Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(17,671 posts)
17. That's true.
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:00 AM
May 2013

But there are severe penalties for dealing and using cocaine at all. And generally speaking, those that deal cocaine are not upstanding citizens. The relationship between dealer and user is considered in this country, and for all I know most every other country in the world, to be inimical to the common good.

Should we consider the relationship between those who transfer a firearm to be universally corrosive to the public good as well?

Analogies regarding firearms are always hampered by the nature of the object itself. Every aspect of any gun facilitates its use for great harm or great good, depending on which way it's pointed, who's doing the pointing and why. So anti gunners frequently compare guns to prohibited substances and pro gunners compare them to safety equipment. The gun is the same, but the relationship between "pointer" and "pointee" is an endlessly fluctuating thing that defies easy definition. The same holds true for transfers of guns. The gun doesn't change, but the relationship between transferees depends on near uncounted factors that are beyond the control of those wishing to regulate them.

That's why exceptions are already understood for close family members and the Manchin/Toomey legislation focused on gun shows and internet sales. The underlying criteria was the nature of the relationship of transferees. If people know each other well enough to know whether or not one of them should have a gun, then it's none of the governments business what they transfer between themselves. But if it is just a chance meeting at a public event or an internet hookup, the assumption is that someone is trying to acquire a firearm for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, people who know each other can transfer firearms for nefarious purposes, and people who would never dream of breaking the law can meet and complete a transfer who may have only met for five minutes. The law was trying to posit the potential for misuse based on intimacy without regard for the intent of the transferees, because it's impossible to do that. The issue always goes back to due process.

If the state wants to regulate the transfer of an object that has no universally understood inherent danger to the public good, it has to evaluate that danger using the intent of those possessing the object. That evaluation is very problematic without a previous record of malfeasance and due process to deny the transfer. Given the number of guns in the United States that are never used at all, much less the number of guns that are used for the wrong reasons, the infrastructure required to evaluate the relationships of people who transfer them seems to me to be an unnecessary invasion of privacy with almost non existent remedy for that invasion.

Some states already do this Travis_0004 May 2013 #1
Exactly. I want to expand and formalize that. Recursion May 2013 #2
When you list guns-to-sell, is this a legal requirement? How about for CCW request? Eleanors38 May 2013 #4
Something like this has been proposed for state action... Eleanors38 May 2013 #3
The driver's license is entirely separate from the vehicle registry Recursion May 2013 #5
Here's an alternative Bazinga May 2013 #6
"A simple document with a notary seal ..."? In Illinois, a particular real estate agent notarized AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #51
Why the irrational fear of "gun registration"? rdharma May 2013 #7
Personally I'm for gun registration Recursion May 2013 #8
Why should "gun registration" be a "trade off' for voter disenfranchisement? rdharma May 2013 #9
Because we'd like to pass it Recursion May 2013 #10
No. That's only the way it works in the RW mind. rdharma May 2013 #11
Short answer, cars aren't constitutionally protected Bazinga May 2013 #16
No. The "rationality" of a feared gun "confiscation" is NOT "up in the air". rdharma May 2013 #18
Absolutely, if something is on fire. Bazinga May 2013 #22
No. Your concern of "firearms confiscation" is NOT a "legitimate concern"! rdharma May 2013 #25
If the concern has been addressed Bazinga May 2013 #26
Are you aware that you keep repeating the "firearms confiscation" nonsense........ rdharma May 2013 #31
works in Switzerland........... gejohnston May 2013 #32
Sure it did! rdharma May 2013 #34
the Schengen treaty was signed gejohnston May 2013 #35
So ...... guns aren't registered and regulated in Switzerland? rdharma May 2013 #37
as regulated as they are in Michigan. gejohnston May 2013 #39
You keep playing with that word "registered"...... rdharma May 2013 #54
but the guns were not registred gejohnston May 2013 #57
Once you bought it....... they had to be "registered". rdharma May 2013 #58
no, it could be a gejohnston May 2013 #62
No. It's not like that! rdharma May 2013 #63
Nope, I'm guessing your grasp of Swiss laws are up there with gejohnston May 2013 #65
And you would be wrong! rdharma May 2013 #66
I did. gejohnston May 2013 #67
Explain the difference between "licensing" and "registration"! rdharma May 2013 #68
seriously? gejohnston May 2013 #69
Yes, seriously! So my vehicle is an NFA item? rdharma May 2013 #70
were we talking about cars? gejohnston May 2013 #71
No. You were playing with the word "registration"! rdharma May 2013 #72
do you have a valid point to make, gejohnston May 2013 #73
Just made it......... rdharma May 2013 #74
ummmmmmm no gejohnston May 2013 #75
A little more concern for the words that *are* there Bazinga May 2013 #36
LEGAL OWNERSHIP rdharma May 2013 #38
If that's a joke then it must be over my head. Bazinga May 2013 #41
I think you're trying to be silly now. rdharma May 2013 #43
I think we're using "establish ownership" differently Bazinga May 2013 #55
"NRA talking points" is the equivalent of a papal bull ("ex cathedra") for certain people. friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #45
Talking points. Straw Man May 2013 #120
The confiscation of *registered* SKS rifles in California is no "NRA talking point". friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #28
strip mine sized excavator gejohnston May 2013 #29
No jack-booted thugs for you! rdharma May 2013 #33
What difference does it make? You've denied the reality of confiscation more than once: friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #44
What difference does it make? rdharma May 2013 #47
The fact that they passed the law Bazinga May 2013 #78
Confiscated SKSs? rdharma May 2013 #79
The law is there to read. Quit telling us it does not say what it does. friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #86
Please don't tell me about "confiscated SKSs"....... rdharma May 2013 #113
My point is I don't have to. Bazinga May 2013 #91
Intent to confiscate should be convincing enough, or are you calling Democrats liars? Howzit May 2013 #139
Looking for the background re the confiscation of an SKS? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #94
I'm sure it's important to you to note that SKS owners could sell out of state... friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #84
SKS confiscation that never happened! rdharma May 2013 #88
Do you think if you keep repeating it you'll convince someone? Or get your credibility back? friendly_iconoclast May 2013 #93
Do me a favor. Document ONE SINGLE CONFISCATION! rdharma May 2013 #96
Don't have to. Straw Man May 2013 #121
No. Wrong on all counts. rdharma May 2013 #127
Let me get this straight. Straw Man May 2013 #131
No registration of the SKS "Sporter" took place in CA..... rdharma May 2013 #132
How about the Colt Sporter? CokeMachine May 2013 #133
The Colt is not an SKS Sporter. rdharma May 2013 #134
Nice snappy reply. CokeMachine May 2013 #137
No. Completely normal hobbies! rdharma May 2013 #138
Actually, it's worse than that. Straw Man May 2013 #135
Forced turn-ins are confiscations kudzu22 May 2013 #126
No forced turn in. rdharma May 2013 #128
Grandpa's Thompson? gejohnston May 2013 #129
Tax stamp is still $200 rdharma May 2013 #130
Forced disposal. Straw Man May 2013 #136
How many confiscations does it take before it becomes wrong? N/T beevul May 2013 #111
Hey! Document even ONE! eom rdharma May 2013 #114
Answer my question, and I'll address your request. N/T beevul May 2013 #118
I already know the answer....... rdharma May 2013 #119
You only know the embarassment of your own bias. beevul May 2013 #122
No "confiscations..... rdharma May 2013 #123
Depends on two things... cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #49
No. The point is........ no right is absolute....... and can be regulated. rdharma May 2013 #56
Wasn't that addressed in post #22? nt Bazinga May 2013 #76
Yes! rdharma May 2013 #81
Ha! Apparently! nt Bazinga May 2013 #92
Car ownership is not registered rl6214 May 2013 #20
Titled/Registered rdharma May 2013 #23
It is the purchasers responsibility to get it titled/registered rl6214 May 2013 #24
Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor . Jenoch May 2013 #40
"News anchor?" rdharma May 2013 #46
No. No. Jenoch May 2013 #50
How would you compel rrneck May 2013 #12
How do we do it with alcohol? Recursion May 2013 #13
But what happens if people simply don't care one way or the other? rrneck May 2013 #14
Well we highly limit cocaine transfers, too Recursion May 2013 #15
That's true. rrneck May 2013 #17
I would have no problem with that rl6214 May 2013 #19
Now I've heard it all! Registration "unnecessary invasion of privacy". rdharma May 2013 #21
That is the ACLU's argument against registration. nt hack89 May 2013 #30
FOID Half-Century Man May 2013 #27
Slight correction: Handguns in Illinois are a 3 day waiting period, long guns are 1 day. DonP May 2013 #42
Cool..been a while since I lived in Il. Half-Century Man May 2013 #48
Getting a FOID card involves getting a background check. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #53
As it should! eom rdharma May 2013 #59
Are you looking for someone to disagree with you? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #60
Huh? rdharma May 2013 #61
Unless I'm mistaken, AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #87
You're right. "As it should!" indicates an advocacy position. eom rdharma May 2013 #90
"don't know if medical practitioners/organizations are required ..." If a person is self-committed AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #52
If you don't know, maybe you should research it! rdharma May 2013 #64
I do know. I put quotation marks around the statement of the poster to whom I was responding. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #89
In states that currently have licensing for pistol ownership... Deep13 May 2013 #77
You'll never see those figures. rdharma May 2013 #80
Okay, I will assume then that licensing makes a big difference. nt Deep13 May 2013 #82
You don't need to assume........ rdharma May 2013 #85
Well, what are the facts? nt Deep13 May 2013 #98
That's the best he can do gejohnston May 2013 #102
I'm sure there is a very big difference gejohnston May 2013 #83
Yawn! rdharma May 2013 #95
let's see gejohnston May 2013 #99
No he's not! rdharma May 2013 #100
who said anything about Israel? gejohnston May 2013 #101
No. In RW gun nut circles Kleck is DaMan........ rdharma May 2013 #103
until they gejohnston May 2013 #104
No......... they've been tracked in Switzerland for a long time! rdharma May 2013 #105
the military weapons gejohnston May 2013 #106
No........ private purchases of non-military too! rdharma May 2013 #107
Post removed Post removed May 2013 #108
Simply reading an English translation? rdharma May 2013 #109
just a second gejohnston May 2013 #110
Your son reads German? rdharma May 2013 #112
reading it now. gejohnston May 2013 #115
What translates to "purchase certificate'? rdharma May 2013 #116
show me where it says gejohnston May 2013 #117
I don't see what the big deal is? legendleague3 May 2013 #97
A federal gun regulation bureacuracy? geek tragedy May 2013 #124
they have been since 1972 gejohnston May 2013 #125
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»A Federal Firearms Operat...»Reply #17