Author Topic: A gun control law that I would support  (Read 9660 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
A gun control law that I would support
« on: June 30, 2016, 06:40:06 PM »
1. Total ban on purchasing guns and ammo through any means other than a face to face shop.

2. State and federal immunity to gun store against any suit for discrimination.  If they don't feel comfortable about selling someone a gun or ammo, they can say no and they can't be sued for refusing to sell to someone.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 05:02:18 PM »
#1  I'd want some provision that either state police facilities (or gun retail shops) would allow for person to person trades after a background check was confirmed on site.  Totally eliminating lawful sale of used weapons seems like a non-starter.

#2  I don't know about.  I like the idea, and its intent, however I see it being too easily abused by a discriminating owner; as opposed to an, "I just thought the guy seemed a little off, ya know?" 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2016, 02:39:59 AM »
Quote
#1  I'd want some provision that either state police facilities (or gun retail shops) would allow for person to person trades after a background check was confirmed on site.  Totally eliminating lawful sale of used weapons seems like a non-starter.

My emphasis was on face to face.  no problem with used gun sales so long as it's to someone you've spoken to.  But I'd argue against reselling ammo, period.  I think we need to track irregular sales of large quantities of ammo.


#2  I don't know about.  I like the idea, and its intent, however I see it being too easily abused by a discriminating owner; as opposed to an, "I just thought the guy seemed a little off, ya know?"

agreed that #2 is too easily abused, but when you weigh that against a shop feeling that they have no choice but to sell to someone who genuinely seems Off, it's a bloody trivial issue.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2016, 12:27:54 PM »
1. Total ban on purchasing guns and ammo through any means other than a face to face shop.

Not a fan, why should good friends or family members be barred from selling each other guns?  Why should an estate be forced to sell guns to a shop to resell to heirs?  You don't mention gifts, is that an intentional omission?  Because I can't support the idea of banning any gifts involving firearms.

What's your end goal?  Is the idea that the only way to stop some people from selling guns to strangers is to ban every person who would transfer a gun to someone they know well from doing so?  Absent a registration of ownership requirement, there's no real gain from this mechanism and no way to enforce it.   Are you suggesting adding a record keeping requirement as well, to track every time a gun changes hands?

Quote
2. State and federal immunity to gun store against any suit for discrimination.  If they don't feel comfortable about selling someone a gun or ammo, they can say no and they can't be sued for refusing to sell to someone.

This is definitely subject to potential abuse.  I can see now the complaints when gun store owners refuse to people who look like they are terrorists.  It wouldn't be hard at all to show statistical discrimination based on race or other impermissible factors.  Not to mention you'd be empowering private persons (under the color of government authority) to take away the Constitutional rights of other persons.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2016, 01:06:22 PM »
That's  the bitch of proper gun control. Laws to prevent people from idiots with guns (like leaving them in reach of small children or selling them to the manifestly unqualified) are essentially unenforceable.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2016, 01:11:58 PM »
That's  the bitch of proper gun control. Laws to prevent people from idiots with guns (like leaving them in reach of small children or selling them to the manifestly unqualified) are essentially unenforceable.

What they do is add the general mash of background laws that people violate without realizing it every day.  It's at the point, where a determined prosecutor can always find something to charge a person with.  Heck, just sending the police to arrest someone, without cause, will almost always generate charges related to the arrest that can be prosecuted.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2016, 03:01:37 PM »
Seriati, what's the real problem with barring people giving guns as a gift? What is actually so bad about having to place guns in escrow in order to give them to someone or pass them on as inheritance?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2016, 05:27:09 PM »
Not sure what you mean by "the real problem".  What's the real problem with invasion of privacy?  or with violating people's rights?  or with governmental creep?  Or are you asking why its part of the right?  Or why I care?

What's so bad about having to get governmental permission for transfers?  There's a law locally that attempted to make it illegal for estates to transfer guns, when it was overturned they made it a registration and fine.  It's a law that has had absolutely no impact on crime, its just used to hassle people who don't realize that even before they finish their funeral arrangements they have to deal with the estates guns or be subject to malicious prosecutions.  What's so bad about "discretion" in licensing for carry permits, where some local governments in their "discretion" determine no one should get a permit?

People have a right to defend themselves and their families.  That's not something granted by the government, or that can legitimately be taken away.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2016, 05:39:24 PM »
Yes, people have that right. But the way in which utilizing that right is implemented is surely up for discussion. For instance, people have a right to walk around, using their legs. However they do not have a right to walk through an intersection on a red light or to walk into a government building without clearance. There are parameters within which a person can excercise his freedom of movement, and likewise there are parameters within which all rights are exercized, which is not quite the same thing as saying they are only done by permission of the government. This, I think, is the difference between regulating and banning something. What worries me, and where I agree with you, is where regulation is just a back door towards banning something, and as far as that goes vigilance is required. But that doesn't mean to me that things should be left open wild-west style on the grounds that they are rights.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2016, 05:49:43 PM »
Is it your assertion that things have been left open "wild west" style?  I don't see gifts of fire arms to family members, or beneficiaries of an estate being able to claim them the way they claim other property as terrible high risks.  Certainly, not equivalent to open carry gun slingers in an age where dueling was either legal or illegal but ignored by the authorities.

I don't even see it particularly risky to allow sales to friends.   There is certainly no way to police or prohibit it, or even find out about it, unless you're going to implement a national registry and invade people's homes periodically to search for their guns.

I've never had a problem with permissive systems, and honestly think most people are generally law abiding and would participate in them.  Offer a complete release of liability for any transfers conducted through an intermediary that is required to conduct a background check, and I suspect the vast majority of stranger sales would end up on it (or at least the vast majority of those that are non-criminal related).  What purpose does trying to implement a ban, that can not be enforced absent a massive invasion of privacy actually serve?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2016, 11:44:48 PM »
Is it your assertion that things have been left open "wild west" style?

It's my assertion that people seem to make a false leap from "they're going to take our guns away" to "you can't tell us what to do regarding guns." While I recognize the danger of allowing the people to be systematically disarmed, at the same time the counterargument can't be "don't tell us what to do with our guns, it's our right."

If you're arguing that gun control and safety legislation is perfectly all right so long as it doesn't infringe on the right to possess arms itself, then that's an issue of logistics more than anything else - how to regulate it correctly. If you're arguing that the government fundamentally doesn't have the right to tell people how they can buy firearms or where they can bring them, that's a different story and the logistics issue is irrelevant to the discussion.

I was asking what the big deal is, in principle, of having designated ways to transfer guns from one person to another. You responded with a logistical objection (that it would invade privacy), which is fine, and it's my fault for not specifying that I was asking about the principle behind it rather than the implementation. In practice we might say that something would be nice but isn't really workable, and that's great, because then you can have a discussion about what would be workable. But if the main issue is that the government has no right to tell a person how to obtain a gun then the rest is wasted breath. As I mentioned above, I don't really see how, in principle, telling a person how to obtain a gun is any worse than a person being told where he may and may not walk. It's not a violation of my "freedom" (i.e. liberty) to be told not to cross on a red light, even though it does restrict me in some sense.

Regarding a national gun registry, I'm not even sure what the 'real problem' is with that, so long as it was merely a means of tracking guns and not of preventing people getting them wholesale. There is already a registry of car licences and registrations, and that seem to work out fine. No one seems to be complaining about being denied access to a car unless they fail the test, in which case just imagine for the moment that there wasn't a test and anyone could pay for a license and get it. The argument that people could exchange driver's licences on the sly, or give each other cars without registering them (and paying the taxes) seems roughly equivalent to what you're saying about guns. No one would be the wiser if I just gave my friend with no license a car and let him drive it, unless he broke a law and was pulled over. Does this mean the automobile licensing system is fundamentally broken and that there's no way to implement it without searching every person's car for the registration and their wallet for their license? And yet this system seems to work more or less correctly, and while there are some people who break the rules it isn't enough to break the system.

By the way, I'm not specifically arguing for a gun registry, but merely suggesting that discussions about the principle of gun regulation ought to be kept separate from the discussion about the practical implementation of gun regulation. "It won't work" isn't a very good answer to "should guns be regulated in some way?"

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2016, 02:07:14 PM »
Is it your assertion that things have been left open "wild west" style?

It's my assertion that people seem to make a false leap from "they're going to take our guns away" to "you can't tell us what to do regarding guns." While I recognize the danger of allowing the people to be systematically disarmed, at the same time the counterargument can't be "don't tell us what to do with our guns, it's our right."

Not sure I follow your logic there, but it's not confusing why gun advocates believe that gun control advocates attempt to use incremental creep to achieve an ultimate result of taking their guns away.  It's just projection based on history.  There's never been a gun control "success" that has caused gun control advocates to declare success, or to say, that a reasonable balance has been reached.   Instead, every step is treated as a new baseline, from which no retreat is possible, irrespective of whether it functions or not.  If we have thousands of gun control laws on the books that apparently don't work, why don't we take them off the books?  A little good faith on that front may reduce what you perceive as paranoia on the other side.

Nor is it in anyone's experience that when gun control laws are enforced they are routinely enforced in good faith.  There's virtually no discretionary standard for the granting of CCP's, for example, that hasn't been abused to deny permits without good cause (typically, by insisting that someone prove they have good cause to have one - burden shifting - and then making the standard to prove it impossible to attain).

Not even the NRA advocates for no laws, which makes your claim about "you can't tell us what to do" a bit of a strawman.  The debate is about what's a reasonable or permissible constraint, not about whether they exist or not.  Entire types of weapons have been taken off the table, like automatics and sawed off shotguns.

Quote
If you're arguing that gun control and safety legislation is perfectly all right so long as it doesn't infringe on the right to possess arms itself, then that's an issue of logistics more than anything else - how to regulate it correctly. If you're arguing that the government fundamentally doesn't have the right to tell people how they can buy firearms or where they can bring them, that's a different story and the logistics issue is irrelevant to the discussion.

I am arguing that gun ownership is a fundamental right, and like all fundamental rights the government's ability to constrain it is limited, and must meet constitutional muster.  I've specifically asserted that certain ideas are completely unworkable without linking them to additional steps that would be unconstitutional constraints, but for all that I've suggested more than once practical steps that could have a meaningful impact.  Federal background check stations at gun shows, limited immunity for voluntary back ground checks, heck I'd even back a prohibition on internet sales to strangers without a background check and identity verification.

Quote
I was asking what the big deal is, in principle, of having designated ways to transfer guns from one person to another.

Could you re-read what you originally wrote?  You asked what the "big deal" was with barring guns as gifts, not about having a designated ways to transfer guns.  The two things are not remotely the same thing.  It's unclear from your escrow comment whether you were requiring that they go through a third party (like a gun shop) which involves fees, or just meant they have to go into escrow with the rest of estate (which is what happens now).  That's why I asked for clarity, it's a big deal to suggest that person to person transfers should not be permitted.

Quote
You responded with a logistical objection (that it would invade privacy), which is fine, and it's my fault for not specifying that I was asking about the principle behind it rather than the implementation.

I think you're being too glib in your response, there's no way to separate the two unless you intend another unenforceable law be added to the books.

Quote
In practice we might say that something would be nice but isn't really workable, and that's great, because then you can have a discussion about what would be workable. But if the main issue is that the government has no right to tell a person how to obtain a gun then the rest is wasted breath. As I mentioned above, I don't really see how, in principle, telling a person how to obtain a gun is any worse than a person being told where he may and may not walk. It's not a violation of my "freedom" (i.e. liberty) to be told not to cross on a red light, even though it does restrict me in some sense.

Is it a restriction of your freedom for a town to declare all side walks are one way, such that if you go the corner store you can't turn around and go back to your house, but have to walk a few miles out of your way to return?  Is it a restriction on your freedom if the town declares that you may only walk to the store between 9am and 11am (others are assigned different times) to support the "legitimate" purpose of controlling congestion on the side walks?  Honestly, when you draw analogies to completely unrelated concepts you need to consider if they are truly equivalent.  It's a fact that the Supreme Court has found restrictions on the right of individuals to move around the country to be a violation of their freedom, that has never prevented a local government from barring a murder suspect from leaving its jurisdiction.  Some things are reasonable others are not.  I can't evaluate whether a restriction on guns is reasonable without context, and neither can you.

Quote
Regarding a national gun registry, I'm not even sure what the 'real problem' is with that, so long as it was merely a means of tracking guns and not of preventing people getting them wholesale.

The real problem is abuse.  Making a convenient list of gun owners is absolutely subject to abuse.  Would you be comfortable with the government compiling a list of the addresses of every homosexual person so they can ensure there is sufficient police coverage to prevent hate crimes?  Or would you see how that can be abused?  It's not like we have to speculate here, such list with respect to guns was created in the NY/CT area, and it was promptly disclosed to the media and put into a searchable map on the internet to let anyone who wants to steal a gun know where to look for one.

Quote
There is already a registry of car licences and registrations, and that seem to work out fine. No one seems to be complaining about being denied access to a car unless they fail the test, in which case just imagine for the moment that there wasn't a test and anyone could pay for a license and get it. The argument that people could exchange driver's licences on the sly, or give each other cars without registering them (and paying the taxes) seems roughly equivalent to what you're saying about guns. No one would be the wiser if I just gave my friend with no license a car and let him drive it, unless he broke a law and was pulled over. Does this mean the automobile licensing system is fundamentally broken and that there's no way to implement it without searching every person's car for the registration and their wallet for their license? And yet this system seems to work more or less correctly, and while there are some people who break the rules it isn't enough to break the system.

Cars are not in the Constitution, nor can anyone be barred from owning a car.  What can happen is that people can be denied a license to drive.  I will give the government credit in this regard, they are pretty good about issuing driving licenses in an objective manner.  They have demonstrated, in some places, that they refuse to issue licenses related to guns in such an objective manner, and unlike with drivers' licenses the  right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

Quote
By the way, I'm not specifically arguing for a gun registry, but merely suggesting that discussions about the principle of gun regulation ought to be kept separate from the discussion about the practical implementation of gun regulation. "It won't work" isn't a very good answer to "should guns be regulated in some way?"

Except that wasn't my response.  My response was that it can't work without the implementation of additional steps that do violate our rights.  That's a specific judgment on the change you're discussing, why would I discuss it in isolation?  If you have another way to implement it let me know.  I offered back a limited release of liability for voluntary compliance that could get you to partial compliance.

We got where we are today, with a bunch of laws that aren't enforced or enforceable because of exactly that kind of compartmentalized thinking and the need to do "something" even if its a complete waste of time.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2016, 03:14:04 PM »
There's never been a gun control "success" that has caused gun control advocates to declare success, or to say, that a reasonable balance has been reached.   Instead, every step is treated as a new baseline, from which no retreat is possible, irrespective of whether it functions or not.

I'm with you here and have no problem understanding why neither side is willing to give ground in the current landscape. As far as I can tell we're discussing what we would like to see happen, rather than what we expect to see happen. We could suggest an amazing new law, and simultaneously recognize that it has zero chance of ever being accepted by either the right or the left. The one has nothing to do with the other. For me, personally, when I consider what would make America better I like to imagine that the parties have been obliterated and changes can be suggested outside of consideration for how to cram them into a corrupt system. The difference between this kind of abstract discussion an 'real life' is that when a good idea has been developed in theory, one can then go about figuring out how to cram it piecemeal into the corrupt system - or better yet, how to try to make it less of a corrupt system at the same time.

Just as an analogy, when discussing how to find a cure for a cancer, it's not that helpful to say that the patient also has an autoimmune disease and therefore can't handle the cancer cure. Sure, that reality prevents the cure being implemented right away, but maybe one day the autoimmune can be gotten under control and then the cure for the cancer administered. It's probably best to search for the cures for each at the same time even though in practice you can't really heal the patient until you have both.

Quote
Not even the NRA advocates for no laws, which makes your claim about "you can't tell us what to do" a bit of a strawman.  The debate is about what's a reasonable or permissible constraint, not about whether they exist or not.  Entire types of weapons have been taken off the table, like automatics and sawed off shotguns.

Quite so, but just as you can point to how the other side employs a creeping standard and will never be satisfied until there is complete disarmament, you should realize that even the current status quo may not be 'good' in an absolute sense. The right may be strategically correct to hold their ground to avoid shifting the line, but at the same time this doesn't imply that the current line is good. It may still be too far in the 'wild' zone, even thought we can recognize that there is a danger in allowing the line to move. And I'm not at all convinced that the line wouldn't be much further into the 'wild zone' if the left gave ground either. They, too, may be quite right in holding their ground and trying to pull it in their direction.

Quote
That's why I asked for clarity, it's a big deal to suggest that person to person transfers should not be permitted.

Yes, it's a big deal, just like suggesting that person-to-person car transfers should not be permitted without government knowledge. And in fact that's the way it is now with cars, and it works fine. You can't just give someone your car keys and take "take it, it's yours" (even if it has a Seinfeldian 'The Beast' inside). That cars aren't a guaranteed right while guns are seems to me irrelevant with regards to how to implement distribution and transfers. All that would be needed would be to ensure that any rules of implementation weren't a backdoor to preventing distribution (as you admit already functions well with driver's licenses).

Quote
Some things are reasonable others are not.  I can't evaluate whether a restriction on guns is reasonable without context, and neither can you.

Exactly. That's why I was asking whether your objection was purely logistical (e.g. X suggestion is impractical) or philosophical (e.g. the government has no right to create such a regulation).

Quote
Making a convenient list of gun owners is absolutely subject to abuse.  Would you be comfortable with the government compiling a list of the addresses of every homosexual person so they can ensure there is sufficient police coverage to prevent hate crimes?

I don't think this is a good analogy since being a homosexual doesn't automatically make you a deadly weapon. When discussing how to deal with people controlling deadly devices such as guns, or even automobiles, it seems to me entirely reasonable to take steps to avoid mayhem, so long as those steps don't eliminate rights. As you yourself agreed, the rights can be restricted within certain bounds, but not ignored. Just like how to regulate how people should walk in a town, there is a "too far" and a "not far enough" that mostly has to do with efficiency and good function.

Quote
We got where we are today, with a bunch of laws that aren't enforced or enforceable because of exactly that kind of compartmentalized thinking and the need to do "something" even if its a complete waste of time.

Maybe, but that's not my position. Just note that our side-discussion began when I asked you what was so wrong about disallowing giving a gun as a gift. That's still really my question, and I'm not particularly interested at the moment in trying to solve gun regulation on a broader basis. I just wanted to know if your objection to regulating this was on principle or based on strictly practical considerations. If the latter, a discussion could be had that I feel tends not to be had. "We all agree that there should be this regulation, but don't know how to solve the implementation problem. Ideas?" That isn't a statement you hear a lot between right and left, for somewhat obvious reasons. But I thought maybe on here we could get such a statement.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2016, 03:51:30 PM »
1. Total ban on purchasing guns and ammo through any means other than a face to face shop.

Not a fan, why should good friends or family members be barred from selling each other guns?

no problem so long as it's a face to face exchange. I actually like it better if people know each other for years before a gun transfer occurs.

Quote
Why should an estate be forced to sell guns to a shop to resell to heirs?
They shouldn't, but there should be some mechanism in a will where the executor has the power to say, the will says give this gun to Fred, but fred isn't right in the head right now ...

 
Quote
You don't mention gifts, is that an intentional omission?  Because I can't support the idea of banning any gifts involving firearms.

I'm Ok with gifts to someone you know, and face to face, so long as you have the chance to look someone in the eye before you give him a gun and say, yeah, he doesn't seem like he's in a mood to go on a shooting spree.

Quote
What's your end goal? 

My goal is to reduce the number of insane people with guns, by making it possible for a transferfor to exercise common sense before transferring the gun.

Quote
Is the idea that the only way to stop some people from selling guns to strangers is to ban every person who would transfer a gun to someone they know well from doing so?


Exactly the opposite.  My end goal is to prevent people from transferring guns to persons that they don't know and haven't looked in the eye.

 
Quote
Absent a registration of ownership requirement, there's no real gain from this mechanism and no way to enforce it.


On the contrary, I'm saying that the immunity of gun transferors should depend on their transferring the gun in a lawful way.

Quote
Are you suggesting adding a record keeping requirement as well, to track every time a gun changes hands?

No.  Like I said, I don't trust the government with that information. I'm saying that if there's a shooting, that the transferor has no responsibility so long as the transfer was legal.  If by "gift" you mean, you pull to the side of the road and hand a loaded gun to a stranger, then no,I think that and selling guns over internet should be illegal.

Quote
2. State and federal immunity to gun store against any suit for discrimination.  If they don't feel comfortable about selling someone a gun or ammo, they can say no and they can't be sued for refusing to sell to someone.
------

This is definitely subject to potential abuse.  I can see now the complaints when gun store owners refuse to people who look like they are terrorists.

Such complaints are exactly why the law is needed.  Terrorists and their enablers are quite capable of playing victim.  I don't want anyone using the threat of discrimination lawsuits to bully gun owners to selling to someone that seems off.

 
Quote
It wouldn't be hard at all to show statistical discrimination based on race or other impermissible factors.


and just the threat of going to court would make it prohibitive for a gun store to say no to anyone. 

Quote
Not to mention you'd be empowering private persons (under the color of government authority) to take away the Constitutional rights of other persons.

Where's the color of government authority when a gun store owner says "i don't feel comfortable selling this to you because you seem like a fragging nut-case."?

I'm stunned that you'd use such a lefty-nutcase reversal, and turn a right to do something without being prevented by the government, into acting "under color of law." 

On the contrary, I'd say that a right to bear arms, includes a right not to turn them over to someone you think is dangerous.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2016, 03:55:57 PM »
Quote
There is already a registry of car licences and registrations, and that seem to work out fine. No one seems to be complaining about being denied access to a car unless they fail the test, in which case just imagine for the moment that there wasn't a test and anyone could pay for a license and get it.

false analogy.  you don't need a driver's license to drive your car on your own entirely private property.  you only need the license to drive on government roads.  I would have no problem with a rule saying that you need to have a registered gun in order to bring the gun into a government building.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2016, 04:07:22 PM »
Quote
There is already a registry of car licences and registrations, and that seem to work out fine. No one seems to be complaining about being denied access to a car unless they fail the test, in which case just imagine for the moment that there wasn't a test and anyone could pay for a license and get it.

false analogy.  you don't need a driver's license to drive your car on your own entirely private property.  you only need the license to drive on government roads.  I would have no problem with a rule saying that you need to have a registered gun in order to bring the gun into a government building.

That objection seems like a bit of a red herring, since automobile use strictly on private property without a license isn't exactly a major part of how people use cars. At best it's a minute issue that isn't really relevant to how to regulate the use of cars in general. In any case while you may drive a car with no license on your own driveway, you still cannot buy or obtain the car without going through the government first to pay the relevant taxes, which is still a step in notifying them of the transfer. You can't just hand someone a car without telling anyone. And I'm not even sure if you're allowed to drive around an unregistered car on your own property.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2016, 04:27:46 PM »
Quote
There is already a registry of car licences and registrations, and that seem to work out fine. No one seems to be complaining about being denied access to a car unless they fail the test, in which case just imagine for the moment that there wasn't a test and anyone could pay for a license and get it.

false analogy.  you don't need a driver's license to drive your car on your own entirely private property.  you only need the license to drive on government roads.  I would have no problem with a rule saying that you need to have a registered gun in order to bring the gun into a government building.

That objection seems like a bit of a red herring, since automobile use strictly on private property without a license isn't exactly a major part of how people use cars.

That was my point. That's exactly why the original argument was a false analogy.

Quote
At best it's a minute issue that isn't really relevant to how to regulate the use of cars in general.

Of course it's not relevant to the regulation of car use in general.  But it's relevant to the original false analogy between guns and cars.  another point where the analogy fails is specific enumeration in the bill of rights, but someone had already dealt with that.

Quote
And I'm not even sure if you're allowed to drive around an unregistered car on your own property.

I'm not sure how your unsureness comprises a counterargument ...
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 04:37:21 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2016, 04:48:30 PM »
I'm not sure how your unsureness comprises a counterargument ...

You can provide the information if you have it. I'm not going to go research this. My point was that even in a discussion about gun registration there need be only one point of contact with the government (the registration and the purchase can be the same event if that's how it's set up), whereas with car usage there are 2-3 points of contact with the government (license, registration, taxes are common to both). If you point out that licensing, in particular, isn't a good analogy my point is that this doesn't particularly speak to the issue since we're not discussing gun licensing, but rather gun registration.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2016, 05:21:40 PM »
And I'm not even sure if you're allowed to drive around an unregistered car on your own property.

My understanding of the rules is that as long as it never enters a "public space" (loading it on a trailer to bring to a store parking lot for the purpose of driving within the lot is a grey area, that the unregistered vehicle would likely be found illegal to operate in if taken to court; people have been cited for failure to wear seatbelts while in parking lots, likewise DUI convictions have happened for people mowing their lawn on the grounds that their riding lawnmower was being operated on a "public right of way" within so many feet of the road)

But yes, if you can find what would basically be a closed course, you can operate anything you want on it, so long as the property owner will let you. With the caveat that the vehicle in question isn't stolen or illegal to operate for other reasons whatever they may be.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 PM »
I'm not sure how your unsureness comprises a counterargument ...

You can provide the information if you have it. I'm not going to go research this. My point was that even in a discussion about gun registration there need be only one point of contact with the government (the registration and the purchase can be the same event if that's how it's set up), whereas with car usage there are 2-3 points of contact with the government (license, registration, taxes are common to both). If you point out that licensing, in particular, isn't a good analogy my point is that this doesn't particularly speak to the issue since we're not discussing gun licensing, but rather gun registration.

Why filibusterest thou?  The argument here isn't about cars.  It's about guns.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2016, 06:17:58 PM »
Why filibusterest thou?  The argument here isn't about cars.  It's about guns.

All I did was ask a question. My analogy to car registration was by way of explaining what I meant by my question. I surely cannot filibuster my own question, can I?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2016, 06:30:45 PM »
Why filibusterest thou?  The argument here isn't about cars.  It's about guns.

All I did was ask a question. My analogy to car registration was by way of explaining what I meant by my question. I surely cannot filibuster my own question, can I?

You filibuster my response, when you tell me to go research car registration laws in a discussion about guns.  I understand when Tom and Al do this; they want to waste my time because they disagree with me and dont have a factual response, so it's a matter of look, a bird. Here, I think you and I agree that guns and cars are a bad parallel, so it seems just perverse.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2016, 07:34:55 PM »
You filibuster my response, when you tell me to go research car registration laws in a discussion about guns.  I understand when Tom and Al do this; they want to waste my time because they disagree with me and dont have a factual response, so it's a matter of look, a bird. Here, I think you and I agree that guns and cars are a bad parallel, so it seems just perverse.

By suggesting that they are both physical objects and both deadly, they have something in common. At present they don't have registration in common, and so I wanted to know what the big difference was that one can have registration and not the other, in principle. I don't think that's a very complicated point. That one is a right and the other isn't has no bearing on whether or not it should be regulated, and therefore guns being a right isn't pertinent to this particular question. And this question is itself only a tangent on my original question, which was why requiring guns to be obtained through particular channels (as opposed to just handing one to someone) is so bad in principle.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2016, 09:25:56 PM »
And i think that registration of cars is predicated on the government power to regulate its own roadway.  You dont. can we agree to disagree?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2016, 10:23:04 PM »
And i think that registration of cars is predicated on the government power to regulate its own roadway.  You dont. can we agree to disagree?

You speak as thought the government has direct ownership to public roads and that they are the equivalent of private property that the government may dispose of as it wishes. But since that's not the case why are you writing off regulation of roadways as merely an artifact of who owns or doesn't own them? Anything public needs to be negotiated in some sense, if not for public safety then at least for efficient function. The need for a driver's license and registration has approximately zero to do with who has the legal claim to the ownership of roads (whatever that means), and everything to do with creating a system that works properly. In any case if you don't like the analogy it's not directly pertinent to my question(s), although frankly I don't see why the analogy is so hard to accept.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2016, 01:08:22 AM »
And i think that registration of cars is predicated on the government power to regulate its own roadway.  You dont. can we agree to disagree?

You speak as thought the government has direct ownership to public roads and that they are the equivalent of private property that the government may dispose of as it wishes.

No, I don't.

Quote
But since that's not the case why are you writing off regulation of roadways as merely an artifact of who owns or doesn't own them?

Here, you answer your own question--
Quote
Anything public needs to be negotiated in some sense, if not for public safety then at least for efficient function.

voila.  public safety and efficient function.  The government, as the owner/arbiter of the roads, assumes some responsibility for your safety on them, and therefore can regulate who can drive on them.

Similarly, the government takes special responsibility for your safety when you are in a courthouse, since folks are compelled to come there by law, therefore it's reasonable for the government to restrict who can bring guns into a courthouse. 


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2016, 01:45:41 AM »
The government, as the owner/arbiter of the roads, assumes some responsibility for your safety on them, and therefore can regulate who can drive on them.

You just claimed you didn't imply the government "owns" the roads, and now say it is the owner of the roads. Which is it? Also, "the government" isn't a thing. Do you mean the state government? Federal? Because most roads in a city are built and maintained by the municipal government, which in and of itself has nothing to do with issuing or deciding that people need to have driver's licenses. So while the state oversees licensing it happens not to have been the body that 'owns' or 'is arbiter of' municipal roads. It maintains state roads, and makes/enforces the law in that state, but not because they are 'its' roads.

In any event this tangent real seems to be a derail from my question, which you are avoiding (not that it was directed at you) in favor of attacking an analogy vaguely.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2016, 02:21:22 AM »
The government, as the owner/arbiter of the roads, assumes some responsibility for your safety on them, and therefore can regulate who can drive on them.

You just claimed you didn't imply the government "owns" the roads

wrong again. What I denied was this absurdity that you put into my mouth.

Quote
ds and that they are the equivalent of private property that the government may dispose of as it wishes.

The government owns the roads, but may not dispose of "as they wish."  The government has a duty to the people to see

ah screw it. I've explained what I meant clearly enough already.  Responsibility for safety is analogous between cars on public roads to guns in a courtroom.  What isn't analogous is cars on roads to guns in people's homes. 

do you really not get it?


Quote
which you are avoiding

i have no idea what you are talking about and doubt you do either.  I responded to someone else originally, not to you, and you see, tp be playing word games with my answer.  I've been patient because you have history of less Al-like behavior here, but not that you're accusing me of "avoiding" questions you don't bother to make explicit, patience is wearing thin.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 02:24:40 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2016, 09:30:50 AM »
Grasshoppers chirping

Again, Fenring, please do state the supposed question that you accuse me of evading.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2016, 02:40:27 PM »
As far as I can tell we're discussing what we would like to see happen, rather than what we expect to see happen. We could suggest an amazing new law, and simultaneously recognize that it has zero chance of ever being accepted by either the right or the left. The one has nothing to do with the other. For me, personally, when I consider what would make America better I like to imagine that the parties have been obliterated and changes can be suggested outside of consideration for how to cram them into a corrupt system. The difference between this kind of abstract discussion an 'real life' is that when a good idea has been developed in theory, one can then go about figuring out how to cram it piecemeal into the corrupt system - or better yet, how to try to make it less of a corrupt system at the same time.

I don't agree.  I'm not talking about an abstract theory.  If you want to play games and pretend no weapons had every been invented please go ahead.  I'm talking about a real world with a long history of suppression by governments of their citizens.  The rule for human existence has been the belief of the powerful that others within their countries are their subjects to do with as they choose.  The USA stands in stark contrast to the principal (or at least it has in the past), and that contrast stems specifically from the recognition that the citizens are the source of rights not the government, and that no government has moral authority to impair those rights except as its citizens agree.

I don't see it as being better in any way, theory or otherwise, to impair the right of people to defend themselves against their express wishes.  I have, however, never once insisted that anyone in particular exercise their right to bear arms, or acted in any way to prevent someone from spending their days in gun free zones or otherwise choosing to live behind walls.

Quote
Just as an analogy, when discussing how to find a cure for a cancer, it's not that helpful to say that the patient also has an autoimmune disease and therefore can't handle the cancer cure. Sure, that reality prevents the cure being implemented right away, but maybe one day the autoimmune can be gotten under control and then the cure for the cancer administered. It's probably best to search for the cures for each at the same time even though in practice you can't really heal the patient until you have both.

The analogies you keep proffering have been really horrible on this. I'd suggest, instead of analogies and theory, you actually speak directly to the issues and principals involved in context.  It'd be way more meaningful.

To address this analogy, people aren't looking for the cure to cancer to treat a single patient.  What you're confusing is treatment of a patient, which needs to look at the specifics of that patient, with treatment of a disease which in fact does not consider the specifics of any one patient.  The correct version of this analogy, would be to claim that we shouldn't bother to look for a cure to cancer because we can't stop people from dying from Malaria, or old age or other causes.  People would correctly look at that and ask you what one has to do with the other.

Quote
Quite so, but just as you can point to how the other side employs a creeping standard and will never be satisfied until there is complete disarmament, you should realize that even the current status quo may not be 'good' in an absolute sense. The right may be strategically correct to hold their ground to avoid shifting the line, but at the same time this doesn't imply that the current line is good. It may still be too far in the 'wild' zone, even thought we can recognize that there is a danger in allowing the line to move. And I'm not at all convinced that the line wouldn't be much further into the 'wild zone' if the left gave ground either. They, too, may be quite right in holding their ground and trying to pull it in their direction.

Then make a case for where the line should be, which you haven't actually done as of yet.  I am quite specific.  Citizens have a right, and its an important right, to be able to own firearms for their self protection.  They have not ceded that right, and government regulations that interfere with it should not be permitted.  That said, there is plenty of room for reasonable regulation, and we have many, with which I haven't disagreed.  With approximately 300 million guns in the US and less than 1/100 of a percent of them involved in a killing (justified or not) per year, I'm not seeing how were too far into the wild west.

Quote
Quote
That's why I asked for clarity, it's a big deal to suggest that person to person transfers should not be permitted.

Yes, it's a big deal, just like suggesting that person-to-person car transfers should not be permitted without government knowledge. And in fact that's the way it is now with cars, and it works fine. You can't just give someone your car keys and take "take it, it's yours" (even if it has a Seinfeldian 'The Beast' inside). That cars aren't a guaranteed right while guns are seems to me irrelevant with regards to how to implement distribution and transfers. All that would be needed would be to ensure that any rules of implementation weren't a backdoor to preventing distribution (as you admit already functions well with driver's licenses).

Umm... except your example isn't true.  The only reason I have to report the transfer of my car to someone else (which I can do by handing them the keys and signing the title) is to get it removed from my taxes.  That's it.  I'm not under any obligation as you describe.  What I can't do is transfer my license.  Licenses are different than property, they are personal to you but not owned.

Cars are not an analogue for guns, no matter how convenient you find the example.  And most of your argument about the deadly nature of guns (and cars being the same) would argue that we should also require regulation and perhaps registration of knives (which are also deadly weapons of choice) and even baseball bats.  Somehow, I don't think you're as worried about those weapons.

What's unique to me about guns, as opposed to other categories of defensive items, is that guns alone have the potential to act as an equalizer and bring the physically weak onto a level playing field.  It's no guaranty of course, it does happen that people are overpowered, but physical strength is almost always the deciding factor in every other context. 

Quote
Quote
Some things are reasonable others are not.  I can't evaluate whether a restriction on guns is reasonable without context, and neither can you.

Exactly. That's why I was asking whether your objection was purely logistical (e.g. X suggestion is impractical) or philosophical (e.g. the government has no right to create such a regulation).

Which says to me that you don't understand the question you are asking, let alone the answer.  Everything about this issue is based on rights.  Whether the accurate interpretation of rights matches by personal philosophy on them is another question as well.  The methods of implementation, are the same thing as the constraint.

Quote
Maybe, but that's not my position. Just note that our side-discussion began when I asked you what was so wrong about disallowing giving a gun as a gift. That's still really my question, and I'm not particularly interested at the moment in trying to solve gun regulation on a broader basis. I just wanted to know if your objection to regulating this was on principle or based on strictly practical considerations. If the latter, a discussion could be had that I feel tends not to be had. "We all agree that there should be this regulation, but don't know how to solve the implementation problem. Ideas?" That isn't a statement you hear a lot between right and left, for somewhat obvious reasons. But I thought maybe on here we could get such a statement.

I think this construction is too simplistic, but I do not agree that preventing transfers by gift is permissible or appropriate.  I also to do not believe that it can be accomplished absent even more invasive and unconstitutional constraints being implemented.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2016, 03:04:11 PM »
Quote
Why should an estate be forced to sell guns to a shop to resell to heirs?
They shouldn't, but there should be some mechanism in a will where the executor has the power to say, the will says give this gun to Fred, but fred isn't right in the head right now ...

Agree completely, though I'd prefer it be escrowed until a court order released it (either to Fred or the estate) rather than empower the executor to frustrate the will on a discretionary basis.

Quote
Quote
What's your end goal? 

My goal is to reduce the number of insane people with guns, by making it possible for a transferfor to exercise common sense before transferring the gun.

It's already possible.  Unless you add some kind of liability (or better yet, release from liability) it may not be encouraged enough to make a difference.

Quote
Quote
Are you suggesting adding a record keeping requirement as well, to track every time a gun changes hands?

No.  Like I said, I don't trust the government with that information. I'm saying that if there's a shooting, that the transferor has no responsibility so long as the transfer was legal.  If by "gift" you mean, you pull to the side of the road and hand a loaded gun to a stranger, then no,I think that and selling guns over internet should be illegal.

If there is no record keeping, how do you get from the gun that did the shooting, to the shooter without liability?  If the original purchaser states they did the background check (but you don't keep a record) how does that get proven?  Or are you implying that we keep records of the background checks but not the transfers themselves?

Quote
Such complaints are exactly why the law is needed.  Terrorists and their enablers are quite capable of playing victim.  I don't want anyone using the threat of discrimination lawsuits to bully gun owners to selling to someone that seems off.

I'm torn on this.  What you're saying seems reasonable on its face, but what will you do when there is clear evidence of a racist gun store owner who won't sell to anyone who looks middle eastern?  By granting immunity, you are making collective punishment of people into a real possibility, and making it really possible that innocent people will have their right to bear arms denied without probable cause, or even necessarily reasonable suspicion.

Again, if they could impose a delay and require the government to vet them, that should be more than adequate to protect against the abuse.  Of course you need to have a government that is actually willing to do a real investigation.

Quote
Quote
Not to mention you'd be empowering private persons (under the color of government authority) to take away the Constitutional rights of other persons.

Where's the color of government authority when a gun store owner says "i don't feel comfortable selling this to you because you seem like a fragging nut-case."?

They are already able to do this, are they not?  The color of government is built in when you allow a private citizen to pass judgment on the exercise of a fundamental right by another citizen.  Put this in the context of Free Speech and explain to me how it would be okay?

Quote
I'm stunned that you'd use such a lefty-nutcase reversal, and turn a right to do something without being prevented by the government, into acting "under color of law."

To be fair, I'm not seeing it, maybe you can walk through this for me.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2016, 03:24:32 PM »
I do not agree that preventing transfers by gift is permissible or appropriate.  I also to do not believe that it can be accomplished absent even more invasive and unconstitutional constraints being implemented.

This seems to be the answer to my question, so thanks for it.

As far as lines go, I haven't solved this to my satisfaction so don't have a definitive answer to provide. I think that people obtaining guns from other people without anyone else knowing about it isn't so good, and neither is selling guns to people sight unseen with no background check. I don't disagree with a lot of what you said; I just wasn't sure why the specific issue of being able to give a gun as a gift (without going through the same procedure one goes through to buy a gun) was specifically relevant as a breach of rights.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2016, 04:45:21 PM »
Quote
Why should an estate be forced to sell guns to a shop to resell to heirs?
They shouldn't, but there should be some mechanism in a will where the executor has the power to say, the will says give this gun to Fred, but fred isn't right in the head right now ...

Agree completely, though I'd prefer it be escrowed until a court order released it (either to Fred or the estate) rather than empower the executor to frustrate the will on a discretionary basis.

brilliant.  Much better. 



Quote
Quote
What's your end goal? 

My goal is to reduce the number of insane people with guns, by making it possible for a transferfor to exercise common sense before transferring the gun.

It's already possible.  Unless you add some kind of liability (or better yet, release from liability) it may not be encouraged enough to make a difference.[/quote]

That's why I said release from liability, even though that does give some license to bigots.


Quote
Quote
Are you suggesting adding a record keeping requirement as well, to track every time a gun changes hands?

No.  Like I said, I don't trust the government with that information. I'm saying that if there's a shooting, that the transferor has no responsibility so long as the transfer was legal.  If by "gift" you mean, you pull to the side of the road and hand a loaded gun to a stranger, then no,I think that and selling guns over internet should be illegal.

If there is no record keeping, how do you get from the gun that did the shooting, to the shooter without liability?  If the original purchaser states they did the background check (but you don't keep a record) how does that get proven?  Or are you implying that we keep records of the background checks but not the transfers themselves?[/quote]

The latter.  Imperfect, but the best I can come up with.

Quote
Quote
Such complaints are exactly why the law is needed.  Terrorists and their enablers are quite capable of playing victim.  I don't want anyone using the threat of discrimination lawsuits to bully gun owners to selling to someone that seems off.

I'm torn on this.  What you're saying seems reasonable on its face, but what will you do when there is clear evidence of a racist gun store owner who won't sell to anyone who looks middle eastern?  By granting immunity, you are making collective punishment of people into a real possibility, and making it really possible that innocent people will have their right to bear arms denied without probable cause, or even necessarily reasonable suspicion.

[/quote]

I don't like it either, but I don't see any alternative that realistically lets a gunstore employee exercise judgment.  From my experience serving the poor, it's the unbalanced and dangerous people that are most likely to threaten to report me to the bar when I refused to do something that I found morally repugnant.  (like make a false charge of child abuse against a spouse in order to secure the advantage in a divorce.  My response was to write the bar association complaint division and encourage them to file a complaint against me, since that would release me from confidentiality.)


Quote
Again, if they could impose a delay and require the government to vet them, that should be more than adequate to protect against the abuse.  Of course you need to have a government that is actually willing to do a real investigation.

Sure, so long as the store owner doesn't have to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.  Take it out of the civil rights statutes.  no vultures, no whores getting fat off someone refusing to sell a gun.

Quote
Quote
Not to mention you'd be empowering private persons (under the color of government authority) to take away the Constitutional rights of other persons.

Where's the color of government authority when a gun store owner says "i don't feel comfortable selling this to you because you seem like a fragging nut-case."?

They are already able to do this, are they not?[/quote]

not really, not with the business-breaking threat of lawsuits pending.

Quote
The color of government is built in when you allow a private citizen to pass judgment on the exercise of a fundamental right by another citizen.  Put this in the context of Free Speech and explain to me how it would be okay?

as I see it, a right to bear arms doesn't mean a right to buy arms from a specific seller.  anymore than I think that the mormon church should have the right to rent out property from one of the churches that hates mormons, for a religious ceremony.  Can you think of a 1st amendment counterexample?

I was taught as constitutional law 101 that a private party, acting in a private capacity, is incapable of violating the bill of rights.  Thus a publisher can't violate another person's freedom of the press by saying I won't publish that, and a gun store can't violate anyone's right to bear arms by saying I won't sell  you a gun.  There's simply no color of law.

What I learned in law school is that the only parts of the constitution that could arguably be violated by a private party acting in private capacity, are the 13th and 21st amendments.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2016, 05:06:24 PM »
I'm thinking of the analogy to a pharmacist who denies someone a medication they are otherwise entitled to purchase because of the pharmacist's own moral objections.  While I empathize with the pharmacist, its pretty easy to see how in certain areas of the country a moral objection exception could lead to an effective denial of the ability to purchase such a medicine.  And how, even pharmacists otherwise willing to sell it could be pressured by local forces to abstain for moral reasons.

If the basis you are arguing for were allowed in gun shops, but could be easily frustrated by switching to a different shop its not terribly meaningful.  If on the other hand, every gun shop refused to sell to a person, what is that person's recourse for a continuing wrongful denial?  Government color comes in when it acts to take away a person's recourse.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2016, 05:34:42 PM »
I'm thinking of the analogy to a pharmacist who denies someone a medication they are otherwise entitled to purchase because of the pharmacist's own moral objections. 

not sure how that relates to your request for first amendment-related hypos, Seriati.  a gun is not a medicine.  Nevertheless, I think a pharmacist can choose to not carry a drug.

In any event, the pharmacist's refusal, even if unjust, would not be "under color of law."  if it violates federal or state civil rights statutes, that's still not violating the constitution or acting under color of law.

Quote
Government color comes in when it acts to take away a person's recourse.

no, that's not what it means.  Any murder takes away a person's recourse, and yet not all murders are under color of law.

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal authority to act

from fbi.gov-- “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 05:38:26 PM by Pete at Home »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2018, 05:28:30 PM »
Quote
A bill authored by a downstate state senator would require a background check of an individual's social media background when that person applies for, or renews his or her pistol permit.

The bill, S9191, was introduced recently by Sen. Kevin Parker, D-Brooklyn. It would mandate pistol permit applicants to agree to a check of their social media accounts and search engine history as far as three years back. The idea behind the bill, Parker and supporters say, is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who may be violent.

Quote
The bill, according to WHAM.com, would require "social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal."

Pistol permit applicants would be required to divulge all their social media accounts and passwords. According to the bill "social media accounts shall only include Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram." A search engine review would only include Google, Yahoo and Bing.

Accounts and passwords. In the end, this is more of a way to drive people off social media.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2018, 08:44:57 PM »
So now the government wants to know what kind of pornographic fetishes gun owners might have?

Edit: Operative part "and search engine histories" for the above. Although that raises questions about how they're getting that info from the search engines, and how do they tell the difference between the 16yo in the house and the 40yo gun buyer in that case?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2018, 08:47:03 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2018, 09:01:26 PM »
Further thought: The Search Engine History going back 3 years kills it dead, really, 3 years of social media use to a lesser extent likewise does.

That laws REQUIRES somebody to keep record of those things, and because ANYONE might want to purchase a firearm some day, that means EVERYBODY gets to have their activities in cyberspace logged for government perusing anytime "the right switch" is flipped.

Without regard for your position on Gun Laws, anybody who is remotely serious about Cyber Privacy should want that bill killed violently (proverbially speaking) and in such a manner nobody thinks of revisiting the idea again anytime in the foreseeable future.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2018, 11:27:47 AM »
I'd give up my pistol before I ever (willingly) gave someone full access to all my internet activity and passwords...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2018, 11:42:53 AM »
I'd give up my pistol before I ever (willingly) gave someone full access to all my internet activity and passwords...

That’s the goal.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2018, 11:51:45 AM »
And it fails unless social media is required to also save deleted content, lets the gun buyer "scrub" their accounts prior to the hand over of those records.

But more generally I think "unreasonable search and seizure" is going to be legal grounds to toss that law should it ever pass, and I doubt it will.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2018, 12:40:47 AM »
I'd give up my pistol before I ever (willingly) gave someone full access to all my internet activity and passwords...

That’s the goal.

I don't think D.W. meant it in the way the Bill's authors intended it.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A gun control law that I would support
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2018, 09:44:15 AM »
A lot of time I'm willing to concede that lawmakers are ignorant computer illiterate grandparents and they just naively blunder into these laws that would upset "modern society", but on this count?  I think Crunch is right.  This is intended.  It's a scare tactic to defacto take away a right. 

"Sure you CAN have a weapon...  Whatcha wanna trade for it?  Privacy?  You don't need that.  YOU aren't a badguy... are you?