Why not this for a state gun control law to slow gun trafficking?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

All guns that are transported into a state that has passed this law must be registered with the state before being transported across the state line. Anyone convicted of this crime would be subject to a minimum of five years in prison per gun.

Wouldn't this slow the flood of guns into cities like Chicago from states with lax gun laws like South Carolina?

[NYC_SKP]

1. And if an possessor of a gun doesn't abide by the rule, then what?

It sounds good, except that it depends on compliance.

Bad guys aren't always the greatest followers of rules.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

3. "And if a possessor of a gun doesn't abide by the rule, then what?"

Same thing that happens to you if you don't abide by the rule of not possessing 5 ounces of heroin.

[Kolesar]

42. You bravely ran away, away

You bravely ran away

[NYC_SKP]

52. ok

?

[spanone]

57. don't all rules depend on compliance? an argument to not have any laws.

[CTyankee]

94. and irresponsibly drivers drove drunk in bigger numbers before we started getting

tougher drunk driving laws. Then many stopped doing it. If you don't have willing compliance, you have sanctions against you. It has worked with drunk driving and it will work with stronger, more effective gun safety laws and strong enforcement.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. It would be in conflict with Federal laws for one thing

There is a provision for those in transit. Then there is the FFL issues and the commerce clause.

A better approach would be if it is they were being permanently relocated into that state you have 90 days to bring them into compliance with that state. I believe that is pretty much already the case.

Those taking guns into Chicago are already breaking the law. Why would more laws solve it?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

14. There of course would be provisions for guns

that are being transported to gun dealers.

There are laws that impose stiff penalties for transporting drugs across state lines. Why not guns as well?

I'm saying guns should be registered 3 months before they are brought into a state. If that's an imposition on people, too bad.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Current Federal laws are pretty clear

If the firearms are allowed in the originating and destination states, there is a right for innocent passage. They have to be locked up /inoperable etc. Seems reasonable to me.

There are no restrictions for legal drugs as you suggest, only illegal ones, where mere possession is already a crime. I don't think its a viable analogy since drugs are controlled at the national level. Maybe some agricultural items or pets would be a better approach (ferrets are allowed in some states, not in others)

I have not always known 90 days ahead of time where I was going to be living next (military) and given some of the economic transients we have today, that number is larger not smaller.

If we had some form of national standards, national registration would work, but then Wyoming would have to agree to tougher standards and California weaker ones.

The key here is the state and local regulations make for such an uneven playing field that what you suggest is not practical. Compare Utah to Washington DC for example.

[onehandle]

4. All gun sales should be as heavily taxed percentage-wise, as cigarettes. And as heavily registered..

...as automobiles.

Licences should be far more regulated than driver's licenses. Fingerprints, blood samples, and DNA should be tied to them.

Want a gun? Obey the law.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Tobacco is a vice, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. nt

[onehandle]

7. 'Well Regulated.'

Regulate gun nuts' asses.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. That talking point is well debunked

[99Forever]

103. Your debunking has been debunked...

... along with the rest of your tired NRA talking points.

Gun culture is a mental illness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. I will see your debunk and raise you several Supreme Court decisions

Well regulated has been defined by SCOTUS, and its not what the prior posted claimed. That's not NRA talking, that the law.

Hate is a mental illness, that includes those who hate guns and gun owners.

[99Forever]

119. Bull.

Shit.

[golfguru]

10. That would impede poor folks living in poor neighborhoods

access to their 2nd Amendment rights. Hardest hit will be single black mothers who need the protection of a gun to be able to fight off a male intruder.

[onehandle]

13. Unicorn.

[Kurska]

17. You know that stuff is probably like 50% horse. n/t

[onehandle]

18. It certainly tastes like horse. nt

[Kurska]

11. Obey?

Just a little playful snark, btw.

If you don't get the reference I'm sorry, I'd be happy to tell you where it is from.

[onehandle]

20. I'm a film fan. Good and bad.

Still waiting for Big Trouble In Little China 2.

[Kurska]

5. It is already illegal to say, take a handgun into new york city.

You want to make it doubly super illegal to do it? I'm pretty sure the above example is already a felony.

[NYC_SKP]

8. No, the OP wants to make it triple special super duper illegal.

That way, bad people won't DARE break the law!

Laws not working? MORE LAWS!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

9. Yes. VERY illegal.

Enough that it would make people think twice about doing it. Much like 3 strikes laws.

[Kurska]

12. If it is felony it already counts toward existing 3 strike laws. n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

29. Different felonies carry different penalties.

I think possessing an unregistered hand gun should be the same as committing murder.

Drug laws don't work because people want to do them and there is big money to be made.

[Sharpie]

55. There is zero reason for you to know...

... What's in my house.

"'Cause I wanna know" isn't an acceptable answer.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

58. Did I say I think your house should be searched?

As long as your unregistered gun stays in your house no one will be the wiser. (Unless the police raid your house for some other reason.)

[graham4anything]

19. Zero tolerance like teen drinking. Like the checkpoints for produce in California.

Guns are far deadlier than rancid produce.

I would also make any crime committed by a gun, to have 10% of the max sentence imposed on the gun seller and manufacturer no matter who they sold it to.(and no matter if the person doing it ever got caught or charged).

Make selling a gun so bad, that no one would want to do it for a living and then those that voluntarily move to a different profession can be rewarded.

Like Pavlov's dogs the framing of the issue can retrain a mind.

Again, with a reinterpretation of the 2nd, anything and everything is possible.

For one thing they also can do, is make laws that guns can't be sold anywhere near a day care center or a park where kids play are at.
Then have some rich people purchase a little piece of land and put a swing and a bench and a seesaw there.
And maybe do it every 3 blocks.

Like the famous Niagra Falls bit the three stooges and Abbott and Costello-
step by step
inch by inch
closer and closer and closer

(this has been a new technique being used in some towns where they now can keep pervs out of an area legally, by having more and more mini-parks.
All it takes is reinterpretations.)


Put a ring round it, like the vaccine shot does to a panademic.

I bet the 99% of the people who don't like bullets and guns can come up with something nation wide to put a ring on it.

Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Things get a little easier once you understand.

[pipoman]

51. "zero tolerance"..such a liberal concept it is..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Its all the rage in Bloomies office. They use it for so many things

[graham4anything]

85. The answer is mini-parks cropping up like ones that keep pervs out-it's the newest trend

Meek Mike the Great Equalizer is WINNNINGGG!!!

With the doubledown negativity towards a fellow human being by the NRA, it shows they
have nothing to offer in the conversation, same as the republican party in presidential races.
All negativity all the time.

Folks gave their view on negativity in Nov.2012, when the beloved Barack Obama slaughtered whatsthelosersname in state after state nationwide, like the NRA in a few relative years will be slaughtered.

They should indeed build mini-parks every 3 blocks in every single district in the nation and put a ring around it.
Much like people in states are now doing to make sure pervs don't live anywhere near anyone in their area.
They get a little parcel of land, they put some grass on it, they put a sandbox, a slide, a seesaw some monkeybars and put a name on it(I am sure they can put a name in tribute of any child murdered by a gun and a bullet and name the park after that deceased child).

And all it would take is someone with a little petty cash to buy the vacant lot in everyplace.

Hey, know any billionaire with money to spare who is interested in eradicating the cancer of bullets and guns in the streets? This would be a super way of monitering and alleviating the situation.
And cameras around (but NOT aimed at the minipark) the surrounding areas on all sides
(left and right, as the guns are not a partisian issue) can see anyone who breaks the laws
about having a gun and a bullet in an area where little children congregate, like they do
to keep pervs out.
(And what is more perv-ish than a bullet and a gun?)

what a great idea.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. More like raging egotistical Mike, the classic 1%er

He will try to buy his away around any court decision he can or use his own private army. Real liberal hero you have there

[geckosfeet]

15. Yeah! You could could catch all the illegal arms dealers while they wait in line

to register the guns they are smuggling across state lines! This will bring the illegal gun market to a halt virtually overnight!

Genius.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21. If they don't wait in line to register the gun

they get put in jail for a long long time.

[geckosfeet]

26. Jeezuz. It just isn't clicking tonight is it?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

32. Then why have any laws at all?

Cops do catch people once in awhile.

[geckosfeet]

39. You sure aren't going to catch a criminal by making more rules for him to ignore.

Look at the source. Who is doing the illegal buying and the illegal selling. This is one area where I believe greater effort would pay off. Reduce straw buyers and monitor the source of guns used in crimes.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

43. You don't think criminals are aware of the laws but they are.

Some don't care and they end up in prison. Make it a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison for possessing an unregistered gun and word will get around fast.

[geckosfeet]

96. You don't get it. But that's ok.

[hack89]

27. How are you going to catch them? nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

34. Then why have any laws at all?

Cops do catch people once in awhile.

[hack89]

37. Why not have effective laws if we are going to have laws at all?

something to make us think our leaders are doing more that just passing laws to "do something."

[UnrepentantLiberal]

45. I think a minimum of 5 years in prison for

possessing an unregistered hand gun would be a pretty affective law.

[hack89]

47. Can we keep the conversation bounded by political and social reality?

there will never universal gun registration in America - certainly not for handguns.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

50. I didn't say universal.

I said in one state. State law, not federal law.

[jmg257]

66. Easily doable. Like NY. Just need enough people to agree with you.

Seems like a great idea!

[hack89]

88. Why not simply increase the punishment for illegal gun trafficking?

it would accomplish what you want without putting legal gun owners at risk for an innocent mistake.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

89. Because it's leagle to straw purchase as many guns as you want

in southern states.

[hack89]

90. Straw purchases by definition are crimes

so no, it is not legal to straw purchase as many guns as you want.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

91. Still, you can buy as many guns as you want.

Can you not?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. Depends on the state. Some have a 1 gun/handgun per time period limitation.

I have mixed feeling. I don't see two firearms as a problem, I might have one if it was a dozen and was something other than new rifles for the high school rifle team.

Straw buying is a really hard problem to solve. How do you mind read the buyer? For example, more than a few years ago, I was buying one of my daughters a handgun. She did all the paperwork, I wrote the check. Had the FFL not known me, he could have thought that a straw buy.

[Llewlladdwr]

31. Or, gun smuggling becomes even more profitable (and violent) than it is now.

There's these things, called unintended consequences? They *always* show up to bite you...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

35. How so?

The cost of buying an illegal gun goes through the roof? You think that's a bad thing?

[putitinD]

16. maybe handguns should have a tracking device implanted in them like cell phones do

[geckosfeet]

23. Wholly bananas. Cell phones are electonic devices with huge infrastructures supporting

the technology.

Guns are chunks of steel, plastic and wood.

Do you see how there might be some technical milestones to overcome there?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Don't you be going all practical on us and stuff nt

[putitinD]

46. I was thinking of something more like an RFID chip, don't we have the technology

for atleast the police to know if you have a gun in your car before they pull you over? I dunno.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Metal blocks RFID

What is the dominant material in guns and cars?

[geckosfeet]

97. If I am legally carrying why should a cop care?

Also, some jurisdictions require you to inform law enforcement that you are armed during any face to face encounter.

[Llewlladdwr]

25. Hard to do since few guns include an electrical power source.

I'm not aware of any handguns that do so.

Do anti-gunners ever stop to think before they speak?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. There you go nit picking perfectly noble and well intended screeds

You cruel person you. Its not like details such as will it work really matter, just ask the pols.

[rrneck]

33. What would you have to do to enforce the law?

If guns are to become contraband, I would think there should be reason to believe that any particular gun will be used to commit a crime. Any number of things are considered contraband in our culture, heroin is a fine example. But the use of heroin is almost universally harmful for the user.

The problem with regulating guns, features of guns, availability of guns, and everything else about guns is that they can be used to save lives as well as take them. And we don't know to what use a gun will be put until someone uses it that way. That is why the entire gun debate is so circuitous (and profitable for the ideology industry).

[UnrepentantLiberal]

38. I'm talking about unregistered guns here.

Try to stay on topic.

[Llewlladdwr]

41. What's an "unregistered" gun?

My family owns a fair number of firearms and none of them are "registered", whatever that means.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

48. I meant to say unregistered hand gun.

Registering your hand guns would be a big problem for your family?

[Llewlladdwr]

54. Yes it would.

There is no current requirement to register a handgun in Texas. I would oppose any attempt to impose such a requirement.

My firearms are none of the Government's business.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

56. I'm not talking about federal law.

I'm talking about state law. I really don't care what you do in Texas. But the minute you come into my state with your unregistered hand gun you're looking at doing some time, boy.

[rrneck]

49. You're talking about firearms trafficking.

"All guns that are transported into a state that has passed this law must be registered with the state before being transported across the state line."

But it doesn't matter. It's the same problem.

Why register a gun that will never be used in a crime? How will you enforce your registration scheme? I haven't seen anyone suggest how that will work yet. As I recall the proposed legislation doesn't have any enforcement provisions at all. If you want to enforce firearms trafficking across state lines, you will have to give the state the right to search cars for contraband. If you want to enforce firearms registration you will need to document chain of custody and enforce it, which means access to where the records and firearms are stored, which in that case would be somebody's home.

There is already a system for the documentation of chain of custody in place which is about as good as it can be. If you want to register every gun and ensure proper transfer you will be turning every gun owner in the country (about eighty million of them) into gun dealers. If straw purchases are a problem now, wait until the state assumes responsibility for each and every transfer. Don't you ever wonder how many guns don't get sold because the seller didn't like the looks of the buyer? If there has to be a background check, the seller is absolved of responsibility. If a guy who sells guns for a living can't spot a straw purchaser, a private individual won't have a chance. The end result will probably be more straw purchasers, an unworkable and unpopular law, more illegal guns on the street, and the political wilderness for Democrats.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

53. Your making harder than it should be.

If I get pulled over and my car isn't registered and insured I pay a huge fine. That's why law abiding citizens register their car. If a cop searches my car and finds drugs I get penalized for that. If he finds an unregistered hand gun I do five years in prison.

[rrneck]

59. Do you park your car in your living room?

Will you use it to defend yourself from assault? Car analogies only go so far. Possession of a gun itself does not mean the possessor intends to do harm with it. There is simply nothing about the object itself that would lead us to believe it is inherently dangerous to the general public. It's real hard to declare something contraband that a) is not universally dangerous to the public good and b) potentially a life saving device.

There are what, three hundred million guns in this country? How many of them actually get used in a crime? The last time I looked there were about twelve thousand murders in this country - out of three hundred million guns. And you want to track each and every gun and attach stiff penalties for infractions for that? Nobody minds a bit of inconvenience if it's for the common good, but coming down hard on millions of voters to enforce a law that will do almost nothing to make the country a better place is political suicide.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

60. Register your hand gun.

Problem solved.

[rrneck]

61. Oh, now.

If you don't want to think about it that's fine. If you don't want to try to figure out how to solve the problem I don't mind. The legislation is already in the pipe and we're all spectators at this point. But it's pretty rude to shut down the conversation by ordering people around, don't you think?

You know, I've had this conversation about a half dozen times already and the end is already the same. When the hard questions start people just shut down. I don't mind registration in principle, but I want the law to work without unduly invading the privacy of people who would do no harm. That's how good legislation gets made. And you can bet even if you don't want to discuss it, there are millions of people out there who are perfectly willing to force their legislators to do so. That's why the legislation you want is so hard to get.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

63. Live in a state where you don't have to register your hand gun.

Problem solved.

[rrneck]

64. Reread your OP.

You're talking about interstate transfer of firearms. And of course people move all the time because for any number of reasons, so they will invariably weigh in on the national debate. It's the same political problem.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

67. I'm not asking for a federal law.

I'm saying you can't transport an unregistered hand gun into my state.

[rrneck]

68. Okay.

If I'm not mistaken, if you live in New York or Illinois that's already the law. Or is it Chicago and NYC? Either way, it's the same difference. Plenty of people get shot there anyway, and those guns come from somewhere else in the United States. Unless the legislation you want is federal it won't work.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

72. There's a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison

for being in possession of an unregistered hand gun in New York? I didn't know that.

[rrneck]

73. I don't think so.

But I'm pretty sure shooting somebody will get you five years.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

75. I'm saying they should be as afraid of being caught with an unregistered gun

as they would be with murdering someone. Not all will of course but it would take the gun out of a lot of kid's hands.

[rrneck]

77. I appreciate your passion

but you're advocating people doing hard time for not having the right paperwork. We already have more people locked up than any other country in the world. The prison industry would love to see a precedent like that established. And again, all that legislative capital, money, and load on the legal system for paperwork on guns most of which will never see the light of day?

Imagine how much good we could do with the money and productivity that would cost.

[jmg257]

93. Real good idea to get the illegal gun BEFORE it used to shoot someone though, right? nt

[rrneck]

98. Well,

making it illegal whether or not you know it will be used to shoot someone isn't the way to go about it.

[jmg257]

105. Sure it is - you simply allow people an easy method to avoid making it illegal.

And they simply follow the procedures.

Then criminals who choose to ignore the law can be charged with another crime - possession of illegal deadly weapons, and face even harsher penalties if those guns are used in the commission of another crime.

Not all that difficult.


Guns are called "deadly weapons" for a reason. Unfortunately, there are people who use guns to do bad things. Keeping those people from having easy access to guns is a good way to help keep them from shooting people with them.

[rrneck]

111. How easy is it?

How will you verify they have followed those easy procedures?

The legislation before congress right now allows unregistered transfer of firearms between family members, including spouses. That's a bit of a slap in the face of same sex couples isn't it? It's just another thing they can't do because they can't get married. And what about cohabiting couples? People who live together tend not to be right wing fundies, although they are not necessarily yellow dog democrats. In light of our current economic troubles lots of people have roommates who are not related in any way other than their residence, and not a few of them are under financial distress in financially distressed neighborhoods. What if three or four roomies can only afford one gun to be kept in the home for self defense? In a location where the nearest gun store, the place where that "simple procedure" has to be performed, is an hour away? Here's an interesting book by David K. Shipler entitled The Working Poor: Invisible in America

http://www.amazon.com/Working-Poor-Invisible-America/dp/0375708219
Struggling to simply survive, they live so close to the edge of poverty that a minor obstacle, such as a car breakdown or a temporary illness, can lead to a downward financial spiral that can prove impossible to reverse.

There are millions of people who simply cannot afford the time or the money to perform even the most "simple procedure". Add to that the fact that enforcement of that procedure will be an invasion of their privacy. Add to that the fact that that invasion of privacy won't improve police response time. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of those people already suffer from a shortabge of public services that should have been assured by Democrats that all to often bear a suspicious resemblance to Republican plutocrats (yeah Bloomberg, I'm looking at you).

What you get when you add all that up is a bunch of Democrats wondering why people "vote against their economic interest" and wondering "where is this wilderness and how did we get here?"

[jmg257]

69. Several states require handgun registration, licensing etc. Why is that such

A stretch? The laws work fine, violators can be hit with stiffer penalties, armed criminals can go to jail longer, no undue hardship on lawful citizens, plenty of choices for self-defense, various plusses for carrying, &c.

Just not seeing a real downside.

[rrneck]

71. Plenty of people still get shot in those states.

Those guns are coming from somewhere.

I'm in the middle of dinner so at the risk of being rude could I refer you to post #49?

[jmg257]

92. NP - Read that. I agree with the OP - you are making it way too complicated.

You want to possess or bring a (hand)gun into a state, you have to register it & maybe have a license for it, or it is illegal. NY does it, CA does it. No big deal at all.

You register them to cut down on the illegal gun flow, and deter possession of illegal guns. Get caught with an illegal gun, you go to jail and the gun gets confiscated. Pretty simple actually, and the deterence works pretty well. In CA they are using the info to recover illegal guns from felons and others banned from having them. In nY thousands of illegal guns are removed anually.

"Federal officials said there were 5,913 guns that were recovered by law enforcement officers in the city's five boroughs last year, compared to 7,059 in the previous year. More than half of those were traced to an original purchaser."

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/nyt_022808.shtml


Plenty of people get shot everywhere, just as guns used to shoot them come from somewhere - trying to cut down the incidences of both is the point.

[rrneck]

107. Statistics I never see...

How many people are assaulted or killed because possession of a gun to defend themselves was too expensive or difficult? How would we even compile that data? We certainly won't hear about it on the nightly news or create a "national debate" about it. Their lives were negatively impacted and those tragedies will be ignored.

How many people take a jaundiced view of Democrats because their lives are unnecessarily complicated or endangered because of foolish and intrusive laws and regulations? New York and California are true blue states where those kind of laws are possible. We can't win a presidential election with just those two states.

Micheal Bloomberg has about as much credibility as Rupert Murdoch. They are both billionaire media moguls who have spent their lives profiting from the manipulation of public opinion. Bloomberg is in the same class as Arianna Huffington as far as I am concerned. They both decided there was more money in being a Democrat than a Republican. That soft drink regulation fiasco was Bloomberg trying to make money off his conception of liberalism and getting it wrong. You win some, you lose some. And I believe the outrage of "stop and frisk" has already been pointed out that it is in fact a "big deal". He's using the office of mayor like any plutocrat to profit from his own self aggrandizement. Turning guns into another political fetish object for profit is his same old game.

When people say "you want to possess a handgun do this" I always wonder why would anyone do that, what's in it for them, how are you going to make them do it and prosecute them if they don't and what are the unintended consequences of that legislation? I have yet to get an answer to those questions.

[jmg257]

110. Handgun registration/licensing has been in existence in NY long before Bloomberg came to power.

And Republican governor (Pataki) signed the state's AWB.


Not sure why the permit system was enacted, I'll see if I can dig some info up.
The system seems to works fine for the most part...hard to know the down-sides without the numbers you mention. It would be an intersting study, no doubt.

Not sure how many are impacted as you state. I know my RW father-in-law wanted to buy a .38 after Pres. Obama's gun speech, and was surprised he couldn't just go to the store and get one. My sister in law on the other hand is going through the procedure, as I and my father did years ago, and lots of others I know in NY did too.

Annoying, but really not that big a deal.

[rrneck]

114. We don't really need more data.

The down side is already obvious. Do you think people in Kansas and Mississippi don't know what's going on in New York and L.A.? You can bet the NRA is making a killing informing them.

American are buying guns like they are going out of style. They have been for quite a while. At the same time the national crime rate is going down. There is simply no correlation between guns and crime. If you want to hurt somebody a gun certainly helps. But the causes of any human action for good or ill stretch far beyond any single factor. While we may be able to specify a particular cause among a plethora of causes, that specificity results in uncertainty about how much of an effect it actually has. We can measure ballistics and statistics all day long and write complicated legislation to control that single factor and while we do so people who want to do bad things will adjust the other circumstances around their motives before the ink on the legislation is dry.

When we support legislation that does nothing to help people but inconveniences or even endangers them our politicians get voted out of office. And it's an even greater tragedy when the legislation proposed by legislators who are supposed to defend the weak and poor falls most heavily on their shoulders without helping them one whit. That's how Democrats are so easily labeled by Republicans as arrogant elitist assholes. And people on both sides of the debate make money doing it.

Guns have been turned into a fetish object by the ideology industry the leaders of which are invariably card carrying members of the 1%. When we buy their product, we lose.

[jmg257]

116. I agree there is no direct correlation between guns and crime.

I am also VERY aware of the sudden uptake in gun sales (again).

In fact, seems I agree with just about everything you poosted here.

Cheers!

[rrneck]

117. Same here.

I always enjoy a nice chat.

[jmg257]

120. Peace - and it was good - thanks!

Glad I remembered to read AND to listen!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. Have you tried that in WashDC?

A Looney Times editor did a series about it. I may not agree with her often, but in DC they really want you disarmed.

We used to live there many years ago. My wife killed an armed home invader with an unregistered handgun. No charges, it was quite clear what had happened. Not sure what would happen today.

DC uses registration rules to the point of blocking the good people from having them while the bad people don't seem to have that problem. At least there, the pendulum needs to swing back a little.

[X_Digger]

65. Would all traffic stops require mandatory searches for potentially unregistered guns?

Because otherwise, all you'll get is gun traffickers saying, "No officer, I won't open the trunk for you, without probable cause. Buh-bye."

[UnrepentantLiberal]

70. That happens with a lot of crimes.

A lot of crimes go unpunished. Still, a lot of them don't. All it would take is a sting and the gun runner would go away for a long long time.

I mean, why don't you feel this way about other crimes? Should there be lax penalties for murder since people are going to murder anyway?

[X_Digger]

74. The point is that without some new power to search, it would be rather difficult to enforce.

It's already illegal to bring illicit drugs into the state. Absent probable cause to search a car, how many drug traffickers allow cops to search their drug-laden car?

Not many.

So if it's rather unenforceable (absent some special new power), what good do you expect to get out of this? Scare criminals who are already facing 10 years in a federal lock-up with the potential of the same in a state lock-up?



What kind of 'sting' do you have in mind? Have cops set up a fake 'free car wash' sign at the state border and see what they find? LOL!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

78. Already answered that question in this thread.

[X_Digger]

83. You appear to have dodged it. Care to point me to it? n/t

[jmg257]

95. How do cops in NYC recover thousands & thousands of illegal guns every year? Are they

being all that intrusive? Are they using some new power?

Enforcing the law & removing illegal guns isn't all that hard, as long as you enact bills that make the guns illegal.
When there is real fear of prosecution, illegal behavior will be deterred.

[X_Digger]

100. Are you at all familiar with 'Stop and Frisk'?

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

Damned right, NYPD is being 'all that intrusive'.

[jmg257]

101. So - they don't in fact need some new special powers? Thanks.

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Since "Of those frisked, a weapon was found only 1.9 percent of the time", since "Last year, the police seized 780 guns through stop and frisk" out of the roughly 27000 guns recovered, it seems that is NOT
how they are recovering all these illegal arms, is it?

9000 gun or so were recovered throughout the state {in 2011}
"Of the nearly 9,000 guns recovered and traced in New York last year..."
http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/08/01/virginia-remains-top-gun-source/

ETA: stop and frisk numbers, fix sentence

Edit: fixed numbers, links

[X_Digger]

106. That was one year (2011).

Did you fail to notice that?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/scourge_of_nyc_streets_eZuOUMryiS38ewn9UuFlBM

In 2012, 2,779 guns were seized. I'd love to hear where you got the 'roughly 5,000' number from.

Assuming 2011 (~800 'pistol', 'asltweap', 'riflshot', 'machgun') was similar to 2012, that'd be 1/3 of the guns seized.

Of course, there's no indication how many were seized due to being 'unregistered'. A gun seized after the NYPD shoots a suspect (and a few bystanders for good measure) would also add to that total.

[jmg257]

108. Ahh - my apologies, those were 2007 recovery numbers! I'll edit post above.

"Illegal Guns on Decline in New York - NYTimes.comcityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/.../illegal-guns-on-decline-in-new-york/Cached

Feb 28, 2008 – Federal officials said there were 5,913 guns that were recovered by law enforcement officers in the city's five boroughs last year, compared to 7,059 in the previous year."

Thanks for the correction!

eta link

[UnrepentantLiberal]

40. They'll catch on.

Right now it's no big deal if you get caught with an unregistered gun. Give people a five year prison sentence and they'll give it a second thought.

[kudzu22]

99. Anyone who would refuse to register their gun is probably already

prohibited from possessing a gun, registered or not. So what's the difference? Stiffer penalties won't make anyone think twice that wasn't already thinking twice and deciding to commit the crime.

[Lizzie Poppet]

102. I'm not so sure.

I live in a state with no registration requirement (Oregon). I know zero gun owners who say that they support registration (although some might...it's not something I've discussed with all of them). Several have stated that they will never comply with a registration law...and none of those persons is prohibited by law from owning firearms.

I very strongly suspect that compliance in registration states is a lot lower than many suspect. But since the large majority of gun owners will never harm anyone with their weapons, it's unlikely anyone will ever know they didn't register them.

[Kolesar]

44. Your subject line does not make any sense

...in the context of what you wrote in the body of the message.

[spin]

76. Honest people will follow your law. Dishonest people will not. That's the problem with many ...

ideas suggested by the gun control movement.

Why not simply better enforce existing laws, improve them as necessary as long as the improvement has a good chance of being effective and finally punish severely those who break the law?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

79. So you don't think any laws for any crimes in this country should be changed?

Or just the gun laws?

[spin]

84. Of course laws often need to be changed. ...

But the changes should be carefully considered.

I do support "feel good" laws as they accomplish nothing and often have unintended consequences.

[green for victory]

82. Works with Drugs!

wait...


Why not do what Michael Moore suggests and see if there's a link between violent behavior and SSRI antidepressants?

The media can spend time speculating about whether video games, or bullying, or diet, or bad parenting might be the problem but fails to mention the one common link.

Why is that?

Eli Lilly

Eli Lilly to settle US SEC bribery case
12/21/2012 Reuters

US drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co agreed on Thursday to pay $29 million to settle civil charges that its subsidiaries made improper payments to foreign government officials to win business in Russia, Brazil, China and Poland.

Lilly's settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission represents part of a broader bribery crackdown on the pharmaceutical industry by US criminal and civil authorities as they continue to probe corruption.- more

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/20/us-elililly-sec-idUSBRE8BJ12920121220

Through its "Viva Zyprexa" campaign, Lilly allegedly instructed its sales force to recommend that primary care physicians prescribe Zyprexa to adults suffering symptoms such as agitation, aggression, hostility, mood or sleep disturbances, or depression. In addition to these uses being off label, primary care physicians rarely manage the antipsychotic medications of patients treated for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, the uses for which Zyprexa is actually approved....more

http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/01/eli-lilly-zyprexa-settlement-drug-maker-to-pay-record-142-billion.html

why aren't these criminals in jail?

[ileus]

86. Criminals obey laws?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

87. Good point.

We shouldn't have any laws. Everyone can do what they want.

Hey, where's Remmah2?

[MadHound]

104. What, you're going to stop and search every single person at the border?

Because that is what it would take if you want this law to be effective. Of course requiring people to wait in line, all to get their car tossed, is not terribly conducive to tourism and general good will, so I imagine that the state's economy would take a big hit, as people would simply go around.

[premium]

109. I know one DU member

who has stated that exact thing, border checkpoints to look for guns.

[slackmaster]

118. Unconstitutional. Would conflict with the federal law that protects interstate travel with firearms.

A provision of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx