California Democrat proposes mandatory gun registration

[cabluedem]

Source: cbsnews.com

California Democrat proposes mandatory gun registration

April 7, 2010

cbsnews.com

A California Democrat is proposing a new law requiring residents to register their shotguns and rifles or go to jail, CBSNews.com has learned.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer, whose district includes Beverly Hill and West Hollywood, this week introduced legislation ordering law enforcement to "permanently keep" records of anyone who buys a gun from a dealer or an individual. California already stores information about handgun purchases.

Feuer is no friend of firearms owners: his previous legislative effort, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law, required all new handguns to include "microstamping" technology that can imprint serial numbers on spent ammunition casings. As a Los Angeles city councilman, Feuer proposed limiting city residents to one gun a month.

Feuer spokeswoman Arianna Smith declined to answer questions about the bill on Tuesday afternoon, saying the staff member involved was in a meeting and not immediately available.

The proposal comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a landmark civil rights case, McDonald v. Chicago, which will decide whether Second Amendment rights in the federal constitution trump state anti-gun laws. But California is proposing mandatory registration -- and not a flat ban, as Washington, D.C. once tried and the justices rejected -- and even legal scholars specializing in this area disagree about whether registration is constitutional.

More at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-20001885-504383.html



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-20001885-504383.html

[Xenotime]

1. Finally somebody is willing to standup for gun control..

Attach a fee to it and help with the deficit at the same time.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[cabluedem]

4. Hopefully they can tax gun-owners when they buy new guns and ammo, for this new gun legislation.

I agree. Its been too long without a crackdown on all the gun violence.

As usual, California has to set the goals in place to go nationwide.

[cowman]

36. Go nationwide

Then why are more and more states becoming "shall issue" states, Sorry but Kalifornia is the butt of the nations jokes now, you guys cant even get you budget right and all your legislators think about is how to get more money from your citizens and thats why they are abandoning KA in droves

[slackmaster]

95. The proposed legislation would do nothing to crack down on gun violence

It would be a crack-down on gun ownership. It would only affect people who are NOT criminals.

But when did logic ever have anything to do with prohibitions?

[krispos42]

130. Really?

[AtheistCrusader]

138. We already pay an 11% federal excise tax on top of sales tax.

Way to keep up with current events though.

[cabluedem]

214. taxes can and always will be increased. you want to play you have to pay.

[AtheistCrusader]

226. Oh, I see, you're trolling.

[Travis Coates]

149. How are you going to get the criminals to register their guns NT

[X_Digger]

154. They can't be forced to- Haynes v US

The court said that since requiring a prohibited person to register would amount to self-incrimination, holding these laws against criminals is unconstitutional.

[Callisto32]

208. If you fail to register, you would become a criminal, though.

Then you won't have to register.

Looks DOA to me.

[cabluedem]

235. Doesn't work like that at all. Many gun owners have failed to register thier assault weapons in CA..

and many have been arrested and tried for their crimes, when they were caught.

The same will be true for anyone who doesn't register thier guns,
when this law gets passed in Sacramento and signed by the governor.

[Statistical]

221. Exactly the ONLY people who can't be convicted under this law would be criminals.

[cabluedem]

236. More utter nonsense!

[Euromutt]

242. Try actually READING some of the responses for a change!

How many sodding times has Haynes v. United States already been mentioned in connection with this topic? I've lost count. One more time, then:

Forty-one years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm could not be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm that he possessed in violation of the law, as requiring him to register the firearm would violate his right against self-incrimination.

The upshot of that persons in illegal possession of a firearm cannot be penalized for failing to comply with a registration scheme. The only people who can be penalized are those who possess the firearm legally in every other aspect.

[cowman]

248. But you've stated many times

on this forum that assault weapons are banned in Kalifornia, so how can you be arrested for non registered assault rifles if they are banned, banned means that it is illegal to own them, so which is it, are they banned or are they legal and have to be registered?

[Euromutt]

232. Why not tax the supposed beneficiaries?

After all, if a registration scheme like this would ostensibly benefit the general welfare by improving everyone's public safety (I repeat: ostensibly), it seems only fair that everybody should be taxed to pay for the scheme.

[proteus_lives]

9. And against Rights.

:thumbsdown:

[whats_a_zip]

90. An archaic right

Obama was right, the constitution is a flawed document. It's 200+ years old, society has evolved. No one needs a gun, but if you must have one, register it, just like you register your car.

[cowman]

91. No one needs a gun.

There's that need canard again, gee the last time I looked, it wasn't called the Bill of Needs, It was called the Bill of Rights. Did I not get the memo about the change? When did it change to the Bill of Needs?

[whats_a_zip]

93. When there are 6 billion people in the world

needs become more important than wants. The Bill of Rights wasn't handed down by a divine being, it's just an old code that could use revision.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

128. I don't believe I was talking to you

[cabluedem]

186. You shouldn't talk to yourself. What would people think?

[cowman]

148. Oh I get

it, the Bill of Rights was changed to the Bill of Wants. My bad

[jazzhound]

160. Well, I NEED to stay alive to care of an elderly mother and (possibly)

sister. If I can increase my odds of being there for the people that need me without infringing on the rights of others, I'll do just that. Luckily for me, with the public support for gun control dropping steadily, that NEED will never be challenged in my lifetime

[Callisto32]

210. I'm going to need proof.

This could just have easily applied when there were three billion people.

Do you get to be the final arbiter of when the world's population has reached a tipping point? If not, who.

Who gets to decide what a need is? All I need is air, water, heat, and food.........

[Statistical]

222. Then revise it. There is a provision to amend the constitution.

Just pretending a right doesn't exist is stupid though.

[cabluedem]

241. Closer to 6.5 Billion. ZPG died an inglorious death back in the 70's....

unfortunately, humans with guns seem to be trying to keep the population level at bay
by spraying lead at each other with all the firepower that they can get their hands on.

[cowman]

243. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whats_a_zip]

123. Troll?

Is progressive thought trollish here? Am I in the wrong place?

[cowman]

129. this is not

progressive thought, whats progressive about wanting to restrict the rights of law abiding americans, if thats your idea of progressive thought, then go join the freepers

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

135. No you are dead wrong

Us progressives believe in ALL THE RIGHTS, the freepers, like you, believe in restricting certain rigts, and who ever on this site said that we can shoot whoever we wanted to shoot? Now your really sounding like those nutjobs at the VPC and the Brady Bunch

[Name removed]

257. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cabluedem]

250. Clue: Just because * let the NRA rule the oval office for eight years doesn't mean gun owners are...

getting a free pass to allow deadly weapons out on the streets forever.

Come 2012, get ready for a new ban on assault weapons.

[TheWraith]

150. No one needs a gun?

I suggest you tell that to subsistence hunters, police officers, people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, recreational target shooters, animal control officers, and the other 75% of the American public who firmly believe in the right to own firearms. Not to mention people like JFK and Eleanor Roosevelt--JFK was a lifetime member of the NRA, and Roosevelt owned and carried a revolver for self defense.

[PavePusher]

173. There is a mechanism to make changes to it.

I suggest you look that up.

[beevul]

198. Are you sure you want to draw that parallel?

"register it, just like you register your car"


And of course, you'd be ok with people of all kinds having them in public, just like cars...


And using them in public, just like cars...


Oh, and BTW, one is not required, by and large, to register a car in America, UNLESS one intends to use it on a public roadway. That makes things such as race cars, for example, un-necessary to register.

Oh, and one may allow ones CAR registration to lapse, without a swat team coming to confiscate it, too.

I'm sure thats exactly what you had in mind for guns, right?

[Callisto32]

209. Only need to register a car if it is only the public roads.

Nothing stops me from owning, or using, a car on private property.

[Mike K]

23. What constructive purpose do you expect -

- mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns will serve?

[PavePusher]

57. Taxing Civil Rights.

You want a side of Voting Fees with that shit-burger?

[cabluedem]

252. Funny you should mention that....

If guns are a "civil right" then why do you let the governments, both state and federal tax your weapons and ammunition ?

Why do you pay to have a licence to carry a deadly weapon in your pockets?

A: because its not a right, that's why.

[PavePusher]

258. You are correct in that we should not have to pay a fee...

or have Government permission to exercise a Constitutional Right. And in Vermont, Alaska and, soon, Arizona, I don't have to. I see this trend spreading.

As for taxes, while technically I agree with you that there shouldn't be sales tax on guns or ammo, I will note that no-one is particulary in wrath over the taxes on paper and ink. Food for thought.

[pipoman]

70. What other

rights do you want to tax and register?

Very progressive..

[bluestateguy]

2. Elitist from West H'wood and B. HIlls doesn't want us little people to have guns

But what does he care? He can afford armed private security to keep the rif raf out.

[tburnsten]

43. As can his many of his constituents

Legislators from the rest of the state might as well just hand their seat over if they support this, flip a coin see if they have to get a job after the next election.

[cabluedem]

253. You think progressives are going to vote for a Rethug over a simple gun law?

Dream on.....

[tburnsten]

274. Yes I do.

And so does Bill Clinton, based on his experience in 1994-1996.

[gorfle]

3. Political suicide.

As if the health care bill won't provide enough ammunition for the right in the next election.

[cabluedem]

5. No its not. People are sick and tired of waking up to gunfire and bloody streets.

[proteus_lives]

12. What other rights will you give up for "safety"?

:eyes:

[pocoloco]

13. A million civilians dead in Iraq not enough?

A few more repugs in power and we will be in Iran!

[Mike K]

16. Where do you live??

Either you are inclined to melodrama or you really should be looking to move.

[cabluedem]

27. California. I don't own a gun but if I did I would obey the new laws.

[gorfle]

33. Of course you would, because you are a law-abiding citizen.

All the criminals would go on ignoring such firearm laws, just as they do now.

[cabluedem]

52. Lots of criminals are in prison for breach of gun laws. And your point here was..?

[gorfle]

113. My point.

My point was I have no doubt that you, being a self-admitted law-abiding citizen, would obey firearm laws, just as all law-abiding citizens do.

But just because YOU, being a law-abiding citizen, would obey firearm laws, does not mean that criminals do, or would.

[cowman]

141. You just made his point

you said "lots of CRIMIMALS are in prison for breach of gun laws", you just admitted that CRIMINALS are in prison, not law abidihg citizens who own guns. Thank You for admitting that law abiding gun owners are not criminals

[gorfle]

18. But violent crime and firearm accidents continue to trend downwards.

Violent crime and firearm accident rates continue to decline. Firearm accident deaths are at their lowest rates in over 100 years. All of this in spite of record numbers of firearms in circulation.

[cabluedem]

263. Where did you get these "facts"?

The NRA webpage?

[X_Digger]

270. Try the FBI's UCR, DOJ's BJS, & Insurance Safety Institute

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

[cowman]

271. Why bother?

she'll just say they are made up. All she does is make things up as she goes along and unless they fit her mindset, she wont believe it, like many times she has said that assault weapons are banned in KA. and when shown that they are not she either disappears or starts hurling insults. She is living in her little dream world fantasy that doesn't let facts get in her way.

[X_Digger]

272. For the lurkers who might otherwise believe her codswallop. :) n/t

[cowman]

273. Codswallop

I like that

[slackmaster]

96. Registering rifles and shotguns would do NOTHING to stop the nocturnal gunfire and bloody streets

:crazy:

[cabluedem]

238. Care to qualify that statement at all? I didn't think so.

[Travis Coates]

152. Oddly enough

Those of us who live in states W/ the most LIBERAL gun laws don't wake up to bloody streets and gunfire

[Euromutt]

178. There's nocturnal gunfire and bloody streets in Beverly Hills and West Hollywood?

Who knew? Actually, I've been to a variety of places in California, and I've never been woken by gunfire, or seen evidence of the previous night's blood having been cleaned from the street. I don't think any of my relatives and acquaintances who live in California have ever had that experience either. Okay, they don't live in Oakland, Richmond, East Palo Alto, or Compton, but might I suggest that "waking up to gunfire and bloody streets" is not a problem that affects a very large percentage of the Californian population?

[cabluedem]

256. Go down to the police department and ask the professionals there. You don't live in LA, do you?

[youngharry]

37. Political Suicide?

Not hardly. Bravo Mike, we have your back. It's a great position in his District which is well educated and understands the value of a peaceful life without guns. Any gun and bullet that can be traced to its' owner will make the owner think twice before using it.

[tburnsten]

48. Yeah, once to plan the trip to the range

And once to plan the trip to Nevada to get more ammunition.


And it won't have any impact on criminal use of firearms, which, by the way, is already illegal. The only people who will be affected by this will be people who are neither inclined nor have any intent to harm someone else.

[cowman]

142. Yes

political suicide, like what happened in 94, google is your friend, look it up

[cabluedem]

159. Nope. The assembly members seat is quite safe from takeover. Sorry you lose.

[tburnsten]

162. That particular one

Let's see how it works out for anyone from less elite districts.

[cowman]

166. Oh yeah

this will have a snowball effect on other less safe seats. She should be careful what she wishes for

[cabluedem]

254. Oh no....

I guess we can just forget all about passing any laws, cuase the NRA doesn't approve of it. right?

In your dreams.

Eight years of * sure has made some gun owners a bit cocky.

[cabluedem]

255. Yes, lets do that. Life has risks. both good and bad.....

Risky is letting guns proliferate beyond all comprehension.

Bring it on!

[cowman]

164. Nope

I respectfully disagree with you, the people of Kalifornia lose.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. I hope so, but maybe not in that district...clearly in places like Kern County it would be

[tomm2thumbs]

6. probably will be able to require those bought IN California - not sure of outside the state

will be interesting to see - I prefer the steel flashlight or baseball bat myself.

[tburnsten]

50. For recreational shooting, hunting, self defense, competitive shooting,

and in a perfect storm situation use against an invading military or out of control government?

What kind of 200 yard groups do you get with that bat by the way?

[tomm2thumbs]

55. it's a

200 yard bat

:)

[tburnsten]

60. You must have pipes like the Aquaduct

[bowens43]

7. good ! It's a good start but doesn't go far enough.

You should have to prove a need for a gun before you can purchase one. For instance if you are a member of a 'well regulated militia' as the founding fathers suggested, then should be able to have a gun.

[cabluedem]

14. The national guard is a well regulated militia.

[Mike K]

21. The National Guard is not a militia.

The National Guard is a standing army which is supported by and functions under control of state governments and is subject to the mandate of the President.

If you are an able-bodied adult male, then you are a member of the militia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

[gorfle]

31. Actually, it is.

The National Guard is the Organized Militia formed in 1903 with the passage of The Dick Act.

However, it totally destroyed the decentralized military system of the founders' day, thus destroying the check and balance against the military power of the federal government.

[gorfle]

22. But not the sort of militia the founders intended.

The national guard is a well regulated militia.

Indeed, the National Guard is the Organized Militia formed by the Dick Act of 1903.

Unfortunately, this does not serve as the decentralized military force designed to act as a check and balance against the military forces of the central federal government. The Dick Act allowed the federal government to usurp those powers and now the state militias (National Guard) serve to enhance, rather than counter, federal military power.

This is counter to the intent of the founders, which is why the second amendment specifically specifies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, rather than the right of the militias, shall not be infringed.

[gorfle]

20. On militias.

You should have to prove a need for a gun before you can purchase one.

Constitutionally enumerated rights do not require a citizen to demonstrate a need of them before exercising them.

For instance if you are a member of a 'well regulated militia' as the founding fathers suggested, then should be able to have a gun.

A few things you may not be aware of:

1) The Dick Act of 1903 created the Organized Militia (National Guard) and also the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia). This means that if you are an able-bodied man aged 17-45 not in the National Guard, you are in the militia.

2) The well-regulated militias that our founders intended to serve to eliminate, or at least counter federal infantry power, no longer exist. Those decentralized state militias were federalized in 1903 and instead of serving to counter federal military power now serve to enhance it.

3) The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

[cabluedem]

45. The People back then didn't include all the Black slaves the whites owned, did it?

[PavePusher]

59. Yeah, uh, we fixed that, you must have missed the memo.

Paid a high price in blood to do so, too.

[cabluedem]

78. A Blacks paid a high price for 400 years, 75 after the war and 100 years of Jim Crow laws.

You are not the only person that can use history to prove a point.

[slackmaster]

98. Some of the first Jim Crow laws were to restrict gun ownership by black people

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

[tburnsten]

168. But you are using the exact same tactics as the Jim Crow supporters did

So I'm not sure what you think you are gaining by saying that, unless you are openly admitting that corrupt "discretionary" systems that exist strictly to prevent citizens from exercising their rights and to discriminate against certain people is a great idea in your book.

[Callisto32]

211. And, now, you support disarming them, just like those very laws.

How progressive of you.

[slackmaster]

97. Red Herring

Nice try.

[gorfle]

104. No it did not. What is your point?

The People back then didn't include all the Black slaves the whites owned, did it?

And so, the Constitution was subsequently amended to fix that problem.

What is your point?

[Travis Coates]

153. Doesn't matter

If our enumerated rights are inalienable then the founders had no right to deny blacks the right to self defense

[cowman]

34. Ahhhhhhhhh yes

the need canard, The 2nd Amend is a right not a need, maybe we should have you prove a need to post here or a need for the 4th Amend. How much more ridiculous can you get

[jgraz]

38. Why does every post that starts with "Ahhh" include the word "canard"?

Just askin...

[cabluedem]

46. This poster is a denizen of the gun owners forum here on DU, that's why.

[cowman]

85. Maybe you shouldn't worry

about how I write my posts and answer, is the 2nd Amend a right or a need?

[jgraz]

89. Ahhhhhhhhh yes

The old "maybe you shouldn't worry about how I write my posts" canard.

[cowman]

119. Once again

is the 2nd Amend a need or a right?
I can do this all day

[cabluedem]

163. So can I. Miller 1939 put the militia clause to rest since its the.national guard now.

Too bad so sad. The second amendment won't protect states rights to pass their own gun laws.

[tburnsten]

167. I have the hardest time understanding what you write sometimes

For instance when you just wrote that the Second Amendment "won't protect state's rights to pass their own gun laws", that means that you believe this law and every state gun law is unconstitutional. Glad to see you come around finally.


And if the Miller decision meant what you think it does, that would exempt every single member of the National Guard from the 1934 NFA laws. Meaning I can now go pick up that MP5 I've had my eye on without the pesky $200 tax stamp or wait time while they run my credentials.

[cowman]

171. Why is it that

every time she gets called to task for making a false statement, she disappears, of course, respectfully asked.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonP]

224. No member can "pull posts" or have them moved - talk to the mods

Let them know how unfairly you are being treated. I'm sure they'll give your complaint fair consideration.

But, since your post is about laws relating to the 2nd amendment and policy, as our host Skinner defined the forum guidelines, where do you think it belongs?

[cabluedem]

184. Unless you are a current member, no. besides the NG issues weapons so no need to buy guns.

[cowman]

169. I never said it

would, but even you have to admit that more and more states are loosening their gun laws, what is it now? Something like 40 states that now have "Shall Issue", with more states contemplating it, and the Castle Doctrine and Stand you Ground laws are catching on like wildfire, so most states are NOT implementing stricter gun laws, just the opposite

[cowman]

170. BTW

Heller vs DC put to rest the notion that the 2nd Amend is a collective right.

[aikoaiko]

202. I'm don't think you ever read Miller or you wouldn't have written that.

[cowman]

225. Why read

when she can make it up as she goes along, I would have more respect for her if she would just do some research and know what she was talking about

[Euromutt]

231. Miller ruled on the specific weapon, not on the person possessing it

The SCOTUS didn't rule against Miller on the basis that he wasn't a member of the National Guard, it ruled against him on the grounds that the specific weapon with which Miller was caught--a sawed-off double-barrel Stevens 311 shotgun--was not, as far as the court could ascertain, suitable for use as a military weapon (an assessment with which I agree, incidentally).

If Miller had been caught with an M1918 or M1922 Browning Automatic Rifle (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg36-e.htm), the ruling would have had to have been very different, unless the Court had wanted to argue that a weapon in service at that time with the Regular Army and the National Guard was unsuited to use as a military weapon.

[PavePusher]

58. And you should have to demonstrate an overwhelming "need"...

to vote, rather than just a whimsical desire to.

And pay a large fee for the privilege as well.

Oh, and where's your proof of training, background check (hopefully you haven't voted poorly in the past, right?), fingerprints and references from community members in good standing?

And don't get caught voting in public, or your permit to vote will be revoked.

[spin]

107. That's a recipe for racism ...

say you have to "prove" your need for a firearm in front of a racist sheriff. If you are white, you get your permit to own a firearm. Any other color and you don't, unless you're rich or famous (preferably both).

But that's what gun control has always been about. Got to keep guns away from "those people". Guns should only be in the hands of the elite rich ruling class. It's a throwback to the feudal mentality of the middle ages.

[cabluedem]

117. Nothing is racist about a gun registration law. It will effect whites more since they comprise half

The populace. Blacks are only 14 percent. No racism is involved so you can take that old canard and put it in the round file.

[X_Digger]

120. It's called Disparate Effect

An action or policy that has disproportionate impact on a minority group.

Let's say the fee (remember you said this would be paid for by gun owners) is $100 per gun. Who is likely to experience financial hardship trying to come up with that $100? Less affluent members of society, which tend to be non-white.

[spin]

144. I was replying to a poster who said you should have a need to own a firearm ...

but as has been pointed out, registration would place possibly a significant financial burden on lower class gun owners which would discriminate against blacks and Hispanics.

Take a few minutes to check out Washington D.C.'s gun registration scheme at:

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf

Or read this reporter's story on gun registration in the District:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836_5.html?sid=ST2009090103944

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

174. My, my.

We are especially ignorant today, aren't we?

[Lord Magus]

192. That's how the earliest anti-gun laws started.

Shortly after the end of the Civil War for example it was common in the South to pass laws banning the ownership of handguns other than Army or Navy revolvers. Which were among the most expensive handguns on the market, putting them out of reach to almost all blacks. The laws were of course just as selectively enforced as literacy tests, meaning that poor whites could almost always get away with owning a less expensive and technically illegal handgun.

Klan tested, Klan approved.

[cowman]

143. That same old tired

argument thats been debunked so many time here. Before you post, know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

[cowman]

146. And oh BTW

Heller vs DC put that tired old argument to rest

[jody]

8. Seems there is one group that supports potential victims being armed and another group supporting

criminals' right to commit evil deeds on unarmed victims.

Personally I'm a pro-RKBA Democrat and I support the right of potential victims to be armed if they choose to defend against criminals.

[tularetom]

10. Blah blah blah - it'll never pass

If it even gets out of committee I'll be very surprised.

It'll never pass the assembly, probably won't even get a majority of Dems.

I'm not diggin a hole to bury my guns in, thats for sure.

All it does is get the gun huggers and the gun grabbers to have little hissy fits.

I got better shit to worry about.

[Caliman73]

147. That's what they said about the handgun ammo law that just passed.

Starting in February 2011 we have to go through a FFL to get handgun ammunition. Retailers are already saying they will no longer ship ammunition to California starting in January 2011.

I wouldn't be too sure about this not passing.

[cowman]

151. I'm sure that

Nevada will be more than happy to sell ammo to californians and the CA authorities can't do shit about it

[derby378]

180. Unless, of course, they plan on installing checkpoints on every road that leads into CA

"Are you bringing any ammunition across the border, Sir?"

"I don't understand, Officer. I'm entering California, not Mexico."

"You are correct, Sir, you are entering California, and there's a new law. Step out of the car, please..."

[PavePusher]

207. I predict that would raise the price of life insurance for the unfortunate police officers...

who are forced to pull that duty.

Also, a lot of resigning, refusal of orders, or plain old extended "lunch breaks".

[cabluedem]

259. Wow, you sure know how to scare the police. What was that about being" law abiding "again?

[PavePusher]

264. Again, I am predicting, not threatening.

Why do you continually accuse me of being a criminal?

Provide evidence, or fuck off.

[proteus_lives]

11. He won't be an assemblyman for long.

Kick this authoritarian out of office.

BTW: It will never pass.

[4lbs]

35. You obviously don't know his district.

.

[whoneedstickets]

15. No right is without limits.

I just don't understand the inability of the RKBA crowd here on DU even, to acknowledge that rights have limits. You have a right to free speech but your right has reasonable limits for public safety. You can't incite violence, for example. You might have a right to freedom of the press but that doesn't mean you can start a pirate radio station.

You may very well have a RKBA but that right is clearly not unlimited, nor should it be. Registration is a reasonable provision that doesn't restrict your right to own weapons but does satisfy society's need to keep track of dangerous weapons. If all weapons had to be registered then the mere possession of an unregistered firearm would be a felon and a tool to prosecute criminals or extend their jail time.

I would love to read more reasonable RKBA points on DU, but most are indistinguishable from those on FR.

[cabluedem]

24. Exactly. If the gun owners had their way hand grenades would be legal to possess. Nonsense.

[gorfle]

29. Hand grenades ARE legal to possess.

Hand grenades, like other explosives, are completely legal to possess, provided you have a license.

In any case this is a red herring. Indiscriminate weapons, like explosives, are not related to the right to keep and bear arms, which are universally accepted as small arms suitable for infantry use.

[Jkid]

42. Why would anyone need to possess a hand grenade?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tburnsten]

64. It's not about need, they have no purpose

that couldn't be adequately or better fulfilled by some other explosive device or piece of construction equipment.

They carry a $200 tax stamp and long background investigation by the ATF, to begin the investigation process the chief law enforcement officer of your area needs to sign off on the paperwork, indicating that they see no reason to deny you, and then some five to ten months later you get approval to actually pay for it.

It's more of a really expensive curiousity for people who can afford to pay the $200+whatever grenades cost these days and have land that they can use it on.

[cowman]

87. That need canard again

[gorfle]

109. I have no idea.

Why would anyone need to possess a hand grenade?

I have no idea. I'm just telling you they are perfectly legal to own, provided you have the correct license for handling explosives.

Explosives are commonly used in construction, demolition, and mining, just to name a few places.

[Travis Coates]

155. Hand grenades

ARE small arms quite suitable ( in fact designed ) for infantry use

[slackmaster]

99. Straw Man

:crazy:

[AtheistCrusader]

139. You should probably learn about existing laws, before you start stumping for new ones.

Because you have no idea what's going on.

[gorfle]

28. Yes, rights do have limits.

I just don't understand the inability of the RKBA crowd here on DU even, to acknowledge that rights have limits.

I freely acknowledge that rights have limits. For example, I concede that in order to carry a firearm in public, you must obtain a permit. I agree that criminals and mentally incompetent people should not be allowed to own firearms.

You may very well have a RKBA but that right is clearly not unlimited, nor should it be.

Nor is it currently. There are tens of thousands of firearm laws already on the books.

Registration is a reasonable provision that doesn't restrict your right to own weapons but does satisfy society's need to keep track of dangerous weapons. If all weapons had to be registered then the mere possession of an unregistered firearm would be a felon and a tool to prosecute criminals or extend their jail time.

What I would love for anti-firearm folks to acknowledge is the entire reason the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution. It's not about hunting, nor even particularly about self-defense. The founders created a decentralized military system, under the control of the States, because they believed that a standing army under the control of the Federal government was dangerous to liberty. They did not trust such power in the hands of the central government. The entire government was designed as a system of checks and balances, and the military was set up the same way.

The militias were intended to eliminate the need for, or at least counter, federal military power.

The militias of old, however, were federalized in 1903 with the passage of The Dick Act. Thus the state militias no longer serve as a counter to federal military power, but instead serve to enhance it. No doubt the founders anticipated this, and this is why the second amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not the right of the militias to do so.

Once you acknowledge that the primary reason firearm ownership is protected by the Constitution is to counter federal military power, you can easily see why registration is completely unacceptable. If you provide the government with a list of all possible people capable of armed resistance, then the whole intent of the second amendment is undermined.

Moreover, registration does not do anything to help prevent firearm crime. Illinois, with its licensing and registration schemes, has a serious firearm violence problem that stems mostly from drug and gang-related activities. The simple fact is that most (over 90%) firearm murders are committed by people with extensive past criminal histories - people who would never even be elligible to own or register firearms.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

What this means is that registration largely impacts the law-abiding, but does next to nothing against criminals.

Society would be far, far, far better off keeping track of criminals than keeping track of weapons. According to FBI data, even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, 96% of firearm owners each year don't commit violent crimes each year, as there simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around to the 40-80 million firearm owners. Rather than focus on laws that only effect the vast majority of law-abiding firearm owners, why not concentrate on the criminals?

[whoneedstickets]

41. Ah the old, we need guns to resist government canard....

..Straight out of the FR playbook. You've made my point for me better than I could. Thanks.

[cabluedem]

47. One of the gun owners on the gun forum has threatened a war over this already. Kooky, but true.

[PavePusher]

63. I did not threaten. I predicted.

It's what you seem to be trying to provoke, after all.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

81. Assault weapons

were not banned, they were modified to meet the requirements of the AWB, gee, just like in Kalifornia, and the AWB is what cost us the congress in 94.

[cabluedem]

267. CA never votes in lockstep due to federal laws. In fact the ban on AW's occurred in 2000.

Get over it. Californians don't like assault guns, period.

[DonP]

84. We did not ban "assault weapons" for 10 years - research is your friend

Again, you really don't seem to want reality to get in the way of your point.

It remained perfectly legal to own semi automatic rifles for the entire period of the Clinton era "Assault Weapons Ban". In fact sales for AR style rifles skyrocketed during the "Ban". Today they are the most popular target rifle in America and are rapidly becoming a popular hunting rifle as well, in larger calibers of course.

The so called "Ban" limited features on new rifles and newly manufactured magazines. It stopped "deadly features" like bayonet lugs on rifles. It finally put an end to our long dark night of drive by bayonetings in cities.

Older rifles were all grandfathered in and it was still perfectly legal to own full capacity magazines.

But since all rifles overall (scary black ones and grandpa's old Marlin .22 included) only account for 2.7% of all crimes in any given year in the US it wasn't really much of a crime stopping idea anyway. Never has been, even in Kalifornia.

The only way they got it passed, by a single vote in the house, was by promising the 10 year sunset provision and with violent crime at a 25 year low, according to those 'lying freepers' at the FBI, there is no big urge to try and pass another. Most reps consider gun control the new "third rail". But my Dem rep has an A rating from the NRA and is getting their support in the November election again. You might want to write Mr. Feuer a check since he won't be getting any support from them it seems.

I'd like to apologize for inserting facts into your little happy dance.

But on the face of it, the chances of this getting passed in one state range from slim to none.
______________________

Now why don't you and your little friends start working on the real golden apple. Just repeal the damned 2nd amendment and stop farting around on the fringes. Just go for it.

All you need is a supermajority in both houses, hey we have that today!

A Dem inthe White House - got that too!

You are all ready to rock and roll! You can have it off the books in a matter of a few weeks, maybe months I bet. Look how easy it was getting HCR through. A repeal of one of the original BoR should be no problem for you enlightened souls. Once that's done you can start on that pesky 1st amendment that troubles people too.

Now, all you need are 3/4 of the states to ratify the repeal. That should be no problem since you've assured us that there are a lot of people that think like you do.

Now go get your petitions started. There's probably a Kinko's right down the street from your group home..

[spin]

118. In fact the "ban" of assault weapons caused their sales to increase ...

dramatically.

Before the ban, shooters had little interest in black semi-auto rifles that looked similar to military assault rifles. Assault weapons lacked the true assault rifles ability to fire either in semi-auto or full auto mode. They were usually underpowered compared to hunting rifles and they were UGLY.

Along comes the ban and suddenly every shooter I knew just HAD to have one of these firearms and some high capacity magazines (clips) to go with it. Assault weapons sold like hotcakes in the morning.

Now the black rifles are the best selling rifles in the U.S. Hunters have discovered their usefulness and you can now easily buy an assault weapon in a powerful caliber more suitable for hunting deer and other large game. Target shooters have found these weapons to be extremely accurate. Everybody likes the fact that they can be easily modified to better fit the shooter.

Would banning and confiscating assault weapons lead to a war? It might. Chances are higher that a total ban and confiscation of all firearms would. Many gun owners would simply refuse to register their firearms as gun registration in Canada has shown.

At the best gun registration would just be a sad waste of money that could be better used to combat crime. It would also result in Republicans winning many close elections in the nations heartland. The progress we have made so far in implementing heathcare reform might well be lost forever.

[Callisto32]

212. cabluedem does NOTHING but provoke.

Has s/he ever actually added anything to a conversation? Not that I can remember. It's all about provoking an emotional reaction from the other side so s/he can point and say "SEE, SEEEEE, I TOLD YOU THEY WERE NUTS222!!!@122!@!@!!"

It's tired, and a waste of all of our time.

[PavePusher]

62. Refute the facts, if you can.

And please, cite this "playbook" you speak of.

[cowman]

80. Ahhhhhhhh

the same old lets insult the pro-2nd Amend people.
Straight out of the anti-gun crowd playbook

[jgraz]

125. Are you sexting the board?

From the number of times you post "Ahhhhhh", you seem to be enjoying this discussion just a little too much.

[cowman]

136. Sexting? What the hell is that

and why do you care if I enjoy this discussion to much and why do you care if I use Ahhhhhhh?

[tburnsten]

189. It's just an adaptation of the old "cybersex" fad to text messages

Can be pretty decent. Gotten me laid a few times.

Apparently words mean things.

[DonP]

86. Madison and Jefferson were Freepers? - Who knew!

[gorfle]

105. It far predates them.

Ah the old, we need guns to resist government canard......Straight out of the FR playbook. You've made my point for me better than I could. Thanks.

It far predates FR.

Read the Federalist Papers. Particularly Federalist 29.

Let me ask you some questions.

Why do you think the founders set up our country with a decentralized military system?

When the founders say that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty" (Federalist 29), what do you think they mean by that?

[cabluedem]

251. Most people who "resist government" with a gun usually end up dead or in prison.

[PavePusher]

61. Can I see your First Amendment permit, please?

And may I inspect your list of registered papers?

[onehandle]

82. They have it. It's called registration and posting privileges at Democratic Underground.

Subject to moderation.

[X_Digger]

83. If DU were a gov't site, your post would actually make sense. n/t

[onehandle]

94. Gun owners don't want to be regulated by the government, but all others - no problem. Got it.

Kind of like how teabaggers don't want government run health care, but don't mind being imprisoned by health insurance companies.

Funny, that.

[gorfle]

112. EXACTLY CORRECT.

The FACT OF THE MATTER IS, the Constitution only restricts the rights of the GOVERNMENT.

It does not protect speech on private property, for example. You can't come into my home and speak your mind. This BBS, being a private forum, can restrict speech however it sees fit.

[onehandle]

132. Please go into the Obamas bedroom tonight and speak your mind.

Let me know how that goes.

[tburnsten]

190. In much the same way that breaking into the White House to harrass the President

is not protected by the First Amendment, things like shooting at passing vehicles or deciding that the alley behind your favorite restaraunt is a perfectly reasonable place to set up and impromptu firing range are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Owning all the neccessary equipment to set up that range is protected by it however, much the same way as being equipped to spout off irrational statements is protected by the First, with very limited restrictions on how you use it.

[paulsby]

193. government does not have "rights"

it has authority, jurisdiction, powers, etc.

people have rights

[cowman]

122. When you actually

want to have an honest debate with us then come on back, until then do some research and quit with the VPC and Brady Bunch talking points

[PavePusher]

175. Poor attempt at a sidestep.

Your First Amendment permitthat allows you to exercise your freedom of speech in public, in a manner approved by the government, after suitable training, testing and background checks.

But you knew that. Stop playing the fool. If you're playing...

[DissedByBush]

67. Reasonable restrictions

"You have a right to free speech but your right has reasonable limits for public safety. You can't incite violence, for example. "

I agree. That can be directly translated to guns.

You can't incite violence with a gun. You can't go waving it around scaring and threatening people with it. You can't shoot people with it except in self defense.

Notice all of that is what YOU do with YOUR right.

Registration is mass punishment, considering all people guilty. Do you think you should have to register before exercising your freedom of speech? Do you think all speech should be traceable back to you? That would mean no more anonymous speech.

BTW, what is the first thing an invading army does?

It looks up the gun registrations, then confiscates them.

Not good to have a militia of all able-bodied men if the enemy knows exactly where to go to get them.

[cabluedem]

72. You have been watching too many NRA propaganda movies. Might I suggest Bambi or Dumbo instead?

[spin]

126. We can argue about the success of a civilian revolution ...

by the armed citizens in the country against a government that the majority felt was oppressive and tyrannical.

But I think we might agree that such an uprising would lead to far more bloodshed than we have today and that it would ruin our way of life for many years.

If such a revolution were successful, we might end up with a new government far worse than what we have today. If unsuccessful the government would trample many of the rights we enjoy today to make sure that another uprising didn't occur.

Freedom of speech would definitely be curbed and you would probably have to show proper papers to travel.

Our experiment in representative democracy would most likely be over, no matter which side won.

[cabluedem]

233. All of which leads us to the conclusion that gun owners no longer need guns for a "militia" coup...

and/or an overthrow of our government.

Great point!!!

[GreenStormCloud]

179. Disney's new movie, "The Princess and The Frog" is a LOT better. N/T

[onehandle]

79. Indistinguishable?

Funny, that.

[Euromutt]

177. Ever hear of "Haynes v. United States"?

If all weapons had to be registered then the mere possession of an unregistered firearm would be a felon and a tool to prosecute criminals or extend their jail time.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruled over forty years ago (1969) that persons who illegally possess a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register that firearm, because that would violate their right against self-incrimination. So the Catch-22 of any firearm registration scheme is that anyone who illegally possesses a firearm is exempt from it, and the only people who can be prosecuted for non-compliance are those who otherwise own their firearms legally.

Which means that, as a crime-fighting measure, firearm registration is utterly useless.

[Grassy Knoll]

17. It's not gun registration .........

It's crime committed by stolen guns, what criminal wants a gun in their own name ?
Damn.. these people think so little of a deranged mind. wake the fuck up.

[Oregone]

19. Worked wonderfully in Canada, right?

[chollybocker]

25. While I admire the intent,

this is just inviting disaster. Hell, mandatory registration of firearms didn't even work in Canada.

[cabluedem]

26. California isn't Canada and we have a good prison system here for lawbreakers.

[gorfle]

30. To bad.

California isn't Canada and we have a good prison system here for lawbreakers.

Too bad you don't have an effect means of catching criminals to put in those prisons then. Most firearm murders, over 90%, are committed by people with extensive prior criminal backgrounds, usually violent backgrounds.

If you kept those people in your good prison system you would find the firearm crime problem would disappear.

[cabluedem]

49. Hahahah! You a funny guy. Wrong, but funny.

[beevul]

56. Calling...

Calling someone wrong, is not the same thing as proving someone wrong.

If your going to call a poster wrong, put your money where your cake-hole is and PROVE him/her wrong.

IF you can.


The name calling and the baseless misrepresentation of the position of your opponenets and all your other tactics where guns are concerned, have been failures since the mid 90's when the internet leveled the playing field on the topic of guns.

The million mom march has been reduced to 8 moms and a pizza, the "brady bunch" reduced to peter jan and alice. The once proud and stong anti-gun lobby, now has no warchest, and no credibility, largely due to the repeated use of the same failed strategy and tactics.


What makes you continue to believe that sooner or later they'll be effective again?


I almost feel sorry for how far they - and apparently you - have fallen.

One day, they, and you, will look in the mirror and have an epiphany.

Followed by much regret about how much more influence on the topic could have been had, had they and you been reasonable from the get-go.

As opposed to trying to force an agenda on people whom you appear to despise, clearly don't understand (and appear to make no efforts at understanding), and last but not least, severely underestimate.

Mistakes, all. Fatal ones for your movement, at that.

[gorfle]

114. Which part specifically was wrong? n/t

.

[chollybocker]

32. Are you suggesting that non-complience in CA

would result in incarceration? Why don't they just take the latest NRA mailing list and lock them all up right now?

Ain't gonna happen. Waste of time. Waste of money. Riles gun owners unneedlessly. Etc.

[cabluedem]

44. Non compliance with laws should go unpunished then? In what world do you live?

[proteus_lives]

39. Your state is broke.

[Merchant Marine]

40. It cost Canada $2 billion to register 7 million firearms

How much will it cost CA to register the ~38 million purchased since '68 by CA DOJ statistics?

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Nevermind that Canada STILL doesn't have all those weapons registered.

[PavePusher]

65. The one that's out of money and looking at early releases? n/t

[slackmaster]

101. Our "good" prison system is one of the biggest reasons the state is broke

We keep too many people in prison for victimless crimes, and you want to create more victimless crimes and imprison more people.

[ZombieHorde]

53. What is the presumed benefit of gun registration? nt

[hayu_lol]

66. I really don't see the need to register rifles or shotguns...

most of those weapons are not used in gang warfare(big problem no doubt in W Hollywood and Beverly Hills)but are used by hunters and on farms for pest control.

Not a big problem for anyone.

Handguns are another problem and most of us are aware of that.

Like many others, I live in a small city isolated in a rural area. Lots of hunting for birds and deer. Farmers here use high powered rifles to take out cougars and other large predators who do go after sheep and cattle. For home defense, nothing beats a shotgun. Sorta hard on sneaky family members who walk in their sleep but pretty effective in the dark against breakins.

This politician is a loon.

[ZombieHorde]

196. What would be the benefit of registering handguns? nt

[pipoman]

68. And what next?

After this does absolutely not one single thing to reduce crime? Your state is broke, where will the tremendous amount of money come from to implement, enact, and enforce this new law? Maybe the stat can, say, close a few mental health facilities or at least increase eligibility requirements to use mental health services...should be able to scrape some funds together that way...or maybe turn loose some violent offenders who are currently in custody, raise a few bucks that way....hey, maybe Cali will be able to fund this new law after all...never mind.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

74. Go Don Quixote!

Please tilt at a $B windmill.





Paging Sancho, paging Sancho. We need you to come get this loon back home..

[X_Digger]

75. Talk about a solution in search of a problem..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

In 2008, there were 3 times as many homicides by knives as rifles and shotguns, and more homicides by hands and feet than by rifles and shotguns.

[Kingofalldems]

76. And mandatory gun confiscation from freepers and teabaggers

[cowman]

88. Why?

Aren't they entitled to the same protections as everyone else. Just because you don't like their politics doesn't give you the right to restrict their rights.

[PavePusher]

176. Uncle Joe would love your kind. n/t

[east texas lib]

188. I'm sure he'd love kindly Uncle Joe too,

Lots of 'em do.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

77. Of all the places proposing ANY kind of registration... I'd trust CA the least.

They HAVE required registration THEN subsequent confiscation of firearms there in the recent past.
I hope this fucker loses his seat for even proposing this crap.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taverner]

103. Stupid

What, other than intimidate gun owners, is this expected to do?

[X_Digger]

106. Intimidate? No.. Infuriate? Oh yah. n/t

[slackmaster]

108. When we get infuriated, we vote

:nuke:

[Taverner]

111. I think that Democrat needs to get PRIMARIED

[cabluedem]

265. I am sure they hear you in Sacramento (snicker), you betcha.

They are shaking in fear as you write. I am sure.

[Taverner]

110. Both

And I don't think it would end well...that whole "cold dead fingers" thing ya know...

[Throd]

134. This will not go over well here in El Dorado County

[cabluedem]

157. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center your county is home to a band of "militia " kooks.

Did you know that fact?

[cowman]

161. So because you deem

them "kooks" they should have their rights restricted, have they committed any crimes and if not, what basis should their 2nd Amend. rights be restricted and to what degree would you restrict them?

[PavePusher]

172. Not to mention she paints a whole county due to a small portion of its residents.

Very progressive thinking there.

What a kook.

[cowman]

181. Why is it

everytime she gets called to task for making false statements, she disappears or insults? I just don't get it

[PavePusher]

182. And she still hasn't answered my question in post #66.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=308019&mesg_id=308099

Come to think, I've asked that question of people here (and elsewhere) repeatedly.

It has never been answered in whole or in part.

Suddenly, the topic always veers in another direction. Facsinating, that....

[cowman]

183. Yeah

just like she was asked that if she supports confiscation would she be part of the team going door to door confiscationg the weapons, all we heard from her was, well, nothing as usual

[cabluedem]

187. If people there tolerate militia nuts, who is the kook or kooks?

[oneshooter]

191. Would you support confiscation?

After all registration is the first phase of confiscation. California has done it before. Who is to say it will not do it again?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

195. You know she would.

But apparently she won't be courageous enough to assist the effort herself.

[cabluedem]

200. read below. and since I am not a police officer I would not be taking any guns.

Only lawbreaking fools need worry about this law.

[PavePusher]

206. So you admit you would hire armed thugs to UnConstitutionally seize private property?

Am I understanding you correctly?

[cabluedem]

261. The armed thugs we pay to protect us are there to enforce laws, not ignore them.

Private property is removed from others hands all the time. Why should you be exempt if you break the law?

[PavePusher]

266. I have not broken any laws.

Although you continually make such accusations...

[cowman]

215. So that makes

you a hypocrite who would have other people do what you wont do. Got it.

[cabluedem]

199. Only for people who are unfit. We do that now with mentally ill,child and woman beaters and the like

This bill would just make it easier for the police to get the guns.
It would harm no one but lawbreakers.

[tburnsten]

227. As if no woman has ever abused her boyfriend or husband before

And I can't imagine the homosexual community is free of domestic violence either.


Once again you show how discriminatory your thought process is. Congratulations.

[oneshooter]

229. And who will determine who is "unfit"?

Will it be a panel, a single person, a Judge?
Who?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cabluedem]

268. Same as now.

The same rules that we use now. Convicts, drug users, men who are under restraining orders, felons , the mentally ill, ect. A good case could be made for drunks, since many gun accidents and murders are due to excessive drinking by the shooter.

[PavePusher]

194. Liberty or Newspeak.

Your solution set seems very binary. And you are getting perilously close to my ignore button.

[Throd]

220. Have you ever been to El Dorado County?

[Mother Smuckers]

137. More idiotic ideas destined only to give further advantages to the criminals.

Do you seriously believe the wingnuts and crooks are going to supply that information? Why in the world do people like this want only cops and robbers (frequently the same people) to have 2nd amendment rights? Bah.

[spin]

145. If I were a criminal, I would be all for draconian gun control...

it would make my job safer.

[Mother Smuckers]

156. 'zackly! Makes me wonder what exactly is the motivation of the devotees of limiting RKBA

shrug

[spin]

158. Welcome to DU (n/t)

[ZombieHorde]

197. How would registering firearms give further advantages to the criminals? nt

[spin]

201. Simple....

criminals don't register firearms. Honest citizens do. Registering a firearm can be a financial burden and a time consuming effort for many people who live from pay check to pay check. These same people do not have the advantage of living in low crime up scale neighborhoods. They are easy targets for the criminals who often live in their neighborhood.

Since the time and expense can be prohibitive, many honest people will not buy firearms for self defense and will be easy prey for the criminal element.

For educational purposes, watch this humorous video. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in it.

Criminals for gun control
http://splodetv.com/video/criminals-gun-control

To see just how gun registration works in Washington D.C. read this newspaper report.

It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam.

***snip***

Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.

Which was exactly their intent. The day the Heller decision was announced, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) vowed that the city was still "going to have the strictest handgun laws the Constitution allows." Fenty decried the ruling, saying that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[cabluedem]

203. That reason won't hold water. Whats more expensive? A gun or a funeral for a person killed....

by gun fire. You people cab rationalize anything to keep your toys can't you?

[spin]

219. Draconian gun control will lead to MORE funerals not less ...

criminals will always be able to find firearms to use for mischief.

You are simply blind to truth and reality. You accuse gun owners of rationalization and yet you believe that "feel good" laws such as gun registration would work.

Canada is a country many liberals and progressives admire and yet their 20 year experiment with gun registration was a total failure and is about to be repealed. Some estimates say that 2 billion dollars were spent to register 7 million firearms out of a total of 15 million.

Watch the news and you see large gatherings of Tea Baggers who hate Obama and all Democrats and feel we are socialists and out to destroy democracy in our country.

True, these people are fools. But, can you see them lining up to register all their firearms? Fat chance. At the slightest rumor of gun registration, these people will immediately run out and buy every damn firearm on the shelves of every store and all the ammo as well.

Have you ever poked a stick into a bee hive?

The violent crime rate is FALLING in our country even while the number and the sales of firearms has skyrocketed.

Don't waste your time on stupid ideas such as gun registration which has already been proven to be a failure in Canada. Concentrate on fighting crime and criminal gangs.

When you fight a fire, you point your fire extinguisher at the base of the flames rather than spray it foolishly at the smoke.

[cabluedem]

204. It wouldn't. It would help keep guns away from criminals by insuring the gun can be traced back to

The owner. If a gun owner has guns stolen this law would make sure that they reported the theft to police.

[friendly_iconoclast]

205. Unless the owner avoids the issue by not registering them in the first place...

n/t

[cabluedem]

213. thanks for admitting you are not a law abiding gun owner when this bill becomes. law.

[cowman]

216. Gee

I didn't see where he said that HE wouldn't register his rifles and I really dont think it will happen anywhay but answer me this, do you support confiscation and would you help round and if not, why would you have other people do what you wont do?

[slackmaster]

218. You should have checked friendly_iconoclast's profile before making your comment

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

228. Can you point out where, please?

I'll be busy rereading The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire while you're looking for that non-existant admission...

[Euromutt]

230. Here's two concepts for you: "malum in se," and "malum prohibitum"

(Repost from the other thread on this matter.)

Malum in se means "an ill in itself"; malum prohibitum means "an ill (because it is) prohibited." The Washington State Supreme Court, in one ruling, described the difference thus:

The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

Mala in se are actions that directly inflict material and/or physical harm on an unwilling victim. Mala prohibita run the gamut from driving under the influence (which, even though it does not directly harm anyone, creates an unacceptably high risk of harm occurring) through drug possession to jaywalking.

When we talk about "criminals" as opposed to "law-abiding citizens," the distinction is between people who commit mala in se and people who do not. In my book, someone who likes to indulge in a little marijuana once in a while is not a criminal, even though possession (of 40 grams or less) is a misdemeanor in this state (Washington). I don't consider prostitutes to be criminals, even though prostitution is a misdemeanor in this state. I don't consider persons under 21 who consume alcohol (without their parent or guardian's knowledge or permission) to be criminals, even though that is a gross misdemeanor in this state. Hell, I don't consider drug dealers to be criminals per se, unless and until they threaten or inflict violence on competitors, "snitches," or anyone else who interferes with their illicit enterprise.

Accordingly, I would not consider anyone who refused to cooperate with a firearm registration scheme as being a "criminal." Especially since, under the SCOTUS' ruling in Haynes v. United States, people in illegal possession of a firearm (e.g. because they've been convicted of a felony) are in effect exempt from registration because requiring them to register illegally possessed firearm would violate their right against self-incrimination.

[cabluedem]

239. It doesnt matter what YOU think. Its what the law says and the jury decides that really matters...

Have you never been on a jury before?

Clue: You don't get to pick and choose what laws you don't like.

[Merchant Marine]

244. Ever heard of Jury Nullification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

You are spectacularly ignorant of your own civil rights.

[Euromutt]

249. You do, actually

It's called "jury nullification." Judges and prosecutors don't like it, and vigorously try to weed out people who are familiar with the concept during voir dire, but whether or not you approve of it, if a jury decides to acquit, not because they aren't convinced the defendant did it, but because they think the defendant shouldn't be punished for whatever it was, there isn't a damn thing the judge can do about it (since mistrials have to be declared before the return of the verdict).

But this is rather a red herring, since the distinction between "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens" cannot realistically be argued to be dependent only on conviction of an offense. Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer, wasn't arrested until 2001, but he committed the first of at least four dozen murders in 1982; it's not like he was a "law-abiding citizen" during the intervening 19 years, especially considering he continued committing murders until 1998, and described strangling young women as his "career."

So let me ask you this: do you consider anyone who, in the United States, has ever been in possession of marijuana to be a criminal, or consumed alcohol while under the age of 21, or who gave beer to someone under 21 of whom he or she was not the parent or legal guardian? Because those are all misdemeanors (or worse, depending where you are). Have you ever (even once) done something that was statutorily a criminal offense, and if so, do you consider yourself a criminal?

[cabluedem]

237. That won't work. Many CA residents own unregistered assault weapons and everyone of them is an

unindited criminal, waiting for johnny law to catch them,
and put them in prison, after a trial, of course.

[Merchant Marine]

245. Waiting...

Oh wait, if "assault weapons" are banned, why does anyone own them and why aren't they in prison? CAN YOU EVEN SEE YOUR OWN HYPOCRISY?

[cowman]

247. No no no

according to her assault weapons are banned in Kalifornia despite all the contrary evidence shown to her, she doesn't let facts get in her way

[cabluedem]

262. yes,yes,yes..

Assault weapons from other states are not allowed in CA.

You have proof I am mistaken?

[Merchant Marine]

269. Assuming that those "Assault Weapons" are not on the dated Rooberti-Roos list

All you have to do is remove the pistol grip or put a "bullet button" magazine lock on it. Those bullet buttons? They can be disabled by rotating them 90 degrees. This is to allow for normal operation when you travel to free states.

The AWB bans a certain list of specific models and allows only one "evil feature". Meet those requirements and you can have a fully functional assault weapon. Same rounds, same capacity, same everything.

This has spawned a cottage industry in California for the manufacture of AWB compliant grips (U-15 stock, monsterman grip) and bullet buttons like the Prince 50.



I will assert that your precious AWB has done nothing to the availability of real assault rifles to criminal gangs who want to get them. Look at the prevalence of the AK-47 in 90s gangster culture. The AWB made them a status symbol.

[slackmaster]

217. Guns can already be traced to their owners under the current system

Registration is a solution looking for a problem.

[cowman]

223. Please don't

let facts get in her way

[cabluedem]

260. What facts?

You have no idea what you think you know. What you really have are pre-conceived notions that fit into your mindset and that is all.

Fact is you will do, say or believe anything as long it fits YOUR facts, not mine.

[cabluedem]

234. Pure baloney! But you do spew it so well, dont you? NRA teaches you gun-folks well....

but its still hogwash.

[slackmaster]

240. You've made a couple of claims that can be tested

Regarding the bill under discussion in this thread:

The owner. If a gun owner has guns stolen this law would make sure that they reported the theft to police.

Prove it (I just re-read the bill and it does no such thing), and prove that guns can't be traced under the current system (which you obviously don't know much about).

[cowman]

246. Back to the insults again

Respectfully speaking of course