Outsider view on US gun problems

Our gun laws aren't exactly the same in every state.

They are very close because the various State Attournies General got together and made them that way. Granted it was with a bit of arm twisting by the feds.

Panzer, you seem to be a "never worker." No matter what solution someone comes up with to deal with a problem, you proclaim that it will "never work."

I guess that the reason that people in Virginia should be concerned about what California does is that the ripple effect of what California does impacts Virginia. Nowhere is that more true than with guns. The things flow across state lines like water through a sieve. Unless I'm mistaken, that makes it a federal problem. The reason for a union of states is to deal with matters too big for any one state to deal with alone. As for how legal my idea is, the lawyers would have to deal with it.

What you seem to be concerned with is keeping your guns. I am not opposed to that. As long as they are not used in a criminal enterprise, you are welcome to them. What I am concerned about is public safety. We are awash in a sea of guns. Gun violence ranges all the way from criminal activity to domestic disputes and the idiot who thinks that "packing heat" gives him a valid tool for conflict resolution. All of this adds up to a huge problem for America as a whole.

So, Panzer, deal with it. We're not simply hogs rooting around in our own trough. So deal with it.

Don

-

Panzer wrote:Why should the people in California care what gun laws the people in Montana choose to pass and vice versa?

Is there an enforced border between Montana and California where people going from one state to another are checked for guns?

No?

That's why.

...and that runs smack dab into the 5th Amendment. Requiring the registration of all firearms runs smack dab into the self-incrimination issue of firearms in possession of people who are not legally allowed to own firearms.

Yeah, that is not how the 5th amendment works. A gun registry is not a criminal case, and thus the prohibition against making people be witnesses against themselves in a criminal case does not apply. If someone ended up under arrest or in court because the government found out they were illegally in possession of a firearm and brought a case against them they could THEN invoke their 5th amendment right against being called to testify against themselves.

It probably wouldn't be enforceable at all. What do you with with firearms that were manufactured and sold before 1968 and were passed down or transferred without entering interstate commerce, and thus don't have a serial number?

You either ignore them if they're sitting in someone's closet never being used or abused.... or eventually identify them when they get used in some way that brings them to the attention of law enforcement and they then get registered.

Is it an instant solution? No. But a slow and gradual solution beats no solution every single time.

What's to keep /pol/ or /k/ posters from taking all of those guns and engraving them with the serial number 420YOLOSWAGLOLZ?

Prison when they get caught carrying said weapons? I mean, that seems fairly obvious.

And, what perchance if you choose to operate an unregistered car on private property? You're not on a road so you don't need a license or a registration.

How is this even a relevant question? Are you suggesting that because there are instances of unlicensed people operating vehicles on private property we should do away with all licensing for people who drive cars because somehow this means it doesn't work?

I find myself wondering if our right wing friends can spell the word governance... They are obviously opposed to the idea...

Don

-