Skip to main content

which seems to be the issue being used to attempt to block universal background checks.

Let me note
1.  I am not and have no desire to be a gun owner
2.  I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms

That said, time is long overdue to get control of our gun problem.

What I believe is necessary is simple.

1. No one should be able to obtain a firearm, whether by purchase or gift, without a background check.
2.  All firearms should be registered in a national database.
3.  All owners shall be responsible for the location of ALL of their firearms at all times, and liable for how they are used, unless/until reported to the authorities as missing.
4.  Possession or transfer of an unregistered firearm, and/or failure to obtain clearance from a background check should be a felony.

There can be no exceptions to the requirement for a background check, or the system breaks down.

There needs to be an audit trail of the ownership of firearms in order for the system to be effective.

We are responsible for how our automobiles are used.  If my car is ticketed for illegal parking or is caught by a red light or speeding camera, as the registered owner I am responsible for the fines.  IF my car causes property damage, I am responsible for that damage unless I can show that the person operating the car at that time was not authorize to do so.

A responsible gun owner will secure her firearms, and be able to account for them.

Please note -  this is not the same as publishing a list of concealed carry permit holders - I will not explore that issue in this post.

It does not matter that some criminals will ignore the law.  When arrested for other offenses, we will have the ability to punish them more severely.   Laws against rape, burglary, possession of drugs, possession of burglary tools, murder, etc. do not prevent all such crimes but we have such laws because we make clear there are limits on behavior and actions to protect society.

If we are unwilling to have such reasonable controls on firearms, then we as a society are admitting that ownership of firearms is a higher value than the lives destroyed because we are not willing to have reasonable controls.  

This should not be negotiable.  Even Anthony Scalia has said that the 2nd Amendment neither guarantees access to any kind of firearm nor does it prohibit registration.

How many more mass shootings are we willing to risk?

Originally posted to teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:35 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please note what I do NOT address (25+ / 0-)

    I am not discussing what types of weapons should be legal

    I am not discussing making public the registries

    I am arguing that a background check system is not meaningful without an ability to account for weapons, to ensure that those obtaining weapons are undergoing the appropriate checks, which cannot work if we carve out loopholes, if we cannot have an audit trail of ownership of the firearm.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:33:52 AM PDT

    •  self-evident (3+ / 0-)

      i cant think of any actual, non-ridiculous reason not to require the registration of every gun purchases, whether through dealer or private sale. i cant think of any actual, non-ridiculous reason not to require a background check for every purchaser of a firearm, whether through dealer or private sale.

      the reasons are so self evident that i almost dont even know how its possible to have a discussion about either of these topics. its like arguing about whether or not people should breathe.

      •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2

        Because there are, some of whom hold high public office, who would love dearly to use that information to curtail gun ownership.  They also speak in terms of things being "self-evident," thus excusing themselves of any reason to justify their policies.  

        But bottom line, you're not getting a national registry, so the question is what do you want?  Are you more interested in actually ensuring every crime gun is traceable or are you more interested in grinding an axe?  You can't do both, not in this country.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you, but this won't happen. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Piren

      The gun owners go absolutely apeshit over registration. One person here on this site tried to suggest I am like the Taliban or Nazis for wanted gun registration and enforced responsibility.

      In lieu of that, the next best thing is to at least try to regulate the type of weapons that are being distributed widely. Of course, they don't want that either.

      If we would follow your plan, it really wouldn't matter what type of weapons people own.

      I only attach this to your tip jar because I am directly addressing what you say in the TJ.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:16:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The firearms that someone has stashed away (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Piren

        in a safe on their ranch in Montana post little risk to the general public. While it's technically true that any gun can be used to kill someone, it's not practical reality.

        It's much harder to take any long gun somewhere without being noticed, than it is to take a backpack full ammo and a handgun.

        National registration is not going to happen. States will have to lead on that, if they want registration. Some states might decide regional cooperation is the way to go, eg. CT, NY, NJ can cooperate regionally.

        When firearms change hands is the likely place of enforcement for any new laws. Requiring universal background checks, that must go through a FFL, means that current lawful gun owners who keep their guns secured are not inconvenienced. But if they want to take a firearm anywhere in public, including in their vehicle, then they should be able to show they passed a background check.

        And when they want to sell, lend, or gift their firearm the recipient must be screened and the transfer must be recorded by the FFL.

        To ensure compliance, FFL records must be subject to random inspection and audit.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:03:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re (0+ / 0-)

          No deal.  Get a warrant, then we'll talk.

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:54:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you the team leader for ABA™ today? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            ABA™ = Ankle biters anonymous

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:12:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

              Whatever works for you.  You (try and) take your gun hating states and I'll take my gun loving ones.  Let the great sorting begin.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:16:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know of any gun hating states (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, ranger995

                do you?

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:19:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                  States with unfortunate imbalances between the rural and the densely urban.  States that have succeeded in depressing gun ownership so low that any inequity is acceptable so long as directed at gun owners.  States like yours.  The lost causes.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:22:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You mean those unfortunate states and cities (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite

                    that reliably elect Democrats and help to elect Democrats elsewhere?

                    Is that the unfortunate reality you hate?

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:36:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Success has many fathers (0+ / 0-)

                Reducing death and injury from gun violence involves a lot more than preserving the right to self defense while regulating guns.

                The USA has 100 firearms per 100 residents, more than any other country in the world. But the burden of firearm injuries and firearm deaths is not spread evenly throughout the country. We look at death tolls simply because they are the easiest objective parameter to measure. It is a binary parameter; either the person died from the gunshot or they survived.
                Regional variation deaths due to firearm injury - 2007
                For other factors in the success or failure to reduce deaths from gunfire, please see:
                The Geography of Gun Violence by Richard Florida, July 20, 2012
                The Geography of Gun Deaths by Richard Florida, January 13, 2011

                It is absurd and delusional to think the red states on this map have higher firearm deaths because they love guns.

                PC, do you really think the yellow states on this map have lower firearm deaths BECAUSE they hate guns?

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:29:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  They don't have lower firearm deaths.  New York had 150 more firearm murders than Louisiana in 2010.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:35:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Source? (0+ / 0-)

                    Lousiana X = ?

                    New York X + 150 = ?

                    Populations
                    Lousiana: 4,601,893

                    New York City: 8,244,910

                    New York State: 19,570,261

                    Is X + 150 more than 4 times larger than X?

                    Come on Patrick, you're making this too easy.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:10:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                      http://www.fbi.gov/...

                      Lousiana: 351
                      New York: 517

                      You can stop shoveling bullshit now.

                      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:20:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Okay - you want to focus just on murders? (0+ / 0-)

                        From your source: FBI, murders, 2010

                        Again, we see clear success reducing gun deaths in some states, but success has many fathers.

                        Let's compare NY, LA, and VT.

                        Population
                        NY: 19,570,261  over   54,556 sq miles (about 20% of which is Adirondack Park*)
                        LA:   4,601,893  over   52,271 sq miles
                        VT:      626,011  over   9,623 sq miles

                        Total murders -
                        NY: 860 (60% by firearm, 20% by knife, 3% hands/feet)
                        LA: 437 (80% by firearm, 10% by knife, 3% hands/feet)
                        VT: 7 (29% by firearm, 14% by knife, 29% by hands/feet)

                        Firearm murders
                        NY: 517
                        LA: 351
                        VT: 7

                        Knife murders
                        NY: 173
                        LA: 42
                        VT: 2

                        Murders by hands, fists, feet
                        NY: 22
                        LA: 13
                        VT: 2

                        So NY, a state with 4x population of LA and 2x the number of murders has ONLY 30% more gunshot deaths and ONLY 20% more knife murders and you consider that evidence that NY is a gun hating state? By your criteria wouldn't it also be a knife hating state?

                        Might it be influenced by poverty, access to healthcare, access to education, and jobs, population density?

                        How about a higher tax base, which leads to better access to social safety net?

                        If Vermont wants to reduce their murders do you think they should liberalize open carry of hands, fists, and feet?

                        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:01:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Whoever that commenter was is incorrect.  The Taliban never registered firearms, and it's doubtful they had the means to do so meaningfully.

        I'm not big on the tyranny appeal because it's quite frankly a long ways a ways.  I am, however, irked by a bunch of people who know nothing about guns or security restricting my options.  Some of them are simply irritatingly ignorant.  Others have axes to grind.  In any case, there's too many of them in too many positions of responsibility to ignore, so that's reason enough to oppose registration.

        Instead of trying to design the system for auditing firearms transfers yourself (you seem to suffer from a degree of tunnel vision on the subject), why not call for alternatives and demand gun rights activists contribute something to the discussion.  "Okay, no national registry  So how will you trace crime guns?"

        You might be surprised by the answer.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:53:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know that you all think you are so special (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          because you know the size of a particular firing pin or some other trivial data about guns, but just because others do not know it, doesn't mean they can't participate in this discussion.

          It is, after all, the gun addicts who are forcing us to live in a more dangerous place, so I think we all know about the security concerns. And quite frankly, YOU are a security concern for anyone who wants to live in a safe and peaceful place.

          The discussions about guns on this very site have proven to me that asking someone like you for solutions is like asking a crack addict how to limit the distribution of crack. Your purpose here is to stall, mislead, and prevent any and all type of regulation.

          That has been the MO of the "responsible gun owners". Deflect, mislead, and refuse to accept any type of regulation.

          Eventually, after enough firearm deaths, the general population is going to find it worth fighting the gun addicts to have a safer society.

          So just keep on with your current path, it is politically beneficial right now, but you're going to reach a tipping point and no one is going to care what you think anymore, because you put no productive suggestions forward.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:36:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Have I brought up your basic ignorance about how firearms work?  No.  I'm far more concerned about your ignorance in the sphere of public safety and security.  When combined with political power, that makes you a genuine threat to everyone else.

            With firearm deaths declining over the long run--no thanks to you or the gun control lobby--you might find it more difficult to whip people up in a frenzy.  I suspect your cause is destined for the same fate as the anti-choice movement; reduced to launching graphic, hysterical screeds.

            If you want productive suggestions, all you have to do is ask.  But you are going to have to ask.  Politely.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:42:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andalusi, noway2

      Yet you call for a national database rather than explore other options, including modernizing the existing system of recordkeeping, extending it to the public, and protecting it with Fourth Amendment guarantees.

      Is there a reason why you went immediately to national registration?  Did you not consider alternatives?  Did you have objections to all other methods?

      You also made some very specific demands about attaching a felony penalty for acts and omissions that vary wildly in severity, scope and circumstance.  So the question is whether or not your goal is harm reduction or exacting punishment from people guilty of even innocent mistakes.

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:48:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  absent one national database (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        carver, CwV, Piren

        the system breaks down

        the ability to quickly trace responsibility for a weapon disappears -

        once you start to make exceptions the system fails

        people don't want background checks between family members -  duh, if I have a relative who is barred from having a weapon, if I can transfer without a background check that bar is ineffective.  It is as big a loophole as straw purchasers has been, as the curent private sale exception (including gun shows) has been.

        Either you want EFFECTIVE control of who has firearms or you don't.  If you do, a national registry is absolutely essential.

        The question of penalties, requirements for insurance, etc. can be discussed and tweaked.

        You need background checks on all transfers.

        You need a complete registry to trace responsibility for weapons used improperly and to prevent off the books transfers to get around the requirement for background checks.

        Will it happen?  Quite possibly not.  Which means we will continue to have the insanity of our current policies on guns.

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:55:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

          You're blatantly wrong.  There's no single national database of a lot of things regularly audited by government, including financial records.  

          Debate me, not other people.  I'm not proposing exemptions for family members or anything other than the most incidental, temporary possession.  And, please, spare me the non sequitur. Exemptions have nothing to do with the system in which audit trails are maintained.  

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:07:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with Patrick (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Piren, ranger995

            There is no national record on financial records.  That's a ginormous problem. Do you know how many people die each year accidentally cleaning their 401ks?  Like Thousands. I mean just yesterday, the 5 year old down the street got a hold of their parents checkbook and bludgened to death his younger sister with it. What a tragedy. Cudos to the police for quickly setting up a police line by taping together Walmart and Home depot receipts. And just the other day I saw a shady drug dealer type (well he was young and standing on the corner so I assume he was dealing drugs) purchasing IRS tax forms from a straw purchaser.  He obviously was looking for ways to hide his business mileage. Cudos to Patrick pointing out this massive problem with our society. Next up: Did you know there is no national registry of little boys who pull pigtails?  Fox is going to do a massive expose on it. You could get cooties you know.

        •  Let's review (0+ / 0-)

          You said you are not addressing:

          I am not discussing what types of weapons should be legal

          I am not discussing making public the registries

          I am arguing that a background check system is not meaningful without an ability to account for weapons, to ensure that those obtaining weapons are undergoing the appropriate checks, which cannot work if we carve out loopholes, if we cannot have an audit trail of ownership of the firearm.

          In another comment here I address your third point. Success has many fathers.

          Your assertion that background checks are meaningless without a national firearm registry is not fact based.

          States will have to lead the way. Regional cooperation is already proven to make a difference. If you want to get up to speed, NY has recently introduced regulations to close the gun show loophole. All of that is easy to find on google or in my various comments.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:40:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that some states address it is insufficient (0+ / 0-)

            unless ALL states (1) do;  (2) update records of those who should NOT have access to guns by virtue of mental health, criminal, or domestic abuse situations; (3) share with all other states.

            And if someone gets a felony conviction in one state, or has a restraining order based on domestic abuse that prevents them from purchasing in that state, unless that information is shared, unless all states to which that person can go have that information and similar restrictions, he person can simply cross a state line and purchase a firearm s/he is prohibited from owning and come back into the home state.

            "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

            by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:44:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

              Well, we're not going to share that information with a national registry.  In fact, the ante's gone up, we're not going to support further centralization of proscribed persons lists either.  But we will support even more comprehensive background checks and a secure, decentralized audit trail.  So what say you?

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:51:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  still does not work (0+ / 0-)

                still leaves too many holes in the system

                it would at best be a partial solution

                are you prepared to notify all other states of when someone is no longer allowed to possess guns by your state and take away whatever guns they might have?

                "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  Name the holes.  If you can't, then you have no argument.  I say my system is just as effective as yours.  Every gun passing through the system is auditable.

                  My system requires no state to state communication whatsoever.  A gun owner is required to keep his records, including background information, up to date.  Failure to produce said information as the result of some judicial cause of action would trigger a larger investigation and penalties.  This is no different from dealing with non-compliance under your registry system.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:18:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Now you're talking about NICS not registration nt (0+ / 0-)

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:57:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Funny how Eddie Eagle assumes... (8+ / 0-)

    That Responsible Gun Owners (TM) will not successfully keep control of their weapons.

    Makes me wonder when even the NRA's safety program is in direct opposition to their political marketing.

    In essence they don't want RGOs... they want customers who buy their bosses products, and then proceed to need to buy more... whether through fear, aggression, or just losing the damn thing.  (Because we can't hold our gun owners responsible for their weapon AFTER they buy it.)

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:52:32 AM PDT

  •  I am a gun owner, and I agree with you, 100% (10+ / 0-)

    Not everyone is part of a Gestalt - Owsley Stanley

    by SpamNunn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:53:10 AM PDT

  •  It strikes me that every gun like every car should (5+ / 0-)

    have an ID number that follows it until it is destroyed.  It is created by the manufacturer and it is trackable for the life of the gun.  I would think at this point that we could put GPS tracking on them, we can do it for our cell phones, why not our guns.  

    •  every gun does have that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995, a2nite

      there is a unique serial number on every gun already. but since private sales are not tracked, its more or less useless in a lot of cases.

      •  It is useful in some cases. Because guns have to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        be registered in Chicago, several "responsible" gun owners have been caught purchasing guns and selling them to people who are not allowed to own them.

        Every year people are caught doing this. So, the serial number is useful in that case.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:30:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  States and local jurisdictions will have to lead (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Piren

          on this and that can lead to regional cooperation, such as what he have in CT, NY, NJ.

          States and municipalities that do move forward with gun safety make it easier for surrounding areas to solve gun crimes.

          Sure someone in VA can buy a gun and drive to CT, but with NY new regulations to close the guns show loophole, no one can come from OH, CT, PA, or NJ, to a gun show in NY and  buy or sell a gun without a background check.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:10:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shamash, LilithGardener

        You don't know a lot about tracing then.  That serial number is pretty useful for determining the first retailer, and that retailer maintains a bound book by law of all transactions for 20 years straight.  

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:18:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  which provides no audit trail beyond original sale (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Piren

          if all subsequent transactions are private

          and you are wrong - I know a fair amount about this, having been instructed in the details by people from ATF, FBI and some local law enforcement

          "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

          by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            No it does not.  That's where good old fashion door knocking, asking questions and relationship trees come in.

            I didn't say you didn't know anything about this, but then again I wasn't replying to jaym.  And current system is hardly useless in tracing crime guns.  Curious though, to what end were you "instructed?"  

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:13:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And the place to intervene is to close the gunshow (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            loop hole and mandate universal background checks through a FFL for all transfers going forward.

            Anyone who wants to carry a gun that they already own should be required to go to an FFL and get a background check.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:46:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that would be a start, but only a start eom (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, Laurel in CA

              "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

              by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:55:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree it is only one step - but start we must (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                Driving for national mandates may fail. Driving for a national registry may fail. The whole package may fail due to overreach and cost Dems in the next election.

                At this time I think the most likely national success will be for universal background checks. According to Rachel Maddow, 91% in favor of universal background checks. If that is the only step that can be achieved with this Congress we shouldn't let it go.

                It will have an immediate impact because then any gun that turns up in public - the bearer can be subject to a background check, and the gun can be confiscated if they aren't allowed to own guns. That occurrence gives the authorities sufficient evidence to get a warrant to search the residence and other vehicles to remove illegal guns.

                That's the most practical approach to reducing the number of firearms in civilian hands.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:04:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It is only a start - but the private sales at (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                gun shows AKA the gun show loophole is, in fact, the dominant way that legal guns are transferred to prohibited persons and into the criminal market.

                I'm convinced that we must start closing the gun show loophole state by state, and when it is finally closed nationally the resale value of legal guns is going to drop like a stone.

                Then gun owners who brag about it, or who don't keep their guns secured will be higher value targets for theft. When taxpayers get tired of paying for gunfire that comes from unreported stolen guns we'll finally be able to crack down on irresponsible gun owners. And some people will voluntarily decide to not bother with guns anymore, because of the risk and liability of theft.

                A weird virtuous cycle could (over time) reduce the number of guns in public circulation.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:23:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Rec for factual accuracy nt (0+ / 0-)

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:42:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  only questions I would have is if wallhangers and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    antiques are included in this and also the penalties for non registration of weapons as (unbelievable as it may be) quite a few people are gun owners w/o being aware of it (i.e. say a S&W .38 lemonsqueezer which great great uncle Leo owned and which great aunt Minnie packed away in the Singer sewing machine drawer decades ago and which comes to light only when years later Aunt Mary puts the sewing machine up for auction and the gun comes to light)
    Sort of convoluted but anyone who has gone "estate diving" can testify that people have all sorts of odd things in their attics.

    However I have no problem with registration of guns sold nor with homeowner's insurance including guns liability coverage.  As far as holding gun owners absolutely responsible for any felony use of their firearms, it may be quite a period of time before someone may discover his weapon has been stolen.  After all, even in the case of auto theft, it has been known to take several days for the owner to realize his vehicle has been stolen and I would think an auto theft is much easier to notice  

    •  This happened to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      entlord

      A relative gave me a car.   I drove it for years, and then sold it.    The person who bought it, found a gun in the trunk,  totally rusted.

       

      •  it is embarrassing when this happens (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DFWmom, a2nite

        My brother drove my grandfather's car all through HS and one day, cleaning the car, I discovered a pint of Johnny Walker Red and a .32 stowed under the seat, all cobwebbed over and dust covered which had evidently been there the day he died years before

        •  THAT could have been a disaster (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          In today's atmosphere of zero tolerance (zero brains is how I think of it), if they found that, they would  have expelled him from the school district, and brought him up on criminal charges.    He would have had alcohol AND gun charges.  

          I'm very glad for your brother that he didn't get ground under the wheels of progress.

          •  "zero brains is how I think of it" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Piren, a2nite

            Is it really too much to ask that anyone who is driving a vehicle to school do a check of a vehicle to remove any potential contraband?

            It's really not that hard - glove box, under the seats, behind the seats, in the trunk, in the engine compartment.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:46:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you underestimate my grandfather (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              he had found a way to tear out the bottom of the seat so the items were held in place by the springs under the seat.  Just stowing them under the seat would have made them too easy to find  

              •  You're making a case that deceased gun owners (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Piren, a2nite

                can't be trusted to secure their firearms while they were alive.

                While your story is a funny story, and I'm glad nothing bad happened to your brother, it just means the burden falls on any heirs to search all inherited property and surrender contraband as soon as they find it.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:58:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ...trusted to [have secured]... - sorry (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:01:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  well he died in 1971 so I guess the case (0+ / 0-)

                  could be made that his securing of the gun met the criteria of the time.  However you cannot trust that someone else has not secured a weapon or that said weapon is not in a readily accessible location which presents a problem. I note a recent auction had .50 caliber armor piercing rounds which an enterprising GI had brought back still in its belt.

                  However I would not characterize either as contraband:
                   "goods or merchandise whose importation, exportation, or possession is forbidden; also : smuggled goods"

                  when in the era we are discussing, shotguns in racks and trunks for waterfowling in the morning were common at school as were rifles for after school deer hunting and the shop class required each student to carry at least two knives  

                  •  I got it (0+ / 0-)
                    his securing of the gun met the criteria of the time.  
                    But anyone driving a car now, or receiving property from an older relative takes on the responsibility to meet the current burden for securing that property.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no argument; I was just relating an example (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      from 40 years ago.  The car in question was no doubt crushed back to its component parts decades ago.  
                      Times change and if you have absolute liability for gun owners for unauthorized use of their weapons (which I am not sure would stand up legally) then you have to realize how many people may have inherited a weapon and not know it or have a wallhanger which is potentially usable  

                •  Nice theory (0+ / 0-)

                  But, it's hard to search for something that you don't know exists.

                  And, have you ever inherited an estate?   Something tells me that you have not.    I did, and let me tell you, I never did go through everything in the two houses, that were filled with the "funk of forty thousand years".

                  It's really easy to armchair quarterback, but when you walk into the door, and look at six months of sorting and searching in that empty dusty old house, come back and let us know how you did.  And, by the way, remember you'll need to pay the insurance, and if you don't want to "search all inherited property" in the dark without water, you'll have to pay the utilities while you do it, and you won't be able to put it on the market until you have searched every square inch of it, attics and crawlspaces, and vents, and all the other sneaky little places where people who "failed to secure their firearms" like to squirrel them away, because, despite the fact that you feel that they didn't properly "secure" them, good luck in finding them!

                  And, you can't hire anyone to help you, because there might be unsecured weapons that you are liable for, so you will have to do every bit of it yourself.

                  Good luck.  May the force be with you.

                  •  Inherited property is a burden (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Piren, a2nite

                    I do know what I'm talking about. I'll certainly agree that dealing with inherited property carries a whole lot of uncertainty and there is a learning curve. It can be a real time sink, and it's easier if it can be shared with siblings, cousins, nieces or nephews.

                    But really, firearms that are impossible to find are no risk to the public. And firearms that are difficult to find are not much risk to the public.

                    I'm not suggesting that anyone be prosecuted for an illegal firearm that was turned in as soon as they found it in property that they inherited.

                    But seriously, inheriting a car and not looking in the trunk? Or not hiring someone you trust to give the car a careful search? How hard could that have been?

                    If the new owner isn't responsible, who is?

                    PS - I'm glad nothing bad happened from a hidden gun, and am glad both you and entlord shared your amusing stories.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:34:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I DID look in the trunk. (0+ / 0-)

                      Several times.

                      It was deliberately placed where it could not easily be found.

                      And, there have been a couple stories, just on this website with the small number of people reading here, who have had the same experience.

                      It's very common.

                      •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't mean small number of people reading DKOS.  Just small number of people readying THIS diary, RIGHT NOW.

                        •  I do empathize but your counter position is (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          a2nite

                          ridiculous. Are you asserting that anyone can stash a firearm in a vehicle and later be held blameless by simply claiming they didn't know it was there?

                          Criminals would be exempt from the dominant mechanism for clearing illegal guns. Confiscation for unlawful possession is the most common way guns are removed from the hands of those who have them.

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:49:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Minority Report (0+ / 0-)

                            Arguing against injustice, charging a person for a crime that they did not commit and have no knowledge of, is not ridiculous.  

                            Charging people, not for what they do, but for what they might do in the future ---  THAT is ridiculous.  

                            What harm did anyone do to anyone else, by having a knife lying the bed of their pickup truck, or a gun under their carseat?   We are persecuting these people for what we imagine that they might do at some future time.   How is that just?     The problem is that we are hurting people who are innocent, who have not done anything wrong, in order to prevent what some other person might do at some other time.  

                            That's not OK.   This approach to justice cannot be other than UNjust.

                             

            •  YES!!! (0+ / 0-)

              It is too much to ask.

              Why don't you, every day before work, do a thorough search of your own car.  

              Tear out the bottom of the seat.   Search in the tire well.   Check behind your car's hubcaps, and under the hood.  

              Every day.

              Every possible place in your car.

              Your brother's friend might have left his stash in the car when your brother drove the car last night.   Your grandfather, who gave you the car, might have left a pistol in the wheelwell, where you didn't see it, even when you did dig in the trunk.    A knife might have fallen out of your cousin's boxes when you used your truck to help her move last night, but it was dark last night, and also dark this morning.    

              Every day.

              Every possible place in your car.

              Try it for a week.   Set aside a good half hour or so to give it a good scouring.  

              Every day.  

              Every possible place in your car.

              There was an incident in our district where a high school kid did a good deed.   He helped his grandmother move to a nursing home.

              No good deed goes unpunished.   A steak knife fell from one of the boxes into the bed of his pickup, and he was expelled from school because he "brought a knife to school".

              ZERO BRAINS.  

              How can kid learn anything at school, when school officials demonstrate how utterly brainless they are?!

              There were plenty of people to testify that, YES, he did help his grandmother move, and YES, that is how the knife got there, and NO, he did not know it was there.

              How can anyone, parent or teacher, respect a school official that is THAT stupid.

              I have ZERO TOLERANCE for zero tolerance policies.

              I want my school to replace ZERO TOLERANCE with COMMON SENSE.    I am heart-broken that common sense is no longer taught in my schools, and I am convinced that teaching Zero Tolerance to kids, results in creating people who have zero tolerance, which also means, zero patience, and zero understanding.  

              So, we teach kids Zero Tolerance, and then feed them on a diet of violence porn, and what do we get?  

              School Shootings.

              That's what we get.   Kids who have Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance.

              •  Your frustration comes through loud and clear (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Piren, a2nite

                I agree with you that "zero tolerance" policies are just the modern form of selective enforcement.

                It is unfortunate that the school decided to make an example out of that young man for unknowingly brought a knife on school property.

                My point is there are two ways out - the kid can take the bus to school OR the driver of a vehicle can be responsible for what's in the vehicle they drive to school.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:00:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  NO - it's not too much to ask (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Piren, a2nite

                In NYC we don't have the problem of students and vehicles because HS students take the subway to school.

                If my teen lends a piece of our luggage to his friend when they can go on a school trip together and after it's returned I take that piece of luggage with me on a plane I can be held fully responsible for any of the friend's property that "fell out" and was still in my luggage. Imagine, "No sir, those are not my pipe bombs, and I didn't know they were there, honest."

                Anything I carry in the subway, anything I leave in a cab, anything I take with me into any building is my responsibility.

                I agree that expulsion was stupid, and extreme.

                But do you really think students who can afford to drive to school (and their parents) should be given a free pass that poor students won't every be given?

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:08:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  he did get in trouble for drag racing before (0+ / 0-)

            school but no one searched the car it seems.  OTOH this was the 70s and things were quite different

    •  on being easier to notice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV, Piren

      perhaps if you have 100+ firearms in your house unsecured there might be a problem.

      If properly secured, I wonder

      on older firearms, many of which will not have serial numbers, particularly collectibles

      if they are in operable condition they should still need to be registered, at least with a description

      I can kill you with a matchlock or a flintlock just as I can with an AR-15.

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:47:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  while a wheelock or matchlock may be (0+ / 0-)

        as deadly in theory, I can only observe that a casual observer is unlikely to pick up even an old cap and ball pistol and be able to load it and use it competently and as you mentioned, serial numbers are a modern invention.  Matter of fact, trying to date some H&R .32s a while back, I was amazed to discover that the manufacturer had a penchant for re-using serial numbers whenever the model number changed.  Therefore the serial number was of little use in dating the weapon (and this could be a range of 1880 to 1920 if I remember correctly)

        As far as properly secured, it is difficult to secure a weapon so a dedicated thief will not eventually be able to break into the safe or vault (i have seen burglars remove entire door frames and attached wall studs to gain access).  This is why I think required liability insurance is a necessity but included in your standard homeowner's policy for a small extra premium.  (it would also give a secondary registration source)

        For people who buy guns for self defense (and I personally have mixed feelings about that), there has to be a balance between access to the guns and making sure no one else can access the guns (personally I would advocate a "safe room" as a retreat point as opposed to actually confronting someone).  Excepting home invaders, most thieves are there for the loot, not the confrontation and will run if they realize someone is home.      

      •  I can kill you with a matchlock or a flintlock (0+ / 0-)

        just as I can with an AR-15.

        That's not a true statement.

        A sharp shooter can kill with a single bullet from many different kinds of guns.

        But any shooter can more likely kill or maim with an AR-15 than they can with a matchlock or a flintlock.

        Equating the two does not advance the argument for reducing gun violence.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  stand five feet away when I pull trigger (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Piren

          you will likely be dead either way

          can I kill you more effectively at 100 yards with an AR-15?  Sure, if the sighting is appropriate

          we require antique cars to be registered and licensed to be on public highways.

          "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

          by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:09:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Missing the point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            Both guns are deadly on a single target with in reasonable range.

            But one gun gives the bearer to kill and maim more people in a short amount of time than the other.

            Equating the two in terms of deadliness by focusing on a single target at 2 yards is arbitrary.  

            And you are simply making the NRA point that the AR-15 is as good for self defense as a flintlock or a shotgun when someone has already broken into your home and is about to hit you with baseball bat - and when only a single bullet is required.

            Is that your intent?

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:18:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh baloney (0+ / 0-)

              if they are equally effective at close range that is sufficient reason to cover them and also makes the argument AGAINST allowing ownership of the AR-15

              "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

              by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:29:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not saying I agree with Heller (0+ / 0-)

                but are you saying it's useful for Dems to ignore Heller when proposing new restrictions?

                I'm not on a suicide mission that will surely lead to lost elections.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:33:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heller allows registration (0+ / 0-)

                  as well as restrictions on some kinds of weapons.  Nothing I have proposed is restricted by Heller.

                  "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                  by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:41:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And passing registration at the state level (0+ / 0-)

                    (such as what we have in New York) is what will allow those laws to work their way up to SCOTUS, so that SCOTUS can make it explicitly legal.

                    That's why NYC recent law includes a severability clause. If one provision is struck down the others will remain in force.

                    Our current Congress can barely pass a farm bill or the VAWA. IMO, until a number of state registration laws are on the books and challenged in court, there is little or no chance to pass a national law requiring a national registry.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:17:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  I always trust the government (3+ / 0-)

    - Sheriff Joe Arpaio would never use a list of registered gun owners to harrass political opponents.  Nope.  He would just never do that.

     - A government employee would never sell a list of registered gun owners to the Mara Salvatrucha or 18th Street so they can have the newest and best gear.

    •  what? (5+ / 0-)

      so i guess we should just abolish the census, public voter rolls, automobile registration, public access to political donor information, public tax records, real estate and land ownership records, and every other kind of personal/public data that nefarious government officials might one day decide to use for the purpose of pure evil.

      •  Have you paid any attention to what's going on (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Piren

        in Maricopa county?

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:54:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (0+ / 0-)

          because joe arpaio exists, gun registration will somehow lead to individual persecution? is that the thesis? or is it that all babies should be thrown out with all bathwater, and that no government records should be kept, period, since corruption exists in the world? by that toll, if one sheriff in arizona manipulating the system means the system should be abolished, wouldnt one crazy mass murdering gunman in connecticut merit the abolition of legal gun ownership? after all, if one person can misuse something, then that something should never exist in the first place, no?

          regardless, how is gun registration even useful in singling out political opponents if the list, by definition, contains the names of people who legally own firearms?

          •  No, I'm pointing out that registration is going (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Piren

            to have to proceed locally and at the state level. Laws and ordinances are going to have to work their way up through the courts until SCOTUS clarifies what is constitutional.

            People in Maricopa have good reasons to not trust Sherriff Joe and his volunteer posse (a private police force).

            Registration will start at the state level and spread through regional cooperation, such as CT, NY, NJ.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:40:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Everything you've mentioned here involves privacy concerns that can and should be resolved with a combination of technology and process.  And doing so will advance a number of other objectives, from census and tax compliance to removing barriers to voting to curtailing organized auto theft.

        Or do you just think you have a natural right to all that information?

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nothing ive mentioned involes privacy concerns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Piren

          and all of those things I mentioned already exist, and are already in the public domain. and yes, as a citizen, i do think i have a natural right to access public information. you can go down to your local city hall or registrar of deeds and find the names of who owns what land in your town. there are public filings of tax records for both businesses and certain private individuals. census data is part of the public record, as is party registration. all political contributions have to be disclosed by the organizations that accept the money, and are thus also public. this is my whole point.

          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

            Interesting.  So you think it's in the public interest to allow a prospective employer to peruse your political donation history?  I see you haven't given this a good deal of thought.  Come back when you have.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:13:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, i think public records should be public (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Piren

              what does it matter what i think? this is all already part of the public record. and there are very good reasons for it. are you suggesting that all political donations should be anonymous? if so, why are you even registered at a self-professed democratic website? the entire point of there even being a public record is that there are certain facts whose accessibility is in the interest of the public at large. like arrest records. like political donation records. like land ownership records and real estate valuations, etc., etc. these things are already publicly accessible. and in many cases, the legality of their public availability has already been both legislated and litigated. i dont see why gun ownership should be any different.

              just as i have a right to know whether potentially hazardous substances are being driven through my streets (ever seen those signs on the back of trucks?) or stored in my neighborhood, i believe i have the right to know if potentially deadly weapons are owned or cached in the house next door to mine. seems like an uncontroversial to me, but maybe its not.

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                Again, I ask, are you in favor of prospective employers searching your political donation history?  Until you can answer this question, we have nothing to discuss.

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:44:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  they already can and do (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Piren, LilithGardener

                  in Virginia ALL contributions to state races are available online.   You can avoid being detected on the various online platforms of federal contribuions if your donations are small enough.

                  as far as privacy, there is as far as I know in most states NO bar on an employer requiring access to your twitter feed or Facebook posts as a condition of employment.

                  And currently the Obama administration is not objecting to states taking student data with identifiable information and having it collected into a massive database controlled by a for-profit entity

                  If you are a registered voter, the matter of your party identification is already a matter of public record.  So is it if you vote in any primary or general election.  

                  State governments can and do obtain records of income reported to the federal government that might require payment of some state business taxes.  Then there is the entire matter of mail order and online commerce and how states get access to that information for collection of sales tax.

                  "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                  by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:15:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                    So you are in favor of anonymous "small" donations.  So am I.  I'm also in favor of all donations being both anonymous and capped.  I am not in favor of a system in which government aids and abets employers those screen potential hires by their donation history.

                    I'm very happy you know the state of things, but that wasn't my question.  Plenty of states have restrictive voter identification laws.  Doesn't make them right.,

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:20:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no I am NOT in favor of anonymous donations (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      i merely point out a limitation in access to the readily available public information

                      in my opinion ALL contributions to organizations attempting to influence politics directly or indirectly should be disclosed pretty close to immediately,

                      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                      by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:30:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                        Well, at least that's consistent.  We disagree.  There's too much abuse, real and potential, for that sort of information.  For the same reason the ballot must be kept secret, so should political contributions.  The question of what to do about big money influence is entirely separate.

                        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    I agree to 1.  2, you will never get, especially when there are other ways to set up an audit trail.  3, I accept with caveats.  4, also with caveats (there are various sorts of transfers you might want to regulate, not all require the threat of felony prosecution).

    Ultimately, what we will really test is what is important to you, stemming the tide of criminal and unintentional firearm injury and mortality, or curtailing gun ownership.  You may honestly believe that the former is impossible without the latter, in which case I'd ask you to defend it.  But remember that the only point you and I agree on in this matter is the former.

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:43:01 AM PDT

  •  Exactly right. A national registration of all guns (0+ / 0-)

    without it every other Murder Control law is easily skirted.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:47:16 AM PDT

    •  We have to go forward at the state and local (0+ / 0-)

      level and let those laws work there way up to SCOTUS. State and regional cooperation will have to lead the way.

      I'm afraid pushing for national registration now will make the whole package fail.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  lay down the marker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    then remind people every time the remaining holes in the system lead to more otherwise preventable deaths

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:56:35 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site