Bill would outlaw lists or databases of gun owners (Florida)

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Tue, Mar. 09, 2004

Bill would outlaw lists or databases of gun owners

Associated Press


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Databases kept by some law enforcement agencies that have lists of gun owners culled from pawn shop sales records would be outlawed under a measure passed overwhelmingly Tuesday by the House.

The bill (HB 155), which still needs Senate approval, passed 81-35 over the objection of a number of lawmakers who said it would hamper the ability of police to solve crimes.

But supporters noted that the bill is supported by the state's sheriffs, and said it would prevent police from profiling innocent gun owners, or some potentially larger move by government to target them for harassment or take their guns away.

The bill would impose fines up to $5 million for any police or other government agency that continues to maintain such a database.
(snip/...)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8143235.htm

[bluestateguy]

1. Get rid of the database

Call me paranoid, but I don't trust Jeb Bush with a database of gunowners at his fingertips. I could just see him ordering the confiscation of guns from all people on the list with Arab sounding last names.

[DonP]

7. Agreed

I'm not real nuts about giving Jeb, or his good buddy Ashcroft a list of any citizens beyond the phone book.

Just because they use the "G" word to scare some folks doesn't make it right and we shouldn't be so quick and eager to give names up to this government because some folks might not like or understand guns.

How about if they "just" wanted a list of all doctors and nurses helping women excercise their right to choose over the last 10 years. Just for future insurance reference purposes or some such of course? Would you trust them with that?

Permits for concealed carry (CCW), in the 46 states that allow it so far, are already in a data base of the state police (the permit holders turn out to be far less likely to be involved in a crime than ordinary non-carrying citizens). Some states require that the specific serial number and description of the guns owned or carried also be listed.

Every gun sold by a gun store, or at a gun show by any licensed FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee) must retain a copy of the form 4473 that is filled out for every purchase and the NICS (National background check). That form must be retianed for as long as the FFL is licensed and if they go out of business they must ship those forms to the BATFE.

If any gun is involved in a crime it can be checked back to the selling agent very quickly through the manufacturer or importer by serial number to the dealer and then to the customer.

Otherwise any citizen that chooses to keep a gun, whether it's their grand daddies Browning semi-auto shotgun for trap and skeet or a collection of WW II rifles shouldn't be Jeb or Ashcroft's business IMHO.

[JoeKSimmons]

20. What if Clinton and Janet Reno were running the show?

Would the list be ok and in good hands then?

[bobbyboucher]

26. Your point?

They'd be in better hands than with The Monkey and his monkey handlers, and his monkey-ass brother. Contrary to your embedded beliefs, Dems don't want to "take away all our guns".

[JoeKSimmons]

28. The only reason given to not keep a list was the currrent regime

If the list is bad under bush then it would STILL be bad under anyone else. That was my point and you have no clue as to what my "embedded beliefs" are.

[bobbyboucher]

36. I got clues.

Don't you worry.

[chasqui]

47. Its all government in the end.

No, even with Janet Reno or Bill Clinton, no.

[DonP]

35. Wouldn't matter to me who was in power at the time

It's not just who has the lists right now.

In my mind it is who might get their hands on them in the future. It's more the principle than the current regime.

If we were talking about the 1st amendment, would you be comfortable with the government requiring that all printing presses and their owners be registered with the DOJ?

[mike1963]

9. Or people who post on DU, maybe? I agree. That's a good bill.

...

[BR_Parkway]

2. Ok, what about the database for gun permits that are normally

issued by the local sherrif?

[demdave]

10. These background checks are, by law, to be held for only 6 months.

After that they are to be purged. In reality, they have not been purging the list and I believe there is a legal procedure underway about that also.

[DoNotRefill]

33. That's not a list of who owns guns....

you don't need to own a gun to get a permit. It's also less likely to be abused, since the permits aren't firearm-specific.

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. What about tracking guns

that are used in homocides and robberies? Wouldn't outlawing those databases limit law enforcement in following leads?

[demdave]

8. There is no way this list would help law enforcement.

Say, like in Ohio, you have a person shooting at cars on the highway. You know it is a certain caliber gun. You can even match the bullets to each other to prove they are from the same gun. Now what? Track down every person in Columbus and surrounding areas that have a gun of that caliber? Confiscate everyones gun? What?

Please explain how this list of names and addresses of people who bought guns over the years will help law enforcement.

P.S. I have friend's in law enforcement and they aren't even being told the caliber of the highway shooter's gun by the FBI and ATF for fear that they would leak this info to the press.

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. Am not a gun owner

and am not savvy about this.
Thanks for your input O8)

[demdave]

17. Your welcome, I come here to get news and share ideas.

Knowledge is where you find it.

[DoNotRefill]

31. No...

BATFE maintains a national tracking center. If a gun is used in a crime, local cops send a request to BATFE, and they conduct the trace and report the findings to the local cops. This has been SOP for over 35 years, and works well. Turnaround is generally under 48 hours.

[damnraddem]

4. Will it also make it a crime for ...

the NRA to keep a list of members? ;-)

Hey, nothing like adding a little spice to the lives (and deaths) of law enforcement personnel.

After all, it's not like there have been major shooting incidents in this country.

[denverbill]

5. But it's A-ok for the govt to keep a list of books I've read.

Sure, makes sense to me.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Maybe books on guns are exempt from the list!

You're right, it makes no sense.

[MrBenchley]

6. Another crock from the NRA

I think such a database should be kept on the national level...

Worth noting that Jebbo's band of idiots is also trying to exempt shooting ranges from environmental regulations.

[JoeKSimmons]

21. Sure thing

And all environmentalists should be tagged with a GPS device to make sure it's not them burning SUVs in the name of the ELF. Sometimes where a person hangs their hat is not a hatrack.

[Democat]

11. How about a law to get rid of the database of abortions?

Right wingers want government access to abortion records, but not gun records? :(

[Malva Zebrina]

12. My thoughts exactly and it is women who have the abortion and most

likely men who have the guns.

There needs to be a revolution in this country --soon.

[DonP]

14. Beyond personal medical record, what database?

Not a flame, but an honest question.

I'm not aware of any database existing of women that have had abortions that exists outside of personal medical records? I think they can only get those via a subpoena (sp?) that must show probably cause, right?

Is there one? Or is that a speculative concern?

[donco6]

16. Same law moving through Colorado legislature. eom

[teryang]

18. Compiling lists is an essential building block

...of a police state. There are lists out there in the private sector and in civilian government agencies that are maintained. If there is reasonable suspicion of law breaking or probable cause there is no reason why such lists cannot be inspected by the police when they identify what they are looking for and the reason why they are seeking it. To maintain indiscriminate lists in police records for preventative purposes is not warranted. As far as social order and safety go, such lists make citizens less secure.

Many of the illicit drugs in my community come from the police evidence locker. If people know you have a gun, your residence is more likely to be burglarized.

Recent Florida news items: policeman's home burglarized and guns stolen; gunbelt and accessories stolen from volunteer police auxillary vehicle; 1000lbs or more of illicit drugs "stolen" from police evidence locker by deputy sheriff custodian; and finally, firehouse burns down while firemen answer call- breakfast left cooking on the stove.

[NickB79]

22. Burglary increases?

I'm trying to figure that statement out that people knowing you own a gun makes you more likely to be burglarized. I know that if I were a criminal, I'd stay as far away as possible from a house where I know the owner keeps a gun.

[sandnsea]

19. "Thar' gwin to take ma' guns"

This "gun confiscator" shit is fucking ignorant. Nobody has ever suggested confiscating every gun. Not being able to track down a gun owner in this day and age is just ignorant. We can track every damn thing for criminal purposes except the actual thing that people use to commit crimes. Just fucking ignorant.

[JoeKSimmons]

23. Gun registration worked well in Briton, Canada, Australia and California

Shortly after gun owners registered certain weapons the gov made certain guns illegal to own. It made it real easy to go door to door and collect these now illegal guns. It worked quite well.

It will be a bloody day if they every try that here in America.

[FeebMaster]

25. No it won't.

"It will be a bloody day if they every try that here in America."

[JoeKSimmons]

30. Do you really think Americans will just hand over their guns like others?

They would need the military to enforce it and that's asking for some serious bloodshed.

[bobbyboucher]

27. Explain the California thing, I live here, do you?

I bought a gun not long ago in Cal, did you? I still have that gun in Cal, do you? Nobody has ever come to my door to get my gun in Cal, did they come to your door?

Briton?

[JoeKSimmons]

29. CA SKS owners were told to register their SKS weapons

They did and then CA banned them as "assualt rifles" and told the owners to turn them in. As a gun owner in CA I'm shocked you didn't know that.

[bobbyboucher]

37. They are assault rifles.

When they were going door to door, why didn't they just grab every gun in each household?

[Romulus]

38. "They are assault rifles"

Sure, by "someone's" definition.

Of course, you can't come out and say "we're banning your pea shooter." You first need to label it something bad.

Example: The pending MD "assault weapon" ban labels any handgun that could possibly accept both a "detachable ammunition feeding device," and a "threaded barrel," as a "copycat assault weapon." It also bans any handgun that "accepts" an "ammunition feeding device" somewhere other than the handgrip. Under those definitions, every commercially available semi-auto handgun and revolver would be banned. Any semi-auto rifle that "could" accept a "detachable ammunition feeding device" and pistol grip, "flash suppressor," or adjustable stock would also be banned.

But that's OK - those are "assault weapons.":eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

39. How, exactly are they assault rifles?

They have a fixed 10 round magazine and no pistol grip. They're also not select-fire.

The ONLY characteristic of an assault rifle that they have is the caliber, which is roughly comparable to a .30-30 that is the most commonly used hunting round in the US.

[DonP]

40. Pretty much the same as my WW II 1943 M-1 Garand

Except a whole lot less powerful than the Garand.

It's a semi-auto too and some folks have declared any self loading rifle to be an assault weapon. I wish I could believe it was out of true ignorance in the true sense of the word, but I'm afraid it's not.

We had the same thing here in Chicago where everyone was told to "just register" their "assault" weapons.

Then, a while after registration, they were all made illegal in Chicago, 6 months later the CAGE (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) teams started collecting them from folks that didn't run them in voluntarily.

Gun owners have become very, very sceptical of anyone that espouses "simple common sense" registration.

For folks that feel that way, give it the 1st amendment test. Would you be comfortable with the government registering printing presses and keeping a data base of the people that owned them?

[NickB79]

24. How many guns used in crime are used by their original owners?

If the majority of guns used in crime today are stolen or second-hand private transactions, how does a list of the original legal gun owner do anyone any good? Trace a gun, knock on someone's door and hear them say that gun was stolen 3 yrs ago, or sold to pay bills? Where can you progress from there in the criminal investigation?

There are between 75-100 million legal gun owners in the US today. There are ~12-15,000 lethal shootings in this country every year. Of those, roughly 1/2 to 1/3 are done by police or citizens acting in self-defense. That leaves 7000-9000 unjustified homicides yearly by gunshot, the majority of which are gang and drug related. Many of those committing these homicides are already criminals beforehand, and incapable of legally owning guns. Does this give some sense of just how rarely legal gun owners commit murder with their firearms? A guestimate on my part would be what, 2-4000 out of 75 million?

[DoNotRefill]

32. Nobody?

Are you sure you want to say that? Because there are groups which DO advocate going door-to-door and collecting every gun from the American people....

As far as tracking guns, that's a Federal thing, not a State thing. It's done all the time, and includes the exact same records that are being discussed.

[Crachet2004]

34. These kind of uninformed, assinine remarks, on this issue,

are exactly why our Party has extreme difficulty carrying predominately rural states.

If guns had never been invented, there would still be plenty of wherewithal to commit crimes. It takes minds to commit crimes...guns are only a tool. If there were NO guns, still, there would be crime.

Guns in the hands of legitimate owners PREVENT crime as well. And an armed populace is necessary to prevent the ultimate crime: enslavement of the people by the central authority-to prevent Tyranny, in other words.

Ben Franklin said: "He who would give up Liberty for Security, shall have neither"...and THAT is why we have the 'right to bear arms'. It has nothing to do with any 'crime', except that of oppression!

Computerized government record-keeping of ANY kind of citizen activity, in the name of security, is exactly what Franklin was talking about. Actually, I think he would be appalled at the very notion! I know I am. 'Patriot' even wants to know the books you read!

And once all the guns are located and/or neutralized in the name of crime-prevention, will you have them ban knives and ballbats? Where is the end of it? With computers and connectivity, there does'nt HAVE to be an end to it.

That's what I think everyone should REALLY be concerned about.

[fob]

41. an armed populace is necessary to prevent the ultimate crime:

enslavement of the people by the central authority-to prevent Tyranny, in other words.

I hate to break it to you, but bush*co is pretty far along that road and they haven't fired a single round and I see no one gathering with arms to turn them back. In fact, they can be defeated by a single vote rather than a firefight.

[Crachet2004]

42. I hate to break it to YOU, but voting is only as good as the medium we ...

use, and the machines may be rigged! And though we have lost some liberties, it does'nt have to be permanent. There is much more that CAN be lost, and WILL be lost a lot quicker, if only governments have guns.

Nobody is advocating any 'firefights', but it is a natural given that lines exist that government can't cross, with an armed population.

That's why the 2nd amendment exists...the only reason. It's the same theory of checks and balances that exist among the three branches of govt. It is there to balance the Police power of govt.

None of which works perfectly, but it is all we have got. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers had just had a big dose of Tyranny, and fearing more, wrote the first ten amendments accordingly.

Ask yourself, why is it second? Answer: It's that important.

[DoNotRefill]

43. ummm...

"When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun" --The Clash, Guns of Brixton

[Paladin]

44. Yeah, Right

The numerical ranking of the importance of the Amendments just doesn't fly. Are you going to tell me the Third Amendment---concerning the quartering of troops in private residences, a matter that hasn't been an active concern since the Civil War---is more important than, say, the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Not likely. And spare me the argument that all constitutional provisions are of equal importance, OK?

The Second Amendment was promulgated to establish and equip state militias, as an alternative to the kind of standing army the Founding Fathers dreaded. This notion that the 2nd is some sort of check on the power of government is modern-day gun activist wishful thinking, unsupported by case law or demonstrable incidents. As if Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft lose sleep over an armed populace.....

[DoNotRefill]

45. Ummm...

If it was the alternative to having a standing military, then why is the militia listed separately from the Army and Navy in Article 1 Sec. 8? Obviously, there was to be both a standing military and a militia.

Where in the Constitution is the word "State" found directly next to the word "militia"?

If it was a State militia that the Second Amendment protects and not a generic militia (made up of the body of the people), then why in U.S. v. Miller was the fact that Miller wasn't in any State militia dispository? After all, if it only applies to the National Guard (which is NOT a State militia) and organized State select militias, his not being in one of those organizations would mean that the Second Amendment didn't apply to him, right? Miller wasn't even a perspective militia member, since he was precluded by law from being in a militia due to previous convictions. But that's not what they found, they found that it's the weapon's military usefulness that's the test, not if the person possessing it is in a State militia or other government formation.

[DoNotRefill]

46. On the Third Amendment...

Surely you're not saying that the Founding Fathers knew what was going to happen after the Civil War, are you?

Also, think about what the Third Amendment entails. It doesn't just entail an occasional search and seizure, it involves the Government literally stationing a government actor in your home 24/7. It affects all aspects of privacy, et cetera, and not on a one-time basis as in the case of an unreasonable search and seizure.

The government hasn't VIOLATED the Third Amendment recently. That doesn't mean it's unimportant or still not a valid concern today. Don't you think Ashcroft would LOVE to quarter troops in the homes of people he suspects are Terra-ists or people with Arabic names?

[NickB79]

48. One question

What other rights stated in the amendments to the Constitution are state rights and not personal rights?

[DoNotRefill]

49. Especially when they say "the right of the people" in them....

When did the State governments become the people?

[Columbia]

50. States don't have rights

Only powers delegated to them by the people.