|
| Joan Carter wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:30:44 -0500, Alex <akfromak@gmail.com> wrote in
> alt.support.mult-sclerosis:
>
>
>
>
> We have spent (wasted) I don't know how much money on gun registry in Canada.
> The results prove your point. Law-abiding people do not shoot down innocent
> people on the streets.
> ---
> Joan
The real problem I have with gun registry is what supposedly happened in
New Orleans after Katrina hit. I don't remember if this was debunked or
not, but I remember reading something about the police wanting to
confiscate *all* firearms from citizens in NO. A registry greatly
assists in their (the governments, be it local, state, or federal)
efforts to do so.
Now, I have a big problem with that. If I have chosen to remain in my
home, to protect it from looting and I'm *not* running around out in the
streets with it, what right does anyone have to take it from me? Don't
I have the right to defend myself?
I can see how a registry may help if a gun is used in a crime and left
behind, however, apart from domestic incidents, I don't think that most
criminals use a weapon registered to them anyway!
Furthermore, at least here in the US, and I'm basing this on my
experience 20 some years ago, working in a sporting goods store in
Alaska, the sequence of purchasing a firearm was something like this:
The manufacturer makes the gun, assigns and records the serial number.
The gun is shipped to a dealer. That transaction is recorded both by
the manufacturer, when shipped, and the dealer, when received.
I come in to the dealer and decide to buy that gun. I show a state
issued ID and fill out a Federal firearms form. I have to give my
pedigree, etc. (I believe that now there is a background check
required? I haven't bought a gun since I left Alaska) The details of
that gun are recorded on that form.
The transaction details are also recorded by the dealer. At the store
I worked at, this was in the form of a log book that had the make,
model, serial number, date received, date sold, buyer's name and a cross
reference to the Federal firearms form, IIRC.
That Federal firearms form stayed with the dealer. It was not submitted
to any authority, at any level. I believe its purpose was to show that
the dealer performed "due diligence" in determining that the buyer was
legally eligible to purchase that gun, and to provide a standardized
record of the transaction.
So if the authorities needed to track that gun, they could start with
the manufacturer, to the dealer, and finally to me.
Where the system does break down, of course, is private sales. No forms
were required. But anyone with half a brain would at least ask to see
some form of ID & record the buyer's name & address. At least I would,
from a liability standpoint.
We also had to keep a log of all handgun ammunition that we sold. I
don't remember if this was a federal or state requirement. There were
no forms associated with this, just name & address & age, I think.
If the ammunition was dual-use, that it could be used in both a handgun
and a long gun, then even if was for a long gun, we still had to have
them fill out the details with a notation that it was for a long gun.
At that time, you had to be 21 to buy a handgun or handgun ammunition.
But at 18 you could purchase a long gun and the associated ammunition.
Hence the need to note on the log that the dual-use ammunition was for a
long gun, if the buyer was 18 - 20 years old. Of course, you can see
the flaw in that system, as there was no actual proof that it really was
going to be used in a long gun. Just the word of the buyer.
No, I think that a registry only makes it easier for the authorities to
collect the guns of honest citizens "in times of emergency". Should
thier be checks when you purchase a gun? Sure, I don't think that is
unreasonable. But a requirement to register your gun with the
authorities? No. As I have said before, how many criminals are going
to register thier guns? All you wind up with is a list of law abiding
citizens who own guns. Now, what purpose does that serve?
Alex
|
|