Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL IX (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Registering with the government as a firearms..... (6+ / 0-)

    owner gives me heartburn. I am all for: limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, maybe even 8; distinguishing between illegal short-barrel rifles and handguns based on ability to fire high velocity ammo and not looks (less concealable); banning folding stocks and rear pistol grips on rifles and shotguns (less concealable); requiring all firearms transfers to go through an FFL; requiring all firearms be shipped from and to an FFL; limiting the number of firearms one can buy, sell, or otherwise transfer in a given period without an FFL; getting rid of the mo law that permits concealed carry in the passenger compartment of a car without a ccw; mandatory reporting for lost and stolen guns.  I don't see any of these infringing upon my 2d Amendment rights.  I think them democrats would have a better chance of getting this done if they had a someone in the House or Senate that knew guns and how to to talk about them.  Everytime a Pol refers to a magazine as a clip they discredit themselves.

    •  Though Honestly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In Illinois the FOID isn't a big deal other than being late on renewing them.  

      There's a lot of low hanging fruit before getting to registration though and I wouldn't start there.  

      •  Haven't seen you around here or the Royale for... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a bit.  Hope all's well.

        Illinois needs to bring FOID into the 21st, and rethink its purpose and whether the money could be put to better use.  FOID started in the 70's, to ensure that Illinois residents with criminal records could not purchase firearms and ammunition.  Residents of other states do not need a FOID card to purchase firearms and ammunition in Illinois.

        Currently it takes about 60 days after payment clears to obtain or renew FOID cards.  That's double the time the law mandates.  Illinois State Police are still performing the checks, and using 1970's technology to do it despite the fact that NICS instant background checks are required for firearms buyers at the point of purchase.  

        If your FOID card expires before you have the new one, you are committing a crime by merely possessing otherwise completely legal firearms.  Same thing for widows and survivors who do not have the card. Even giving them to someone to hold until your card is renewed is illegal.

        I don't think FOID was ever very well thought out, and now that it has become dated it provides a lot of leeway for people to bitch about gun control measures.

        •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

          However, the issue is the fee has also never been increased. If you increased it to $10 for the same number of years the State Police can wipe out the backlog pretty easily.  

          The usefulness issue really comes in another area now--when someone loses their ability to own guns, the sheriff or police get a message and they know to go to the house and collect the guns.  This is especially effective for orders of protection and domestic violence cases.

          The other area it does help is buying ammunition.  You have to display it to do so.  It's virtually painless to do and is a barrier to random dumbasses.

          So in Illinois, I'd argue it just needs to be fixed and a small fee increase could do it.  

          On purchasing the firearms it doesn't do  much anymore--I think most would agree to that.  

          All that said, most of the sheriffs are accepting application photocopies with the current backlog so outside of the suburbs it's not a huge issue.  However, they need to have it solved.

          We should grab a drink/non-drink soon.  I need to get out more.  

    •  i know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duckhunter, FogCityJohn

      although i do think you would get used to it, and after a while i think you wouldn't even worry about it, anymore. but i do like all of your ideas. i think they will help. the goal is to save lives and prevent injuries, and i think your ideas would help accomplish that. i also think some politicians do understand the issue in great detail, although probably not enough.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:23:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib
      I think them democrats would have a better chance of getting this done if they had a someone in the House or Senate that knew guns and how to to talk about them.  Everytime a Pol refers to a magazine as a clip they discredit themselves.
      So do you think only gun experts can have an opinion on gun control?  Because if that's the case, then I'd like to know what your legal qualifications are for talking about what constitutes something that's
      infringing upon [your] 2d Amendment rights.
      See, if you have to be a gun expert to talk about gun control, I think you should have to be a lawyer to be able to discuss constitutional interpretation.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:34:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know how you reached the conclusion that (0+ / 0-)

        I somehow believe non-experts should not have an opinion, or weigh in on the debate.  I don't think that at all.  What I think is that democrats lack someone who has a history of being involved in shooting sports, recognizes that there are very reasonable gun control measure to be taken, and can speak to gun owners based experience, in their language.  Maybe someone like me.

        People who participate in shooting sports are similar to people who sail in that they have specific terms for their equipment and that there are important reasons for using those terms correctly.  If someone is trying to sell me on placing controls on what I am now legally able to do they better sound like they know what the hell they are talking about.  We all know that the NRA's members don't share the organization's views on a variety of gun control measures.  These are would be buyers but we need a better salesperson.

        I am also entitled to have an opinion on what does and does not infringe upon my rights.  You haved edited my statement ala Fox.  What I said was:

        I don't see any of these infringing upon my 2d Amendment rights.
         My opinion; these measures are entirley reasonable limitations on my 2d Amendment rights.

        I am an attorney, but the only people "qualified" to determine when someone's constitutional rights are infringed on are the Supremes.  Everybody else just has an opinion, a non-binding one.

    •  The NRA objects to every one (3+ / 0-)

      of these common sense measures, especially limits on configuration of long guns and magazine capacity. The focus on definitions is one way the NRA lobby discredits gun safety advocates.  But I agree, electeds and activists should master the basic vocabulary. Universal registration is not part of the four bills that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. So take a Tums and relax!

      ....the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. FDR 1933

      by Tailspinterry on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:43:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site