Mock

Actually its a federal form HotD.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61426/download

That form only applies to handguns. As much as I hate extra paperwork it might be worth looking at using it on all firearms. Long gun as well as handguns. Hell, the extra revenue spent on stamps might even keep the USPS in business. Hahaha

Just so you know, you people have ruined me ! I didn't realize it until 15 minutes ago. You Fuckers You ! OK, here's the story. I was reading a short letter a friend had posted about what happened after gun buy backs in Australia and in the past I would have just cheer and reposted it. But not now, NOOOOooooo . Now I had to do the fact checking to see if the numbers were right, when the letter was written, to see if it was even real and double check everything before I reposted it. Then I end up correcting my friends post and look like a anti gun guy in doing so. Holy Joseph fucking Mary what have you people done to me?????

Here is the letter in question. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

(10-28-2015, 09:00 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]That form only applies to handguns. As much as I hate extra paperwork it might be worth looking at using it on all firearms. Long gun as well as handguns. Hell, the extra revenue spent on stamps might even keep the USPS in business. Hahaha

Yeah, it makes more sense to me that multi-sell reporting encompass all types of guns too. Having it apply only to handguns is kinda like the background check requirement applying to only licensed dealers.

Currently, I think that multi-sell reporting for rifles, along with handguns, is currently required in only a few states.

One thing that I would be a little concerned about if the Lyons' ordinance was replicated in other problem areas is potential LE overreach. Gun shop workers should follow all of the screening laws, deny purchases to suspected straw buyers, notify LE... No problem there. But, gun shop workers shouldn't be expected to have the skills of behavioral analysts or human lie detectors. I wouldn't want to see prosecutors go after gun shops when their workers sold to smooth straw purchasers where there were no visible clues that the sells were not on the up-and-up. In such cases, the straw purchasers should be prosecuted, but not the gun shops. Hopefully, that type of attempted overreach wouldn't happen.

(10-29-2015, 12:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that I would be a little concerned about if the Lyons' ordinance was replicated in other problem areas is potential LE overreach. Gun shop workers should follow all of the screening laws, deny purchases to suspected straw buyers, notify LE... No problem there.

I wouldn't want to see prosecutors go after gun shops when their workers sold to smooth straw purchasers where there were no visible clues that the sells were not on the up-and-up.

And this presents an opportunity for the Feds to develop procedures, similar to combating racial profiling, when it comes to firearm sellers and their employees.

Additionally, if a firearm is recovered at the scene or during the investigation of a crime AND the weapon is in the possession of someone other than the original buyer . . . the pressure should rightfully be placed on the ORIGINAL purchaser to disclose reason for the transfer and the steps taken to vet the sale.

Stop the sales to "legitimate" criminals and the subsequent transfer to "end-user" thugs.

(10-29-2015, 12:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2015, 09:00 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]That form only applies to handguns. As much as I hate extra paperwork it might be worth looking at using it on all firearms. Long gun as well as handguns. Hell, the extra revenue spent on stamps might even keep the USPS in business. Hahaha

Yeah, it makes more sense to me that multi-sell reporting encompass all types of guns too. Having it apply only to handguns is kinda like the background check requirement applying to only licensed dealers.

Currently, I think that multi-sell reporting for rifles, along with handguns, is currently required in only a few states.

One thing that I would be a little concerned about if the Lyons' ordinance was replicated in other problem areas is potential LE overreach. Gun shop workers should follow all of the screening laws, deny purchases to suspected straw buyers, notify LE... No problem there. But, gun shop workers shouldn't be expected to have the skills of behavioral analysts or human lie detectors. I wouldn't want to see prosecutors go after gun shops when their workers sold to smooth straw purchasers where there were no visible clues that the sells were not on the up-and-up. In such cases, the straw purchasers should be prosecuted, but not the gun shops. Hopefully, that type of attempted overreach wouldn't happen.

I agree. I also question weather or not the straw buyers definition would include family members gifting to other family. Lets just say that Little Johnnies dad wants to buy Little Jonnie a 22 rifle as a Christmas gift. Would that be considered a straw purchase? As it is a minor can not purchase a firearm, but they can own one if gifted to them. I fear that would change depending on the definition of straw purchase.

Yep, makes good sense Tiki.

Though I do believe there should be more pressure on gun owners to keep track of their firearms and report them stolen immediately too.

On a related note, I read this article about a bill proposing to tax gun sells at $100 a pop in order to help pay for gun safety/control measures, and fine gun owners $10,000 for not reporting stolen firearms within 48 hours. The bill is headed to Congress, with essentially no chance of being passed into law (according to Forbes).

article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillip...-reported/

(10-29-2015, 01:16 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. I also question weather or not the straw buyers definition would include family members gifting to other family. Lets just say that Little Johnnies dad wants to buy Little Jonnie a 22 rifle as a Christmas gift. Would that be considered a straw purchase? As it is a minor can not purchase a firearm, but they can own one if gifted to them. I fear that would change depending on the definition of straw purchase.

I actually think dad should probably be considered criminally liable, under straw purchasing or negligence statutes, if he gifts little Johnnie a gun that little Johnnie couldn't have purchased on his own and little Johnnie uses it to commit a crime.

Of course, little Johnnie would be criminally liable too.

$100 a piece tax/transfer fee/what ever they want to call it would kill the gun industry. There are many inexpensive guns out there in the 150-200 range. Taxing them almost as much as it cost to buy it would be way overboard in my eyes.
The stolen gun notification 48 hour period is fine though. However it presents a issue of it own. People don't look at every gun they own daily , so how would they know if and/or when one gets stolen. I have some that I haven't seen in a couple years around here. I know they are still here but I don't use them often enough top visually verify there presence here.

(10-29-2015, 01:33 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2015, 01:16 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. I also question weather or not the straw buyers definition would include family members gifting to other family. Lets just say that Little Johnnies dad wants to buy Little Jonnie a 22 rifle as a Christmas gift. Would that be considered a straw purchase? As it is a minor can not purchase a firearm, but they can own one if gifted to them. I fear that would change depending on the definition of straw purchase.

I actually think dad should probably be considered criminally liable, under straw purchasing or negligence statutes, if he gifts little Johnnie a gun that little Johnnie couldn't have purchased on his own and little Johnnie uses it to commit a crime.

Of course, Johnnie would be criminally liable too.

Negligence , possibly. Stray buyer, no. It is legal to buy and gift a gun to a minor child. Well, that is as the law is written now.

Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the law as it's written now, if it included criminal liability for the parent if he/she doesn't supervise the gun use and doesn't lock it up (and it gets used in a crime or injury/death).

Regarding keeping track of guns and reporting them stolen expeditiously, I think part of being a responsible gun owner is always keeping track of your own guns, no matter how many you choose to possess.

"intent" goes a long way in court sometimes.

(10-29-2015, 01:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding keeping track of guns and reporting them stolen expeditiously, I think part of being a responsible gun owner is always keeping track of your own guns, no matter how many you choose to possess.

I see that as a round about/back door way of making gun owners buy/own fewer guns.
Now that would change if we go back to a previous discussion we had about subsidizing safes. If we had our guns in a safe it would be much easier when we own as many as I and others do to tell if one turns up missing.
But that statement will bring us back to the old, if you cant afford a safe sell a few guns and buy one and I really don't want to chase our own tails again.

I disagree, F.U.

Whether you have a safe or not, you should absolutely be expected to know whether or not all of your guns are in your possession.

I think that's a no-brainer in terms of responsible gun ownership.

Your contention that you (and other people who choose to own way more arms than the average gun-owner) should be exempt from responsibility for each and every one of them makes no sense to me.

I am not saying we are exempt. What I am saying is that a law like that would make some people say its not worth the hassle and they might not own as many weapons. That's why I say its a back door way into reducing gun ownership.
A gun collector is no different than any other collector. We don't look at our collection daily, weekly or sometimes even yearly.

I understand F.U.

But, to me, if you own more guns than you can keep track of, then you have more guns than you should.

There's no back door, in my view. If it's too much of a hassle to be responsible for your own guns, you can continue to be irresponsible and hope no one gets a hold of one of them and uses it in a crime or to cause injury/death. Or, you can downscale and own as many as you can responsibly account for without making other changes to your current environment. Or, you can keep all of your guns and implement an efficient security and inventory system so that you can responsibly account for all of your guns at any given time.

And I understand what you are saying HotD. I can keep track of what I own, but I do not go through every case every day to make sure nothing is missing. Now if I should come home and find I have ben broken into I will check then and if something is missing I should know it. I would probably need to look back through my pics to verify what is missing but that I could do.

I can't post links from my phone but the L.A. City council voted (and passed) some legislation a couple of days ago regarding gun storage/safety.

Somebody be a dear and Google it for me. *kisses*

I found something from 5/aug/15, is this it user ? https://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics...un-storage


I think that was where it began. This one said it was voted on two days ago. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/10/2...hin-homes/

^ That's the one, F.U. It was just voted on by the L.A. City Council and approved.

Snip:
Handguns kept in Los Angeles residences must be locked up or disabled with a trigger lock when not within reach under a city law approved Tuesday by the City Council.

The law, which goes further than state regulations for gun storage, is aimed at curbing suicides and accidental shootings, said Los Angeles Councilman Paul Krekorian, who pushed for the ordinance.

The law will also keep guns safe during burglaries, said Krekorian, noting handguns are frequently swiped “because they’re so easy to get out onto the black market.”

California cities Sunnyvale and San Francisco have similar safe storage laws, said Allison Anderman, staff attorney with the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Massachusetts also requires safe storage, as do several cities and one county in New York state.

Safe storage laws aid in stopping “access to firearms by children in the home,” Anderman said, “which can prevent suicides, unintentional shootings or disturbed kids getting their parents’ guns and using them to harm others, like the Sandy Hook shooting.”

Full story: http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-...torage-law