Is firearm ownership anonymity necessary?

[gorfle]

In recent debates concerning firearm ownership in the United States vs. Canada, one of the criticisms leveled at the United States is that there is no background check required for private firearm sales.

Everyone agrees that the purpose of NICS is to screen out people who are should not possess firearms. But since NICS only applies to firearms sold through dealers, this means it is a simple matter for any ineligible person who wishes to buy a firearm to simply thumb through the local classified ads. The logical answer is to require screening for all firearm sales and/or owners.

Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way for this to be done anonymously, and I believe anonymous firearm ownership is essential in order to preserve the balance of military power in favor of the citizens, as opposed to the government, as our founding fathers intended. Our founding fathers specifically set up a decentralized military system to be able to eliminate or counter the military forces of the central, federal government, should such a government become oppressive. It is logical that should the need to fulfill this role actually arise, the government would consider firearm owners its adversary. It is therefore also logical that having the government be in possession of lists of firearm owners is a dangerous proposition - such a list would undoubtedly be used by an adversarial government as a means to eliminate the threat to itself, either through direct action against firearm owners or at least, by knowing specific locations and numbers of firearms and owners, knowing where and how to allocate resources to defeat them. This greatly undermines the power inherent in the people who bear arms.

Initially, I thought perhaps the answer is simply to require background checks for all private firearm transfers. But without keeping track of who owns what firearms, there is nothing to verify compliance with such a requirement.

Then I thought perhaps the answer is to require all firearm owners to be licensed, subject to a NICS background check. This way anyone who wishes to own a firearm would have to first obtain a license. But again, such a requirement would be easy to circumvent. You could require that no one can sell a firearm to an unlicensed individual, but without keeping track of firearm transfers would would know if you sold one to someone without a license.

Can you think of a way to insure background checks for all firearm owners without tracking firearms themselves?

[jody]

1. gorfle, states may require firearms owners to have an identification card, e.g. Illinois says

"All Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms are required by law to have a valid FOID card."

There is no reason to also register firearms.

[gorfle]

3. How do they handle...

How does Illinois handle private firearm sales? Does the state know how many firearms an owner has, so that if one goes missing from their collection an audit could turn it up? What prevents someone from selling to an unlicensed individual, other than the risk of getting caught without a license?

[Indy Lurker]

38. In Illinois

If a firearm is sold privately, the seller must verify that the owner has a valid Firearms Owners ID card, and keep a record of the sale for 10 years.

If a crime gun is found, the serial number can be used to locate the selling shop, and from there, each purchaser can be located from the prior seller who must keep records.

There is no central database, and the sale does not get reported to anyone.

[gorfle]

40. This could work...

If a crime gun is found, the serial number can be used to locate the selling shop, and from there, each purchaser can be located from the prior seller who must keep records.

There is no central database, and the sale does not get reported to anyone.

This could work, I guess, as well as anything. Basically you make all sellers required to keep personal records of their sales. And if anyone comes asking, you better have the records or there are punishments.

This preserves anonymity fairly well, because the government would have to manually trace all firearms to find out who owns them and where they are at any given time - an unlikely scenario.

[iverglas]

43. I still just find this funny ...

Basically you make all sellers required to keep personal records of their sales.

You folks have no problem with ordinary members of the public, quite likely perfect strangers to you, having possession of data consisting of your name, address (I assume), possibly other personal/identifying data, and the firearm(s) you own.

You have no control over what happens to that info. It could be accessed by someone looking for firearms to steal, for all you know.

But you don't want it held in a secure, relevant database under public oversight ...



I wish I could remember to type that "e" in firearm ...

[gorfle]

44. Possible solutions...

You folks have no problem with ordinary members of the public, quite likely perfect strangers to you, having possession of data consisting of your name, address (I assume), possibly other personal/identifying data, and the firearm(s) you own.

You have no control over what happens to that info. It could be accessed by someone looking for firearms to steal, for all you know.

But you don't want it held in a secure, relevant database under public oversight ...

It is true that such information could be misused.

But I trust the government less with this sort of information than having it spread out across millions of individuals. Also I don't believe the information is any more secure in single government database than it would be dispersed out across millions of individuals in non-computerized records. If the government database is compromised, millions of people's data could be at risk. By dispersing the records in a non-computerized way across millions of citizens, at best a single person could only compromise the data of the few people they have sold firearms to.

Also, a possible solution to this problem would be when you present your license to a private citizen to purchase a firearm, the private citizen need only make a record of the license number of the buyer. This way unless you have access to the government database, you could not link that number to a name and/or address.

[iverglas]

45. okay ...

I guess I just think it's ridiculous to think it would work.

Please, sir, I had a sewer back-up in my basement, and all my papers got ruined.
(Will there be safe storage requirements?)
I'm sorry, did I transcribe that licence number wrong? Silly me.
(Maybe a photocopy of the licence with the name redacted ...)

Could I find my own mortgage papers right now if you asked me for them? Not a chance.

Placing the onus on individual members of the public to maintain records needed for public purposes ... nope, just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, it also allows only for retroactive tracing / post facto enforcement action, and that's only one reason to have records of firearms ownership. There are other, and actually more important, i.e. preventive, reasons.

It's one thing to be able to find out who someone got a firearm from once that firearm has been used to cause harm or is found in the possession of an ineligible person.

Oh, sorry -- on that second point, I'm ignoring what I myself said was a good effect even of minimal records like this -- to deter people with consciences / people who are afraid of possible consequences of law-breaking from transferring firearms to ineligible people, by making it possible for them to avoid doing so.

But still, it doesn't do anything to

- detect straw purchases (except post facto, if a trace is done)
- detect trafficking (except post facto, if a trace is done)
- identify firearms in the hands of people who become ineligible, so they can be removed

[gorfle]

46. Replies.

Please, sir, I had a sewer back-up in my basement, and all my papers got ruined.

No problem, sir, please pay your $5000 non-compliance fine and serve your one year of jail time and you can be on your way.

I'm sorry, did I transcribe that licence number wrong? Silly me.

No problem, sir, please pay your $5000 non-compliance fine and serve your one year of jail time and you can be on your way.

Could I find my own mortgage papers right now if you asked me for them? Not a chance.

I bet if there was a chance that the police might show up at any time and fine you $5000 and put you in jail for a year for not being able to produce them in a reasonable amount of time you'd take real good care of those records. :)

Placing the onus on individual members of the public to maintain records needed for public purposes ... nope, just doesn't make sense to me.

It's a compromise. It preserves firearm ownership anonymity while providing for firearm eligibility background checks for everyone. AND it places a high incentive on people to make them want to obey the law as if a firearm is traced back TO their possession without a valid paper trail FROM their possession they could be in big trouble with fines/jail time.

This is, in fact, precisely why FFL background checks work from dealers. No dealer in his right mind is going to sell a gun to someone without a background check. The financial and criminal penalties are too steep - they would lose their business and face jail time. Consequently, FFLs are religious about conducting background checks before all sales.

With the easy ability to trace any firearm through its chain of custody until that chain is found broken, you don't want to be the guy at the end of the chain facing steep fines and/or jail time. I think it would work.

It's one thing to be able to find out who someone got a firearm from once that firearm has been used to cause harm or is found in the possession of an ineligible person.

Why else would you want to find out about the firearm or people owning them? Until they do something illegal to trigger digging information out about them, the government doesn't need that information.

But still, it doesn't do anything to

- detect straw purchases (except post facto, if a trace is done)
- detect trafficking (except post facto, if a trace is done)
- identify firearms in the hands of people who become ineligible, so they can be removed

Straw purchases would become extremely dangerous to engage in, because you have no idea what the firearms you are illegally transferring to another person are going to be used for. In fact, it's a safe bet if you are doing straw purchases you know the guns you are transferring are probably not being used for anything good. Today, firearm sales can't be traced beyond the first FFL sale. Under the proposed system, you could trace them from owner to owner.

If a law was passed that said any firearm that was traced to an individual who could not provide proof of transfer to another licensed person, or a police report of the firearm being stolen, was subject to fines up to $10,000 plus 5 years imprisonment, I bet you a whole lot of people would comply with the law. You would be an absolute fool to sell or give a firearm to a non-licensed person, and I'd have no problem with punishing such people severely. If everyone has a license, there's just no excuse or reason for transferring a firearm to someone without one.

Trafficking should become much more difficult also, at least trafficking in illegally purchased firearms. I suppose there is nothing to stop someone with a valid license from going around and legally buying up hundreds of firearms and then trafficking them to people ineligible to own them, but that guy is going to get his ass nailed to the wall the very first time one of the firearms he transferred got used in a crime and was traced to him.

You could even add to the law that if more than, say, 3 (5? 10?) criminally-used firearms are traced to an individual that that individual will face penalties beyond those for simply transferring a firearm to a non-licensed person. I'd have no problem with this. I've only sold 1 firearm in my life. If somehow 3 firearms I sold ended up being used in crimes by the ineligible owners I sold them to I think that's a pretty good indicator that I was selling them nefariously. Such people should be put in jail for a long, long, long time, in my opinion. Like life in prison. Especially if the weapons you illegally sold were used to commit murders.

While you would not be able to remove specific firearms from people who become ineligible to own them, you could certainly provide, through law, the ability to send the sheriff out to the person's house to revoke their license in person and search the premises for any firearms. And of course there would be heavy fines/jail time for being found in possession of firearms at a later date without a valid license. I imagine there is a similar processes in place for revoking people's driver's licenses today.

[gorfle]

47. Another idea.

Here's another idea to address the concern about improperly recording the license number during a sale.

You could require it so that you either hand-wrote down the number 3 times in a row (much like on may web site you have to enter your email address twice, to weed out typos), OR, even better, you could have it so that on the back of your license is only the license number. Then, during any firearm sale, you take a picture of the back of the license, showing the number, along with the firearm(s) being transferred.

As easily available as digital cameras are these days, this is not a burdensome requirement.

[jaksavage]

2. License the owners.

Just like a car license.

[derby378]

4. A license implies that gun ownership is a privilege

You need a license in order to drive, and driving is considered a privilege. Gun ownership is considered a right. Big difference.

[gorfle]

6. But perhaps it is already a privilege.

Buying new firearms today is already a privilege, in that you have to not have a criminal or mental background that excludes you from ownership.

Since you are basically obtaining an instant "license" to purchase firearms every time you buy one through a dealer, why not have the same kind of license to buy any firearm at all?

The problem I see, as I said, is there is no way to guarantee compliance and consequently many people won't bother obtaining a license.

[gorfle]

5. Like cars.

Here is the problem I see though:

With cars, it is OK to only license drivers, because not all drivers actually own cars. Moreover, there is a separate registration process for cars that link them to their owners. So with the current system, the government knows who is eligible to drive, and they know who owns which cars.

If you only license the firearm owners, but you do not register the firearms themselves, what prevents people from simply not complying with obtaining a firearm license? I guess you could say the same thing that stops people from driving cars without a license - the risk of getting caught in possession of a firearm without a license?

[RC]

7. And license the fire arms also.

How does Canada survive without hand guns out numbering people, like down here?

[Turbo Teg]

15. Move there

and then you can tell us about it.

[virginia mountainman]

14. GREAT IDEA!

I am all for it...

Do I need the government's permission to buy a car? No.

Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year? Yes

Do I have to be over a certain age to buy, own or possess a car? No (as long as it's kept on private property)

Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

Do I need a license to buy a car? No

Do I need a license to operate a car? No (as long as I operate it on private property)

If I have a license from my state to operate a car on public property, is that license good anywhere in the country, for any car in the country? Yes.

How old do I need to be to get a license to operate a car on public property? Only 16 in most states.

Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on private property)

Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

Is my car held responsible if someone misuses it? No

Can the company that manufactured my car be sued if someone misuses it? No.

Do I need to "safe store" my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

Will I lose my driver's license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Will I lose my right to own a car if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

(thanks to the DU member how posted this a while back...I forgot your name)

[SteveM]

50. You can own a car without a license...

If you operate a car on public roads, you need a license. If you carry (concealed or otherwise) outside your property, you need:
1)license (if concealed); 2) hunter training (if hunting); 3) to follow a state's requirement for auto transport (if you transport).

As you have no doubt also read in this thread, 2A protects a right to bear arms. Driving an auto is a privilege.

Though you have not implied this, it is not paranoid to oppose firearm registration for the reason that the government would have a record of who in our nation is armed. Personally, I have always found it amusing how so many folks, on these threads and elsewhere, warn of impending fascism (see Naomi Wolf's THE END OF AMERICA), yet continue to advocate gun control/registration. Something is wrong with that picture.

[iverglas]

8. a good thread

Sadly, work just arrived in my inbox ...

I do just have to smack my head and go duh though.

All that cleverness about data strips on ID cards that I was cleverly touting -- but yes, what deterrent is there to not using the NICS system if one has access to it?

Well -- the conscience deterrent. There are people who would *like* to be able to do a background check when selling firearms privately, to be sure, for their own peace of mind, that they aren't selling to an ineligible buyer.

That alone has some value, no?

And don't forget that there is one ultimate tracing tool -- the first sale at retail by a licensed dealer.

That tool is only useful for post facto tracing -- you have the gun that killed the kid, and now it can be traced to its first owner. But the first owner could have sold it to a cousin, who sold it to the guy next door, who gave it to his nephew for Christmas ...

If there were a requirement that private sales be preceded by a NICS check, there could still be some of the fear deterrent that an actual registration system would provide: if a crime gun is traced back to you as first purchaser, many people would like to be able to say "look! here's the printout I got when I did the NICS check on the person I sold it to!" (as I proposed in my other thread, and yes, there are still a lot of kinks in that proposal). Just to avoid the hassle of being the last known owner of a crime gun.

So while the idea as you've framed it is way far from perfect, it's still a step in a good direction, I'd still say.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. If you have some suspicion

You can use NICS yourself, to do a private transfer, at no cost, is my understanding. There is no cost.

The burden on the sale is placed on the seller as well, in a private transfer. If you knowingly sell to a felon, you're screwed. However, 'knowingly' means a lot of things in a courtroom.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Currently private sellers are prohibited from using NICS.

Currently only the licensed dealers are allowed to use NICS. Most are willing to run the checks for you, for a fee of course. Opening the NICS checks to everyone is one of the things we gun owners would like to see.

Currently NICS checks do not include any info about the gun being transfered.

[iverglas]

12. I understand differently

My understanding from discussions here is that only licensed firearms dealers have access to NICS. If a private seller wishes to have a NICS check before a sale, the sale has to go through a licensed dealer.

That's as it should be, in the present situation, it seems to me. The database in question contains personal information that should not be available to anyone and their dog; eligibility or ineligibility to acquire firearms is personal info. If private sellers had access, there'd be nothing much to stop me from getting a NICS check done on you just for the sheer hell of it. Firearms dealers are presumably required to maintain confidentiality as a condition of their licence, I'd think.

(This is why, in my suggestion for data strips with eligibility info, I suggested a PIN.)


The burden on the sale is placed on the seller as well, in a private transfer. If you knowingly sell to a felon, you're screwed. However, 'knowingly' means a lot of things in a courtroom.

Actually, the burden of proving knowledge would then be on the prosecution, and that's a very heavy damned onus. Almost impossible, one might say, unless the transfer in question was to a person one met while behind bars. ;)

Where there's no onus to find out, the burden is really virtually non-existent.

[gorfle]

19. NICS database

My understanding from discussions here is that only licensed firearms dealers have access to NICS. If a private seller wishes to have a NICS check before a sale, the sale has to go through a licensed dealer.

I believe this is currently so.

That's as it should be, in the present situation, it seems to me. The database in question contains personal information that should not be available to anyone and their dog; eligibility or ineligibility to acquire firearms is personal info. If private sellers had access, there'd be nothing much to stop me from getting a NICS check done on you just for the sheer hell of it. Firearms dealers are presumably required to maintain confidentiality as a condition of their licence, I'd think.

While the NICS database contains personal information, my understanding is that none of it is provided to the FFL. The only information provided to the FFL is "proceed with purchase", "purchase delayed", or "purchase denied". No reason or additional information is provided.

Of course, a "purchase denied" does tell you that the person has either been convicted of a disqualifying felony or has mental health issues. But any background check that gives a pass/fail result is going to provide that information. If you fail, you've got a criminal/mental health issue.

Like I said, though, the problem I see, even if NICS is opened up to private individuals and required for all personal firearm transfers, if you don't track firearms you can't be certain that the background check was performed for private transfers. Thus lots of people, especially criminals who know they would fail the check, won't bother with the check. And if there is money to be made, lots of people will be happy to oblige them.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. My mistake

Looks like an FFL is required to use the FBI NICS system.

I can call State Patrol here in Wa, but that will only reveal arrest records in this state.

[damntexdem]

10. Anonymous firearm ownership should not exist.

Our country has suffered enough tragedies because of the idiocy of gun nuts.

[gorfle]

18. Why not?

Anonymous firearm ownership should not exist.

I have provided my reasoning above fore why anonymity is important. What is the reasoning behind your disagreement?

[beevul]

Ridiculous.

"Our country has suffered enough tragedies because of the idiocy of gun nuts."

Blame the people that actually pull the trigger, for starters.

After that, you can blame the people that did things knowing that those things would piss off a millions of gun owning Americans and cause them to vote AGAINST Democrats...passage of the "assault weapons" ban, is one such example.

Saying anything about tragedies because of the idiocy of "gun nuts", without acknowledging the idiocy of the people on the other side of the issue that knowingly and willfully provoked those "gun nuts" into voting against Democrats...well, it might lead one to believe that you could be one of those doing the provoking, or supporting it.


Every time I see someone lay anything at the feet of "gun nuts", I envision an irrational bitter spoiled brat that has resorted to stomping up and down and name calling because they didn't get their way, and have nothing else left to offer except the rage filled temper tantrums of a child.

[beevul]

20. Dupe N/T

[Mountainman]

13. Only law abiding people will obey a law to get a license.

You can pass laws until you are blue in the face and what will come of it is making people who obey all the laws now jump through more hoops.

These are feel good laws. The never have the desired effect. People feel good that they are doing something and that's about it.

If you buy a gun on line or through a magazine ad it has to be shipped to a licensed dealer who does the required background check and waiting period.

Also label these new laws Democratic laws authored and passed by Dems and you help the right win elections.

We have enough gun laws, lets enforce them.

[solinvictus]

16. You know the major fallacy in this proposal?

Who obeys laws? People who already do so. Criminals have made a conscious choice to break the law and, therefore, will continue to do so as long as they perceive a tangible advantage.
Personally, if they were signing up for a federal permit, I'd take one as long as it meant I didn't have to pay $10-20 for the Brady check and I could have conceal-carry across the nation. Sure, sign me up.

[gorfle]

17. I agree.

Personally, if they were signing up for a federal permit, I'd take one as long as it meant I didn't have to pay $10-20 for the Brady check and I could have conceal-carry across the nation. Sure, sign me up.

If there were a national licensing system, I'd expect to get something for it. Today the only license I need apply for is concealed carry. If there were a national licensing system, it should, as part of what it conveys, allow for concealed carry, and it should allow for purchases without the hassle of additional background checks.

[Tejas]

23. Abolish the $200 NFA tax and we'll talk

Heck, abolish the NFA and you'll REALLY get my attention.

:)

[aikoaiko]

26. But in my case having NICS open to public use would help me from unknowingly selling my arm to a

...prohibited person.

I could go to a FFL, but that would cost money and most of the arms I resell are not expensive. 25-30 dollars could mean 10% of the sale.


I think the police should do this as a service. That would be helpful. A know a few people who do private sales in Police parking lots anyway.

[iverglas]

31. ha, I like that

A know a few people who do private sales in Police parking lots anyway.

Get it all on cctv, eh? ;)


I was representing a defecting athlete once, and there were bad men ... with guns ... illegally with guns ... following us around. Once I persuaded him and his friends (the friends had recently spent their time in the US) that the police people were our friends, we passed a pleasant afternoon lounging around on the nice new couches in the nice new police station in the city were we were, attracting the fascination of the local police services members as they changed shift. What are all these foreign-looking people doing hanging around on our couches? you could see them asking the desk guy. Oh, that's so-and-so, you know, he defected last night. Just sittin' around, talking to the press, and pretending that the athlete himself wasn't sitting right behind the reporter I was talking to. Oh, he's in a safe place, you know. And he was!

[aikoaiko]

21. As others have said, just make NICS part of the law in private sales without 4473 type form

I have no idea why NICS isn't open to the public. It would be so useful,.

[gorfle]

22. But wouldn't it also be voluntary?

I have no idea why NICS isn't open to the public. It would be so useful,.

The point I've been trying to make is that without tracking actual firearm ownership, how can you mandate public NICS use? I don't think you can, which means it would be voluntary, which means most people wouldn't bother - especially people specifically seeking to avoid a NICS check. Which means such a proposal would only impact (once again) law abiding people, while having no impact on the law-breaking.

[aikoaiko]

25. The same way we mandate (in my state) that you have to confirm instate residence with private sales

You just make it part of the law and if you happen to get caught doing it incorrectly you can be charged with a crime.

[krispos42]

27. Okay, I have an idea

I first mentioned it in iverglas' thread about the Firestar .45, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x175418

Essentially, my idea was that when you got your driver's license (or non-DL state ID) you would automatically be checked for firearms ownership eligibility. One corner of it would be made green and say "LOF" on it, for "Legal to Own Firearms". If you passed the NICS check, the license would be issued to you with the green corner intact. If you didn't, the DMV clerk would snip it off before giving/mailing it to you.

And if later on you did something that warranted removal of your Second Amendment rights, the police or judge would clip your LOF corner off. If later on it was restored, you would apply for an updated one just like when you move and need your address updated.

This idea would solve the problem of private gun sales not going through checks. If Bill wants to sell his gun to his co-worker Jim, he can just look to see if Jim's license has that little green LOF corner still on it.


Iverglas correctly noted privacy issues with this because there are only a handful of reasons for not being able to buy a gun, such as immegrant status, serious mental health issues, or violent criminal background.

Now a driver's license is not something that everybody sees, so maybe the good would outweigh whatever reduction in privacy there is.

But it occured to me that we could also design the license so that the corner you cut off is recessed somewhat and a flush-fitting privacy cover is fitted. The cover would keep the rectangular shape when attached to the license, yet pop off to check status.




Another idea would be to print in ultraviolet ink on the license "Legal to own firearms" or "Firearms not allowed" when it is issued. It would take a UV light to expose this information. It's not as convenient as a clip-away corner but it is more private.

[spin]

28. Interesting idea...might work....

I rarely sell any of my firearms and I only sell a weapon to a person who can show me a concealed weapons permit. When I see a concealed weapons permit I know the individual has had a background check and some training in firearms safety and responsibility.

The only problem I can see with the license idea is that the buyer might have no firearms experience or training. Perhaps the green corner on the license might only be allowed if the individual has completed a firearms safety course.

[krispos42]

29. You don't need a safety class, though, to buy one

And it isn't really necessary for an adult. Pretty much any adult can figure out a firearm without much effort, and the manuals are pretty informative.

Carrying concealed is different, of course, as are youths.

[spin]

33. Perhaps a safety course before buying would be a good idea...

Too often at the range, I would encounter a new shooter with little firearm knowledge. In some cases they had purchased a firearm for self protection years before and dropped it in a drawer in their bedroom.

Several owned small semi-auto weapons and had no idea of how to tell if they were loaded, let alone how to properly load or unload the weapon. One had stored ammo in the gun so long that all the rounds would not fire. Some had weapons that had never been fired and had manufacturer problems causing malfunctions rendering them unreliable.

Most had little idea of how difficult shooting a handgun is. Proper sight alignment, grip, trigger pull and recoil were mysteries to them.

These were the people who came to the range to ask for advice and assistance. They realized that they could use a little training and overcame any fear of ridicule by more experienced shooters. Long term shooters have no problem helping newbies and enjoy introducing them to the sport or acquainting them with the basics of using a handgun for self defense. Most of the really good shooters learned from other good shooters and are happy to pass on the knowledge they have acquired.

In reality, a high percentage of gun owners don't bother to check out and become familiar with their weapons. Most of their knowledge of how to handle a weapon comes from Hollywood movies.

As for the manuals that come with your firearm...you can read the manual that comes with your new car, but you will gain little understanding of how to drive your vehicle until you take it on the road.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. wha?

One had stored ammo in the gun so long that all the rounds would not fire.

Must have been through a flood or something. I have ammo nigh on 100 years old, works fine.
What manufacturer was the ammo? I'd like to avoid that.

[spin]

35. The incident I described happened...

about 35 years ago. The details are a little hazy in my mind.

The weapon was, as I remember, a small .38 cal revolver. The shooter was a co-worker I'd invited to the range. His parents owned the gun and he wanted to try it out.

The weapon had received little if any care over the years and had been loaded and put away in case of an emergency. The ammo showed some signs of corrosion. It's quite possible that it was reloaded ammo bought at a gun store. Only two or three of the six rounds fired, the others were duds. With new ammunition the gun functioned perfectly although my co-worker said that the weapon quickly started to rust after exposure to the moist Florida weather on the range. A little tender loving care returned it to pristine condition.

If factory ammunition is properly stored, it should last indefinitely. Sometimes at the range, people would bring in old ammo that had been stored in a garage and subjected to extreme temperatures. Frequently this ammo would fail to fire regardless of the manufacturer. When some people clean their weapons, they also spray the ammo with a penetrating oil...not a good idea, the oil can ruin the primers. Rim fire ammo such as .22 cal can malfunction if dropped.

Reloaded ammo can also be reliable as long as the person making it is careful not to contaminate the primers or the powder with oil or grease. When I reload, I avoid touching primers with my fingers. I would have more confidence in factory rounds surviving longer than reloads although I never had any problems with the ammo I made.

I cycle my defense ammo on a six month basis if I leave the gun in a car for any period of time. I've never had any problems with the six month old ammo performing as it should, but I like to be confident that it will.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Ok, make sense

Some primers aren't well sealed either. Most of my 'ancient' 30.06 stuff even has a coat of shellac or some other sealant across the primer. Like a red clear coat.

[spin]

37. I ued to use nail polish to seal the primers...

for more info:

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1583

[iverglas]

42. fyi

A course is required in order to obtain a licence in Canada.



http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/safety-surete/safety_course_e.asp

Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC)

The Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) was developed in partnership with the provinces and territories, national organizations with an ongoing interest in firearms safety, and many firearms and hunter education course instructors from across Canada. This course was developed to meet the mandatory requirements set out in subparagraph 106(2)(c)(i) of the Criminal Code of Canada and came into effect January 1, 1994.

As a result of the Firearms Act, the firearms safety training that is provided to firearms owners and users required modification. The revised CFSC, which was implemented on February 1, 1999, reflects the new legislation and focuses primarily on non-restricted firearms (rifles and shotguns). The legislation stipulates that individuals wishing to acquire non-restricted firearms must take the CFSC and pass the tests OR challenge and pass the CFSC tests without taking the course.
Topics covered in the CFSC include:

* the evolution of firearms, major parts, types and actions;
* basic firearms safety practices;
* ammunition;
* operating firearm actions;
* safe handling and carry procedures;
* firing techniques and procedures;
* care of non-restricted firearms;
* responsibilities of the firearms owner/user; and
* safe storage, display, transportation and handling of non-restricted firearms.

[spin]

48. A damn good idea...

Anyone who owns a firearm should have at a minimum passed a course on gun safety, responsibility, safe storage and the ramification of using a weapon for self defense. A requirement like this for gun owners could help reduce tragic accidents. The NRA might actually support the idea as their instructors would run the courses. In Florida the hunter safety course has reduced accidents. http://myfwc.com/huntered/program.htm

Some of the laws in Canada make sense.

Of course, I disagree with restrictions on handguns. Handguns are a very useful weapon for self defense, target shooting and collecting.

Feel free to disagree with my feeling on handguns.

It is unusual that we partially agree on something.

[iverglas]

30. so what exactly was wrong

with my data strip idea??

Or haven't you guys reached that stage of technological development yet ...?

If not, I'm sure you soon will. My driver's licence has a data strip on it, as does my health card. This would be a really simple solution.



no sleep, typing stupid words

[krispos42]

32. No, I understand what you are talking about

But people don't have magnetic-stripe readers in their homes. And if you have to go to a gun dealer to complete a private transfer, then you might as well fill out a Form 4473 and go through NICS.

:shrug:

I have a magnetic stripe on my license as well. When I lived in Connecticut (or maybe it was South Dakota) I had a barcode on it.

I'm trying to make it as easy as possible to a seller to comply with the "don't sell guns to felons" part of the firearms laws.

The federal government does not seem to have the authority to regulate intrastate private firearms transfers by demanding a NICS check. However there are laws in all 50 states that prohibit selling or giving firearms to prohibited persons. Since the NICS is a federal database, and the Feds can regulate how state-issued IDs look, maybe this ia the way to do it.

[gorfle]

39. I like it, but...

I like it, but the criticism I see leveled at it is that unless you track who owns what firearms you cannot enforce anyone bothering to check for a valid firearm license before selling to them.

You can pass a law that says you can't sell to someone without checking their license, but if you can't verify compliance, who will bother? Certainly not people specifically out circumvent the law.

You could say that the deterrent would be getting caught with a gun without a valid license. But my guess is that most people apprehended with a gun are already doing something they weren't supposed to be doing and probably already have a criminal record that prohibits them from having a gun. Thus they are already in double trouble for committing a crime while in possession of a firearm (usually carries a stiffer sentence) and if they have a previous criminal record, they are in trouble for being in possession of the firearm at all.

So as long as we have anonymous firearm ownership, as I believe we should, I don't see how any licensing requirement can be enforced. The only time you will catch offenders is if you catch them doing something else illegal while in possession of a gun. In which case, not having a license is probably the least of their legal concerns.

[gorfle]

41. OK how about this

Indy Lurker pointed out that in Illinois it is the responsibility of all private firearm sellers to keep records of who they sold to for 10 years.

Thus there is no centralized database for the government to interrogate to easily identify firearm owners or who owns them, and yet with dedicated investigative work the ownership trail can be easily traced. THIS is the incentive to make sure you only sell to licensed owners - you don't want a gun you sell to someone without a license to be traced back to you and consequently the punishment involved for doing so.

I especially like adding firearm ownership eligibility to the driver's license. By requiring only firearm OWNERS to get licenses, the government has a pretty good list of all firearm owners. By vetting ALL citizens (or at least all with a driver's license) the government only knows who is eligible to own firearms, not who actually owns them.

And by the private individuals keeping private records of their firearm sales, which they will be sure to do out of fear of being held responsible for selling to someone not eligible to have a firearm, the government also has no database of who owns which firearms.

Thus we preserve anonymity of firearm ownership while vetting nearly everyone as eligible or not to own firearms.

I think this is a workable compromise. I don't see any holes in it. What do you think?

[old mark]

49. Yes, it is.

The government already knows too much about each of us,gun owners or not, and routinely shares this information in violation of the law.
FWIW, here in PA it is legal to wear handguns openly, carried in a holster, and there seems to be a growing movement to make this a common practice.

Would that be OK?

mark