Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who owns a registered gun?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amigo Will
    replied
    Untill The GCA of 68 there was no real paper trail for weapons unless special ordered.Thats why its so hard to prove someone special realy owned a certain gun.

    Leave a comment:


  • headhunter353
    replied
    Mike did they take it ,if so why? It belongs to you .Something does not sound right about that .

    Leave a comment:


  • strangerinastrangeland
    replied
    Mike L , if some one saying they were FBI came and asked for a pistol that #1 did not have apeper trail out side of a 50+ year old recipt ( no numbers, no paperwork, nothing back then), and #2 demanded a 'Limited Edition" pistol, I would call the REAL FBI, 'cause its becoming a popular way to rip off guns from collectors, and break into places nowdays, impersonating cops......


    I love it when a politics/laws thread prospers in a Hunting Forum:topjob:

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeL
    replied
    a few years ago a FBI agent showed up at my parents house asking for a pistol that my dead grandfather had purchased many many years prior. This was a very limited edition pistol and they were tracking down every one of them. they had found one that was used in a murder and the serial number had been grinded off. They were tracking down pistols purchased in the 50's so never be surprised of what the goverment knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • FurFishGame
    replied
    Good grief. Thats sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • pike_palace
    replied
    Originally posted by bushrat View Post
    And hey gun owners and NRA: you can't pick and choose which privacy rights to fight for, you gotta fight for them all equally!
    They aren't being "fair" they're being "hypocritical".
    Find me a place where everything is fair and equal.

    Leave a comment:


  • headhunter353
    replied
    Out of the 30 guns I own there might be 6 on record and that's all that ever will be.When I was young, you bought a gun and the only paper work was counting the money.

    Leave a comment:


  • .338-06
    replied
    Originally posted by bushrat View Post
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4]My initial thoughts on the article are that it is biased and overhypes things, and frankly I am really tired of the outright hypocrisy of the NRA and gunowners in general who stand against things like this (and I agree with their position on this) yet continue to support all manner of other infringements on privacy rights, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.
    I guess I haven't been paying attention Mark. I thought most gun owners were against things like the Patriot Act and the Dept of Homeland Security. If anything screams POLICE STATE those two phrases do. I was actually proud of Don Young when I heard he spoke out against the Patriot Act.

    If you're right and most gun owners support the loss of freedom as long it doesn't bother them, well that's just sad for our country.

    On another note, I read on another forum (grain of salt-internet info) that at gun shows in Illinois you have to show your Firearms Owners Card before being able to handle any guns on a sellers table. Don't know if that's a law, but it's sure sad. And the FOIA request for the card holders names is supposed to have come from the Associated Press. If true, I'd like to know why. Are the names and addresses of law enforcement personel public too?

    Leave a comment:


  • mmusashi2k
    replied
    Originally posted by bushrat View Post
    My initial thoughts on the article are that it is biased and overhypes things, and frankly I am really tired of the outright hypocrisy of the NRA and gunowners in general who stand against things like this (and I agree with their position on this) yet continue to support all manner of other infringements on privacy rights......And hey gun owners and NRA: you can't pick and choose which privacy rights to fight for, you gotta fight for them all equally!
    [/U][/B]




    Well, I guess first off it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the rights of barbers to keep and bear scissors shall not be infringed.

    Leave a comment:


  • bushrat
    replied
    My initial thoughts on the article are that it is biased and overhypes things, and frankly I am really tired of the outright hypocrisy of the NRA and gunowners in general who stand against things like this (and I agree with their position on this) yet continue to support all manner of other infringements on privacy rights, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.

    (Hey, this thread is political so what the hell! <grin>)

    For starters, state of Illinois requires those who purchase or possess guns to have a Firearm Ownership ID card. Some cities, like New York City, and some other states, have similar requirements that require some gun owners (sometimes it relates to handguns) to have a special license.

    While I don't personally believe that the names of the FOID cardholders in Illinois should be released, my personal beliefs may not match state or city laws regarding transparency of public records. That is the issue here really, that the courts or legislature in Illinois will have to delve into.

    Doctors, lawyers, architects, barbers, guides...may all require licensing by states, and those licensees must be made public. In the case of these FOID cardholders, as mentioned it is only the names and licensing dates that would be released if this goes through.

    So the legal question then is where is the line exactly on what public information should be, or must be, made public under whatever transparency laws individual cities or states must abide by?

    One could make a good argument I think that the rationale for publicly releasing the names of professional licensees like doctors and guides is so the public can be assured that individual is legitimate, and that there is no similar rationale to release the names of licensed gun owners.

    One could also make a rational argument that anyone who applies for a city or state license for anything should understand that such information must be made public. (Look at draw or Tier tag information for example in Alaska, many don't understand that information is made public, must be made public -- one could then argue that in itself is a partial list of gun owners in the state of Alaska, OMG! <grin>) One could also argue that this isn't about names on a list per se but rather the public getting to view the integrity of the gun licensing system.

    There are imo some pretty far-fetched arguments in all this. First, it's only names that would be made public, not addresses. Granted, some names are unique enough that one could look up the address, but even so, certainly knowing someone owns a gun does not make that person more vulnerable to bad guys.

    Actually, when the names of the handgun owners in NYC were released (many of course were prominent, wealthy individuals), many of those people thought it was a deterrent in people knowing they had a handgun license.

    And the opposite argument that everyone (which is the vast majority of those in Illinois) not on the FOID cardholder list is somehow more vulnerable to burglaries or bad guys under the assumption they don't own a gun just doesn't add up either.

    So I don't buy the argument from the police from the article that release of the FOID cardholder names and expiration dates is
    "information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person."

    And an NRA spokesman elsewhere made the same argument: "You potentially make us targets," Vandermyde told the Tribune. "Or, on the inverse, you could say, 'These are the homes that don't have FOID cards so it's likely they don't have guns, so therefore they make better targets.'"

    Seriously, does anyone here believe having those names endangers law enforcement or "any other person"? How so? Might as well argue that release of draw tag names does the same. Or release of doctor names makes them "better" targets cuz they are generally wealthier. Those arguments just don't hold up on their face.

    Hey, I don't like or want the licensing laws that some cities and states have regarding gun ownership. Wouldn't live there because of that and other reasons. But as far as "privacy" goes, I guess I figure if I apply for a license to be a barber, guide, massage therapist, own a gun, I've then and there lost any notion of privacy.

    So in effect, what the Illinois AG is doing here (keep in mind though this wasn't out of thin air, it happened because there was a FOIA request for this info and the AG had to make a decision) likely just discourages many from going the legal route in Illinois. No doubt thousands upon thousands of gun owners have not registered already, bought guns elsewhere with no records. This just amplifies that.

    And hey gun owners and NRA: you can't pick and choose which privacy rights to fight for, you gotta fight for them all equally!


    Leave a comment:


  • Hunt&FishAK
    replied
    Originally posted by pike_palace View Post
    Had a shotgun stolen out of a truck several years ago along with other stuff. Got everything back except the shotgun. Cops claimed they found everything but the gun. -_-.

    "the System" is a screwjob anymore. On a state and Federal level.


    agreed....i have nothing further to say

    Leave a comment:


  • Amigo Will
    replied
    Again the dealer never tells the BATF what the gun is you want to buy so the BATF would have to visit the shop for that. The BATF can find where every gun built or sold by factories or distributors goes to buy gun shop and can then go to the shop and look at the bound book to see who purchased the gun

    Leave a comment:


  • pike_palace
    replied
    Originally posted by strangerinastrangeland View Post
    Obama may be the first U.S. President ever that has not shot a gun................has he?

    There is no way any cops can come to a private residence and take any form of weapon without a compliant or charges.
    If you have ever lost a Gun to "the System", get it back.
    Had a shotgun stolen out of a truck several years ago along with other stuff. Got everything back except the shotgun. Cops claimed they found everything but the gun. -_-.

    "the System" is a screwjob anymore. On a state and Federal level.

    Leave a comment:


  • strangerinastrangeland
    replied
    Obama may be the first U.S. President ever that has not shot a gun................has he?

    There is no way any cops can come to a private residence and take any form of weapon without a compliant or charges.
    If you have ever lost a Gun to "the System", get it back.

    Leave a comment:


  • FamilyMan
    replied
    I sure don't own any guns

    The gun dealership paperwork filled out that shows I have bought guns? Well, I sold those guns (legally) online.

    Other guns people might have seen me with? I both bought and sold those guns online, legally.

    No, I'm not so good at making or keeping receipts for a cash sale either, which is the only type of sale I've ever been involved in.

    So, I don't own any guns. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X