Arizona Gun Sales at a Record Pace

[mikeb302000]

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/07/15/guns-in-arizona-sales-at-record-pace/">The Tucson Citizen reports

In Arizona, it is likely that more than 200,000 new weapons will be put in buyers’ hands after background checks this year. That figure doesn’t include firearms purchased at gun shows and through private transactions. Such non-tracked sales are thought to account for 40 percent of all sales, adding about 150,000 guns purchased annually. The estimated sales total: about 350,000 guns per year.


Retailers report that demand for small handguns that can be concealed in a purse or briefcase has soared, while sales of rifles and shotguns have remained flat or declined.

Ya get that? Thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands of untrained, unqualified people will be carrying guns in Arizona from now on. Do you think that'll do more good than harm?

Although background checks are required for guns purchased through licensed retailers, no such screening is needed for guns purchased at the more than 20 major gun shows held in Arizona each year or through private transactions among individuals.

Non-licensed sales, which are hard to track, are thought to represent about 40 percent of the approximately 20 million guns that are sold in the U.S. each year.

This is the number-one problem. It's not theft, which the pro gun guys keep pushing as the main source of guns which flow into the criminal world. They do that so they can claim to be victims, innocent victims, which is debatable anyway since so many of them leave guns lying around the house for the burglars to take. But by far the two main sources of guns which end up in criminal hands are done through legal sales under today's pathetic gun control laws.

Private sales which require no background check as well as straw purchases which do, account for most of the guns used in crime. You know why they're so difficult to trace? There's no licensing and registration, that's why.

With a properly enforced licensing of gun owners and registration of each gun bought to one of those licensees, along with requiring background checks on every sale, we'd have the problem under control. So, why do so many gun owners resist this so vehemently?

The claim we most often hear to explain why they won't accept licensing and registration is because confiscation of guns would follow. I don't believe that and I don't think they do either. Given the American culture and the proliferation of guns, I don't think we can realistically expect anything like that. There would first have to be radical changes in the government and its relationship with citizens, the entire system of democratic elections and power brokering would have to be changed first. No, that's not the real reason they resist.

They resist for the simple reason they don't want to be inconvenienced. Please keep in mind that most people, even most gun owners, do not oppose such initiatives which would obviously do good. It's the very loud and well-financed minority of extremists that we hear this from. Self-centered in the extreme, they just don't want to be inconvenienced, never mind the nearly 100 a day who are killed with guns or the 200 others a day who are wounded. Never mind that many of them are innocent, truly innocent victims. None of that matters to the gun-rights extremist.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Euromutt]

1. My opinion is that you should check whether a thread already exists on the topic

As with the previous thread you started, there already was one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x437045

ETA: unrec for blatant blog spamming

[mikeb302000]

12. why don't you consider

that maybe I have something different and new to say about it. And if you don't like what I have to say, you can just stay away.

Best would be if you contribute something other than whining complaints.

[petronius]

19. If you have something new and different to say, you should say it in

the existing thread. And at the same time, you should read what is written to you. Quite honestly, you come across like a callow teenager who has been told too often by well-meaning but overly-generous adults that his thoughts are "new and different." In contrast, Euromutt is one of the most thoughtful posters in this forum. If you really want to draw traffic to your blog (and it's obvious you do), you ought to get rid of the "Cross-posted to..." nonsense, put the link in your sig or profile, and strive to emulate EM (from the other direction, of course). Do that, and people may find your posts interesting enough to seek out your blog...

[mikeb302000]

31. thanks

that sounds like good advice.

[petronius]

38. I mean it sincerely; hope it helps

Welcome to DU... :hi:

[Euromutt]

41. I refer you to the page with the detailed explanation of the forum rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Under "Content" we find:

Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted.

As petronius points out, you can say whatever "different and new" observations you have in the original thread.

[gejohnston]

2. Since the vast majority of murders in the US and

most likely Italy as well, the vast majority of murders are between gangsters and drug dealers. Killers and the killed tend to have criminal records. Our view is that there would be more innocent victims if they don't have the means to resist predators.

One more thing, private sales do not add new guns to the stock, simply moves old guns around.

[mikeb302000]

13. I think you're wrong about the vast majority

Some reports show that they are not gang and drug related, not the majority.

What you said about not adding new guns to the mix is exactly the point. It's through private sales that many guns end up with criminals.

[gejohnston]

23. some reports?

I look at FBI and criminologists.

[Euromutt]

42. I think I've heard of some of the "some reports" to which you refer

Don Kates cites a number of such reports and addresses their claims in two articles, "The Myth of the 'Virgin Killer': Law-Abiding Persons Who Kill in a Fit of Rage" (with Daniel Polsby, 2005) and "The Right to Arms: The Criminology of Guns (2010). The latter rehashes a fair amount of the former, but also expands on it to some extent, so it's worth reading both.

Kates cites a number of examples of articles et al. asserting that most homicides are committed by generally law-abiding, regular citizens with no prior criminal record or history of violent behavior, and goes on to state:

Articles making the claims described in Part I exhibit a remarkable similarity: there are never any endnotes or footnotes for their claims that most murderers are ordinary people. This is not because there is no relevant literature. There are literally dozens of homicide studies dating back to the late nineteenth century. But even the many anti-gun articles in normally scholarly publications never reference such studies or any studies showing that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens
because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger. Not even in articles which give footnotes about everything else is there ever such a footnote!

Remarkable though this absence of supporting reference is for a scholarly publication, its justification is simple necessity. There are no homicide studies finding that most murderers—or many murderers, or even a few murderers—are ordinary sane people who killed in a moment of passion.

Emphases in original.

The authors that make these claims generally support them by pointing to statistics about relationships between killers and victims and implying that these somehow precluded the killers having prior histories of criminal and/or violent behavior. One example Kates cites is Deane Calhoun, "From Controversy to Prevention: Building Effective Firearm Policies" (Injury Prevention Network Newsletter, Winter 1989):

are neither felons nor crazy, people involved in family fights and fights over jobs and money, and people who are sad or depressed.

The problem with this is claim is that a great many violent confrontations between persons involved in illicit activity are over money, and such people are much more often than not "known to" each other. A pimp murdering one of "his" prostitutes because he suspects she kept money from him, or a gang boss murdering an underling on suspicion of embezzling from the organization are both examples of people known to each other "involved in fights over money." Moreover, neither would be classed by the FBI as "felony-related" in that neither murder was committed directly in furtherance of a felony, such as a robbery or burglary.

[lawodevolution]

3. Arizona's murder and violent crime rates have fallen significantly over the last decade+

Most gun owners do not want more gun control and would like to have gun laws similar to Arizona's. Stop trying to tell us what we believe in.

Does anyone ever wonder why almost every anti on this forum claims to also be a gun owner? (I'll give you a hint: Dishonesty, lies and manipulation).

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. DUzy

Another one.

[mikeb302000]

14. I'm an ex-gun owner n/t

[lawodevolution]

26. Maybe now that I pointed out that most antis here claim to be gun owners yall will change the tactic

[pipoman]

4. Blog pimp unrec

[mikeb302000]

15. who asked you?

why don't you add something instead of you whining?

[Blown330]

20. Well there's a pot calling...

...the kettle black if I've ever seen one. You are the one whining about a topic you know next to nothing about. Then more whining when you are caught out because you failed to read the other topic posted. Then even more whining when your threads are unrec'd because they are nothing more than shameless self promotion for your blog. Add my unrec to the pile too.

[mikeb302000]

32. A topic I know next to nothing about????

What you mean is a topic with which I disagree with you. Why is that so difficult for you to deal with?

It's not true that I do "nothing more than shameless self promotion." There's a bit more. There's the discussion which you choose not to engage in.

[pipoman]

28. I might when you stop stealing bandwidth for the sole purpose of self promotion...eom

[Euromutt]

5. All right, I'll add a few observations

From the cited article:

Although background checks are required for guns purchased through licensed retailers, no such screening is needed for guns purchased at the more than 20 major gun shows held in Arizona each year or through private transactions among individuals.

This sentence is misleading at best: Type 01 FFLs (said "licensed retailers") have to conduct background checks on sales, regardless of whether they're conducting the sale in their own business premises or at a gun show. According to the ATF, FFLs typically make up 50-75% of firearm vendors at any given gun show, and they have more guns to sell than private sellers, so on aggregate, the overwhelming majority of sales even at gun shows are accompanied by a NICS check.

With a properly enforced licensing of gun owners and registration of each gun bought to one of those licensees, along with requiring background checks on every sale, we'd have the problem under control. So, why do so many gun owners resist this so vehemently?

First, I don't buy that "we'd have this problem under control." As I pointed out in an earlier thread of yours, even if you were able to impose restrictions on private firearm ownership that would actually cut off the "diversion" of firearms onto the black market, the black market would find another supply source, such as guns smuggled in from abroad. Illicit "drug trafficking organizations" already move literally tons of cocaine and heroin into the country every year, not to mention marijuana and meth, so let's not pretend it couldn't be done.

Second, and this ties in with the first point regarding purportedly getting "the problem under control," the Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. United States (1968, see ruling), that a person who is illegally in possession of a firearm cannot be prosecuted (much less punished) for failing to register it, as requiring him to do so would violate his right against self-incrimination. So the very people whom registration is supposed to catch are exempt from it, which obviates the whole purpose. Well, the ostensible purpose, anyway.

That leaves licensing. Now, as I've noted many times on this forum, I'm quite sympathetic to the idea of requiring a license as evidence of some degree of competence before you can possess a firearm. In the abstract. In practice, RKBA advocates are exceedingly leery of licensing requirements because they can readily be used to impose de facto ownership bans. We need look no further than the shenanigans of the Washington, D.C. city government, as described in this article in the WaPo:

It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam.

Note that that $833.69 does include the $275 price of the revolver the writer bought, but that still means he spent twice as much to be able to legally own it. And he had the luxury that going through this process was work; he didn't have to take time off (with concomitant loss of income) to jump through the hoops.

Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.

Which was exactly their intent. The day the Heller decision was announced, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) vowed that the city was still "going to have the strictest handgun laws the Constitution allows."

Emphasis in bold mine. This goes well beyond "reasonable, common-sense" regulation intended only to ensure that prospective gun owners possess some degree of competence in safe firearms handling; this is clearly intended to actively hamper legal private firearms ownership, even by competent individuals.

With D.C. and Chicago's antics serving as an example of what licensing requirements might entail, is it any surprise gun owners aren't enthusiastic about the idea?

[gravity556]

7. Blog spam, unrec.

Also, our crime rate has dropped since implementation of Constitutional carry (The right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and the state, shall not be infringed. Nothing in this amendment shall allow an individual to raise and employ an armed body of men. That's from the AZ Constitution, by the way).

We've also had a noticeable drop due to SB1070. A large exodus of illegal immigrants means that they took off for greener pastures, taking with them quite a few of the criminal element that came to the US along with the folks who wanted work. So please, refrain from opining on things you know absolutely NOTHING about.

Also, since the implementation of permitless carry, there hasn't been any of the "rivers of blood in the street", nor have there been people shooting each other over parking spots, or whatever other inane pissing and moaning came from the opponents of Constitutional carry.

[mikeb302000]

16. thanks for the thoughtful comment

You say, "the overwhelming majority of sales even at gun shows are accompanied by a NICS check."

I might agree depending on what you mean by "vast majority." I'd point out though that it's not good enough. We're talking about the "minority" at gun shows and all the other private sales which don't require a background check and which the article says account for 40% of all sales.

So to me it seems you're trying to be misleading.

You're argument that there's no point in eliminating this source of gun flow into the criminal world because "the black market would find another supply source," is kinda silly, don't you think? No one is saying there'd be a 100% correction in this problem, I realize I said "we'd have it under control." That would be relative to today when the gun flow is unabated, when gun manufacturers actually work it into their sales projections.

Much can and should be done.

[gejohnston]

21. one more thing

when gun manufacturers actually work it into their sales projections.

They do? Have evidence of that?

[mikeb302000]

33. There is evidence or reports of that

You can look 'em up if you like.

[RSillsbee]

35. Ummm, no.

around here if you make a claim it's on you to back it up

Now get hot on those cites

[Euromutt]

39. Read the article again

It says:

<...> no such screening is needed for guns purchased at the more than 20 major gun shows held in Arizona each year <...>

This is, very simply, false for the reason I stated: FFLs are required to conduct NICS checks on sales regardless of where the sale is conducted. The 40% figure asserted in the article ("are thought to account for" is not demonstrable fact) includes all sales at gun shows, including those performed by FFLs which are thus required to be accompanied by a NICS check.

By way of evidence, take a shufti at the ATF report Following the Gun (available as pdf here), particularly Table 3 on page 13. You may note (if you're honest) that the ATF lists "trafficking in firearms at gun shows and flea markets" as a single category, making no distinction between sales by FFLs and sales by private sellers; as the same report states on page xi:

The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

and on page 17:

The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.

Emphases in bold mine.

In a 2001 report, No Questions Asked: Background Checks, Gun Shows and Crime (available here), the (now defunct) Americans for Gun Safety states that:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates that as many as one-fourth of all firearms vendors at gun shows are unlicensed <...>

Which means that at least 75% of firearm vendors are FFLs, who have to conduct NICS checks.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the writer from the Tucson Citizen is relying on ATF data. The ATF does not distinguish between sales at gun shows performed by FFLs on the one hand and private sellers on the other, but lumps all those sales together. The TC writer failed to notice this, and thus incorrectly concludes that the number of guns diverted from gun shows were all sold by private sellers. I'm tempted to say the journo is therefore either dishonest or incompetent, but in all fairness, the ATF seems to have deliberately tried to obscure the percentage of sales at gun shows performed by FFLs. Note that I had to get that percentage of vendors from a different report; Following the Gun assiduously avoids stating it.

That said, as gejohnston rightly pointed out in post #2, transfers between private parties do not put new guns into circulation; they are circulation. Yet the TC writer acts as if they are newly introduced: first he says that "more than 200,000 new weapons will be put in buyers’ hands after background checks this year" and then states that "firearms purchased at gun shows and through private transactions" will "add<...> about 150,000 guns purchased annually." Leaving aside for the moment the precise numbers involved, the two claims are mutually exclusive: to newly legally enter the private circuit and become a firearm that can be transferred between private parties without a NICS check (and even then only within the same state), a modern firearm (i.e. firing cartridge ammunition and not classed under "curios and relics") must first be transferred by an FFL, with an accompanying NICS check.

Turning to the numbers, it deserves note that some of the "firearms purchased at gun shows and through private transactions" will be new additions to the private circuit, because they're sold at gun shows by FFLs, but again, these sales will therefore be (required to be) accompanied by a NICS check and are therefore not "non-tracked." It should also be noted that firearms that have been previously privately owned but which the owner has sold or pawned to an FFL, or sells via an FFL on consignment, are also required to be accompanied by a NICS check if they are sold by that FFL to another private buyer, so some of those "more than 200,000 new weapons" will not actually be new.

When we put all this together, that means that there will be some overlap between the "more than 200,000 new weapons will be put in buyers’ hands after background checks this year" and the estimated 150,000 "firearms purchased at gun shows and through private transactions" because the latter consists partly of sales conducted at gun shows by FFLs (who, again, are legally required to perform a NICS check when selling to a non-FFL).

So to me it seems you're trying to be misleading.

Unless you can provide better evidence than a newspaper article written by some journo who evidently doesn't know his stuff, I invite you to retract that remark.

You're <sic> argument that there's no point in eliminating this source of gun flow into the criminal world because "the black market would find another supply source," is kinda silly, don't you think?

No, I don't it's silly at all. If you're proposing imposing restrictions on the freedoms of public citizens in the name of public safety, I want to see a credible argument, preferably backed by empirical evidence, that there will be a resulting benefit, and that this benefit will be at least proportional to the costs imposed, both in terms of money spent and freedoms restricted.

I very strongly urge you to read the article "Firearms Costs, Firearms Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge" by Daniel Polsby, originally published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995. Polsby writes:

With respect to the firearms side of this problem, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that one is dealing with a demand-led rather than a supply-led phenomenon--young men demanding guns as a means of self defense and self-realization. These young men are not merely using guns because large numbers of them are floating around, as mayors and police chiefs insinuate when they tell reporters that "there are too many guns out there." Recognizing this problem as a demand-side situation predicts the limited usefulness (if not futility) of public policies that seek to "dry up" the supply of guns.
<...>
<T>he source of the difficulty <...> does not lie in the disuniformities or inadequacies of various states' firearms laws but in the fundamental economics of the crime business. Of course gun runners will seek the least cost and most convenient source of supply, whatever it may be, legal markets, if available, but if they cannot deliver what is demanded, the turn to illegal markets, of smuggled guns or guns manufactured in cottage industry, is a simple operation. The acquisition behavior of illicit retail customers should be discouraged modestly at best by piling costs on gun runners. These customers are seeking to invest in capital plant for which there exists no ready substitutes. Licit buyers, on the other hand, usually are shopping for items of personal consumption, for which a number of obvious substitutes (e.g., archery; B-B guns; and for that matter, going to the movies) evidently exist. The implication of this situation, though usually ignored, is very important: the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister. The price sensitivity of buyers will increase as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more innocuous.

Emphases in bold mine.

Hell, look at Prohibition and the so-called "War on Drugs." Neither succeeded reducing alcohol or drug use by a smidgen, despite massive expenditures in money, manpower and lost civil liberties in an effort to cut off the supply. As long as there is a demand, some unscrupulous and enterprising spark will provide a supply. In addition, a completely illicit operator may supply goods that are nastier than that which can be diverted from the legal market.

To illustrate: about a month and a half ago, I wrote a post about criminal use of sub-machine guns in the UK, which is far more prevalent (both in absolute and relative terms) than in the U.S. Why? To draw the parallel with Prohibition, SMGs are the bathtub gin/moonshine of gun prohibition. Just like bootleggers during Prohibition preferred to traffick hard liquor because the higher alcohol content made it more profitable to smuggle, so SMGs are, all other things being equal, more attractive to smuggle than handguns. A comparatively crude blowback-operated SMG firing from an open bolt costs no more to make than a handgun (and quite often markedly less), and not much more to smuggle, while providing a lot more firepower and thus commanding a higher price.

In short, there's plenty of indication that "eliminating this source of gun flow into the criminal world" might very well make matters worse, not better. And that's assuming that licensing and registration would actually be successful in eliminating "diversion," which is by no means a given, nor have you provided anything other than unsupported assertion why it would.

No one is saying there'd be a 100% correction in this problem, I realize I said "we'd have it under control."

What's that scraping noise?

[rrneck]

8. Unrec for blogspam. nt

[mikeb302000]

17. who asked you? n/t

[X_Digger]

24. You did, of course!

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Was that you who said that?

[rrneck]

27. You did when you posted.

Still a shortage of substance I see.

[PavePusher]

9. Ah, the chattering class at work again, I see... n/t

[Hangingon]

10. Suddenly it's last Saturday.

Unrec for BS and blog spamming

[mikeb302000]

18. who asked you?

[gejohnston]

22. you did. By posting it is de facto asking. nt

[X_Digger]

11. unrec -- dupe blogspam. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Oh no! Record number of citizens owning arms!

Ya get that? Thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands of untrained, unqualified people will be carrying guns in Arizona from now on. Do you think that'll do more good than harm?

Instead of guessing, why not look at actual data?

As has been posted and cited here many times, since prior to the 2008 election firearm and ammunition sales have skyrocketed out of fear of more gun control pushed by a Democratically-controlled Congress and Presidency. We have had record sales of firearms and ammunition for the last 5 years.

Yet violent crime continues to decline, and is at it's lowest point in a decade.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

So while firearm ownership has soared, violent crime has declined. While we can't necessarily claim causation over correlation, it's hard to make the case that it has caused any harm.

The claim we most often hear to explain why they won't accept licensing and registration is because confiscation of guns would follow. I don't believe that and I don't think they do either. Given the American culture and the proliferation of guns, I don't think we can realistically expect anything like that. There would first have to be radical changes in the government and its relationship with citizens, the entire system of democratic elections and power brokering would have to be changed first. No, that's not the real reason they resist.

They resist for the simple reason they don't want to be inconvenienced. Please keep in mind that most people, even most gun owners, do not oppose such initiatives which would obviously do good. It's the very loud and well-financed minority of extremists that we hear this from. Self-centered in the extreme, they just don't want to be inconvenienced, never mind the nearly 100 a day who are killed with guns or the 200 others a day who are wounded. Never mind that many of them are innocent, truly innocent victims. None of that matters to the gun-rights extremist

First of all, registration has lead to confiscation before. Look at all the people who legally owned registered SKS rifles in California who then had them confiscated when the legislator changed their mind as to what was going to be legal and what was not. We can also look to the examples of countries like the UK and Australia. So it is hugely insulting to the intelligence of firearm owners to try and claim that registration is harmless. The simple, undeniable fact is that a government with a list of firearm owners knows exactly who to round up when it is convenient for them to do so.

Second of all, registration runs counter to the intent of the founding fathers. Our country was set up primarily on the basis of decentralizing power. This was done because the founders knew that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They had just freed themselves from a government that highlighted the problems that come when one person, a monarch, has all the power. Consequently they worked hard to create a form of government with decentralized power - a system of checks and balances. They formed a government with three primary branches of government, the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive. By separating the powers that run the government, those that create the laws and control the purse, and those that enforce the laws, they sought to prevent the abuse of power that naturally occurs when it concentrates.

This same notion followed through to the military power of the country. The country was not intended to have a standing federal army. Or at best, it was to be a small one. The bulk of the nation's military power was to reside in the hands of the states, via state-controlled militias made up of citizens of the states and led by officers of the states. This was done because, as with the government, it created a decentralized military force that the founders assumed would be difficult to martial as a tool of oppression against the very states that made it up.

The upshot of this is that the federal government was not trusted with military power, and the states, through their people, were to be able to replace, or at least counter, federal military power. This is key.

In 1903, with the passage of The Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, forming the National Guard (the organized militia), and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the organized militia). This effectively turned the state militias from being a counter to federal military power to being an adjunct to it. They became reserve forces for the federal government.

It is possible that the founders anticipated the corruption or usurpation of the institution of state militias, as they were careful in the second amendment to reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not to the militias:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Given that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural part of the extension of the concept of keeping power out of the hands of the federal government in case of its corruption, giving that very same federal government a list of all people capable of bearing arms against it directly undermines that intent.

I agree that the ability of people to privately buy and sell firearms means that any criminal can easily buy firearms. But it is also this ability to freely sell firearms that preserves anonymous firearm ownership. The reason is this: Every new firearm purchase is recorded by the federal government. Ostensibly, no records of this are kept, but many people, including myself, are suspect of this requirement, especially given today's government eagerly engaging in pervasive domestic surveillance and providing legal immunity to corporations that aid it in the task. So we should assume that the government is aware every time someone buys a new firearm or a used firearm through an FFL dealer.

But the fact that they can sell it anonymously means that every firearm owner has plausible deniability about firearm ownership. Even if the government has a record that they at one time purchased a firearm, every firearm owner can easily claim that they simply sold the firearm to some local private individual, and no one can dispute that.

If we require registration of all firearm owners, then this plausible deniability is lost, and thus firearm ownership anonymity is lost, and thus the counter to federal military power is severely undermined.

How then, can we accomplish background checks for all firearm sales and preserve firearm ownership anonymity?

Easy: Adopt an FOID system similar to what Illinois has. In Illinois, in order to own or purchase firearms you must first obtain an FOID - Firearm Owner Identification. If you sell a firearm privately, you must witness the buyer's FOID and keep a record of the transaction for some number of years. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor. Sellers are motivated to obey the law because if you sell to someone without a valid FOID the odds are good that they will use the firearm for bad purposes, and then the firearm will be traced back to the as the least legitimate owner of the firearm.

The problem with the Illinois system is that it is opt-in. Only people who own firearms, or who are very likely to own them, will apply for an FOID. This, of course, makes a de facto registry of firearm owners. To solve this problem, one need simply make the system opt-out, instead of opt-in. Whenever someone applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, they will automatically be run through the NICS background check system and given an FOID along with their ID, unless they specifically request not to obtain one.

In this manner, nearly all citizens will be pre-screened for an FOID, and because having an FOID is no guarantee of actual firearm ownership, firearm ownership anonymity is preserved.

[mikeb302000]

34. thanks for that wonderful thesis

I'd like to ask about only one point. Why would you want "plausible deniability" about your firearms ownership?

[Euromutt]

40. For the simple reason that registries have been used to confiscate firearms before

I'm not just talking about the UK and Australia; it's happened in the United States as well. When New York City imposed a registry for long guns in 1967, its supporters promised it would never ever cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die be used to facilitate confiscations. Then, in 1991, NYC adopted its own ban on so-called "assault weapons," and the NYPD sent letters to every individual who had a weapon registered to him that would be affected by the ban informing them they had 90 days to remove the weapon permanently from the city or hand it in to the police, after which time the weapon would be subject to confiscation and its owner could be fined up to $5,000.

The problem with allowing a government to collect and retain any information is that, even if the current members have only the noblest of motives, if some bunch comes into office down the line who intend to abuse said information, there's no way to take that information away from them. The only 100% certain way to prevent government from abusing information is to not let them have it, so every claim that the government needs to possess a certain piece of information has to be weighed against the possible harm caused by its abusing that information at a later date.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. 5th paragraph from the bottom.

Please go back and read my "thesis" again. I answered your question directly in the 5th paragraph from the bottom.

[mikeb302000]

45. yes, I saw that

but, I'm fraid it doesn't make sense.

My way, with full licensing and registration, you'd be responsible for the guns you own. If you sell or give them away, you'd have to do it legally requiring a background check on the recipient who would then be responsible for the guns. He could kill someone for all you care, you're innocence is documented.

You mentioned the loss of anonymity. Yes indeed, that would and should be lost.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Anonymity "would and should be lost"?. OK, what's your real name and complete address?

If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about...

[Hoopla Phil]

29. unrec -- dupe blogspam. n/t

[oneshooter]

30. Un-Rec. Don't really care what someone in Italy says about laws in the USA. n/t

[classysassy]

36. Arizona a state with more guns than cactus

The old fools are arming themselves so they can stop the Mexicans from crossing the border,they have been sold a sordid bill of goods by the old hag and that insane state senator that heads the republican party of nuts(Old Hag,Jan the Mean )We here in Arizona have the worst politicians in America.Brewer,Pierce, Sheriff Joe,Kyl,McCain,those assholes continue to make this state the laughing stock of America.

[gejohnston]

37. while agree with you about the worst politicians other than

Rick Scott or Walker. I have a better idea, how about all of the old fools that move to the southwest to get away from snow and grandkids, while not giving a shit about the history or and trashing the culture, go fucking back to New York and Ohio. That would include McCain (Navy brat), Sheriff Joe (Springfield, MA) Brewer (Hollywood, CA). I know, some native Floridians say the same about me, but I'm trying to convince the wife, a native Floridian, how great Wyoming is.

[mikeb302000]

46. agreed n/t

[ileus]

43. bought my 7yo son a 7mm-08 yesterday for deer season.

[mikeb302000]

47. and what's you gun storage policy at home? n/t

[ileus]

50. Everything I have is locked up....

All my long guns are locked up in my safe. My two pistols I keep out of the main safe are either in my handgun safe in the Master bedroom or on my person.

If I'm not carrying it, it's locked up, to me that's the basics when kids are around. I never know what kids may be in my home....

I have a 7 and 9 yo, the neighbors to my right have 10,8, and 7, my neighbor across the street is 10. Any and all of these kids roam in and out of my house at any time during the day.

Of course they're more likely to get hurt in the pool or trampoline or fall 12ft from the top "floor" of the swing set.

[RSillsbee]

48. Didn't your mama ever teach you

Not to flog your blog in public?