Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quoting myself
Next Post: Today’s Number: $13,680 a year
Posted in:
* Among other items to combat gun violence, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy wants a new state law…
McCarthy also came out in favor of… a state law requiring gun owners to report the sale, loss or transfer of firearms.
“This isn’t about denying people guns,” McCarthy said. “It’s about the fact that they have to be accountable for where they are. I don’t think that’s overwhelming.”
He said the bulk of guns used in crimes in the city are “legally purchased, illegally transferred,” and that gun transfers should be registered the same way auto sales and transfers are.
“This is not brain surgery. It’s really simple. Fact is, too many guns leads to more violence,” McCarthy said. “We have to wake an American consciousness to this. And I don’t know how some people sleep at night thinking they can defend this.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quoting myself
Next Post: Today’s Number: $13,680 a year
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I like Supt. McCarthy. Working the streets this summer with all the potentially dangerous protests gives him high marks. BUT, his statement and reasoning for this latest round of gun laws makes no sense. If the “majority of guns are legally purchased but illegally transferred” what will registering or reporting the sale do to stop these illegal transfers? How about increasing fines/jail time for illegal transfers by these “straw purchasers”.
Comment by Reality 101 Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:40 am
If most guns used in crimes are legally purchased, illegally transferred already, how does making anther law help? Do people think that those intent on breaking current laws will be deterred by a new law? The answer cannot always be making new laws when criminals by their very nature don’t give a rat’s heiny about laws in the first place.
Comment by TexasBound Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:42 am
- If most guns used in crimes are legally purchased, illegally transferred already, how does making anther law help? -
I think the idea is that currently unless there is direct evidence of an illegal transfer, it’s difficult to arrest the “straw purchaser”. If they make a law requiring theft or sale to be reported, the purchaser can’t just get away with saying the gun was stolen, they will face penalties if they didn’t report the theft sooner.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:48 am
“I really liked McCarthy last summer when his boys were beating those hippy protesters, but now that he’s turned his eye towards my guns…”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:51 am
This is a good start - once transfer becomes law then we can add a transfer tax to pay for all the professional security guards and psychologists the NRA is suggesting we hire so our children don’t get shot while learning how to read in school.
Comment by Jimmy Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:54 am
It is also very difficult to track who owned a firearm when. So a guy buys a gun and then five years later it’s used in a violent crime. The police search back to find who supplied the gun and the guy on record as having bought it from an FFL says he had it stolen or he sold it to this one guy and he can’t remember his information.
In Illinois we require that all private sales keep track of who purchased it and when for 10 years. That is not the case in most states. Keeping that information in a registry would make straw purchasers much easier to catch and hold them accountable.
The effect is simple. If you sell a few guns from your personal collection to others when you upgrade or just don’t need a firearm there won’t be any problem.
However, if you actually report the sale when it happens instead of claiming to have forgotten the information you can’t get away with repeated straw purchases.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:55 am
It makes sense. They also need to fix the “gun show loophole.” If you’re going to have law that tracks sales, it should be on all sales and transfers should be reported. If transfers aren’t reported, what’s the point in tracking sales?
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:57 am
So they want to keep a database of guns when the state doesn’t have enough personnel to process FOID cards?
Comment by Liberty First Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:05 pm
Guns are manufactured with unique serial numbers. Setting up a system to track sales/transfers and reporting of lost or stolen firearms by serial number shouldn’t be difficult.
I can’t wait to learn why this is an unreasonable imposition on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. The first person to say a gun registry is the first step to a plan to confiscate firearms wins a prize.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Ahoy, The state police have to approve shows where the waiting period doesn’t apply and purchasers still have to show a FOID card.
Comment by Liberty First Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:10 pm
I’m sort of boggled that we don’t generally track all gun sales and ownership.
There is a certain level of paranoia in the NRA that thinks that if the government knows who owns guns, the government will bang your door down and seize them.
We need to start making sure that guns are only in the hands of the calm and rational people. Anybody who thinks that The Government is going to use gun registration to seize all guns is not calm and rational.
So yes, McCarthy’s plan makes a lot of sense. It need to go farther though to allow us to track who owns what guns.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:11 pm
“I didn’t know it was stolen until you just told me, officer. I keep it on a shelf in the closet and didn’t know it was gone.”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:14 pm
I was surprised years ago that this wasn’t already a requirement.
Seriously, if you don’t file the paperwork when selling your beater car to your kid for a buck, you can get in trouble. But guns to anyone? No problemo.
And what possible reason would you have, other than being a straw purchaser, for not reporting the theft of a firearm? They’re not cheap — don’t you insure them?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:18 pm
@47th ward: its not a 2nd amendment violation to make gun owners and sellers to establish a clear record of title on guns any more than its a 14th amendment deprivation of property to require that on real estate or cars
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:20 pm
Wordslinger. If I had a handgun in my house in Chicago and it was stolen, I don’t think I’d walk into a police station to report that anymore than I would walk in and tell them someone stole my cocaine. I would be admitting to a crime (unregistered handgun in the city). That’s one possible reason other than being a straw purchaser.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:20 pm
==Ahoy, The state police have to approve shows where the waiting period doesn’t apply and purchasers still have to show a FOID card.
True in Illinois, not true in most of the rest of the country.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:23 pm
@anonymous, you can have a handgun in Chicago, so why aren’t you registering it?
seems like someone would want to report the theft of a valuable item like a gun. if not, why not? it certainly helps the police to know from where a criminal got a gun.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:25 pm
- I would be admitting to a crime (unregistered handgun in the city). -
Now that you can legally register and possess a handgun in the city, there’s no reason this should be an excuse.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:25 pm
Skeeter,
Paranoia? Did you ever hear what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina? The police were ordered to go to every home and confiscated legally owned weapons. And they did.
Comment by TexasBound Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:27 pm
47th ward- The people shall have the right to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and other possessions against
unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or
interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or
other means. Illinois Constitution
Comment by Liberty First Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:28 pm
Texas,
Initially, the police claim that they only seized guns that were either stolen or abandoned in homes.
But in any case, is that really your best argument? “Faced with a crisis in which an entire city was under water, some police may have acted irrationally. Hence, all police are out to get us.”
If that’s your argument, I stand by my previous statement. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the paranoids.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:32 pm
Liberty First, I don’t see your point. You have to register the deed to your house and the title to your car. Do these common requirements violate your privacy too?
Is that the best argument you have against McCarthy’s idea?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:35 pm
If a criminal is found in possession of a gun legally purchased by some one else. The legal purchaser can say it was stolen, simple answer. The only people who will be affected by a law such as this, is the law abiding citizen. Criminals don’t follow any rules! The prosecutors only convict them of the most serious crimes, so this law would not affect a criminals. Gun laws only affect the law abiding gun owners.
Comment by One Answer Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:55 pm
Not following your story, One Answer.
So you are upset if a person sells a gun to a felon and gets blamed for it?
I thought keeping guns out of the hand of bad guys was a good thing.
What am I missing?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 12:59 pm
Registering guns and gun sales I can support, although I don’t see it causing any ripple in crime statistics. We register automobile sales yet illegal drug dealers and suppliers register automobiles that are constantly being seized for illegal transport of drugs. Hasn’t caused any ripple in illegal drug sales.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:16 pm
-47th ward
you said
“can’t wait to learn why this is an unreasonable imposition on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights.”
I will first say national gun registry is a bad idea. BUT lets talk about it like it is an option.
The biggest knock i have against this is that the only option the government has EVER proposed is that ever private sale go through a federally licensed dealer. Meaning I want to sell something to my brother (or give it to him) I have to go to a gun shop and PAY THEM for them to access a government system…
If you were to say “look, you have to call here or go online to this site, fill in the transfer form w/ buyer and seller, and get an approval form. You then print that out and you are good to go!” I might get behind that. But they have never offered that and have never even considered it… Why?
Because what they are really trying to do is make it so its illegal to do a person to person transfer. thats the goal. If we really want to track this it needs to be like a car. No one tells you when you buy a vehicle you have to go to a new car dealer and pay them to fill out the forms to register your car.
Comment by USMCJanitor Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:25 pm
I knew the Chicago police had been proven inept at protecting citizens, but I thought they could read. The Court whacked the conceal and carry bill because IL could not show the bill had any positive results. What evidence does he have requiring registration of sales, which is an infringement, will have any positive benefit? The significance of the infringement is weighed in terms of the benefit. It seems that if you have data to show a gun used in a crime was illegally transfered, you should use the same data to convict the person who transferred the gun.
Fact check, he does not have data. If he had datas, he could convict the transferor under existing law. This is another excuse from another failed politician.
I suspect when the 10 people where shot in Chicago last weekend, he was not on the street, but locked securely in his home…with his gun!
Put your money where your mout is Supt. In England when citizens turned in their guns, the police did too. If you really want to ban guns, is the CPD willing to turn in all their guns at the same time as the rest of us?
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:26 pm
All talk of registration and reporting of stolen guns. Would someone point out to me where this would have impacted the CT shooting?
Thanks… It doesnt. But lets be honest a little bit, this is more about “Here is my gun control wish list” (I actually saw a 23 point list on another site) “And since kids are dead and there is high emotion I should throw it all at the wall regardless of the logic of whether it would have helped or not”
I can get with some changes (as noted above) and can be reasonable. but some of the stuff being asked for would have not made a bit of difference in CT.
Comment by USMCJanitor Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:29 pm
Pat,
You really think the 7th Circuit made a ruling based on policy being ineffective? You might want to read through that opinion again.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:29 pm
A few years ago I had a gun stolen ( a rifle to be specific) and when I reported it to the police they were surprisingly uninterested. They where ready to end the information taking process before I even told them serial number.
Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:29 pm
If the government isn’t willing to track the movement of firearms in society, it’s not serious about preventing firearm violence.
The firearm industry knows that a significant chunk of its annual demand is driven by illegal end users.
Everyone in my family who owns firearms owns them for decades.
The people in the gun rights movement are easily manipulated by firearm industry propaganda.
Track the firearms. Figure out the flow pattern for firearms used in crimes. And then stop firearms from getting to illegal end users.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:35 pm
===If we really want to track this it needs to be like a car. No one tells you when you buy a vehicle you have to go to a new car dealer and pay them to fill out the forms to register your car.===
OK, thanks. That’s progress. So like a car, if you transfer the title of your car to your brother, he needs to re-register the car with the IL Sec. of State, which updates the owner info in its registry of vehicle titles.
I think there is a way to enable a public agency, maybe the State Police, to process and maintain records of gun ownership in Illinois. And that would also be the agency for firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms too, so the records are accurate and up to date.
Serial numbers on firearms are not terribly different from VIN numbers on cars. That would be the basis for the form, in addition to buyer/seller and type of weapon.
No need to have a private licensed dealer involved in this kind of system, which sounds like an improvement if I’m understanding you properly.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:36 pm
–I knew the Chicago police had been proven inept at protecting citizens, but I thought they could read. The Court whacked the conceal and carry bill because IL could not show the bill had any positive results.–
Say what? What are you reading? First off, it was a law, not a bill, and it was ruled unconstitutional. “Positive results,” whatever those are, were not in the equation.
From the ruling:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.
–What evidence does he have requiring registration of sales, which is an infringement, will have any positive benefit?–
How is registration an infringement? An infringement on what?
Plus, your crack about Chicago Police being “inept” is way Bush League. You try that job for a couple of nights.
Otherwise, a very thoughtful and informative post.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:40 pm
Since I’ve learned of firearms being stolen off trains during shipment, I’ve become pretty convinced the firearms industry is actually selling shipments “off the records” and reporting them stolen so it doesn’t have to own up to selling weapons to illegal buyers.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:41 pm
47th ward
See. we can agree on some things. I just sold a weapon a few weeks back. The buyer and I connected, we exchanged Illinois FOID cards, drivers licenses, etc. Worked out a bill of sale with the weapon description and serial number… then waited and exchanged the weapon.
I could get behind doing this online, not a problem. But I would ask that we as a state fix the current FOID system. Right now the law states the ISP has 30 days to process your renewal. I waited 57 days and that was after calling my state rep to get it moving again with a phone call.
If we want systems that people will use (and we are going to require them to use) we have to have systems that WORK, and work quickly. The state today does not care about the FOID other than beating people with the law if they dont have it.
Comment by USMCJanitor Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:42 pm
1. A woman legally buys a gun (at some time unknown to us)
2. On last Friday, her son murders her and steals it.
3. Later that day, the son takes the stolen gun(s)and the stolen magazines and the stolen ammunition to school and kills 5 adults, 20 children and himself.
How does this proposal help stop this chain of events?
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:43 pm
===would have impacted the CT shooting?===
I can’t speak for others, but I’ve been thinking about gun control since the Appellate Court ruled that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry is illegal. Since we have to create a law to allow for concealed carry, I’ve been thinking about what other gun legislation might be appropriate for Illinois. The horrible murders last week add urgency to this for some, but I was there with Quinn, before the murders, when he first connected an AW ban to the CC law.
Like it or not, Illinois is going to have a CC law in the very near future (I’m mostly agnostic on this). And since we’re going to be debating this, let’s also look at some other reasonable controls on gun use.
There isn’t a law that will prevent the next Newtown. No one I’ve seen is claiming that. That fact doesn’t mean everything is A-OK with firearms legislation in this country.
We can do better for firearm owners and better for those who want more control of firearms.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:44 pm
==It makes sense. They also need to fix the “gun show loophole.” If you’re going to have law that tracks sales, it should be on all sales and transfers should be reported. If transfers aren’t reported, what’s the point in tracking sales? ==
Illinois already passed a law to require additional background check, like at a retail sale by an FFL on private transactions at guns shows. Happened in 2005. Part of the problem with the “conversation” is that many people have no ideas what laws exist already and what is already illegal.
==There is a certain level of paranoia in the NRA that thinks that if the government knows who owns guns, the government will bang your door down and seize them.==
I don’t recall where in the debates in setting up Illinois’ own background check system there is language giving them permission to keep a record of every time someone’s FOID is called in. they just did it. If you want to understand why a lot of us don’t trust the government, here is a good place to start. And the CPD has used these reverse traces to go on fishing expeditions against Chicago residents as well as others. If you take California, when they passed their first version of the semi-auto ban, they required registration. People followed the law and complied. Then the AG changed his mind about what was legal and poof whole bunch of people were told their legal registered guns were now illegal. Surrender them or get rid of them. So yea call us rednecks paranoid, but various government actions have taught us to be wary.
And let us not forget that the Chicago handgun ban came into effect by stopping the registration of all handguns. Seem to recall a one Mr. Burke stood up on the floor to support this. Funny how just two years later he was applying for PERC card to carry a gun. You know that whole thing about Lords and Serfs thing kinda makes since one would think.
BTW there is no exception to the waiting period at gun shows. The waiting period applies across the board in retail or any private transaction unless it involves a cop or FFL to FFL.
And since everyone seems to have picked up on the real goal of McGumby’s statement that the goal is registration, Didn’t Rahm try this with some $65 tax last year. It’s not going to happen. And the more people here want to talk about banning this gun, or banning this magazine or register this you are doing the NRA’s work for them.
Gun owners like me will not come to the table if the conversation exists solely to curtail our rights. Many of you don’t want a conversation, you want to lecture us. Brow beat us. Demagogue our sport, hobby and rights. You think we should accept the “progressive” understanding of evolving rights and accept gay marriage, but you refuse to accept a shall issue carry right after a 3 court opinions. And many of you still want to find regulatory ways to keep virtual bans on guns like Chicago in place.
Sorry. We ain’t playing that game.
Comment by Sizer Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:44 pm
“There isn’t a law that will prevent the next Newtown. ”
Thats one of the most logical things I’ve seen in the comments of this blog. Too bad others on the gun control side cant be reasonable and admit this and maybe start from the point of logic you have.
Comment by USMCJanitor Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:46 pm
Good point, Jeeper. One law won’t solve all of our problems.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:47 pm
===How does this proposal help stop this chain of events? ===
Who said it did?
Stick to the topic, please. CT shooting wasn’t mentioned in my post.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:55 pm
“Since I’ve learned of firearms being stolen off trains during shipment, I’ve become pretty convinced the firearms industry is actually selling shipments “off the records” and reporting them stolen so it doesn’t have to own up to selling weapons to illegal buyers.”
But it’s gun owners who are paranoid.
Comment by Confused Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 1:58 pm
Skeeter, I am starting from the idea that “All serious proposals resulting from the most recent tragedy must be demonstrably able to have prevented or stopped the most recent tragedy if enacted PRIOR TO ITS OCCURRENCE.”
Seen through that lens, the Chi Police Chief;s proposal is NOT serious. Nor are any of the others I have seen with the *possible* exceptions of:
1. Hardening the school buildings themselves
2. Permitting administrators/teachers/staff some effective means to protect our children at the time and place that is necessary
The rest is nonsense.
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 2:00 pm
Jeeper, I’m not going to say it again. This proposal is not related to the CT shootings. And it’s the last time I’m saying it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 2:02 pm
Jeeper, so if the Chief’s idea is an effective way to stop gang members from shooting up neighborhoods, but has no impact on a lunatic shooting up a school, it is worthless?
That seems like an odd distinction.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 2:02 pm
Jeeper - I don’t think letting a few gym teachers in schools pack heat is going to stop an Adam Lanza. His mother was armed to the teeth and she couldn’t prevent the tragedy from occurring. If we decide to beef of security at schools, for it to be truly effective, we will need groups of professionals in every building. This will be very expensive and many who don’t own guns won’t be to happy about paying a penny for it. As a result, look for tax increases on guns and ammunition and fee increases for FOID cards to be the first step to paying for enhanced security.
Comment by Jimmy Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 2:23 pm
From the article Rich cited & linked to:
The reporter wrote: “McCarthy also came out in favor of a ban on lethal ammunition …”
Uh, isn’t that the point of ammo?
Statements (or was it a mis-statement by the reporter?) like that which feed the paranoia on the other side.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 2:56 pm
47th — After Hurricane Katrina police began breaking into homes and confiscating guns while small community groups were trying to patrol neighborhoods to protect their property. How do you think the cops knew which home to go to?
http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/defenseless-on-the-bayou
Comment by Liberty_First Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:06 pm
I think I understand the point of trying to register firearms, and some of both the pro and con arguments. But if memory is correct, not having to register firearms in Illinois was part of the compromise creating the FOID card back in the late 1960’s … the logic being to register the owner instead.
Instead of registering the individual weapons, one of the points for discussion might be the current requirements for a FOID card. Right now there is no training or competency requirements.
A retired law enforcement friend of mine thinks there ought to be a kind of progessive requirement based on the type / size of firearm … to draw an analogy, something like the motorcycle test where you have to prove you can handle either a small or large motorcycle. Maybe one level of FOID for pistols and single-shot rifles / shotguns and a second level for semi-automatic weapons. I can see that making some sense because a lot, but not all, of the accidents are often the result of failing to properly clear a semi-auto when cleaning, etc.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:07 pm
You win the *prize* Liberty First.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:11 pm
USMCJanitor @ 3:06 pm
Yeah, I was sure he knew better but either mis-speaking or mis-reporting isn’t helping things.
I’ve seen some of the same stuff. One of my friends (who should know better) posted a pic on Facebook of a semi-pistol with round nosed bullets as a “home defense” weapon. I cringed at it. I have lower grain hollow point pistol ammo specifically so they won’t pass thru in a home defense scenario … and that’s what I’ve practiced with in that pistol.
Another friend’s wife was going on about the AR-15 being a assault weapon and how it should be banned. I suggested she ask her husband who, I know, carried a M-16 in the service.
The non-gun owning public, for the most part, hasn’t a clue … and most reporters aren’t much better.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:20 pm
RNUG @ 3:07 pm
Guilty of sloppy language myself, should have said:
“Maybe one level of FOID for REVOLVERS and single-shot rifles …”
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:23 pm
FWIW:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:24 pm
The electronic fingerprint id built into each gun so that it will only fire for it’s owner is one idea that would stop illegal transfer and use.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:28 pm
From Superintendent McCarthy’s point of view this may be considered reasonable thinking; but most law abiding citizens in most areas of the State already contact the police if a legal gun is stolen. Having this new law on the books does not seem to be an incentive for the other gun owners to fill out a report. Who is going to record and follow-up on this information and how will it help to prevent catastrophic incidents? FOID card renewal’s in Illinois take a minimum of two months because the State does not have the man power or the resources. It is my belief that we do not have a gun problem but we do have much deeper societal problems. Some of these problems are so complicated that we may never reach a complete answer to them.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:38 pm
—-Illinois already passed a law to require additional background check, like at a retail sale by an FFL on private transactions at guns shows. Happened in 2005. Part of the problem with the “conversation” is that many people have no ideas what laws exist already and what is already illegal.
And those laws don’t exist in most states. Hence why it would be a good idea for the federal government to require a background check on every firearm ownership transfer–and yes, it should be made possible to do it online and improve the efficiency in FOID renewals.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:44 pm
===t. Who is going to record and follow-up on this information and how will it help to prevent catastrophic incidents?
Actually the point is to take away the excuse that when someone is approached by the police about a gun they once owned and how it ended up in the hands of a criminal they don’t get to claim, well golly gee, I didn’t know it, but it must of have been stolen–or I didn’t keep the paperwork and don’t remember the guys name.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:46 pm
“This isn’t about denying people guns,” McCarthy said. “It’s about the fact that they have to be accountable for where they are.
I wonder if Donne Trotter was forwarded this part of McCarthy’s comments?
Comment by Casey Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:55 pm
@RNUG: Enacting your multilevel FOID proposal would force the legislature to *officially* admit that the FOID is a “license to own firearms.” They still seem to be afraid of that.
Whether they fear the courts would toss it (they might) or fear the voters would toss THEM, I have no idea.
BTW, is ANYBODY still discussing the original proposal? Doesn’t seem like it…
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 3:56 pm
D.P. Gumby @ 3:28 pm
See a number of problems with that idea.
All electronics have a certain failure level.
Would probably require different firearms for army / police that would not have that feature … and how would you keep “combat” verions out of private citizens hands?
200 - 250 million firearms already exist without that feature
There would be ways developed to either bypass the lock by hacking to enable anyone to use it or to totally disable the firearm by destroying the electronics, rendering it useless.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:01 pm
ArchPundit @ 3:44 pm:
Understand your point, but to a lot of people, it raises the fear of an all powerful central government.
I realize the below proposal most likely has a legal problem or two, but …
Rather than a registry of all guns and transfers, maybe there should be an automatic presumption of guilt, re illegal transfer, for any weapon used in a crime with a large fine associated with it. On the reporting side there should be a “safe haven” clause to protect owners from being charged with illegal possession if they are violating a local firearms ban of some kind.
That way, I would think, a law abiding owner would report stolen guns immediately … but it would not raise the fear of a central registry of all guns because the only guns listed would be “stolen” ones.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:14 pm
“Understand your point, but to a lot of people, it raises the fear of an all powerful central government.”
Yes, and those are the very people who probably shouldn’t own guns. Being connected to reality should be a necessary criteria for gun ownership.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:18 pm
==Rather than a registry of all guns and transfers, maybe there should be an automatic presumption of guilt, re illegal transfer, for any weapon used in a crime with a large fine associated with it. On the reporting side there should be a “safe haven” clause to protect owners from being charged with illegal possession if they are violating a local firearms ban of some kind.
Illinois law deals with it by requiring a 10 year record of the sale with identifying information. I’m not concerned about a registry, but by putting an onus on the seller to keep the information or report it stolen within a reasonable period that could address the problem and avoid the problems of a specific registry. Frankly, Illinois law made national with a few tweaks like the mandatory reporting of stolen weapons would go a long way to reducing what McCarthy is talking about.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:23 pm
@RNUG, re lethal ammunition, don’t know the legal status of hollow point, “cop killer,” bullets. bullets that explode inside a body, not just hit and enter a botdy. but the NRA was against limiting the sale of those kinds of things some years ago and that is an issue for further gun regulation to some. such bullets really lower a person’s chances for survival even if one enters a body.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:25 pm
“there should be a “safe haven” clause to protect owners from being charged with illegal possession if they are violating a local firearms ban of some kind.”
That safe haven would never be needed since, we are told, all gun owners are responsible and law abiding people. They would never break the law.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:27 pm
amalia @ 4:25 pm
Yeah, I know. I was pointing out the absurdity of the blanket statement.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:30 pm
amalia @ 4:25 pm
“Cop killer” and hollow point are two different types of bullets. The “cop killer” bullets are the ones designed to penetrate body armor, not hollow points which body armor usually stops. Hollow points can be very lethal, but they also have valid uses in both hunting and home defense since they generally do not pass thru the object they hit.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:36 pm
Casey, Google is your friend. Try checking Google before posting stuff you find on viral e-mails.
That being said, I do find posts like Casey’s amusing. They think that an island full of Marines backed by warships is a decent target, but would not attack a place where some people might have 22s. Makes perfect sense.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:41 pm
=== both hunting and home defense since they generally do not pass thru the object they hit.
Since they don’t pass through they are sometimes safer is important to note–they aren’t as likely to pass through and hit someone else.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 4:42 pm
He can “feel the momentum. People are banding together in the best traditions of our democracy We can do this. This is America. Let’s do this”
(Yes. That’s your governor talking to Gwen Ifill on PBS Newshour about gun control.)
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 6:15 pm
@RNUG thanks for the info. think more lethality than general bullet lethality is very frightening.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 6:50 pm
Superintendent Garry McCarthy already the most complex and onerous gun registration system that could be devised in Chicago and one that may be struck down. For each an every gun a Chicago citizen wants to keep in their home, including historic guns that are inoperable and even black power guns a separate form has to be filled out and a $15 fee paid every three years for each gun. Here is a link to that form https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About CPD/Firearm Registration/CPD-31.562.pdf
On top of this every gun owner has to have in addition to a State of Illinois FOID card what is called the Chicago Firearms Permit at the cost of $100 that is also only good for 3 years. Here is a link to that form https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About CPD/Firearm Registration/CPD-31%5B1%5D.577.pdf You also have to be finger printed by the CPD.
On top of this Chicago has a list of unsafe handguns that goes on for pages that can’t be registered even though they have serial numbers. Chicago also requires that once a gun is registered that its transfer be recorded and here is the form for that https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About CPD/Firearm Registration/FirearmsDispositionForm.pdf
The rule requires that if a citizen of Chicago decides they have had enough of Chicago’s gun rules and wants to move the gun out of the city to a second home for example they legally have to file a disposition form or they are subject to fine.
Let’s be clear here, Chicago’s current law does not encourage people who own guns to register them. It’s a law that is set up to discourage gun ownership. The only good part of the law is the training component, but I am not sure even that makes sense for someone who has a black powder Colt Navy 44 and wants to take it out to the country just for fun.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 8:01 pm
“If you were to say “look, you have to call here or go online to this site, fill in the transfer form w/ buyer and seller, and get an approval form. You then print that out and you are good to go!” I might get behind that. But they have never offered that and have never even considered it… Why?
Because what they are really trying to do is make it so its illegal to do a person to person transfer. thats the goal. If we really want to track this it needs to be like a car. No one tells you when you buy a vehicle you have to go to a new car dealer and pay them to fill out the forms to register your car.”
I strongly agree with this. Open the national system up to everyone for $5.00 a background check, and then require it for every transfer. The so called “gun show loophole” is closed forever.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 8:29 pm
Amilia – please allow me to explain a few things about bullet construction.
The original “cop killer” bullet scare was a work of fiction about Teflon coated bullets. The idea was that the Teflon coating made them leave less residue in the barrel. Some turned that into the Teflon was designed to go through body armor worn by cops.
Let us stop here for a moment and explain that most cops body armor is designed to stop handgun and shotgun ammo, up to a certain point. On the inside of the vest will be a rating panel that says what it will stop, .38, .357, 9mm. 45acp, 44 mag and so on. Cops want something that will stop a round from a tank, but weighs as much as a t-shirt. But it doesn’t work that way. You can also add “plates” made of ceramic or steel to improve the effectiveness. Our military uses these and so do SWAT teams to stop rifle rounds.
So vest are rated and most don’t stop rifle rounds of any type. My hunting rifle will go through one like swiss cheese. Go take a look at the video of the LA bank robbers from years ago and they wore two sets of armor to remain effective. The cops had to go to a gun store and get rifles so they had a chance to put them down.
Bullets are largely made of lead with a copper jacket. The come in FMJ- full metal jacket mean the outside copper jacket completely covers the lead inside. Hollow points are just like they sound, the nose is dished out to create a cavity. The cavity when it meets an object then expands the diameter of the bullet. The large the surface are, the more force it takes to continue. Thus slowing it down. Kinda like a parachute unfurling in reverse. The idea being to not have over-penetration and stop an object that is moving at 800-1500 feet per second in about 12” the thickness of the average body to prevent through and through shots wounding others.
The bigger the wound channel, the better chance at stopping the aggressor with a debilitating injury. There are two kinds, one from the channel or crush injury and one from the shock wave of kinetic energy.
A typical .38 flies at 750 feet per second (FPS). A 44 mag at about 1450 FPS. The .223 bullet in the CT shooting flies at about 3500 FPS a 30-06 flies at about 2800 FPS but with like 3 times the kinetic energy.
So when someone talks about armor piercing ammo, one first needs to define the “armor” you’re talking about. IF you are talking about typical type II or IIIA stuff that the cops wear, 95% of all standard hunting ammo for rifles will violate it. So a ban by that standard would outlaw all standard rifle ammo outside of a .22 long rifle. Exactly what Ted Kennedy tried to do with his amendment.
P.s the sizer post was me damn autocorrect
Comment by Dozer Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 8:30 pm
I think the key word for what the Chief is proposing is Liability.
As an owner your job is to secure the weapon and dispose of it in a legal manner. If you are found negligent you could be sued. Reporting a theft in a timely manner would probably avoid that. All the above can only happen if the weapon can be tracked back. A lot of ways to get around that right now. If that changes your home owners rate goes way up. Kinda like Life Insurance does if you fly aircraft.
Comment by Bemused Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 9:41 pm
=== If that changes your home owners rate goes way up ===
Because of owning a rental house, I already carry a $1M general liability rider on my insurance policy; doesn’t cost all that much extra … so I wouldn’t expect the normal homeowner insurance to be that much of an increase, especially if the homeowner had a gun safe for storage.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 10:16 pm
@Dozer,thanks, but I’m taking my advice from law enforcement.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 10:44 pm
Good comment Dozer. That helps me understand the nuances better. Thanks for adding some light on what a lot of us don’t understand.
And Rod, I had no idea how bad Chicago’s “system” is in practice. You’re right, that should be changed and improved.
Those are two comments that shed more light than heat on this debate. Well said, by both of you.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 19, 12 @ 11:07 pm
Skeeeter, “Google” is now the end all for scholarly research ? I guess Wikipedia is your main citation for term papers too….
And a mainland nation of 150,000,000 most adult household armed, would be a bit daunting compared to a sneak attack, while most of the marines and sailors on said warships were sleeping.
Comment by casey Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:35 am
Casey, we need to keep guns out of the hands of people like you.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 5:55 am
The law requires you to register your DOG.
Moreover, in Chicago atleast you are required to provide proof of basic safety requirements like immunizations and neutering.
Pet owners, by the way, far outnumber gun owners in Illinois.
And while most pet owners and gun owners are responsible people, the difference is that pet owners are represented by organizations who support common sense measures that recognize that the right of pet ownership comes with atleast SOME responsibilities.
Trigger locks? locked gun cabinets? Reporting lost or stolen guns? Holding gun owners responsible when their weapon is used to kill or injure someone?
I just don’t see any Second Amendment issues here.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 7:21 am
The law requires you to register your DOG.
you are kidding…right? ummm is there a different registration for a pit bull than for a yorkie poo?
i guess the difference is that we have enough common sense in southern illinois to take care of our dogs and our guns without the interference of government….
Comment by way south of chicago Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 8:51 am
–After Hurricane Katrina police began breaking into homes and confiscating guns while small community groups were trying to patrol neighborhoods to protect their property. How do you think the cops knew which home to go to?–
I’m sure it was the result of a Double-Secret Probation Database at the Fortress of Solitude administered by Lord Voldemort.
Hurricane Katrina was the prime example in our lifetimes of a sinisterly efficient national government.
Heckuva job, Brownie.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 10:04 am
“i guess the difference is that we have enough common sense in southern illinois to take care of our dogs and our guns without the interference of government…”
I’ve been to southern Illinois. You need assistance. Trust me on that one.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 10:20 am
By the way, do you have cars down south? Do you register them? If you sell them, do you need to report the sale? Do both the State and your town require you to license each and every one?
Does that prevent any of you from owning cars? Do you lie awake at night thinking Big Government is going to swoop in late and night and take your cars?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 10:25 am
Skeeter-
No, none of those prevent us from owning cars. And NO I am not required by the state to TELL them I sold a car, the purchaser has to register the vehicle in their name OR not drive it on public roads.
Of course they have made the system simple to register a car. But in Illinois just to get a FOID card to start the process of buying a gun or ammo the ISP regularly is not in compliance with the laws.
Renewals of apps taking 60 days when it is supposed to be no more than 30 is a prime example.
But IF they create a system where you can report/approve transfers and it is easy to use I would use it. Instead they want you to go to some office, wait around, get a PAPER form, etc.
Why not make it automated? Input valid FOID card for seller and buyer? Weapon Serial number, those are instantly checked against the FOID database, then approval or disapproval right then! print the form, charge 5 bucks, done. Same thing for federal.
Instead every suggestion from law enforcement or the GA is for you to find a federal dealer then PAY THEM to access a government system and fill out the forms for you. Or for you to go to the police station and fill out forms.
Why cant we automate this? like any system you get people to use it by making it easy for those that need to comply. But in every case no politician thinks about that, they actually use this process to make it HARDER so as to discourage people from doing it legally, then wonder why their process is not accepted by everyone.
Comment by USMCJanitor Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 10:56 am