Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 5)

Ok, fair enough. I am not a Constitutional lawyer so by me making a statement instead of opinion was me talking out of my arse. 

I think what I I meant to say is that it is not in the powers the court to initiate the definition of what is are arm, they would only determine what was the "original intent" of framers when they wrote the 2A.  

Dude.. I'm right there with you... my arse talks a lot. Didn't mean to shoot you down, just explaining what I meant when I said what I said. I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer either, I just play one on the internet.

If I didn't live in Australia I would SOOOOOOO get this one!  I love it!

If I didn't have such an awesome girlfriend I think I would too.

Ah.

Were you talking about the gun,,, oh sure you were, my bad.

Well she sure is HAWT!  But no I was talking about the gun...

So in today's news Biden says:

"And I'm going to focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership and the type of weapons can be owned. And one is, there is a surprising -- so far -- a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just close the gun show loophole but total, universal background checks, including private sales."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-hints-outlawing-unregulated-private-gun-sales_695080.html

Universal background checks for private sales?  So my neighbor wants to buy my shotgun.  How does that happen?  And how do they prevent me from just selling it to him?

I'm guessing the same way they prevent me from buying a bag of weed.  That works well.

Now really?  So having you and your neighbor go to a local gun shop to legally sell your guns is too much to ask?  I understand it is an inconvienence, but I see nothing wrong with this if it makes the sale legal.

One thing that bothers me is the idea of Banning guns or more so, not allowing the transfer of guns at time of death.  I own no guns.  I really have no desire to own any guns.  But, my father-in-law makes leather goods (Holsters, ammo belts, etc).  Due to this profession, he has a ton of guns (needs them for templates, and he also competes in shooting competitions (or did when he was younger).  So needless to say, he has a very valuable gun collection.  I would consider this part of his estate.  I would hate to see my wife lose hundreds of thousands of dollars (some are rare) because these guns must be destroyed.  We should be able to legally acquire (even if that mean background check) and then sell them to others (again with a background check).  I would rather sell them to someone who I know has passed a check to release myself from the liability of selling the guns to them.

Ignoring the "is it right or wrong" issue. How do they enforce it?  If someone wants to buy a gun for nefarious purposes do you think they'll follow the law and go to a gun shop to transfer it?

You cannot control transactions between individuals.  I think that's been proven over and over with the war on drugs.

Seems reasonable enough.

How would the government even know what guns are out there?

It may seem paranoid on my part, but I see a series of seemingly reasonable steps that, overtime, will make it easier for those wanting an outright ban on guns to get it. 

I can respect that and you are at liberty to require whatever form of background check you feel comfortable with, but that does not justify making it illegal to sell a gun otherwise.

The only way you can enforce that is with a national registry... I mean you just simply can't enforce a private sale if you can't track a gun. Me personally... it would not bother me a bit. I mean I do not trade guns so no big deal. And obviously I do not want to sell to a prohibited person.

But a national registry is a problem. If the 2A is to provide for protection against a tyrannical government, and the tyrannical government has a list of names with all the guns... how is that supposed to work. Now you could repeal the 2A.. and say that one is allowed arms for self defense in the home... but that is another discussion.

Then of course there is that whole other thing of criminals choosing to opt out of that government program.

I'm not trying to argue for the other side here, but thought I'd mention how they do it in Nebraska.

Here, you cannot legally sell or even loan a handgun to anyone if they do not have a valid handgun purchase permit.  My wife just borrowed a gun from a friend of mine to go shooting with and she didn't have a purchase permit.  We went to the Sheriff, they did their background check, she paid the $5 and got her permit in about 20 minutes.  It's valid for three years.  Then my friend could legally lend (or sell) her the gun and he knows she has had a criminal background check.  No tracking, tracing or anything like that.

There's a fairly high profile case in Omaha right now of a Sheriff who loaned a gun to his mistress for protection, but she didn't have a permit.  He's arguing it in court right now.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the law or not, but I can say it's a very small inconvenience and cost.  The time is more than made up when purchasing handguns.  I just hand them my permit and walk away after filling out the sales form so honestly I kind of like it.  No waiting on background checks or anything like that.

In CA to legally transfer a gun you have to take it to a FFL and they do a background check on the gun and person during a 10 day waiting period just as if you were buying a new gun.

Those are pretty strict controls.  Do you have any idea what the murder rate is in Ca.?  I'm asking.....I don't know.  I'd be willing to bet it is just as high or higher than places with minimum gun control.

The problem I have with "universal background checks" is it provides the means for a national registry.

Right now if someone where to buy a gun from a gun store and go thru the background check the feds would have access to that record if they requested it from the gun store. They would know everything about the gun and the buyer. However, when they go to the gun owners home to confiscate the gun (like they did after Katrina for those who say it can't happen), currently the owner can say I sold it I no longer have it. And they have no way to know if the owner sold it or not as there is no tracking of a private sale.

However if they get universal background checks in then the owner has to create a paper trail when they sell it. So if they say they don't have it, they sold it, now they go to jail for illegal fire arm sale. So, if the feds come knocking, you either give them your gun or you go to jail for selling it without a record.

Easiest way to start and keep a national registry for future confiscation IMO.

I rounded these numbers.

California has about 37,700,000 peeps in it

Total murders 1,800 just under 5 per 100,000 Not sure but it seems a little high for the national avg.

Total with firearms 1,200 just over 3 per 100,000 seems pretty close to the national average.

In the big cities where people don't follow the rules it's high. I personally have no problem with the wait or background check. I don't think it infringes on my 2A or ability to defend myself.

Yet another reason I'll never live in CA.  For being the "wild west" they have some of the most controlling laws (of all sorts) in the country.

That is all well and good, until this happens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4

If you watch the video it's higher population more crime and we have a lot of densely populated areas. This is not to prove a point just pointing out facts like in the video.

Agree.....I was just curious what the numbers were.  The thing is, we have REALLY good data on deaths in this country.  And the UCR report on crime is done with a great deal of diligence, so the numbers are good there too. 

As the debate over gun control goes on, it's good to have these numbers......because the gun control crowd will play to emotion constantly.....it's really all they have.  There is no data that backs up their call for more gun control.....in fact, all of the hard data, and the trend in armed criminal acts, shows just the opposite of what the gun control crowd wants people to believe.

The entire country had pretty strict gun-control laws in the early 90's....and the majority of states did not allow CCW as well. Now almost every state allows CCW, gun-control laws have been loosened everywhere compared to what it was, and we have nearly 50% fewer homicides and violent crimes, with the number of these crimes dropping every year.  This is not emotion, this is a fact.

We need to help fix the problem that causes violence and so far we (the right) haven’t done much to help it. So far all we do is complain about what the left is trying to do and saying it won't work or will cause higher taxes. If we really want a better country along with our rights like the 2A both sides need to come together to find something that will be a starting point to help the social issues that contribute to violent crime.

I was just pulling the data together for the state. I did see the video, actually I've watched it a couple of times.

Maybe, instead of of a magazine size we should limit the number of people in cities?