shootingthebreeze said:
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
And exactly what do you believe such a private-party background check law would accomplish? As a lifelong shooting enthusiast and a career police officer, I'm telling you that most criminals acquire their guns illegally. Most are stolen, and the ones that aren't are still going to be sold illegally, irrespective of any law to the contrary.
Instead, such a law makes it very difficult to buy or sell guns even with good intentions. Colorado went that route this year, and it's a huge nuisance for gun owners. First, I have to find someone who is willing to transfer the the firearm (an FFL). Most aren't willing to do so because they don't want to have to deal with it… the issue as it was explained to me by a local FFL is that to complete this transaction they have to transfer the gun to the store's ownership, then run a background check on the other party, then transfer it to that person. But, if the person wanting to buy the gun fails the background check, the store then has to charge a background check fee to transfer the gun back to the original owner, and redo the paperwork to transfer the firearm again. While this rarely happens, many shops just don't see a reason to incorporate these transfers into their business model.
Beyond that, the parties wishing to exchange the gun still have to pay whatever transfer fee the FFL wants to require ($50+ in many cases), along with the state mandated background check fee ($10). So, suddenly buying a used .22lr for $100 isn't practical, as that gun now costs $160. That's not even to mention the fact that this ridiculously bureaucratic process has still done NOTHING to stop the illegal acts of violent criminals. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE.
As for your mention of registration, that's just a bad idea overall… whether you're talking of a "one time registration" or a "re-registration". Frankly, it's nobody's business to know what firearms I own. I recognize that you disagree with me on this point, but before you decide to dig your heels in for that argument, I'd challenge you to answer this one question:
What possible purpose does registration of firearms serve other than to facilitate the ability of some entity in a position of authority to someday take those firearms away from you?
Now, in considering that question, please also consider the actual purpose and scope of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and the reason that it was included in the Bill of Rights (hint: it isn't about hunting, recreational shooting, or any other similar activities. It isn't even about home defense).
I'm honestly not trying to pick on you here, and I can sympathize with your questions. At one point in my life (in my younger years) I was starting to believe that the "reasonable restrictions" group had it right. Then I later realized that those who are most loudly seeking "reasonable restrictions" aren't trying to be reasonable at all… they're mostly anti-gun activists who are trying very hard to rid our country of all guns, piece by piece, by taking just as much as they can possibly get at any one time.
Here's a scenario for you to consider in two different ways:
You buy an AR-15 from an acquaintance, which is arguably the most popular and commonly purchased rifle in America these days. Ownership of this firearm fits clearly within the definition that any reasonably scholar would see in the 2nd Amendment, and this ownership would also be supported by the "common use" explanation that was included within the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia.
Scenario 1:
You live in a state with no gun registration, and no person-to-person background check requirement. At some point in the future the government decides to outlaw your AR-15, which you legally purchased and never used for any unlawful purpose. This new law does not contain a grandfathering provision, and simply outlaws your firearm (this has happened in some states already). You decide to keep your rightfully owned property, in spite of the law. What happens? Nothing.
Scenario 2:
You live in a state with mandatory gun registration, and mandatory background checks for person-to-person sales. At some point in the future the government (Federal or state, your pick) decides to outlaw this firearm, which you legally purchased and never used in any unlawful way. You decide to keep your rightfully owned property. The state later serves you an official letter that essentially orders you to turn over this property, or face criminal charges. Since your gun is registered, there's no escaping this attempt to take your gun; you either turn it in, or lose your freedom.
Now, I'll admit that I have a great appreciation for the law-abiding people in this country (I'm in law enforcement, after all). So, I can understand if you might say "well, I wouldn't keep my gun if it was unlawful to do so". That's fine, and I'll leave that up to your personal discretion. But, assume that the above-mentioned scenario was playing out in a different time in our nation's future, with more severe political implications. Lets assume that this scenario is playing out at an unfortunate time in our future where our government has failed to serve its citizens properly, and has begun to usurp power well beyond the authority that our citizens ever intended to give it. Assume we've started to fall into the quagmire that Germany did in the 1930's, or any other country has just before a civil war. Now, imagine that you are at this critical point (perhaps only point in our nation's history where the 2nd Amendment has actually mattered), and you are about to be forcibly disarmed. This hypothetical (and seemingly far-fetched scenario under today's America) is probably one of the biggest arguments for avoiding gun registration, at least if you value the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Clearly our country isn't in that situation at the moment, but there's no guarantee that we won't possibly find ourselves in that situation at some point in the future.
Keep your rights intact, and don't let the anti-gun crowd convince you that we're making things safer by putting restrictions upon lawful gun owners.
EDITED TO ADD:
As for your concern about new laws constantly being introduced, I'd argue that the way to counter this trend is not through appeasement. Here in Colorado we recalled three sitting state senators who failed to protect our rights during the last legislative session. In this state's entire history there had not been even a single successful recall of a state lawmaker prior to 2013, and three legislators fell in that year alone (Giron, Morse, and Hudak), all due to their desire to restrict our gun rights. We didn't give them an inch, they still tried to take from us, and I think they'll think long and hard before they try this again. I also think there will be a wind of change sweeping through the state legislature during the next election cycle.