crbutler wrote:It actually matters based on what your goals are.
If your goal is giving a private sale guy a bit of peace of mind that he sold the gun to an upstanding individual, that proposition works well.
After twiddle dumb does something bad, they will be able to tell that he obtained a gun legally (cross reference his identification with the system). If he got it legally, he got it legally and it’s the .gov’s problem if they didn’t do the data entry.
Tracing the gun through it’s multiple owners does nothing re crime, you ain’t putting the bullets back in it.
It’s an affirmative defense against your being charged with illegal sales- here is my proceed confirmation.
The loan part is for in your presence- no need to do a form if you take Billy to the range or hunting... not give possession of the gun to Uncle Tom for a month... more or less actually defining what is borrowing vs. what pawning/trading/gifting is.
I do realize this is unacceptable to the progressives, but it does make for better transfer safety and by avoiding charging the gun owners for it, it would make it easy to comply with.
If we offered it up, when the progs refuse it, it demonstrates to the uninitiated and even some of the less hoplophobic gun control advocates what the true agenda clearly is... registration as a preliminary to confiscation.
The lack of registry doesn’t make this “not work”; rather it makes the crime be on the illegal purchaser’s end only, not on some guy who was lied to. I could care less how an ineligible person got a gun, I want them punished for having it and using it inappropriately- they are the ones that committed a crime...
I dis-agree,
1) You want an affirmative defense sell to some one with a p2c or permit to purchase, There are laws reguarding this and they work well as is.
2) Loans, that does not cover all circumstances for loans. Say your sister's soon to be ex is threatening her, you could not loan her a revolver. Unless you want to camp out at her house 24/7. Say a friend is house sitting for you, they would be in possession of your guns (in a safe or not) so you would have do a transfer for each gun too them and back too you when you returned. say...
3) How does the government know you broke the UBC law unless they know who owns the guns, that is a registry.
4) Throwing the the anti-2a crowd crumbs to appease them never works they always want more, their goal is and has always been a ban on all guns. In the People's Republic of Kalifornia you have to pay for and go through a back ground check to buy ammunition, you don't think that is next?
5) If this is offered up and they refuse it would be spun as we are unwilling to support "common sense gun legislation".
6) It is already illegal for a prohibited possessor to possess a gun, how does making it "Illegaler" do anything?
7) For the anti-2a crowd, this is not about gun-violence this is just another step to "HELL YES WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!", If it was about gun violence why is no one talking about say... Chicago?
8) There is a crap-ton more reasons why this is a bad idea and will hurt people like us and do nothing to stop any gun violence...