that's the only way that you're even going to start to be able to do background checks of entire households.

[IdaBriggs]

28. This information is currently available via internet search engine for most of the population.

Paroled felons are required to report their residence. Sexual offenders, same thing.

I'm a "law and order" woman. Start with the common sense stuff first (people we all agree are NOT supposed to have access to guns) and go from there.

Right now there is a toothless law with no tools for enforcement (so apparently we all agree on that law already).

This needs to be fixed IMMEDIATELY.

[pipoman]

33. How about laws in place to prevent felons and other

prohibited people from buying guns isn't funded, and a list of felons actively seeking to buy guns is compiled every day and only like 2% are even being investigated. Or people are getting out of the store with a gun who shortly after are found by NICS as being prohibited and nobody is going to retrieve the gun..(recent news story).

[IdaBriggs]

42. You know, I was starting to calm down. I really was - a calm, rationale discussion

with several DUers, and then MORE FREAKED OUT REALITY!!!

From your article --

More than three dozen people in Northern Nevada purchased firearms and kept them despite failing their background checks because the Reno office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives no longer has agents to retrieve those weapons, a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation found.

(snip)

In the past year in Nevada, at least 36 people either lied or gave inaccurate information when they filled out a form to purchase a gun, according to the Nevada Department of Public Safety, the agency in charge of conducting background checks. When the department discovered that bogus information, they followed normal procedures and sent letters to the Reno ATF office asking the agents to take back the firearms.

Since no one at ATF acted on those requests, the guns are likely still on the street and none of the people who bought the guns have faced federal charges related to lying or providing the inaccurate information for their background check or being a felon in possession of a firearm.

My head is exploding all over again.

[Recursion]

81. I know that "enforce existing laws" is an NRA talking point, but there really is a HUGE gap here

As you're finding out, at the cost of your head exploding repeatedly. I do not think that our current laws are sufficient, but I also know for absolute certain that they aren't enforced seriously because the agencies that should enforce them are underfunded, and I honestly think we could accomplish more by getting them that funding than we can legislatively with new laws right now.

[4Q2u2]

45. NY Sullivan Act were also

Written by mobsters for mobsters.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act#Controversy


"But all the available evidence indicates that Tim's fight to bring firearms under control sprang from heartfelt conviction."[1]Walsh, Michael Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany Hall that their victims sometimes shot back at them."

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Your own analogy is flawed.

""ME: Speeding is against the law! This seems INSANE! Are you saying we have laws but no tools to actually ENFORCE THEM?" "

The state has precisely the same tools to enforce the speed limit, as they do to enforce various crimes committed with firearms in prohibited hands. Post facto enforcement.

You would be quickly found, after the crime was committed, wherein the firearm was recovered and traced, as the source for the firearm to your 'felon boyfriend'. You filled out a form at the point of sale that would be kept on file. (Form 4477) You would go to jail for providing those firearms to a known felon.

Just like a speeder gets a ticket after they are caught speeding.


Your expectation that a background check might reveal co-habitation of a felon might be reasonable, but your analogy about enforcement tools was not.

[IdaBriggs]

53. Post facto enforcement: Buy gun. Provide registration. LEO run checks.

If you have a felon in your house, visit from LEO to verify you are obeying rules.

Law preventing felons from access to guns is enforced "after the fact".

Personally, as a logical human being, I think this type of check should be run *before* you get the gun as part of a "permitting process".

Speeding is bad (using the analogy). Dead / wounded people are worse.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I'm personally ok with that sort of check

but another poster above (not pro-gun) has pointed out a legal precedent that may hinder such things. (attainder)

To bring the speeding analogy into line, one could look at the driving history of the applicant to purchase a car, assess past speeding, and that of other people living in the home of the applicant, and install a governor in the vehicle, limiting its top speed and acceleration?

Just brainstorming to put the two on equal footing.

[IdaBriggs]

64. In brainstorming mode, drunk drivers have to "blow clean" before their car starts.

Yes, they figure out ways around that (because that is what criminals do). We don't stop enforcing drunk driving laws because of it.

Right now we aren't even enforcing the existing laws because LEOs are being handicapped by morons (and, per another post in this thread, their budgets for enforcing are being slashed).

[NutmegYankee]

66. Two points there:

1. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Failure to adhere to the rules means they can pull your license to operate on public roads. No license nor registration is required to drive a car on private property.

2. Drunks with ignition breathalyzers have been found guilty of drunk driving and were sentenced to have that system installed. That's an example of having liberty limited through Due Process.

14th amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[IdaBriggs]

68. At what point do you believe registering *all guns* as opposed to *pistols only*

Is damaging someone's liberty?

At what point do you think expanding background checks to include other adults (similar to foster care, for example) in a household where guns will be present, and ensuring that adequate safety precautions are in place, is an outrageous imposition?

At what point do you believe LEO being able to access a database with a list of the GUNS that are supposed to be in a home isn't part of a standard DUE DILIGENCE when parolees are placed, or warrants must be served for other purposes or a house fire needs to be attended to is out of the realm of reasonable?

At what point do you believe logical database runs looking for criminals (even easier to implement than requiring banks to find money laundering) to identify "straw men" for illegal purchases is a waste of time?

Part of my absolute OUTRAGE is that these are COMMON FREAKING SENSE things that I shouldn't even have to be arguing about with somebody on the internet because REASONABLE people can see they are pretty obvious.

Law abiding citizens should NOT be whining about any of these things having their rights taken away because they are COMMON FREAKING SENSE.

[NutmegYankee]

76. Response:

1. I don't have an issue with registration of long guns and handguns, as long as it's private and releasable to law enforcement only. (which is the law in most states) There are serious privacy issues with releasing that info to the public. It's a non-starter for most gun owners.

2. Foster care parenting is a privilege, not a right. Guns are personal property, and laws apply to the owner. You cannot be forced to suffer a loss of liberty for another person's crime without being convicted of one yourself. Absolute violation of the 14th amendment, due process in particular. Completely unreasonable.

3. Registration would allow them to do that. I've not said anything against.

4. Federal background checks likely could do that. And sometimes do.

5. Some are not reasonable. You can't punish a person for another person's crime. That's not common sense. It's evil.

6. Again, some are not common sense. They are a violation of Constitutional protections.

[IdaBriggs]

85. Well, we agree with enough to get started reforming based on those.

Plus, I want more money given to my law enforcement people so they have resources to *enforce* the gun laws. (Another post on this thread made the head start exploding all over again.)

And I disagree that requiring Non-Felons who are living with Felons/Parolees to provide reasonable assurance that these guns will not be accessible to those who are NOT allowed to use them is unreasonable or would violate their constitutional rights.

[NutmegYankee]

88. There are a lot of reforms that can be made.

And we should give the ATF a leader finally after 6 years.

The big thing to remember is that laws should be fair. A gun owner who has complied with all laws to date should not be punished with very intrusive measures. For instance, releasing names and addresses of gun owners seems to fit the agenda of using shame or inflicting fear on them of break ins while not home to cause people to give up their guns. A law like that is just going to galvanize resistance from people who would otherwise stand behind increased checks and restrictions on mag/clip sizes.

Most states require you to secure a weapon properly, so that people who are not allowed to possess one cannot get to it. If a child gets hold of my gun and gets hurt, it's a felony here. I lock mine in safes. What I would not agree to is being forced to open my home to police without probably cause of a crime. The foster parent example is very different in that it's a privilege granted by the state and you agree to willingly submit yourself to inspection to get approved. Like it or not, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise on handgun ownership. The laws will be enforced as they usually are, after the fact. It's illegal to murder someone, but only enforceable after the fact. A dept of Pre-crime was a nice plot line in a blockbuster film, but it isn't the way American law works in reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. But the drunk driver is a very different creature from a speeder.

Drunk Drivers have had their rights adjudicated away by due process. Repeat offense is a felony in some states.

A speeder can be a simple administrative infraction. (And this is just limited to the applicant for the purchase of the firearm/car, not residents of the household who could potentially gain access to the firearm/car)

[IdaBriggs]

71. Ah, because the criminal we *don't want to know about* because we can't do a database check

isn't a SCAM by criminals to hide their criminal behavior?

I am back to being convinced that this is Mafia rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I am loathe to associate 'rational' with the NRA in any capacity

after the media blitz post-Sandy Hook Elementary, but

whether the NRA knows it or not, they have a rational self-interest in preventing felons from attaining access to firearms. And they HAVE supported gun control laws in the past, to that end.

Their 'guns as answer to guns' meme of late is going to destroy their org utterly.

[NutmegYankee]

58. Now this is getting ridiculous.

The Right to Privacy is a big time liberal value. No one should be subject to random inspections of their home without a warrant. And the 4th amendment is very clear on what a warrant is for.

[IdaBriggs]

63. The right not to have my kid killed because we went to McDonalds, the mall or school

as in the whole "LIFE" thing, along with the whole "well regulated" means sometimes people are a little inconvenienced for Public Safety.

Don't want to obey the rules? Don't buy a gun. Don't want to renew your driver's license? Don't drive a car. Don't want to take off your shoes at the airport? Don't buy a plane ticket.

Either way, less whining and more COMMON SENSE enforcement.

Most of the things I am suggesting could be implemented with minimal time/trouble.

[NutmegYankee]

65. Violation of the Constitutional protections for people is NOT common sense!

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Taking the shoes off in public has been deemed a minor inconvenience. You have a clear and defined right to privacy in your home. So clear that police can't even use infrared scanners to see through walls from the street. But our debate here will be inconsequential as no court of law would uphold it anyhow.

[IdaBriggs]

69. If I have reason to believe a crime is being committed - "straw man" -

then I get a warrant and hopefully use infrared to protect my LEOs.

Then I politely knock, and the potential "straw man" can either brag and show off their treasures, or explain how they all got stolen away by persons unknown and they forgot to report it.

[NutmegYankee]

72. If you get a warrant signed by a judge, with probable cause, then there is no issue.

That wasn't your proposal in the threads above.

[IdaBriggs]

86. Actually, my proposals all involve using reasonably available information --

The forms being put in a database, then computer queries comparing data kicking out "clues."

Oooh! Imagine cross-referencing it with the state's tax data --

== Person A has just purchased ten "rifles" valued at $800 each for a total of $8,000.

== During the last three years, the total reported household income was less than $15,000.

== A history check shows that once a quarter she spends between $5,000 and $10,000 on fire arms.

This type of check should trigger a "probable cause" warrant with an automatic visit from local LEO, with a polite request to view her gun collection.

[NutmegYankee]

89. As long as a judge approved it.

For legality, all citizens would be required to have their info added to this database though.

[Kaleva]

70. Those have been the laws here in Michigan for years.

No long gun, a gun with a barrel 16" or longer, has ever had to registered as long as I've been alive.

And i don't think the laws were written by the mob or drug gangs. They were written by hunters.

[IdaBriggs]

73. Apparently there was a change in December. Things got looser, thanks to Lame Duck Crap.

Just "trust" that no one is going to break the law - it isn't like we actually have to do anything to enforce it.

La, la, la - have a pretty flower while we all *pretend* that everything is fine and anybody with a gun will never do anything bad with it.

Oh, wait a minute!

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/07/26/detroit-murder-gun-violence-rate-climbing/

and

We're #6!

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence

[Kaleva]

78. I've owned rifles and carbines for a long time now and I don't know what got "looser".

Did some reasearch and this is what I found:

"Gun ownership provisions were streamlined last month, with a new law that allows people to purchase guns from federal firearm licensed dealers without notifying local police departments as dealers instead file a form with the Michigan State Police."

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20130113/NEWS10/301130455/Gun-law-changes-concern-law-enforcement-officials?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|LEGALS06

The new law only concerns handguns and doesn't affect long guns.

Edit: It was easy for me to buy a handgun before, if I had so desired to, and this new law makes it a bit easier still as I can skip a couple of stops at the local police department. I still have to go thru a background check and the gun would be registered with the state police instead of with the local police.

[IdaBriggs]

83. So *anyone* can walk into Bass Pro Shop and walk out with a rifle (no check) -

and only a little note in their files given to the Feds, who aren't legally allowed to use it as a database.

But handguns you do the check *before* and the only ones who know about it are the folks in Lansing? With no communication with *LOCAL* law enforcement?

Well, maybe eventually we can get technologically advanced and they can develop some kind of system where multiple branches of government can access a new fangled invention called "a database."

I am quite the science fiction fan there, aren't I?

[Kaleva]

87. No, you still have to go thru a background check if you buy a rifle at Bass Pro Shop

Your comment:

"But handguns you do the check *before* and the only ones who know about it are the folks in Lansing? With no communication with *LOCAL* law enforcement?"


It may be a good thing that the state police are the one's where the registration for handguns are kept. I'm often in four seperate counties here in Michigan. With the records centralized, it ought to be easy for each of the four county sheriff departments to check if the handgun I have (assuming I have one which I don't) is registered.

On the face of it, my initial impression of the new law is that it is okay.

[maryland native]

75. I am F*CK*NG PISSED. Michigan Gun Laws Written by the Mob?!?!?

WOW, seems as if Michigan is actively supporting the ability to commit straw purchases. The fine balance between privacy and the 2nd amendment is close, but in the end, does not my freedom to live free of gun violence trump these nuances?

Just joining DU and looking forward to lively discussions!

[IdaBriggs]

77. Welcome to DU.

And yes, I think you are right!

[Tsiyu]

92. There are so many laws covering prescription drugs

when you go to a pharmacy, the warning signs alone make you feel like you've stepped into a jailhouse. Four or five years ago, the last time I had a tooth pulled, I felt guilty just sitting there reading all the goddamned warning signs, simpy because I needed some help with the pain.

You see, you are EVIL and SUSPECT if you are in pain and want to get your prescription filled. You must be PUT IN YOUR PLACE. You could be DANGEROUS to society.

Doctors have to report prescriptions in this state so nobody goes "doctor shopping" to load up on any narcotics.
We've got procedures, rules and regulations for frickin' cold medicine, where you have to show a drivers license and you can only purchase I believe ONE box of psuedoephedrine at a time.

But you can buy as many AR-15s as you want. No limit.

Yeah, I'm pissed right along with you.

We live in Crazy Land, where our every move is controlled and monitored, unless we want assault rifles with 30 round clips, and then it's a godammned free-for-all.

It's a recipe for pure disaster.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

94. So, in a nutshell, you're upset that the cops can't stop people from breaking the law?

What sort of law do you expect would allow the cops to actually (physically) prevent people from breaking gun laws?

Hypothetical: Are cops able to physically stop you from giving your husband (who has a suspended license with too many DUIs) the keys to your car because he wants to go to the sports bar and watch some playoff games? How will they know until it's too late and he's either arrested or gotten in an accident again? Are Cops able to physically stop you from giving any schedule II prescription narcotic painkillers to somebody not allowed to possess them? How can they know if you do?

Newsflash: For the most part, cops can't stop crime. They only show up to take statements, clean up the mess, and maybe find the guy who did it. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your own safety and you are responsible for abiding by the laws.

[Tsiyu]

95. Look, you guys take this "right" and turn it into an infinite entitlement

It's like saying you have the right to vote, so you should be able to vote as often, and wherever you like.

It's like saying you have the right to free speech, so you can run into a public courtroom and say whatever you want, scream at the judge and no contempt of court for YOU. You can go up to Congress and disrupt their Do Nothing sessions and wave signs and run around blabbing at yourself, and no Congressional police will haul YOU off.

It's like saying you have the right to peaceably assemble, so you can call 1500 of your friends and assemble at the jailhouse, at the White House, ( and they HAVE TO let you in; it's your RIGHT, damnit ) at the HIgh School where all the kids are taking their tests and over at the front of the police station. You don't need no stinkin' permit. You haz a RIGHT.

Y'all take this right and turn it into your own personal entitlement religion. Rules and regulations are for everybody else. You want to carry everywhere - church, shopping, school, ignoring MY right to not have to be around an endless supply of firearms every goddamn public minute of my day.

We all accept limits on our "rights" every day. Gun-humpers don't accept that, as they are all special snowflakes - far fucking more important than the rest of us. They dn't even grieve the gun deaths of twenty children. They line up immediately, laughing and cutting up cuz they iz gunna git a NEW GUN!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

96. OP was about cops being unable to stop illegal transfers.

I'm not sure how you got 'gun nuts turning the 2A into an infinate entitlement' out of my post. My post dealt only with the unrealistic expectation that police can physically prevent most crime.

Besides, the belief that gun rights have morphed into a state of infinate entitlement is bullshit spread around by you guys. There are literally hundreds of federal and state level firearms laws on the books - perhaps a few thousand including local city/town laws. I think whats silly is the belief that just a few more laws (laws that will probably be poorly enforced as well) will solve this complex problem.

[Tsiyu]

97. Many gun-humpers don't want transfer laws

They want NO restrictions. You know that. I know that.

Stop pretending.

You basically say "What's the use in even trying?" when I say, "We write enough laws until one works." Congress introduced 1000 bills LAST YEAR ALONE trying to regulate vaginas; surely they can write a new law regulating gun ownership.

And it IS viewed as an endless entitlement by many, to the detriment of the rights of all other people to live in a safe, secure society. ASk Nancy Lanza how safe she made society. Oh, wait, YOU FUCKING CAN'T. And we have to trust that the rest of the gun-humpers are safer than she was. How can we do that? Oh, wait. WE CAN'T. We must FORCE them to be responsible, and the current allowance of 30 round magazines and semi-autos is NOT forcing anyone to be responsible.

We are going to see this current frenzied purchase of assault weapons and high capacity magazine bite us in the ass. Gun humpers want all they can get their sociopathic hands on. And one day, I believe even you will see what a horrible society the gun humpers have created for the rest of us.

You say do nothing else. I say that is a criminal, narcissistic, dangerous attitude to have given the proliferation of guns in this society.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

99. I never said do nothing. I think several measures will be effective.

I just think that people who say AWB bans will change anything are stupid. Assault style rifles comprise a VERY small portion of all crime (< 3%) and a minority of mass shootings (25%). Do people "need them"? No. But crime statistics show they aren't at the core of Americas gun problem. People that want to start a political war to try and ban those things are simply not smart. There's tons of better things we can get in the great gun debate and incur much less political damage and backlash.

We need to focus on efforts to try and keep guns out of criminals hands. I think 100% background checks would be fine. Mandatory sentencing for gun-crimes that CAN'T be plea bargained away (alot of gun charges never see the courtroom in exchange for other pleas). I think a decentralized or some other form of comprehensive gun registry would be fine. We need to tighten up NICS checks and the state/agency reporting requirements so they are more comprehensive - an incomplete NICS database is ineffective. We should ACTUALLY prosecute prohibited persons who attempt to buy guns (less than 1% were prosecuted last year). We can end the stupid drug wars and stop the guns-for-drugs trade swamping the southern border. We need to push safe-storage programs, laws and incentives to make unauthorized access to guns for children, criminals and mentally incompetent people more difficult.

I'm about as hard-core gun nut as there is, and I do support a number of measures. What I don't support is legislation that is set up for failure, has high political costs, and lacks logical assessment.

[Tsiyu]

100. Just wait

There has recently been a huge uptick in the amount of assault rifles sold.

We are going to see more massacres, more LEOs killed and more crimes committed with these guns. It's only a matter of time...like a ticking time bomb.

You want the least restrictions possible, I understand.

Most of us want the most restrictions possible, because we know that bomb is going to go off soon.

I think you gun nuts are going to be eating your words soon. I just hope it's not one of your family members who kills or is killed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

101. So basically, your prediction is that the blood will be running in the streets?

It almost laughed out loud - really. I had thought that line was retired after beating the horse to a bloody.

When the 1994 AWB expired - OMG!!! There will be blood running in the streets!"
When new hicapacity magazines flooded the market again in 2004 - OMG!!! THere will be blood running in the streets!"
When Florida passed it's controversial concealed carry laws - OMG!!! THere will be blood running in the streets!"
When a majority of states passed similar CCW laws - OMG!!! THere will be blood running in the streets!"

Newsflash: The 1994 AWB caused a MASSIVE increase in military-style rifles. When Obama was elected in 2008, Assault-style rifles sold out yet again (just they are today). Nevertheless, violent crime & gun homicide has had a steady downward trend and is currently at lows. If past outcomes are any kind of predictor for future events, I would have to say blood wil NOT be running in the streets.

[Tsiyu]

102. We didn't have the economic hardships then that we have now

I don't recall any time when guys like that Yeager creep felt free to threaten to start killing people openly as he did. And he gets to keep his guns!

You are delusional if you think Newtown was a one-time deal. That it is not a harbinger of the days to come.

But carry on and laugh now. You won't be laughing for long.

And I will not be at all happy to say I told you so.

[Taverner]

104. Buht yoo got a RAHT to keep as many guns as you want...

[wandy]

106. I was asked for an opinion concerning a reply to this OP.........

that contained every NRA talking point known to man. Alas the response was deleted before I could reply.
For your edification and amusement......

Its probably the most eloquent re statement of these Bull Shit NRA talking points I have ever seen. Well and almost professionally written for a first post. I applaud the 'schooling' afforded me and the additional information concerning this two year old OP. I wonder under which bridge the next class will be held.

[IdaBriggs]

107. Darn it - I missed the troll!

18 months later, and my words can still get their attention.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed, except for the death count.

[ActualCommonSense]

108. Someone has to make a record that not all Democrats support a total surveillance police state.

I realize that it violates some norms and rules of Internet etiquette to respond to a 3ish year old post. This post, however, is so repugnant to me as a Progressive that, when it was cited as an example of a Dem. Und. actual post, I didn't believe that anyone with a post count in the range of the OP would have made such an argument. I was wrong, but for the rest of the internet readership, please take note:

The OP demands a complete surveillance state with mandatory registration of ANYONE who has EVER been convicted of an unspecified "violent" felony -AND THAT IS NOT a universal progressive idea.

Look, it is obvious that the OP a) hates guns (bordering on the irrational) and b) blindly trusts law enforcement (bordering on the insane), but even within those confines the idea that we should have police and parole and any other type of goose-stepping law enforcement quack "checking up on" the location of all firearms goes well beyond the normal "liberal" desire to invalidate the the Second Amendment--it absolutely shreds what little remains of the Fourth Amendment, too.

It is quite beyond reason that in 2013, or 2016, anyone would advocate for the wholesale handoff of freedom to the untrustworthy, power-mad, frequently racist, sometimes flat out bigoted, "law enforcers" in order to keep everyone safe from their neighbors ("precrime" style). This post ignores the fact that the State is free to regulate cars operated on roadways pretty much anyway it wants because the right to operate a car on a roadway is not Constitutionally-protected.

I am for a strong social safety net, universal single payer healthcare, automatic and same-day voter registration. I volunteer at a local homeless shelter and I generally try to make my community a better place. I do not--and it is NOT a progressive value--support this total surveillance horsesh*t.

Before the myriad of responders in this old thread start lighting me up for my lack of knowledge, I will add that my brother was shot, dead, by an armed criminal. I was angry. I am still angry. I will not let my anger blind me to the fact that the gun did not fire by itself. We need to work on eradicating the causes behind crime--not crushing the right to be free from unreasonable searches in our homes in order to create a pretense of "security." And, yes, I own one pistol. In Michigan. And it is registered.

[uppityperson]

109. Welcome, where was this "it was cited as an example of a Dem. Und. actual post"? thanks.

[IdaBriggs]

110. Thank you for reminding me of this 3 year old post; treating guns like cars

DOES NOT MAKE A POLICE STATE.

Felony records don't ever go away, so that straw man is gone. Names and addresses are available on searchable databases with input from driver's licenses, voter registration and ID (again, not a police state) and all of the information is findable through dozens of websites already in existence for minimal or no fees, depending on which one you look at. These problems are solvable - the key is the Will to do so, against monied interests.

Common sense is key here - the "straw purchaser" problem is solvable with minimal data programming (IT professional here - creating these types of queries is not difficult) but the problem is not "which households housing felons have guns when they shouldn't" but "who shall go fetch them?" It wasn't that long ago that one agency came up with a list of several thousand people who had legally gotten guns when they shouldn't have, BUT NO AGENCY WOULD RETRIEVE THEM BECAUSE OF BUDGET ISSUES.

I am RABIDLY ANTI STUPID PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Stupid people is a broad brush, and includes those who don't use common sense gun safety protocols (responsible gun owners have a list and can lecture on this non-stop), in homes where people with dementia or other mental illness that can impair judgment can access them, or if you have committed felonies within a sensible time period or are on parole for felonies, etc.

I stand by my post. You are entitled to disagree with it, but I challenge you to refrain from nonsense like "police state" about accessing public records; leave that type of description to things like "arresting people for being Moslem or Jewish".

Welcome to DU.

[uppityperson]

113. woohoo!!! Trump, you joined us!!!!!!1111

[DesertRat]

114. lol

[uppityperson]

115. Yup