Magazine Bill Amended

Something the Dog Said wrote: Despite the scare tactics of the NRA and other posters, there is no registry, nor will there ever be a registry. But since it is difficult to argue with actual facts, some have to fall back on false statements and scare tactics.

Is there someway you can know that there will never ever be a registry? Really, NEVER EVER?

Denver passed an assault rifle registery decades ago.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Go ahead and fear the boogeyman even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that gun registries are going to be slipped in. Since the legislation is going to pass, we shall see who is correct.

If a registratry is not created how do you expect the government to enforce private party background checks before a private party sale can be completed?

Umm, if you actually read the legislation, it clearly states the process, as I have earlier described it above. There are no government registries, there are no government records of transactions, the only parties that keep records of the transaction are the sellers. The government does NOT "enforce private party background checks be fore a private party sale can be completed". It is up to the seller to do a background check on the purchaser. If a seller fails to do so, then the seller has committed a crime and if that crime is later discovered, then the seller is liable for a misdemeanor and also liable for civil damages for any harm that the purchaser did with the firearm. But of course this was completely described in my earlier posts.

Despite the scare tactics of the NRA and other posters, there is no registry, nor will there ever be a registry. But since it is difficult to argue with actual facts, some have to fall back on false statements and scare tactics.

I have read what you posted and as far as I can tell it would become a case of one persons word against another as to when the transaction took place.
Since there is no record then this will be completely un-enforceable.

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Go ahead and fear the boogeyman even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that gun registries are going to be slipped in. Since the legislation is going to pass, we shall see who is correct.

If a registratry is not created how do you expect the government to enforce private party background checks before a private party sale can be completed?

Umm, if you actually read the legislation, it clearly states the process, as I have earlier described it above. There are no government registries, there are no government records of transactions, the only parties that keep records of the transaction are the sellers. The government does NOT "enforce private party background checks be fore a private party sale can be completed". It is up to the seller to do a background check on the purchaser. If a seller fails to do so, then the seller has committed a crime and if that crime is later discovered, then the seller is liable for a misdemeanor and also liable for civil damages for any harm that the purchaser did with the firearm. But of course this was completely described in my earlier posts.

Despite the scare tactics of the NRA and other posters, there is no registry, nor will there ever be a registry. But since it is difficult to argue with actual facts, some have to fall back on false statements and scare tactics.

I have read what you posted and as far as I can tell it would become a case of one persons word against another as to when the transaction took place.
Since there is no record then this will be completely un-enforceable.

If you bothered to read the legislation, there will be two records of the transaction. One copy is at the licensed firearm dealer who performs the background check for the private seller, and another copy at the seller of the firearm. Most prudent sellers will certainly keep their copy of the transaction and background check so that they will be exempt from any liability for later use of the weapon.

Please read the legislation if you have concerns about it.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Go ahead and fear the boogeyman even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that gun registries are going to be slipped in. Since the legislation is going to pass, we shall see who is correct.

If a registratry is not created how do you expect the government to enforce private party background checks before a private party sale can be completed?

Umm, if you actually read the legislation, it clearly states the process, as I have earlier described it above. There are no government registries, there are no government records of transactions, the only parties that keep records of the transaction are the sellers. The government does NOT "enforce private party background checks be fore a private party sale can be completed". It is up to the seller to do a background check on the purchaser. If a seller fails to do so, then the seller has committed a crime and if that crime is later discovered, then the seller is liable for a misdemeanor and also liable for civil damages for any harm that the purchaser did with the firearm. But of course this was completely described in my earlier posts.

Despite the scare tactics of the NRA and other posters, there is no registry, nor will there ever be a registry. But since it is difficult to argue with actual facts, some have to fall back on false statements and scare tactics.

I have read what you posted and as far as I can tell it would become a case of one persons word against another as to when the transaction took place.
Since there is no record then this will be completely un-enforceable.

If you bothered to read the legislation, there will be two records of the transaction. One copy is at the licensed firearm dealer who performs the background check for the private seller, and another copy at the seller of the firearm. Most prudent sellers will certainly keep their copy of the transaction and background check so that they will be exempt from any liability for later use of the weapon.

Please read the legislation if you have concerns about it.

There will only be records if a person does the background check. If they don't bother with a background check who's gonna know when the transaction took place?


edit: I guess I should add that there are 1,000's of weapons out there that have been sold 3rd, 4th, and 5th party or more without any record or background check. Sure LE will try to establish a chain of custody of a weapon used in a crime but that is nearly impossible with these weapons that have changed hands multiple times over many years. This legislation will do nothing for these guns unless there is an initial registration as to who owns what guns today. Otherwise there will be no way to enforce private party background checks. I could sell one of these guns today and if it was used in a crime and the perp of that crime said I sold it to him it becomes my word against his and it would up to the DA to prove I sold it to him and when.

That might be true on weapons already in the marketplace that did not go through a licensed gun dealer, but it would be extremely risky for a private seller to commit a crime that could place them in serious liability both from a financial and from a gun ownership point of view (since you would have to divest yourself of all firearms for two years). Why would any responsible individual do this? To avoid a $10 background check? If it was me, I would want a clear record that I sold that firearm with a background check, rather than rely upon having to defend myself in court ($10,000 retainer to an attorney) against charges that I had sold that particular firearm without a background check. Of course, I am a law abiding individual.

Something the Dog Said wrote: That might be true on weapons already in the marketplace that did not go through a licensed gun dealer, but it would be extremely risky for a private seller to commit a crime that could place them in serious liability both from a financial and from a gun ownership point of view (since you would have to divest yourself of all firearms for two years). Why would any responsible individual do this? To avoid a $10 background check? If it was me, I would want a clear record that I sold that firearm with a background check, rather than rely upon having to defend myself in court ($10,000 retainer to an attorney) against charges that I had sold that particular firearm without a background check. Of course, I am a law abiding individual.

I am a law abiding individual myself. But as we have seen there are those willing and able to break the law.

I see this law as one of many stepping stones to a larger plan and that is all out confiscation. As we have seen the Democrats are willing to take baby steps and spend many years achieving their goals.

Look at all the states that have some sort of gun legislation in progress. At least 12 if I'm not mistaken. Each one of those states is trying to pass something that would lead to confiscation. Once enough states have these laws the Feds can then go ahead and say well most of the states agree with all out banning make it so.

I know it probably sounds like my tinfoil is a little tight but I am going off of a standard operating procedure that seems to be playing out in this manner.

Yep. that tinfoil is on too tight.

I have never bought the slippery slope argument. I didn't buy it for Vietnam and I don't buy it for gun control. Getting through universal registration and limiting the size of magazines are the most that will happen in the next few months, and then the momentum will have passed. No, they are not coming for your guns, and no, they aren't going to be breaking down your doors looking for old high-capacity magazines. All of the conspiracy nuts in the world can't convince me that it is possible for gun control to get beyond that in Colorado. :pop

hillfarmer wrote: Yep. that tinfoil is on too tight.

I have never bought the slippery slope argument. I didn't buy it for Vietnam and I don't buy it for gun control. Getting through universal registration and limiting the size of magazines are the most that will happen in the next few months, and then the momentum will have passed. No, they are not coming for your guns, and no, they aren't going to be breaking down your doors looking for old high-capacity magazines. All of the conspiracy nuts in the world can't convince me that it is possible for gun control to get beyond that in Colorado. :pop

They might get registration...they might get magazine limits. They shouldn't get either. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

The sad thing is...it will do nothing to stop these tragedies. If anything, it will increase the odds of innocent people being killed, since criminals don't follow laws. With magazine limits, they now know their prey has limited shots.

hillfarmer wrote: Yep. that tinfoil is on too tight.

I have never bought the slippery slope argument. I didn't buy it for Vietnam and I don't buy it for gun control. Getting through universal registration and limiting the size of magazines are the most that will happen in the next few months, and then the momentum will have passed. No, they are not coming for your guns, and no, they aren't going to be breaking down your doors looking for old high-capacity magazines. All of the conspiracy nuts in the world can't convince me that it is possible for gun control to get beyond that in Colorado. :pop

You can ignore the slippery slope all you want that doesn't change that it is happening.

I don't smoke but I am going to use smokers as an example since this was the latest group of people that this tactic was used on that I think a lot of people will be able to relate to.

For those of us old enough to remember, the 80's were the last years that smoking on the movie screen was allowed. people smoked at their work stations in grocery stores, Bars, etc.

Move forward a couple of years and a couple of states passed laws that people can no longer smoke in grocery stores. A few years later every state had laws that people couldn't smoke in grocery stores. A few years after that and people couldn't smoke at their work station at their job but they could smoke in a designated area. A few years later smoking was banned in bars and restaurants and workers could only smoke in designated areas. A few more years and more laws were passed that you can no longer smoke in a casino and workers now had to go outside to smoke. Now smokers have to leave company property to smoke and there are people talking about making laws about smoking in personal cars.

Getting rid of smoking only took 25 years to accomplish. Banning guns is on the agenda and will probably take more time to achieve but I still think an all out ban on gun ownership is on the horizon.

The first step is to get a few states to pass some sort of anti gun laws and paint all gun owners as crazies.