« Casualties by Richard Sale | Main | It's the "Sequester," stupid! »

02 January 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Minnerath

I find it frightening that so many here, gun owners and non gun owners alike, are so willing to hand over control of their lives to the State.

David J.

A week ago a NY newspaper in White Plains published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor.

I am having trouble thinking of anything more hypocritical than declaring that other people should not enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns, while defending yourself with guns.

Al Arabist

Well it's is a sign of great faith in the State. OR a sign that citizens feel their lives threatened by things not related to guns. Objectively, historically that can change, so I think faith is unwarranted. Every day I open my eyes to friends being killed by an arab state on the rampage against a population absolutely forbidden to hold guns. No, I'm not okay with state monopolies on violence.

Lars

Every time you leave your house, you turn over your life to the State. When you are home and if your house starts to burn, you turn over your life to the State. While you are asleep, the State makes sure your insurance company actually insures you.

This list is expandable.

Lars

If both family members are licensed to own the weapon in question, no more government action is needed.

scott s.

Contrary to other statements, the requirement for serial numbers (and other info) is imposed on licensed manufacturers and importers. There is no requirement for a person who is not in a "regular course of trade or business" to put a serial number or other mark on any firearm. Note that importation of firearm by any person generally requires a licensed importer and an ATF Form 6. Also note that importing handgun barrels by non-licensees is also regulated and must meet the "sporting purposes" test, and prohibition of assembling certain firearms from imported parts.

rick

I suppose there would be people who call themselves law abiding citizens, but make threats of violence over a legal bit of reporting, protected and enabled by the 1st Amendment. They would be pretty hypocritical.

Fred

I believe the paper only did that after a local blogger followed the paper's example of promoting publicly available (as in go down to the court house and look at files - in this case hundreds - one at a time) information showing where various employees of the paper lived. Shocking how promoting a list of records might get a similar response. The local police also reviewed an email the paper claimed was a 'threat' and decided that no, it in fact was not.

The Twisted Genius

Just read an open letter from Ted Nugent to Joe Biden offering his ideas and services to Biden's commission to end gun related violence. I hope old Joe takes up Ted's offer. I'd also like to see that commission study the history of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the effort to keep automatic weapons out of criminals' hands. It took 50 years for that effort to be settled in a way that seems satisfactory to all. The NFA didn't ban anything. It just made it very difficult and expensive to own an automatic weapon. However, today's acceptance and apparent success of the NFA may be due more to cultural and technological changes rather than any legislative magic. I'm not sure if a close study of the NFA would show that smart legislation is possible or if it would be ineffective. Either way, it would be worth the study.

Ted's letter:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/31/open-letter-to-joe-biden-on-guns/?page=all#pagebreak

Tigershark

Lars,

And if both are not licensed?

For example, a father dies and leaves his son 17 long guns and one handgun. The son then threatens people at the condo complex pool with the handgun. The SWAT team, police helicopter and mutual assistance arrive. They knock on the door. No answer. Maybe be passed out, drunk. No threat, so eventually they go home. (Did I mention that the gun owner is a raving drunk, has previously passed out and cracked his head open on the sidewalk, and hit and run with his car on a complex fence. Every morning he carefully throws his 24 beer can into the recycling and drives off to buy more beer.)

When a detective comes to follow up, the owner says he mailed the handgun to a friend. Doesn't have it anymore.

What do you do about a gun owner like that?

Herb

Reductio ad absurdum. Somehow, people other than the rich can afford homes and cars and the required insurance on these. But I'll play along, you might need to be rich to do so, but if you can afford a Keltec SU 22 (a $500 rifle), you can afford the insurance. Guns are not a cheap hobby.

nemerinys

Well, violent films and video games don't seem to provoke much violence in other developed nations. The problem lies within American culture.

turcopolier

Herb

Yes, I can afford to buy insurance in order to indulge my "hobby." I can afford a lot of things. That is confirmed to me every time my wife gives the money you all contribute to some charitable cause that she favors. But, can the two brothers who come in from Greene County to do yard work for me afford the insursance? They hunt to feed their families. pl

Frabjous

Not a house by house search, no, but rather a process over time whereby the law is enforced through normal law-enforcement and things like buy-backs and voluntary compliance.

Charles

If you are not familiar with his work, Sam Harris is a Philosopher, Neuroscientist, Atheist, and gun owner. I apologize if any find his views on religion offensive but his recent Blog post on this topic is very interesting and thought provoking:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

I no longer own or need guns as I live in a high rise condominium building. However, I am of the opinion that reasonable, law abiding citizens should have the right to do so.

People drive and people drink. When they do both, law enforcement steps in and restricts their right to do so. This would seem to require a law enforcement solution rather than a law making solution.

Regards,

turcopolier

frabjous

If you want an insurrection in this country outside the "fantasy islands" like NYC, just try it. pl

rick

Ok, here it is:
I think that a regulatory scheme for guns that is similar to the way we in NY regulate cars would be a good model. This is because vehicle regulations address the 3 things you can do with a car: you can BUY/SELL it(transfer ownership), you can OWN it, and you can USE it. The regulations mostly deal with USE, although sales of vehicles by dealers have a fair amount of regulation in terms of documenting and transferring ownership.

Casual sales or gifting of vehicles is basically unregulated in that way. There is no Lemon Law on a car you buy from your neighbor, and if he holds out on the paperwork, that’s between you and him and the courts.

While a number of the bans and restrictions that PL names would not upset me, I am not an idiot and I understand that there are politics to consider, and bans on possession would be problematic to enforce. This is why I do not actually advocate such things. If you read into this text that I do, go away; you can’t read, and what I am actually saying doesn’t matter to you, so don’t bother reading it, and don’t bother me with your drivel.

I think that states should record ownership with a title or similar ownership document. It would create a chain of ownership record, at least within the state, and make it much easier to track when a “legal gun” goes outside the system through theft or willful action by the owner. Documenting ownership has, in law, nothing to do with RESTRICTING ownership in any way. A 3 year old can OWN a vehicle in this state. The kid will have a hard time USING it, but if he can own it with no problem. Also, any NY’er can OWN a supertanker. Parking it outside your house or actually USING it in NY will be a trick and subject to other laws and regulations, but OWNERSHIP is not restricted, it’s just recorded.

I would also impose paperwork requirements on DEALERS similar to those for car sales, that is they must record the transfer of ownership, both who they get it from and where it goes, again helping to keep guns “legal” and track when they go outside the system. No gun starts its life as an “illegal” gun, and a more rigorous chain of ownership would be useful in that regard.

While a car dealer can sell a vehicle and ONLY transfer ownership(we call those Title-onlys), most transactions also involve the dealer getting the vehicle registered also, which goes to USE of the vehicle. This is where an insurance requirement at the time of sale would come in. A car only needs to be insured in NY if you want to USE it. If you are Seinfeld, and have a collection of vehicles, you need not actually register and insure them if they are just going to sit in a museum. Again, this requirement IN NO WAY ADRESSES OWNERSHIP. It addresses what you can do with the thing once you do own it. If a jurisdiction that issues permits has a requirement for insurance on firearms in order to obtain the permit, then it would be up to the dealer to collect proof that the requirement was met before delivering the item. If the customer lives someplace without such a requirement, or lives outside the state, then this requirement would obviously not apply, although it’s possible to require at least a temporary insurance document as an absolute condition for delivery. This would be different than cars, and may not fly, but hey, I am putting forward an idea here, not making law by myself.

Nothing I have proposed in any way effects anyone’s right to OWN anything and that seems to be the right that the Supremes upheld in DC. Possession can apparently be regulated in terms of USE(where you can carry etc), but you can’t say no guns in the city. Great. Never suggested any such thing. Ever.

Also, this proposal effects dealer sales. Dealers are in the business of buying and selling firearms, and states seem to have a pretty large ability to regulate commerce inside their borders. What this means is that it has no effect on weapons that are already out there and owned. Title could be done at the time of transfer, private or commercial, and the paperwork requirements for DEALER sales would not be applied to casual transfers. No kicking down doors, no confiscation, no paranoid fantasies of any sort. Sorry to disappoint.
------------------------------

I have a couple of other random thoughts and observations about some stuff in this thread, but i wrote this as a piece and wanted to post it the same way

Cheers

rick

As the person who first made the suggestion of liability insurance on firearms on this blog when Gabby Giffords got shot, let me address this.

Who cares? Not being ideological, I could give a feces who gets rich as long as the paperwork is correct and the insurance is in effect. Honestly, it's not NRA members who are the big risk pool, but there could also be an equvalent of MVIAC, which is the entitiy that pays out on uninsured accidents in NY, and which is funded by the insurance industry(I forget the precise mechanism, i think it's a surcharge, but it's been 15 years since i did that stuff). While the "financial security" aspects of the insurance requirement are the least important to me, as I stated candidly before, they are not without merit entirely.

So again, if the administrative hurdle that i want is there(would the NRA write a policy for a looney??) and the biproduct of getting innocent victims' bills paid was also accomplished, what do I care who makes money off the deal??

rick

If the NRA was concerned about the poor being unarmed, they would certainly be at liberty to provide them with insurance at no charge.

Tyler

The funny thing is if they gave the order for the "law enforcement process" to go ahead, who's going to enforce it? Many of the police are gun enthusiasts and enjoy shooting, hunting, etc, as a recreation. You think they're just going to blithely follow orders just because some muckety muck in a suit tells them to?

Then there are the military veterans, another group that enjoys firearms recreationally and isn't all about 'banning things that scare me'. You think law enforcement, many of whom are veterans like myself, are just going to round up their brothers in arms?

So you're basically turning your security apparatus into an insurgency. A recipe for civil war if I ever heard one.

Tyler

This is the same kind of farcical thinking that goes "Well who would build roads if it wasn't for the government!"

Someone would. We do not need a nanny in DC trying to pretend every part of the nation should be like New England. There's a huge difference between the nest of bureaucrats that rule the roost now and a local government of people who know each other. Stop being disingeneous with your sophistry.

Tyler

Let's go shout fire in a crowded theatre while we're at it.

rick

Are you trying to say that it is sometimes in the interest of society to somehow limit a right that is often asserted to be absolute and unfettered?? Really? Even if the people asserting that right have a big and well funded lobby?

rick

PL, did my long winded larger post not post? Edited for rambling or content? Pilot error?

elkern

The Ruger looks like a deer rifle. The Keltec looks like it's designed to kill people. The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook looks like the Keltec.

Of course we can't base legislation on what a gun "looks like". That's the problem with outlawing "assault weapons". But the obvious difference exemplifies the worst of what's happened to our society through my lifetime: the glorification of killing.

Hollywood bears huge responsibility for this (I'd gladly help string up Tarantino), but the gun manufacturers share the blame. They have consciously marketed military weapons for civilian use. They have contributed large amounts of cash to the NRA's campaign to fight against even the most sensible restrictions (who needs "cop-killer" armor-peircing bullets, except gang-bangers & "preppers"?).

I know I'm no expert on guns. I had hoped those of you who understand the technology better than I would propose some useful changes to help prevent more Sandy Hooks, but I've been disappointed so far. Smaller magazines are the only concession I've heard here so far, and that's something I brought up.

And no, "more guns" is NOT the answer to too many guns in the hands of too many crazy people. Frankly, anyone (particularly the NRA) who says it is just sounds crazy to the rest of us.


PS: Thx for the education on "magazine" vs "clip". Learn something new every day!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad