Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
11-15-2016, 05:48 PM
#1561
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
I'd agree with that, but it seems the interpretation of that statement was changed pretty significantly during the NRA's PR campaign in the 1970's. In the 1930's, the NRA supported the national firearms act. That interpretation is new and even constitutional scholars disagree about whether the original writing is to be read as a individuals representing a state militia (as they were in that time) vs everyday citizens. Which is coincidentally the same time gun manufacturers and lobbyists started wielding more influence.
Secondly, the collectivist view of the 2nd amendment sprang into being in the early 20th century. From the founding until about the early 1900s, it was entirely uncontroversial that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to own weapons for self defense. A few isolated cases from 1900-1940 expressed variations on the collective rights theory without citing any precedents. It wasn't until the early 40s that an actual federal appeals court said this (again, without citing precedent, because there was none). Even US v Miller avoided ruling on the merits of the 2nd amendment argument. A few late 20th century federal appellate decisions (citing to the earlier decisions) embraced a collective rights position, which the supreme court struck down in 2008.
That said,
I feel like those that own weapons should be able to prove that they can use them and know how to store them properly. We do the same for cars, though as many say, that's not a constitutional protection or even mentioned (duh) like guns were.
From what I've read, concealed carry was banned by states as far back as the 1800's. I.e. much closer to a time when folks understood the true meaning of what the FF's intended given that they actually knew/talked to them. The texan governor in 1893 supposedly said, “the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man.”
I guess my biggest point is that anyone posting anything as an absolute reading of history or of the constitution should be called into question. There's a lot of historical back and forth about this. For me, it's as important to see how people interpreted this closer to the writing of the constitution as it is to see how people interpret it today.
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 05:50 PM
#1562
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
I don't have time to take issue with every item you posted, but for the moment I'd like to challenge this notion.
We do NOT put requirements on ownership of automobiles nor do we require registration or licensure or training of any kind. PERIOD.
You are perfectly able to buy a car from a private party with no registration and drive it on your own property or property you have permission to drive it on. You don't need a license, or any sort of documentation except that required by the owner of the property you are driving on. (I bet you can buy from a dealer, but it would be more difficult because it is so uncommon)
Driving on public streets is another matter entirely.
We do NOT put requirements on ownership of automobiles nor do we require registration or licensure or training of any kind. PERIOD.
You are perfectly able to buy a car from a private party with no registration and drive it on your own property or property you have permission to drive it on. You don't need a license, or any sort of documentation except that required by the owner of the property you are driving on. (I bet you can buy from a dealer, but it would be more difficult because it is so uncommon)
Driving on public streets is another matter entirely.
You left that militia bit out of the full sentence. I quoted you only for that part. The rest, as I said was posted for comment.
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 06:26 PM
#1563
...
...
...
It isn't even a loophole for buying automobiles. There are several models of cars you can buy from dealers that legally cannot be registered and driven on public roads. There is no background check, no license requirements, nothing. The only question is "can you afford it?" I am sure you can buy a brand new minivan without getting plates for it. Title might be a bit more complicated but if you are paying cash it should be a matter of just handing you the title and you can either have it transferred by the government or not.
Further, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. You cannot in any state buy a firearm as a prohibited person legally, at a gun show, in a parking lot, or at a gun store.
What you are talking about is the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm between private parties. If I want to sell my best friend whom I have known all my life a firearm, should I be forced to go to a dealer and pay him $15-$50 to do the paperwork? What about if I want to loan a pistol to my girlfriend to take a safety class? I am transferring it to her possession... Should I have to pay a third party $15+ to transfer it to her and have her have to pay the same to transfer it back?
I'll tell you this. If I had a way to do a check on a person I am selling a firearm to in order to ensure that they are not a prohibited person, I would do it every time I am selling a firearm to a person I wouldn't trust with my life. However, there are rational privacy concerns as to performing this check. Could employers use the system? Could potential romantic partners? There is no perfect solution.
...
...
It isn't even a loophole for buying automobiles. There are several models of cars you can buy from dealers that legally cannot be registered and driven on public roads. There is no background check, no license requirements, nothing. The only question is "can you afford it?" I am sure you can buy a brand new minivan without getting plates for it. Title might be a bit more complicated but if you are paying cash it should be a matter of just handing you the title and you can either have it transferred by the government or not.
Further, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. You cannot in any state buy a firearm as a prohibited person legally, at a gun show, in a parking lot, or at a gun store.
What you are talking about is the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm between private parties. If I want to sell my best friend whom I have known all my life a firearm, should I be forced to go to a dealer and pay him $15-$50 to do the paperwork? What about if I want to loan a pistol to my girlfriend to take a safety class? I am transferring it to her possession... Should I have to pay a third party $15+ to transfer it to her and have her have to pay the same to transfer it back?
I'll tell you this. If I had a way to do a check on a person I am selling a firearm to in order to ensure that they are not a prohibited person, I would do it every time I am selling a firearm to a person I wouldn't trust with my life. However, there are rational privacy concerns as to performing this check. Could employers use the system? Could potential romantic partners? There is no perfect solution.
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 07:09 PM
#1564
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
No, this isn't even remotely true. First, the NRA was not involved in politics until the 70s.
Secondly, the collectivist view of the 2nd amendment sprang into being in the early 20th century. From the founding until about the early 1900s, it was entirely uncontroversial that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to own weapons for self defense. A few isolated cases from 1900-1940 expressed variations on the collective rights theory without citing any precedents. It wasn't until the early 40s that an actual federal appeals court said this (again, without citing precedent, because there was none). Even US v Miller avoided ruling on the merits of the 2nd amendment argument. A few late 20th century federal appellate decisions (citing to the earlier decisions) embraced a collective rights position, which the supreme court struck down in 2008.
The classic preamble to any anti-gun argument these days- claim to be against gun control in general and then explain how you are for gun control just this once. I promise.
Yeah, that's called a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, they aren't valid in all 50 states like a driver's license.
The bans on concealed carry took place in an environment where open carry was common and legal everywhere. Carry was widely banned during the mid 20th century (mostly during the 60s/70s) but came back in the 80s as concealed carry because that's what people are comfortable with these days. Open carry is slowly coming back as well, but it's just not the preferred mode of carry anymore.
You mean a correct reading of history or the constitution? The 2nd amendment is very absolutist- it absolutely takes a lot of policy questions off the table. There's one historical back and forth on this issue- the 2nd amendment meant the same thing for all of US History except for a brief period in the 20th century when a minority of the country decided it didn't mean anything. They're simply wrong.
Secondly, the collectivist view of the 2nd amendment sprang into being in the early 20th century. From the founding until about the early 1900s, it was entirely uncontroversial that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to own weapons for self defense. A few isolated cases from 1900-1940 expressed variations on the collective rights theory without citing any precedents. It wasn't until the early 40s that an actual federal appeals court said this (again, without citing precedent, because there was none). Even US v Miller avoided ruling on the merits of the 2nd amendment argument. A few late 20th century federal appellate decisions (citing to the earlier decisions) embraced a collective rights position, which the supreme court struck down in 2008.
The classic preamble to any anti-gun argument these days- claim to be against gun control in general and then explain how you are for gun control just this once. I promise.
Yeah, that's called a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, they aren't valid in all 50 states like a driver's license.
The bans on concealed carry took place in an environment where open carry was common and legal everywhere. Carry was widely banned during the mid 20th century (mostly during the 60s/70s) but came back in the 80s as concealed carry because that's what people are comfortable with these days. Open carry is slowly coming back as well, but it's just not the preferred mode of carry anymore.
You mean a correct reading of history or the constitution? The 2nd amendment is very absolutist- it absolutely takes a lot of policy questions off the table. There's one historical back and forth on this issue- the 2nd amendment meant the same thing for all of US History except for a brief period in the 20th century when a minority of the country decided it didn't mean anything. They're simply wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/op...orks.html?_r=0
"In the 1930s, when the N.F.A. was debated, the N.R.A. president, Karl Frederick, effectively endorsed registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he once said. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.”
Interesting comment re: concealed carry in historical context and open carry. I hadn't thought of that.
Re: Classic preamble.
I mean, folks were terrified that obama was going to take away everyone's guns and yet here we are 8 years after the fact and no such thing has happened. The slippery slope argument is a bit played out, no? Nothing gets people to act on their fear than absolutism. Fact is, improper storage, use, or access leads to a lot of morbidity and mortality. I'd like to see that happen less. If it's by curtailing access or enforcing harsher sentencing for those violations. I have family members and friends that own guns. I've been out shooting with them. I have no interest in taking their guns away.
Have any sources regarding the history of second amendment and popular amendment. From what I've read folks get held up on the militia bit because citizenry was often double duty in a context of what is now the national guard. I'd like to read more about that viewpoint so if you find something good, feel free to pm me or post it here!
...
...
...
It isn't even a loophole for buying automobiles. There are several models of cars you can buy from dealers that legally cannot be registered and driven on public roads. There is no background check, no license requirements, nothing. The only question is "can you afford it?" I am sure you can buy a brand new minivan without getting plates for it. Title might be a bit more complicated but if you are paying cash it should be a matter of just handing you the title and you can either have it transferred by the government or not.
Further, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. You cannot in any state buy a firearm as a prohibited person legally, at a gun show, in a parking lot, or at a gun store.
What you are talking about is the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm between private parties. If I want to sell my best friend whom I have known all my life a firearm, should I be forced to go to a dealer and pay him $15-$50 to do the paperwork? What about if I want to loan a pistol to my girlfriend to take a safety class? I am transferring it to her possession... Should I have to pay a third party $15+ to transfer it to her and have her have to pay the same to transfer it back?
I'll tell you this. If I had a way to do a check on a person I am selling a firearm to in order to ensure that they are not a prohibited person, I would do it every time I am selling a firearm to a person I wouldn't trust with my life. However, there are rational privacy concerns as to performing this check. Could employers use the system? Could potential romantic partners? There is no perfect solution.
...
...
It isn't even a loophole for buying automobiles. There are several models of cars you can buy from dealers that legally cannot be registered and driven on public roads. There is no background check, no license requirements, nothing. The only question is "can you afford it?" I am sure you can buy a brand new minivan without getting plates for it. Title might be a bit more complicated but if you are paying cash it should be a matter of just handing you the title and you can either have it transferred by the government or not.
Further, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. You cannot in any state buy a firearm as a prohibited person legally, at a gun show, in a parking lot, or at a gun store.
What you are talking about is the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm between private parties. If I want to sell my best friend whom I have known all my life a firearm, should I be forced to go to a dealer and pay him $15-$50 to do the paperwork? What about if I want to loan a pistol to my girlfriend to take a safety class? I am transferring it to her possession... Should I have to pay a third party $15+ to transfer it to her and have her have to pay the same to transfer it back?
I'll tell you this. If I had a way to do a check on a person I am selling a firearm to in order to ensure that they are not a prohibited person, I would do it every time I am selling a firearm to a person I wouldn't trust with my life. However, there are rational privacy concerns as to performing this check. Could employers use the system? Could potential romantic partners? There is no perfect solution.
If you're selling a car to a friend and want to do it through the proper channels then you have to transfer the title, no? The car on private road argument is a bit strange to me because it can't go anywhere else. If you take that gun that was transferred between two parties to a range, you're carrying it on public roads or whatnot even for a short amount of time. So the gun doesn't exist solely in a private sphere.
If you're selling a gun to a friend vs gifting it then registration is different. But who's to stop people from lying that it was all gifted.
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 07:14 PM
#1565
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
Obama failed only because we fought back tooth and nail. Our fears were completely justified.
" I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
" I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 07:37 PM
#1566
The car on private road argument is a bit strange to me because it can't go anywhere else.
If you take that gun that was transferred between two parties to a range, you're carrying it on public roads or whatnot even for a short amount of time.
If you're selling a gun to a friend vs gifting it then registration is different. But who's to stop people from lying that it was all gifted.
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 08:02 PM
#1568
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
Just because one guy in the NRA says something that is pro gun control doesn't mean it is the official stance of the group. The NRA did not lobby before the 1970s. The NRA became explicitly political in 1976, when the members voted out the entire board of directors at the annual meeting and voted in new guys who wanted to fight back against gun control. This is well known. Before that, the NRA didn't take positions on gun control legislation though obviously members had been getting increasingly disturbed by the increasing amounts of gun control legislation that were being floated.
The reason Obama didn't accomplish anything is because he had used up all his political capital (and a lot of senators and representatives) passing obamacare. By the time he got around to trying to pass gun control, he didn't have any votes in congress and he didn't have the trust of the American people. If he had the votes, he would have gone for the throat.
Are you really this naive? I've defended violent criminals and drug dealers and they don't comply with the law, they just break it and worry about getting caught later. How much trouble do you think a drug dealer has in getting guns? Their entire livelihood is built around acquiring and selling contraband. There's just a black market for anything illegal that lots of people want.
The solution isn't to disarm me, the solution is to find the drug dealers and robbers and put them in prison.That's pretty much the only location where you're going to have any degree of success disarming people (and even that is iffy).
The reason Obama didn't accomplish anything is because he had used up all his political capital (and a lot of senators and representatives) passing obamacare. By the time he got around to trying to pass gun control, he didn't have any votes in congress and he didn't have the trust of the American people. If he had the votes, he would have gone for the throat.
If you're selling a gun to a friend vs gifting it then registration is different. But who's to stop people from lying that it was all gifted.
The solution isn't to disarm me, the solution is to find the drug dealers and robbers and put them in prison.That's pretty much the only location where you're going to have any degree of success disarming people (and even that is iffy).
Reply
0
0
11-15-2016, 10:14 PM
#1569
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
Chiburbian, I think we can go around in circles about this forever and I think I'm not doing a good job articulating what I'm saying so I'll stop.
Though, isn't being in possession of a weapon something you have to disclose if you're stopped by an officer? Even if you're not technically carrying it at that time?
@AB, I'm not talking about criminals here. We were discussing the transfer between friends. Strawman buddy. 0-100 real quick on that one!
Not sure that's true re: Obama. I think he's been on record as saying that there are things he wishes he could do if it were entirely up to him but has been adamant about the fact that those solutions won't work in our society or country because of our history/constitution ya know, the important stuff. It's actually a pretty admirable viewpoint given that he has an opinion and view but realizes that it can't exist in our country/society.
Thanks for that link. Filed to read it!
(I'm not being facetious!)
Though, isn't being in possession of a weapon something you have to disclose if you're stopped by an officer? Even if you're not technically carrying it at that time?
@AB, I'm not talking about criminals here. We were discussing the transfer between friends. Strawman buddy. 0-100 real quick on that one!
Obama failed only because we fought back tooth and nail. Our fears were completely justified.
" I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
" I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Thanks for that link. Filed to read it!
(I'm not being facetious!)
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 06:37 AM
#1570
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
It completely depends on what state you are in and how you are carrying it. Yet again this is you saying things, where you really have no idea what you are talking about, or the actual laws.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 10:53 AM
#1572
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
Call it trolling, call it wasting time, call it whatever. I consider it an effort to break out of an echo chamber. If you'd like me to stop, let me know.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 11:11 AM
#1573
Nothing you can't fix with education - and I don't mean just taking "our" arguments for gospel.
Legally transporting and legally carrying are two different things. In most states transporting means the firearm is in a closed container with the magazine out of the firearm and the bolt or slide forward on an empty chamber. You can transport a firearm pretty much anywhere. (pretty much, not everywhere though). You don't need a permit to transport a firearm for the most part. New Jersey might be an outlier but I don't go to New Jersey, but if I did I would read up heavily on the topic. In Illinois it is legal to transport a firearm everywhere except in secure places such as court facilities, jails etc. I could even transport my firearm into my office and store it (a prohibited place legally) except that I could be fired for having it here. But legally I am in the clear.
Carrying implies transporting the firearm in a manner where it can easily and quickly deployed, such as in a holster, pocket, or carrying bag designed to be easily accessible. (or, in the case listed above, in a glove compartment or center console). The firearm is typically loaded with a magazine or there are rounds in the cylinder (revolver). There will typically be a round in the chamber ready to fire. In most states this type of activity is regulated via carry permits.
Carry is a form of transport, but transport is not carry.
In Illinois you can transport a firearm unloaded with no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber in your glove compartment or center console legally without a carry permit. However, if you load it, you need a carry permit.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 12:11 PM
#1574
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
I'm going to say this and I don't mean it in a disrespectful way. You are incredibly ignorant in regards to 2nd amendment issues. You have some knowledge but it's highly fragmented and in many cases outright incorrect.
Nothing you can't fix with education - and I don't mean just taking "our" arguments for gospel.
Legally transporting and legally carrying are two different things. In most states transporting means the firearm is in a closed container with the magazine out of the firearm and the bolt or slide forward on an empty chamber. You can transport a firearm pretty much anywhere. (pretty much, not everywhere though). You don't need a permit to transport a firearm for the most part. New Jersey might be an outlier but I don't go to New Jersey, but if I did I would read up heavily on the topic. In Illinois it is legal to transport a firearm everywhere except in secure places such as court facilities, jails etc. I could even transport my firearm into my office and store it (a prohibited place legally) except that I could be fired for having it here. But legally I am in the clear.
Carrying implies transporting the firearm in a manner where it can easily and quickly deployed, such as in a holster, pocket, or carrying bag designed to be easily accessible. The firearm is typically loaded with a magazine or there are rounds in the cylinder (revolver). There will typically be a round in the chamber ready to fire. In most states this type of activity is regulated via carry permits.
Carry is a form of transport, but transport is not carry.
Nothing you can't fix with education - and I don't mean just taking "our" arguments for gospel.
Legally transporting and legally carrying are two different things. In most states transporting means the firearm is in a closed container with the magazine out of the firearm and the bolt or slide forward on an empty chamber. You can transport a firearm pretty much anywhere. (pretty much, not everywhere though). You don't need a permit to transport a firearm for the most part. New Jersey might be an outlier but I don't go to New Jersey, but if I did I would read up heavily on the topic. In Illinois it is legal to transport a firearm everywhere except in secure places such as court facilities, jails etc. I could even transport my firearm into my office and store it (a prohibited place legally) except that I could be fired for having it here. But legally I am in the clear.
Carrying implies transporting the firearm in a manner where it can easily and quickly deployed, such as in a holster, pocket, or carrying bag designed to be easily accessible. The firearm is typically loaded with a magazine or there are rounds in the cylinder (revolver). There will typically be a round in the chamber ready to fire. In most states this type of activity is regulated via carry permits.
Carry is a form of transport, but transport is not carry.
There's a reason I've been asking questions and trying to understand things instead of shooting out blanket statements about how ignorant gun owners are and all that bullshit. The assault weapons ban being one area where people completely get terminology wrong. There are so many videos showing the same exact weapon in legal and illegal configurations if those bans were implemented and the net result wouldn't be any different in terms of the capacity or outcome.
Regarding what you elaborated on above. I'm not taking your arguments as gospel, which is why I liked that link to the virginia constitution ratification. I knew that there's a difference between carrying and transporting (I don't think I made this clear) but I was asking about the law as it applied to transporting an unregistered firearm vs an unregistered vehicle and how that would play out in a traffic stop.
Re: your office example. Did you mean that it was prohibited or allowed to store it in your office legally. I know you're trying to distinguish between company policy and the law, but that part didn't read right to me.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 12:22 PM
#1575
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
Legally, he is perfectly fine carrying at work, but it would violate company policy. He could get fired, but not arrested.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 12:36 PM
#1576
I was asking about the law as it applied to transporting an unregistered firearm vs an unregistered vehicle and how that would play out in a traffic stop.
Re: your office example. Did you mean that it was prohibited or allowed to store it in your office legally. I know you're trying to distinguish between company policy and the law, but that part didn't read right to me.
Re: your office example. Did you mean that it was prohibited or allowed to store it in your office legally. I know you're trying to distinguish between company policy and the law, but that part didn't read right to me.
In regards to "registration" there is no such thing. No firearm is registered exept at the place of manufacturer down to the first sale, and even then it's not something a police officer can check during a traffic stop. It would require a check by the ATF which requires going back to the manufacturer to see when a specific firearm serial number was sold. From there the manufacturer tells the ATF that it was transferred to ABC Gun Store. The ATF sends ABC Gun Store a request for trace data on that firearm. ABC Gun Company checks it's transfer books and tells them that it was sold on a certain date and time to John Smith. The ATF then goes to John Smith and asks what happened to the firearm. John Smith then gives them the information for the person he sold it to. He is required to keep records of the sale for 10 years. It goes down the chain this way until they find the last owner. (http://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530...uns-get-traced)
In reality the only thing a police officer will do at a traffic stop is check to see if the serial numbers are defaced and maybe do some sort of check to see if it has been reported as stolen, and most of the time even that wouldn't happen unless the police officer is interacting with you for a criminal matter (rather than traffic for example).
Actually, I work in a hospital which is a prohibited place according to the carry law. However, the carry law doesn't restrict transportation or possession, only carry. This is all Illinois specific of course.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 12:54 PM
#1577
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
In the office example, I am legally prohibited from carrying a loaded firearm into my place of work. I can get arrested for that and have my carry permit suspended (among other fines and legal fees). If I transport my firearm into my office I am in no danger of arrest, but I will be fired for violating company policy.
In regards to "registration" there is no such thing. No firearm is registered exept at the place of manufacturer down to the first sale, and even then it's not something a police officer can check during a traffic stop. It would require a check by the ATF which requires going back to the manufacturer to see when a specific firearm serial number was sold. From there the manufacturer tells the ATF that it was transferred to ABC Gun Store. The ATF sends ABC Gun Store a request for trace data on that firearm. ABC Gun Company checks it's transfer books and tells them that it was sold on a certain date and time to John Smith. The ATF then goes to John Smith and asks what happened to the firearm. John Smith then gives them the information for the person he sold it to. He is required to keep records of the sale for 10 years. It goes down the chain this way until they find the last owner. (The Low-Tech Way Guns Get Traced : NPR)
In reality the only thing a police officer will do at a traffic stop is check to see if the serial numbers are defaced and maybe do some sort of check to see if it has been reported as stolen, and most of the time even that wouldn't happen unless the police officer is interacting with you for a criminal matter (rather than traffic for example).
Actually, I work in a hospital which is a prohibited place according to the carry law. However, the carry law doesn't restrict transportation or possession, only carry. This is all Illinois specific of course.
In regards to "registration" there is no such thing. No firearm is registered exept at the place of manufacturer down to the first sale, and even then it's not something a police officer can check during a traffic stop. It would require a check by the ATF which requires going back to the manufacturer to see when a specific firearm serial number was sold. From there the manufacturer tells the ATF that it was transferred to ABC Gun Store. The ATF sends ABC Gun Store a request for trace data on that firearm. ABC Gun Company checks it's transfer books and tells them that it was sold on a certain date and time to John Smith. The ATF then goes to John Smith and asks what happened to the firearm. John Smith then gives them the information for the person he sold it to. He is required to keep records of the sale for 10 years. It goes down the chain this way until they find the last owner. (The Low-Tech Way Guns Get Traced : NPR)
In reality the only thing a police officer will do at a traffic stop is check to see if the serial numbers are defaced and maybe do some sort of check to see if it has been reported as stolen, and most of the time even that wouldn't happen unless the police officer is interacting with you for a criminal matter (rather than traffic for example).
Actually, I work in a hospital which is a prohibited place according to the carry law. However, the carry law doesn't restrict transportation or possession, only carry. This is all Illinois specific of course.
What do you do at the hospital? Med student here...Forever wandering around lost lol.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 12:59 PM
#1578
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
Yes, hospitals and schools are generally places where firearms are prohibited by law. I was under the assumption that you worked at a regular office building and not an Illinois hospital.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2016, 02:11 PM
#1580
Every state is different, especially New Jersey. I have permits from several other states but have been trying to get one of those "unicorn" carry permits in NJ for many years..
I can carry a rifle and ammunition in the trunk of my car in this state any place except school property any time, all the time, but not a pistol.
If I want to carry my pistol out of the state, the only legal way that I can do it is to travel directly to a gun range out of state first, and then when returning, leave the gun range last before entering the state and going directly to my home or business. I know that people rely on FOPA, but if I am not traveling THROUGH another state it could be a problem.
I can carry a rifle and ammunition in the trunk of my car in this state any place except school property any time, all the time, but not a pistol.
If I want to carry my pistol out of the state, the only legal way that I can do it is to travel directly to a gun range out of state first, and then when returning, leave the gun range last before entering the state and going directly to my home or business. I know that people rely on FOPA, but if I am not traveling THROUGH another state it could be a problem.
Reply
0
0
