Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders

Quote from Dr. J : It would be interesting to see what % of gun owners are members of the NRA. I'd guess it's low. Politicians make the mistake of subconsciously assuming that the NRA represents all owners, and all owners are members (or supporters) of the NRA. thus the NRA becomes the main target of pols in the gun issue. This is why Clinton warned the Dems to not fark with guns because the vast majority of gun owners may not be card carrying members of the NRA, and may not agree with their tactics, but will support their arms rights at the polls.

We went from 41% of households owning guns five years ago to 50%. I wasnt an NRA member until a couple of months ago and am one now.

I am a registered Democrat and anyone who looks at my posts from 6 months ago will see that.

I don't own an AR-15 but since I know a half dozen law enforcement owners who own them personally (not their department's but their personal use) in a state where average citizens are forbidden, I understand why people own them.

The mayors against gun violence are typical politicians. They have failed their constituents in doing anything about the actual causes of crime, many are soft on crime because it is populist to be soft on crime in their areas, and they are looking to do what any politician will do if they can: scapegoat and divert.

Who is the easiest target? legal gun owners, even though all the data show that legal gun owners cause lower crime rates.

Th reason why people right, center and even left are joing the NRA in record droves is that when the new controls don't work, the focus will not go where it belongs, on criminals and soft treatment of crime, but back again on legal gun owners for even more controls.

I think Obama and the dems are making a big mistake. Big. the emotional and shrill scapegoating, and the deliberate ignoring of the facts and studies is going to cost.

Quote from aero : Except your statements are based on feelings derived from false claims and no facts.

No, it is based on what I read here and other places.

Are you not opposed to UBGC?

Quote : The government experts say UBC wont work.

Others say it will.

Quote : As far as liability you have to exclude criminal acts, all established law says no insurance for criminal acts, (ie if your house runs down you are covered, if you burn it down there is none).

You're insured for criminal acts committed by others, if not by you.

Quote : Almost everyone is already covered on their umbrellas for negligence. That just leaves a donut in some policies for claims from self defense use. The NRA offers that insurance already for free so you are going to end up with the 50% of households who own guns joining the NRA, which is great!

Red herring. You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it.

Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC.

I advocate laws which would make you liable for both.

I'm guessing you'd oppose such laws which would hold you responsible for dangerous transfer of your guns.

Quote from 124nic8 : You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it. Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC. I advocate laws which would make you liable for both. I'm guessing you'd oppose such laws which would hold you responsible for dangerous transfer of your guns.

Wait, you want to make the prior owner of an object responsible for the actions of it's current owner?

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : Wait, you want to make the prior owner of an object responsible for the actions of it's current owner?

If you transfer w/o a BGC....

IOW, you better be sure if you skip the check.

Quote from 124nic8 : Others say it will.

BGC doesn't work. Why would UBGC work any better?

Quote from 124nic8 : Red herring. You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it.

That depends on the state. The real problem with this is "I didn't know it was stolen."

Quote from 124nic8 : Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC.

You are if you know that person is a criminal. And considering the large number of criminals who get firearms from friends/family, one might look at why these people aren't deterred. Then one might remember that the ATF thinks its more fun to help known straw buyers obtain firearms so that we can study their use and link to crime and regional movements, or some crap like that. Good thing we have our priorities straight.

Quote from msummers80 : BGC doesn't work. Why would UBGC work any better?

1M people were stopped from buying a gun [fbi.gov] due to BGC, including 586K convicted criminals:

Quote from FBI : 1 Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years 586,115 58.22%

Are you seriously claiming that is "not working"?

Quote : That depends on the state. The real problem with this is "I didn't know it was stolen."

Not a problem at all. If you're not keeping any better track of your guns than that, you're negligent.

Quote : You are if you know that person is a criminal. And considering the large number of criminals who get firearms from friends/family, one might look at why these people aren't deterred. Then one might remember that the ATF thinks its more fun to help known straw buyers obtain firearms so that we can study their use and link to crime and regional movements, or some crap like that. Good thing we have our priorities straight.

Or are good enough of a liar to pretend that they don't. The UBGC requirement would close that loophole. No more willfull ignorance.

Quote from 124nic8 : Not a problem at all. If you're not keeping any better track of your guns than that, you're negligent.

Many people have guns that are in effect in long term storage. These are guns that perhaps they inherited. When a relative of mine passed away we cleaned out her home. Among the things discovered were an old vial of mercury from the days when it was relatively easy to come by and two small caliber handguns that belonged to her husband who passed away about 5 years prior. So what are the odds that, if robbed, she would have had any idea that those guns were missing? Contrary to what you are implying, many people can go for a while without checking on their guns.

Quote from 124nic8 : 1M people were stopped from buying a gun [fbi.gov] due to BGC, including 586K convicted criminals: Are you seriously claiming that is "not working"?

Yes. Those numbers don't tell us how many criminals acquired firearms in the same period. What would be particularly interesting to me is how many of them picked up a firearm after being denied, and through what channels. And as I have said before, why shouldn't felons who have served there time have firearms? If we can't trust someone with one, they shouldn't be trusted out on the streets at all. But that is probably another discussion.

Quote from 124nic8 : Not a problem at all. If you're not keeping any better track of your guns than that, you're negligent.

So now everyone has to inventory his property every night? Once a week? How often?
And even if I do, and report it stolen, what does that gain anyone? It is already in the hands of a criminal. Number of problems this solves: 0.

Quote from 124nic8 : Or are good enough of a liar to pretend that they don't. The UBGC requirement would close that loophole. No more willfull ignorance.

That isn't a loophole. It is willfully immoral (or moral in some cases) and certainly illegal in any case. Criminals are prone to lie about anything and everything. It is silly to think you are suddenly going to keep them honest. You are just trading one lie "I didn't know he was a criminal" for another "I'd like to report a stolen pistol." Number of problems this solves: 0.

Both of your ideas seem to create more "loopholes." (Using loopholes the way you seem to use it here, not the way historically defined)

Quote from ZeeDuck : Many people have guns that are in effect in long term storage. These are guns that perhaps they inherited. When a relative of mine passed away we cleaned out her home. Among the things discovered were an old vial of mercury from the days when it was relatively easy to come by and two small caliber handguns that belonged to her husband who passed away about 5 years prior. So what are the odds that, if robbed, she would have had any idea that those guns were missing? Contrary to what you are implying, many people can go for a while without checking on their guns.

And if they can't keep track of the their guns, they should get rid of them.

If they end up arming criminals, I want them held responsible for their negligence.

Quote from msummers80 : Yes. Those numbers don't tell us how many criminals acquired firearms in the same period. What would be particularly interesting to me is how many of them picked up a firearm after being denied, and through what channels. And as I have said before, why shouldn't felons who have served there time have firearms? If we can't trust someone with one, they shouldn't be trusted out on the streets at all. But that is probably another discussion.

Even if only 10% stopped after being denied, that's still 100K who did not get a weapon.

Hardly "not working." At least it presents additional hoops, which could and should be increased.

Quote : So now everyone has to inventory his property every night? Once a week? How often? And even if I do, and report it stolen, what does that gain anyone? It is already in the hands of a criminal. Number of problems this solves: 0.

Usually people know when their house has been burgled. What you're citing is a very small percentage.

If you repeatedly report a weapon "stolen," you're going to raise suspicions and should be investigated for straw buying.

Quote : That isn't a loophole. It is willfully immoral (or moral in some cases) and certainly illegal in any case. Criminals are prone to lie about anything and everything. It is silly to think you are suddenly going to keep them honest. You are just trading one lie "I didn't know he was a criminal" for another "I'd like to report a stolen pistol." Number of problems this solves: 0. Both of your ideas seem to create more "loopholes." (Using loopholes the way you seem to use it here, not the way historically defined)

It's currently not illegal to be ignorant of your customer's criminal status. UBGC would close that loophole.

Quote from 124nic8 : Even if only 10% stopped after being denied, that's still 100K who did not get a weapon. Hardly "not working." At least it presents additional hoops, which could and should be increased.

What makes you think that 10% wanted to commit a crime, anyway? Perhaps they needed to protect themselves as any human might.

Could and should? To what end? At what expense? I could design a perfectly "safe" and "legal" society if you give me enough money. One that equally inconveniences everyone.

Quote from 124nic8 : Usually people know when their house has been burgled. What you're citing is a very small percentage.

Didn't you just make a point about a small percent still being something? Which is it? Do we care about small percents or not?

Quote from 124nic8 : If you repeatedly report a weapon "stolen," you're going to raise suspicions and should be investigated for straw buying.

Oh no, I don't repeatedly report. First it was me. Then it was my cousin. Then it was my uncle from the other side of the family. Then it was my gf this week. Next week it will be my barber. Next year it will be a crooked cop. The year after that, I hear the attorney general is going to start a program to prove some link, which means easy straw purchases for all.

Quote from 124nic8 : It's currently not illegal to be ignorant of your customer's criminal status. UBGC would close that loophole.

What is it a loophole in? What law? I know it isn't a loophole in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which wasn't meant to stop such things. I know it isn't a loophole in the Gun Control Act, because that prohibition is on possession by the person, not the manner of transaction or the seller. Could you please identify where this loophole you keep referencing exists?

Quote from msummers80 : What makes you think that 10% wanted to commit a crime, anyway? Perhaps they needed to protect themselves as any human might. Could and should? To what end? At what expense? I could design a perfectly "safe" and "legal" society if you give me enough money. One that equally inconveniences everyone.

Arguing that convicted criminals should be able to get guns is a different subject and puts you well outside of the mainstream.

Quote : Didn't you just make a point about a small percent still being something? Which is it? Do we care about small percents or not?

10% is not a "small percentage," compared to the number of people who are not aware they've been burgled IMO.

Quote : Oh no, I don't repeatedly report. First it was me. Then it was my cousin. Then it was my uncle from the other side of the family. Then it was my gf this week. Next week it will be my barber. Next year it will be a crooked cop. The year after that, I hear the attorney general is going to start a program to prove some link, which means easy straw purchases for all.

If you transfer your weapons to those people and don't report it stolen or get a BGC, you'd be inviolation of any UBGC law.

Quote : What is it a loophole in? What law? I know it isn't a loophole in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which wasn't meant to stop such things. I know it isn't a loophole in the Gun Control Act, because that prohibition is on possession by the person, not the manner of transaction or the seller. Could you please identify where this loophole you keep referencing exists?

That's cause UBGC is not the law yet. The "loophole" would be in the law that does not require BGC for all sales.

Quote from 124nic8 : And if they can't keep track of the their guns, they should get rid of them. If they end up arming criminals, I want them held responsible for their negligence.

Which suggests that you are not in touch with the way MANY people are actually living. These guns are likely rarely stolen but since they are rarely used, they could go months without people realizing they are gone. That is reality even if you don't like it. Do you really think prosecuting them is going to do any good? BTW, odds are very good they don't know the SN to their guns so have fun tracing them.

Quote from ZeeDuck : Which suggests that you are not in touch with the way MANY people are actually living. These guns are likely rarely stolen but since they are rarely used, they could go months without people realizing they are gone. That is reality even if you don't like it. Do you really think prosecuting them is going to do any good? BTW, odds are very good they don't know the SN to their guns so have fun tracing them.

How many peoples' houses do you think are burgled w/o them knowing about it?

If these people are not using their guns, not even for potential protection, they could and should get rid of them. Unless they've been rendered non-functional.