Registration

[JSH1]

Not really. Once a legal firearm moves into the black market (usually through theft) there is no way to track who has it. To think otherwise suggests that you actually expect criminals and other <i>prohibited persons</i> to go through background checks and to register their illegally held weapons.

I didn't say criminals would register their guns. I said a register would show the transition from legal to illegal. It would show who legally owned that weapon last. Some guns make that transition by thief but many are through sales by people knowingly or unknowingly selling to a prohibited person. There is a survey where criminals get there guns that people like to post when the subject of gun shows comes up. Theft is on that list but it is not the majority.

The sole purpose of background checks of private transfers (mandated to be made through Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers to insure hard-copy records are kept); and registration is to provide the government with the means to impose ever-stronger rules and regulations over firearms ownership, and in the extreme has led to confiscation.

The purpose of background checks is to prevent dealers from selling to prohibited people. Plenty of FFLs have been prosecuted for such sales using their own sales records.

 

[vamo]

I'm willing to admit that background check and registration might start out with the noble purpose of keeping criminals from getting guns. I just don't trust every future incarnation of our government from using it that way.

 

[smalls]

. Registration and universal background checks would show when a gun moves from the legal world to the black market and help prosecute those people that provide guns into the black market and the hands of criminals. So yes, I support registration and universal background checks. The very real benefits to law enforcement outweigh the tiny risk of confiscation.

Tiny risk? Brother it's already happening!

 

[JSH1]

You're a smart person as evidenced by your posts; how can you logically separate the inclination to regulate/ban from the inclinatation to register? You've mentioned the alleged benefits to LEOs on numerous BGC threads, and yet we have plenty of LE professionals on the board here who state it's at best a tenuous secondary aid to investigators after the fact. There are also numerous tangible threats posed by registration that have been exploited against people historically and recently(registration followed by a ban). Just curious; why you continue to maintain such a conflicted argument?

I don't see a conflict in separating background checks and bans into two separate issues. As I stated earlier, registration is not required to ban something. Heck, we banned possession of a plant that grows wild in the USA decades ago!

Gun traces are valuable to law enforcement, very few argue that they have no use. Instead we argue about how useful they are and weigh that against the specter of a registry being used to collect guns after a ban sometime in the future.

 

[Al Thompson]

I said a register would show the transition from legal to illegal.

You are aware that few firearms recovered at crime scenes are actually traced, right? They probably get run on a NICS check, but that's about it. I work at one of the biggest and oldest LGSs in the state and we get, perhaps, one trace per quarter.

Your "registry" would fall flat on it's face unless private sales are outlawed. Even then, like California and Canada, plenty of bad guys will get firearms and lots and lots of us will not comply.

Bad idea.

 

[basicblur]

How 'bout that Canadian registration scheme?
How many crimes did that solve?
How many crimes did it prevent?
How much did it end up costing?

In short, how'd that work out for them?

Those that don't learn from history...

 

[itsa pain]

I have a question for you all...at the same time though, I think that I already know your answers. So I ask of you to please bare with me, because I'm about to, 'split a hair'.

Does any one of you support firearms registration? (of any kind). Having said that, I'm having trouble trying to expand on this question, so I will leave it at that. In addition, I do not mean to offend, but I'm fairly confident that most answers to this question will surprise.

I hereby look forward to your many answers, and after that, I will let the 'Cat out of the Bag'.

Thank you all in advance, and God Bless.

Why would you want to start a thread like this just to inflame everyone? Do you get off on it? I guess your name is a clue

 

[hso]

Registration was tried in Canada. They're abandoning it because it did not produce the return on the investment (both money and time and citizens).

It isn't that you might be able to catch one or two or dozens of transfers of firearms from legal private hands to illegal, but that it has no beneficial impact on violent crime rates. Single or small to the point of being statistically immeasurable results don't make creating a bureaucracy and incurring the expense while putting a criminal liability on the citizenry defensible.

Without registration we've achieved a dropping violent crime rate lower than we've had in the past 20+ years that continues to fall. That makes adding a proven to have failed to help reduce violent crime program irrational unless you're approaching it as an article of faith instead of searching for proven results producing programs.

 

[Schutzen]

Registration and universal background checks would show when a gun moves from the legal world to the black market and help prosecute those people that provide guns into the black market and the hands of criminals. So yes, I support registration and universal background checks. The very real benefits to law enforcement outweigh the tiny risk of confiscation.

A very good pipe dream. The justice system is not interested in reducing illegal arms trafficking. I know they all say they are, but the facts tell a different story. All FFL's are required to perform some type of background check on gun byers before the sale. To do this they call the FBI NICS Office, give them a password, and a check is performed. This is people control. Now if they were interested in reducing the trafficking of illegal or stolen guns, you would think a FFL could call in to the same or a similar system to determine if a firearm had been reported stolen. This would be simple and easy, right? NO, a FFL has to contact the local police and have the police query the NCIC computers do determine if a firearm is stolen. I wonder how popular a FFL is after he calls 10-50 times a month the check if a firearm for trade is stolen? The system tells the truth, it is all about people control and not about stopping crime.

 

[Black Knight]

Historically registration has lead to confiscation. Hitler loved registration so much that he registered not only firearms but people as well. We all know how that went. Pol Pot in Cambodia did the same. Why should we do the same? Why should we trust anyone who starts walking in that direction? My father fought in WWII against Hitler and he would expect me to do no less for an American version.

 

[Pointshoot]

JSH1: "And I think you're missing the larger point that registration is a necessary step on the way to a ban. You cannot enforce a ban of a common once legal item without registration.
A registry is not required to ban an item but one would be required to allow current owners to keep their weapons and only ban new production.

Take semi automatic weapons as an example. If semi autos were banned anyone found in possession of a semi automatic weapon after the implementation date would be arrested. Some would turn in their weapons and others would not. "

This post is so ridiculous as it hardly deserves a reply. So, how would a gun ban be enforced if there was no record of their existence ?
Do you work for poverty law center ? When did you move to the South from NYC ?

 

[BSA1]

Hummm. 60 posts and no cat out of the bag.

Time to kill the cat and throw away the bag.

 

[Walkalong]

A registry is not required to ban an item but one would be required to allow current owners to keep their weapons and only ban new production.

To believe the antis would "allow" guns already owned and only ban new production is ludicrous. And why in the world should we put ourselves in the position of having to depend on them to "allow" it as if we were not free.

I doubt there is a cat to let loose, but only age old arguments.

 

[drcook]

I see the mention of the Canadian registry. Ask the Canadians how they liked it when the Mounties went house to house confiscating firearms during that natural disaster that occurred in Alberta. They used the registry to be able to target each house.

 

[Resist Evil]

This thread was completed at post #2. All arguments for registration are without merit.

There are much more dangerous things that should be registered as dangerous to a decent society than firearms.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm surprised that there is even one member of this forum that would openly advocate registration. The rose-tinted theories are all well and good, but here we are in the fight of our lives to keep our guns. It's really become quite simple -- either you're for gun ownership, or you're against it. There is no middle ground, there are no half-measures, and there are no "good" guns and "bad" guns. We all stand together, or we fall together.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I'm surprised that there is even one member of this forum that would openly advocate registration.

Not everyone here is of like mind. We even have avowed anti-gunners registered here.

As long as they behave and not troll, they may stay.

 

[we are not amused]

I'm surprised that there is even one member of this forum that would openly advocate registration. The rose-tinted theories are all well and good, but here we are in the fight of our lives to keep our guns. It's really become quite simple -- either you're for gun ownership, or you're against it. There is no middle ground, there are no half-measures, and there are no "good" guns and "bad" guns. We all stand together, or we fall together.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised.

There are a great many gun owners who legitimately feel that they should be able to have the guns they want, but no one else should. That the "Right" to posses firearms is no more than a privilege, to be handed out or denied at the whim of our Progressive Lords and Masters. And there are actually quite a few on this forum, after all, it is a free world and everyone has the right to be stupid, unfortunately.

So not only NO! But HE!! NO!

 

[Old Fuff]

I didn't say criminals would register their guns. I said a register would show the transition from legal to illegal. It would show who legally owned that weapon last. Some guns make that transition by thief but many are through sales by people knowingly or unknowingly selling to a prohibited person. There is a survey where criminals get there guns that people like to post when the subject of gun shows comes up. Theft is on that list but it is not the majority.

Ah… Can you provide us with a link to this survey?

Some guns make that transition by thief but many are through sales by people knowingly or unknowingly selling to a prohibited person.

John Goodguy sells a gun to Bill Badguy, not knowing that Bill is a prohibited person. No one knows about this until Bill is caught and the firearm found. At this point Mr. Badguy can be sent up the river simply because he is a prohibited person and was found to have a gun. Who previously owned the gun is a moot point. The problem is that it's unlikely anyone will bother to nail Bill on a gun charge if they can get him on something more serious.

The purpose of background checks is to prevent dealers from selling to prohibited people. Plenty of FFLs have been prosecuted for such sales using their own sales records.

While they’re crooks in every profession and trade, it would seem strange that gun dealers are making illegal sales in great numbers, under circumstances where they will be likely caught through their own records.

Again can you provide us to a link that covers this situation? The word “plenty” is very vague, and in this case unsupported.

 

[itsa pain]

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised.

There are a great many gun owners who legitimately feel that they should be able to have the guns they want, but no one else should. That the "Right" to posses firearms is no more than a privilege, to be handed out or denied at the whim of our Progressive Lords and Masters. And there are actually quite a few on this forum, after all, it is a free world and everyone has the right to be stupid, unfortunately.

So not only NO! But HE!! NO!

Yes and I think a lot of that comes from guys with carry permits who think they are secret agents for the BATF or cops. One guy said he would never sell any gun to a guy that did not have a carry permit which is really a privilege not a right to be decided on by our overlords like you said

 

[silicosys4]

I suggest this link. Its a regional study on the origin of "crime guns" in maryland through legitimate sources.
To make a long story short, it appears to be pretty easy to discern who is buying guns that have a very good chance of ending at a crime scene based on what guns are sold, how many of them are sold, and *ahem* the buyers race.


https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf

It seems to be there are a lot of glaring facts that the current administration would rather deny in favor of a universal registration scheme.
I feel that shows ulterior motives by those championing the registration thing, and a lack of integrity in skirting the facts.

 

[Dain Bramage]

I don't think the OP has a Bazinga! coming. At least not one profound or compelling.

Yes, I like The Big Bang Theory.

 

[happygeek]

Well the OP was right, some of the answers did surprise us. People are shocked that someone on here would support registration.

I'll agree, in theory it sounds nice. I'm not really the tin foil hat type, heck I'm registered with the ATF. The thing is, based on my armchair observation of England, Canada, and several states and cites here, a registry really doesn't accomplish anything towards lowering the homicide and violent crime rate. What it does do is add to the financial cost, time, and hassle involved in legally buying & owning a gun (strangely, every gun control scheme I've ever seen does this) while also costing the government time & money to maintain said registry. It also sets up a mechanism to ban guns in the future England style.

On a sidenote, it kinda baffles me why people continue to ponder what a registry might do. We've seen with England, Canada, and numerous states and localities here what a registration scheme has done.

 

[blarby]

Since all of the awesome, logical, as well as novel answers have mostly been given;

I'll just go with "No".

Like registrations ? I don't. Of ANY type.

I'm not a big fan of "official" lists. People, or objects.

They've never served an overwhelming benefit to anyone on them.

 

[kwguy]

Registration will do way more harm than 'good'. In fact, I really don't see any good. Didn't someone once say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? At some point, the 'theories' as to why registration is good has to be weighed against the actual history of it.

Registration will lead to an infringement of 2a freedom. That's what has always happened historically.

Criminals will always get firearms for their illegal activities. Registration or not.

Theories are only valid until disproven by observed fact.

A tiny 'benefit', even if it actually existed, is still not worth giving up our freedom or rights.

Comparisons to other countries don't matter, because the U.S. is not another country. I don't care what England, Canada, North Korea, or Japan does. I actually wish they would slide toward what the U.S. does in regards to firearms.

So, my answer is no.