Mandatory Registration of All Firearms (Kalifornia - Sponsored by a Democrat)

[shadowrider]

Sacramento, CA --(AmmoLand.com)- On April 5, 2010, Assembly Member Feuer (D-Los Angeles) amended AB 1810 to require the Attorney General of California to permanently keep and maintain a firearms registry that includes extensive personal information of all firearms purchasers.

Under AB 1810, all those who purchase a firearm will be required to register that firearm by submitting their name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, and sex to the California Department of Justice.

AB 1810 is little more than an extreme invasion of personal privacy masked as an important crime fighting tool.

http://www.ammoland.com/

And people wonder why Democrats get a bad name when it comes to guns and gun control.

[Iggo]

1. And it'll get just as far as if some Rep proposes we have mandatory school prayer.

They have wingnuts. We have wingnuts.

Welcome to life in the USA.

[shadowrider]

2. Agreed

You have them on both sides.

[Katya Mullethov]

3. Mein Feuer would agree as well

He also believes there are enough of them to make it a demographic worth marketing his "products" to .

[one-eyed fat man]

4. California, who can tell.....

The same fruit-loop Democrat authored California's:

.50 BMG ban

"micro-stamping" law

"handgun safety testing" law

since his district is West Hollywood and Beverly Hills he has no shortage of well-heeled and highly-public anti-gun celebrities to fund his foolishness. Lots of folks said his other silly shit would "never pass" too. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers!

[no limit]

5. To drive I sure had to give a lot of personal infomration to the MVD.

I didn't call it an invasion of privacy, I called it common sense.

Having people that own guns register them seems like a real no brainer to me.

[shadowrider]

6. Driving is a privilege

Guns are a right. HUGE difference.

[no limit]

7. And nobody is taking your right away. So what's your point?

And I would say the consitution is just as sepecific about travel as it is about your right to own a gun.

[TheWraith]

10. No, it's not, actually.

And you're not required to give the DMV *any* information on yourself or your vehicles for private usage on your own property. Ever.

[no limit]

11. Really? You can purchase a car without registering even if it's for personal use?

You sure about that?

Under the UCC (Article 2), a new car contract which purports to transfer ownership to the purchaser must be in writing. It should include a description of the make and model of the vehicle, its full vehicle identification number (VIN), a statement as to whether the vehicle is new, used, a "demo," rental car, etc., the full price and any financing terms, a cancellation provision if certain conditions occur (such as the car not being delivered by a certain date), and a full statement of warranty terms.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/buying-car-registration

And again, registration does not take your right away in any way.

[cowman]

12. As long as you

don't use the vehicle on public land you don't have to tell DMV shit about it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Yes, many farmers and construction companies around here do it for work-only vehicles.

The vehicles require no emission checks, no plates, and no license or insurance to operate.
They CANNOT be operated on public land or public roads.

They CAN cross or travel along public roads that cut through a large piece of private property.
This is so farmers can get their work vehicles from one piece of property to a nearby piece of property or cross a road.
There is a limit to the distance which can be traveled though and traffic laws must be observed.

[no limit]

16. But you still need the original registration that the purchase was made, no?

[TheWraith]

18. No. You do not need to make a registration when purchasing a vehicle. nt

[cowman]

20. No, all you need is the title

and all you have to do is send it to the DMV to get a new one and after that, as long as it isn't driven on public roads, you don't do anything else. No registration, no insurance, nothing

[no limit]

27. But the DMV was contacted in the process. That's a form of registration

[cowman]

31. No it's not

all your doing is getting the title in your name after that you don't do jack shit, For all DMV knows is that you are using it for parts or whatever, hell, you can even declare it junked and as long as it stays on your property the DMV could care less

[no limit]

32. But the DMV has a record of the title, with your name on it. Thats a form of registration

correct me if Im wrong.

[TheWraith]

36. You are completely wrong.

A title is not registration. It's formal acknowledgement that you own X vehicle according to the DMV, which is needed in ORDER to register it. If you don't intend to register it, you don't actually need a title at all. I sold my last car for parts, because the frame was rotting out. Still driveable, but I didn't need to supply the title or anything else to the guy who bought it, nor did the DMV ever know or care.

[no limit]

37. But the title comes from the MVD. It has your name and the vehicles win number on it

I do not mean registration in the typical sense of vehicle registration. I am simply making the point that what you are talking about is a FORM of registration.

[TheWraith]

67. No, it's not.

You're not required to have a title in order to own the vehicle. You're require to have the title in order to register it. Big difference.

You can own a perfectly functional vehicle without ever having the title. Since it's not required, it's not a form of registration.

[cowman]

40. No its not a form of registration

all it tells DMV is that you now own the vehicle, after that they don't give a damn what you do with it. You don't pay any fees and no insurance, no plates, nothing, its not even registered to you because its not registered.

[no limit]

43. Same damn thing with this gun registration. Thats the point

When you buy the gun you tell the state you have it. A form of registration.

[slackmaster]

51. You appear to be unfamiliar with the process of purchasing a firearm

When you buy the gun you tell the state you have it.

In most states including California (except for handguns) that is not true.

[no limit]

54. No, you aren't reading what I am writing in context. That is not what I said

I said that what this bill would try to do is get you to tell the state that you have the gun before you buy it. I never said that was how the law currently works, I should know since I've bought 2 guns in recent years.

[slackmaster]

56. That makes no sense

I said that what this bill would try to do is get you to tell the state that you have the gun before you buy it.

But before you buy it, you DON'T have it.

Pardon my confusion. I really can't tell where you are coming from.

[no limit]

58. we were talking about how registration happens even for vehicles

the person said that you didn't have to register a vehicle. That turned out to be not true. And I pointed out that what is discussed in the OP is similar to that.

I am not saying that this is current law, you would have to reread the discussion again because apparently you missed it.

[TheWraith]

69. "That turned out to be not true."? Which bit?

You do not need to register a vehicle unless you're driving it on public roads. Period. Ask the DMV if you want confirmation.

[TheWraith]

68. By that logic, we already have gun registration.

After all, a background check and form 4473 has to be filed for any new gun purchase. By your logic, that counts as "a form of registration."

[X_Digger]

64. You do not even need a new title..

A bill of sale is sufficient (at least in my state.)

[PavePusher]

45. A sales contract is not a State registration. n/t

[cowman]

14. Why the fuck does

the govt need to know what guns I own? Where I live we don't have to register our guns and the Sheriff supports this. There is only one county in NV that requires registration and that is Clark County and that may soon go away and I say good fucking riddence

[no limit]

17. If you have illegal guns for one. Second if someone steals you gun.

Third if you kill someone with that gun and the gun is found the police department knows where to look.

Seems like common sense.

[TheWraith]

19. Registration does not affect illegal guns.

They are, by definition, illegal.

Second, I'm not required to register my TV, my cell phone, my antique glassware, or any other things that people might steal.

And third, by that logic, we should all be required to submit DNA and fingerprints to the police to make their job easier if we commit a crime. Except that we have a long history in this country of protecting privacy, and privacy dictates that what I own isn't any business of yours unless I want to take it out in public.

[no limit]

22. Except your phone, your TV, your cell phone, can't kill people

guns can. And they do, very often.

I meant illegal guns if you guy a gun from someone not knowing that gun is stolen.

And if you ever commit a felony your dna will be stored. If you ever commit a simple misdemeanor, if you become a citizen, or you get a passport your fingerprints will also be stored. You might consider that an invasion of privacy but it already goes on. And if we register your finger prints to get a passport having you register a gun seems like common sense.

[TheWraith]

24. Gun registries have never proven very effective in returning stolen guns compared to regular reports

People who illegally own guns will not register them. Therefore, the only point a gun registration comes into play is after the gun is no longer in the hands of the criminal because it's been seized or dumped. So registration does not prevent any crimes. And if it doesn't prevent crimes, and doesn't return many more lost guns than a simple police report with the serial number like anyone can do right now, then it just amounts to an added cost for local government and an added burden on legal gun owners.

And yes, you get your DNA recorded if you DID SOMETHING. How would you feel if every single person in the country were forced to get their DNA stored in a big database that the police could search any time they like, just for the fact that they're alive? I suspect that you wouldn't be okay with that. It amounts to considering people suspect without cause.

[no limit]

25. Is someone asking you for your DNA when you buy a gun? No? Then whats your point

they are asking you to register that gun in case:

1. The gun you are buying is illegal (unknown to you)
2. You go out and hurt someone with this gun
3. Your gun is stolen from you

How effective this is can be a very valid argument on your part especially when you talk about the costs of such a registry. But to pretend this is some kind of scheme to deny you your rights is absurd.

[TheWraith]

35. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Expecting people to submit to additional scrutiny, which has no effect on public safety, for engaging in strictly lawful activities is a violation of privacy. Do you approve of the wingnuts who require pregnant women to get a sonogram and mandatory counseling before having an abortion? After all, that's not infringing on anyone's rights, it's just for the sake of safety, right?

Take a look at the handgun registration systems in California and New York, and the universal gun registration system they had for awhile in Canada. You'll find that the number of crimes that are solved using such a system border on zero, for a number of reasons. One is that legal gun owners very rarely commit crimes. 90% of all murders committed with a gun are committed by people who have prior criminal records. Two is that if a previously law-abiding gun owner were to use one of their own guns to commit a crime, how exactly do they get caught? They would have to be so criminally stupid as to abandon a gun registered to them at the scene of the crime.

In fact, Canada's system was SO ineffective and expensive that they just voted it out of existence. $2 billion dollars down the drain, and law enforcement says they'd be hard pressed to find a single crime it solved.

So we've established that gun registration does not prevent crimes, and it does not solve any substantive number of crimes. That means it's simply a burden on the budget and a way of making life more difficult for legal gun owners, as well as an invasion of privacy.

[no limit]

39. And most of what you just said is perfectly valid.

What I have issue with is people that claim this is taking your rights away. No, it's not.

[cowman]

42. Yes it does

It takes away my right to privacy. Why do you think the govt has a right to know what I own?

[no limit]

44. Because what you own in this case can and has killed many people

[cowman]

46. My guns have killed many people?

Show me the proof. Going by that logic than we should register knives, baseball bats, rocks, bricks, fists, feet, and so on and so forth.
I'll ask you again, suppose some POS of a reporter wanted to get a list of registered gun owners and publish it in the paper, after all, it would be a matter of public record, do you see a problem with, now lets carry it further, suppose some POS criminal wanted that list because it is a matter of public record, do you see a problem with that?

[no limit]

52. Me personally? I would love for criminals to know I own guns, they probably wont break in

but you are making a lot of what ifs. What if you are a mass murderer that owns a bunch of guns. One of the guns is found at the murder scene yet the detectives don't know who it belongs to because they don't have a registry. You can play what if games all day.

And nobody is saying these registries should be part of public record, where did you get that from?

[cowman]

60. Sorry

but a registry would be a matter of public record, just ask those CHL holders in Roanoke, VA that had their names published in the paper. Once again, the govt has NO FUCKING BUSINESS KNOWING WHAT I OWN OR DON'T OWN. And if you think that a criminal would leave you alone if he knew you had guns in your house, you are sadly mistaken, all they would do is wait for you to leave and then, poof, your guns are gone. No thanks, take your registry idea and circular file it.

[PavePusher]

49. What do you mean when you say "illegal gun"? n/t

[no limit]

55. Stolen. And I know what you are about to say, before you do read my posts again

I am talking about someone buying a stolen gun without knowing it is stolen.

[PavePusher]

65. Well, I only buy guns from known legitimate sources...

and would only sell to same, if I were to sell.

And it doesn't cost me or the government anything. Nifty, that.

Creating new opportunities for black markets only boosts crime. Or have we learned nothing from our lessons with banning alcohol and "drugs"?

[oneshooter]

66. I have been around the world 3 times with no passport. n/t

[cowman]

21. Illegal guns?

Do you honestly think that criminals would register illegal guns? The only people that registration would affect are law abiding gun owners and registration historically leads to confiscation. If you don't believe me just ask any Kalifornian. The govt. has no right or business knowing what I own or don't own and I thank my lucky stars that I live in a county that basically tells the Feds to fuck off about gun control

[no limit]

23. You can buy guns from anyone right now. A gun owner might purchase a gun that was stolen

and not know it. A registry database would prevent that from happening.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. A registry is not required to perform a background check on a firearm.

My father had a firearm stolen from him. He reported it (and it's serial number) to the police.
If it ever turns up at a crime scene... they'll know it was his stolen gun.

If a firearm is stolen, and the owner reports the theft, that firearm's serial number is listed as stolen.
If law enforcement finds that gun on a person and runs a check, it's serial number will come back as stolen.
If someone buying a used gun wants a check performed (to see if it's stolen) the police can run the serial number.

How does registration chenge any of this? :shrug:

[no limit]

28. It doesn't. But most people dont call the cops when they buy a gun, I would think

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. In california... all firearms sold to anyone are sold through an FFL with a background check.

Second amendment and confiscation speculating aside...
For a sate in a SEVERE budget crisis, why should significant funds be spent on something that offers very little return?
What new benefits does it provide? Why is this California Gun Registry necessary?

It is not... and registries have historically been COSTLY money pits delivering almost NONE of the claimed results.
Even Canaduh is trashing it's rifle/shotgun registry citing costly costly overruns, noncompliance, and no results.

This CA registry is a very poor move fiscally, politically, and (arguably) constitutionally.
Anyone who would support this is suspect of having a dangerously low I.Q. in my opinion.

[no limit]

41. Even if you buy from a private party?

I'm not gonna argue against the fact that this is a bad idea just because of how much it will cost. It isn't worth the cost, you are absolutely right about that.

But I have people that pretend this is meant to take their rights away. No, the intention is to keep track of all the guns that flow in this country. It might not be doable, but that's the intention.

[cowman]

48. Once again

it takes away my right to privacy

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. Yes... to be legal, a private sale MUST go through an FFL dealer.

In CA, if you want to sell a gun you must find a buyer then meet at a local FFL shop.
There, background checks are performed and a three day waiting period is initiated.
In addition to the FFL transfer and waiting period, a "Purchase Permit" with fingerprinting is required.

The argument is not that the registration is infringment or takes away any rights itself. It does not.
At most, it is a violation of privacy rights... if there is such a thing nowdays. This is a different issue alltogether.
The argument, and it's historically accurate, is that registration is a tool that may lead to (unconstitutional) confiscation.
Also, despite the bill's best intentions, registration just does not deliver on the crime-prevention front.

Opponets of registratoin simply see a threat/risk coupled with little/no social return for their inconvenience of registration.
Despite having great intentions... registration is not the answer. At best it's "Feel Good" legislation that solves nothing.
On top of solving nothing, it complicates the lives of otherwise honest law abiding citizens with a maze of more laws to navigate.

I oppose registration. I support creating a national list of stolen firearms with identifing information.
I also support opening up NICS checks to private citizens and requiring verification that a felon is not buying the gun.
Both these measures give the same benefits of registration without great potential for governemnt abuse.

[no limit]

57. I didn't know private sales worked like that too. I wonder if that's the case here in NM

thanks for the info.

And I can keep beating this dead horse but I'm getting tired of discussing this. I agree with you, I think that this is probably a bad idea just because of what a administration nightmare it would be. But I don't believe it's set up so that the state can come in and start taking your guns away.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. No... NM is extremely Lax

But they do have good (spicy) food. :)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/nm/

[no limit]

61. Damn, so if my gun is stolen here I dont even have to report it?

That's a bit insane. But thanks for the link, appreciate it.

[cowman]

63. In NV

we don't need to go thru an FFL for private party sales, but we can take it to the local police to have a serial #'s check. In Clark County, when you buy a gun from a private party it is mandatory that you do this and then you get a blue card that you have to carry when carrying the gun around but every other county in NV doesn't require a serial check and no registration, I like that and I've heard that Clark County may soon get rid of it's registration requirements and I say good fucking riddence

[slackmaster]

53. Yes. Private-party transfers are processed through an FFL, with a background check

On the buyer.

But there is no registration for long guns. The state has no records of what long guns people own.

[PavePusher]

62. Registration does not instantaneously remove your rights...

but it is certainly preparation to do so.

If the Government does not have a list of my guns, it will be more difficult to take them all from me.

And don't claim it won't happen, it has happened, as you are well aware.

[cowman]

34. And why the hell should they call the cops

when they buy a gun?
My daughter is a Police Officer and she is dead set against any gun registration, as I think you'll find most street cops are. The only ones who support it are the cop-o-crats and anti-2nd Amend politicians. Most americans don't trust the govt and don't want the govt knowing what they have or don't have

[no limit]

38. The point is currently if you are buying a stolen gun you have no way of knowing

because as you just said most people won't call the cops asking if the gun is stolen. That was the only point I was making. Having a registration database would fix that issue. That's the only point.

[cowman]

29. Once again

the govt has no fucking business knowing what I own or don't own, and if there was a registry base, suppose some POS of a reporter wanted to find out who owned a gun? After all it would be a matter of public record, and then whats to stop this POS from publishing it in the paper? Do you see a problem here? And don't tell me it wouldn't happen because it has with People with CHL's. No thanks, take your registration and put it where the sun don't shine

[one-eyed fat man]

70. speaking of stolen guns

Wheaton vs. Caldera, et al

"Can a party acquire title to stolen property sufficient to
defeat the rights of the registered owner? If so, can the same
government which mandates registration and which maintains the
central registry of such property acquire such title to stolen
property when it has actual knowledge of the registered owner?"


Short story, a legally registered 1904 Maxim gun is stolen from a New Jersey VFW Post during remodeling.

Years later, this exceedingly rare gun turns up in the museum at the West Point military Academy.

The gun is listed by serial number in the NFA registry as belonging to the Plaintiff.

The ATF argues the registry was never intended to return stolen property to its lawful owners.

Please re read that. A lawyer for the Federal government, argued in front of a Federal judge, the registry of NFA firearms WAS NEVER INTENDED to reunite owners with their stolen property.

The Federal Judge rules the owner of the stolen property has no standing to sue for the return of his property.

So, evidently, if the government has possession of stolen property long enough it gains title to it because it says so.

Or let's put it in simple English,and answer me this:

How long does something have to be stolen before the original owner has no claim the property?

How many times do firearms registries have to be abused by governments at all levels before they become suspect?

Are you still waiting on the money from that Nigerian widow woman who e-mailed you?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

72. You are so wrong

The state of NV gives me that right and I exercise it when not at work.
Wait just a minute, did you just admit that the 2nd Amend gives law abiding citizens the right to own guns?

[X_Digger]

73. That's the 'bear' portion of 'keep and bear'. n/t

[PavePusher]

47. May I see your First Amendment Registration papers, please?

After all, we want to make sure that the wrong people don't have the wrong books.

Seems like a no-brainer to me....

[Euromutt]

8. We've already had two threads on this

First this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x308019 and then this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x308209 got transferred from General Discussion.

[shadowrider]

9. Sorry about that

It's early and my coffee isn't down yet.

My apologies.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. Registration usually leads to confiscatoin... & this measure does NOTHING increase gun track-ability

In CA... all guns MUST be transferred by FFL dealers who keep record the transaction for the ATF.
This even applies to firearms sold from one citizen to another... an FFL must be an intermediary 3rd party.
The "Form 4473" contains name and address as well as the firearms' and serial numbers.
Any gun sold to a citizen (or Law Agency) in CA can already be tracked.

Since all legal guns in CA can ALREADY be tracked... and criminals or people with illegal guns would ignore registration...
Why enact controversial registration? What's the gain? Is the gain worth the infringement?
Keep in mind, registration throughout history has typically led to confiscation (even in America)... :yoiks: :tinfoilhat:

[proteus_lives]

30. Feuer is dumb-ass and it will never pass.