That’s totally irrelevant. We have 254 million registered automobiles, and millions of building permits issued yearly and we still manage. A single laptop can collate every gun transaction with ease. You do have a computer and you have 50 states sharing the responsibility. It’s only insurmountable in your mind. Just the threat of undercover police sponsored monitoring of secondary sales transactions would limit the sales dramatically, like it does in everyother country that requires back ground checks for all sales. Anyone who knew their right to ever own a gun themselves was in jeopardy if caught when they made an illegal sale prevents the vast majority from ever taking that chance in other countries. Let’s get real. It works everywhere else....even in countries with fewer resources. “That argument” makes no sense
Why doesn't the threat of undercover police limit straw purchases, FFL diversions, illegal street sales and theft, which is where the majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from? Why should someone selling a gun to a non-prohibited person be a crime?
You need to be more specific. I “read the Civilian and Police” program. This is a firearms discussion.
Besides, we can make this real simple just by requiring a buyer’s permit for EVERY ammo and gun purchase and a carry permit for every gun owner processing a gun outside the home. Case closed and no one needs to register a gun except for more strict permits on more regulated weapons.
The legal system concluded that George Zimmerman was innocent of any charges brought against him, and that Trayvon Martin was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
With the system being implemented long before motor vehicles ever became widespread in terms of ownership, and easily available to any member of the public. The same cannot be said for firearms. As to the matter of building permits, is it physically possible to confiscate a building? If it possible to hide a skyscraper-type construct in a coat pocket? If not, then no valid comparison can be made. How can a computer, any computer, collate firearm transactions that take place in any publicly accessible area without broadcast, between two individuals who are doing nothing inconspicuous? Millions of firearm transactions take place in the united states every single day, with the public never being the wiser, because the vast majority of firearms circulating in the united states are not registered to anyone, and thus cannot be found or identified. Therefore there is no way of telling whether or not a particular firearm was procured before the requirement, or after the requirement. The united states government cannot even locate the millions of illegal aliens who have entered into the country by sneaking across the border. How can it possibly do better with firearms which are far smaller, and far easier to smuggle about in an unnoticed fashion?
It shouldn’t be. But if a legal seller didn’t know the buyer was legal, he should be responsible for a back ground check at a gun dealer under penalty of losing his own “gun rights.” The SC court has never said gun sales can’t be regulated. Your fears are laughable. Well thought out laws can make it EASIER for non prohibited buyers of guns. In some states, they just require a buyer’s permit which makes buying and selling guns and ammo easy, safe, legal and faster then it is now . Heck, once you have your buyers permit and background check, sales at FFL dealers and privately can be done in minutes by ANY legal permit holding buyer and seller. Having to show you’re legal is done everywhere in the exercise of other constitutional rights, and few ever complains about their their rights being violated.
The united states has already attempted background check requirements for ammunition purchases, and found the program to be useless and unworkable. Therefore there is no point in trying something similar again.
The above operates on the belief that permits are issued fairly and with little hassle in obtaining one. As has been observed in numerous states, such is not the case. In the case of the state of New York, the permitting process takes months, the paperwork fees far exceed the market value of the firearm that is being sought, and those in charge of issuing a permit do not have the tell the applicant why they were denied.
We could just give buyers and sellers direct access to NICS, too, and not put the requirement for a "permit" in the hands of an abusive or anti-gun state government. There is no reason or any ability to enforce an FFL visit for a transfer, nor would that do anything with guns that aren't even registered to the seller.
Currently in California, once you pass the background check there's still a 10 day wait. That's minutes, alright, just 14,400 of them. In New Jersey, that wait can be up to 30 days, or a lifetime if your name is Carol Bowne. And no, I don't have to show I'm legal to exercise almost any other right. Where did that come from? From the Church Permit Police?
Ha ha....one of .the states I was referring to is Illinois. They’re abusive ? I bet the Law abiding non prohibited buyers, like the gun ownership/buyers permit requirement. It speeds up every legal purchase. The only ones who don’t or think it’s wrong, are probably those who want the freedom to sell guns to criminals. It’s been around for a while with no SC challenge.
Yet you ignore California and New Jersey, both of whom require waiting periods after a background check is passed to exercise a right for no good reason. You also ignore that rights like voting, worshiping, speaking freely, etc do not require government permission to exercise. It still doesn't nothing to prevent bad guys from selling to bad guys, and makes activities that have no risk to society a crime for both parties. So, no.
Oh? Let’s see, I was raised in the UK, in Belfast, under some of the most severe gun restrictions in any country. Yet, I managed to rarely be without a gun, some acquired via the black market, some I made (including a fully functional Sten MKII) and I was far from alone. Being caught with one would have certainly meant prison, but being without carried greater risk. If I needed a gun while visiting Belfast, I could have one within an hour. I could get one in most countries in the EU with a phone call, though, it might require 24hrs. Or, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. It’s not as difficult as you might think, and as for getting caught, less risk than you might imagine given the sources.
Well, for a gun free zone to work, it needs to be enforced. Otherwise it's just a sign. And it's impossible to enforce gun free zones everywhere, since you actually need armed personnel to enforce them. Example of a gun free zone that works: Airplanes. You go through security, metal detectors, and there's lots of armed personnel enforcing the gun free zone on the airplane. This works, because there's a limited amount of airports, and you can actually concentrate the effort on the airports, to stop everyone from illegally carrying a gun on a plane. It's practical, and even though it's expensive, it's affordable. Example of a "gun free zone" that won't work: Schools, restaurants, libraries, cinemas, pretty much every place. You simply can not enforce a gun free zone in these areas, as it's way too expensive, and there's not enough people to employ in enforcing those zones. Can't walk through a metal detector every time you want to watch a movie, with the majority of the employees at the cinema being armed guards. (Also, if you were to have that many armed guards to enforce a gun free zone, the requirements to become an armed guard would have to be lower, negating the intention of gun free zones overall). Gun free zones are for the most part impractical and/or worthless, but they do work in some very rare circumstances, like airplanes, huge indoor events, prisons, courts, (and maybe the larger hospitals). It needs to be in a place where there are few exits and entries, a lot of people, and a lot of guards.
Aircraft are not 100% gun free, Sky Marshals, and Pilots have all had accessible firearms at some point, as defense against Hijackers.
Except for the fact that the TSA has an approximate ninety five percent failure rate on security, as the FBI has succeeded numerous times in getting fake contraband past security checkpoints without issue.
And your source is ? I believe the discussion is about guns, not “contraband” in general. Conflating issues is a strategy. Keeping unauthorized firearms off planes is highly effective. If you think that’s 95% ineffective, we invite anyone to try instead of going off topic.
The contraband in this case, is weapons and inert explosive components. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...s-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 The acting head of the Transportation Security Administration was reassigned Monday after an internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security found security failures at dozens of the nation's busiest airports. The breaches allowed undercover investigators to smuggle weapons, fake explosives and other contraband through numerous checkpoints. Melvin Carraway, an 11-year veteran of the TSA who became acting administrator in January, was immediately reassigned to a DHS program coordinating with local law enforcement agencies, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said Monday night. Coast Guard Vice Adm. Pete Neffenger's nomination to be permanent administrator is awaiting Senate confirmation. Upon learning the initial findings of the Office of Inspector General's report, Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of other actions, several of which are now in place, agency officials said. In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials. "The numbers in these reports never look good out of context, but they are a critical element in the continual evolution of our aviation security," Homeland Security officials said in a statement. This isn't the first time TSA officers have failed to detect fake terrorists and their weapons. "Red Teams" have been probing TSA checkpoints for 13 years, oftentimes successfully getting weapons past airport screeners. However, this time, TSA agents failed to detect almost every single test bomb and gun, aviation experts said. "It's disturbing news. The question is how we can best mitigate that vulnerability in a way that doesn't prohibit the free movement of people and goods," John Pistole, a former TSA administrator, told NBC News. "That's just something that there's no perfect answer for." Meanwhile, terrorism experts stress that the threat levels remain high. "There's a continuing drumbeat of interests by terrorist groups, whether al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliates, to try to bring down a Western — especially a U.S.-bound — aircraft," Pistole said.
Again, you’re still talliking about chemicals and items that could be used as weapons not firearms specifically. Firearms not getting onto the passenger compartments of planes is an effective rate which is what you try to imply. Govt. Agencies continually “test” the effectiveness of overall security procedures. For firearms, they are very effective. So, how many planes have been highjacked using a firearm since the measures have been instituted ? The debate is about FIREARMS not to be conflated with box cutters. Still off topic.
Another person who doesn’t understand the power of a computer and the collective will of compliant enforcement. Next.....
