Does this sound helpful, or like a possible solution to the gun violence issue?

[Hamish Howl]

Anyone who thinks they can compromise their individual rights away doesn't believe in any individual right for anyone. Are you sure you are a conservative? Because you are expressing the position that leftist filth love to take, and leftist filth don't believe anyone has any rights.

It's more that we believe there are more rights than simply the right to bear arms.

 

[iguanaman]

Requiring a government issued license to sell firearms also violates the US Constitution. The only reason Federal Firearms Licenses exist in the first place is because of the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934. I have owned firearms since 1964, and I have never once purchased or sold a single firearm from anyone who holds an illegal FFL.

Anyone who thinks they can compromise their individual rights away doesn't believe in any individual right for anyone. Are you sure you are a conservative? Because you are expressing the position that leftist filth love to take, and leftist filth don't believe anyone has any rights.

The right wing scum can't keep murdering more and more Americans and get away with it. You are cooking your own goose by not allowing any sensible gun laws and are holding out for the "nuclear option" instead. It's coming and you are too stupid to see it. The people are getting fed up with all this senseless gun violence.

 

[Glitch]

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional

Second Amendment Advocates Don't Like It, But It May Be Permissible; A Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C. Could Decide The Question

www.cbsnews.com

Where does it say that firearm registration is unconstitutional. registration does not limit your ability to own, buy, sell or carry a gun, so how is it unconstitutional. According to this SCOTUS they have ruled there is no right to privacy with their ruling on Roe, so how do you prove that registering a gun is unconstitutional. Above is a link to an article that gives the right court decisions.

The Supreme Court said it in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968). In that particular case the federal firearm registration requirement in the National Firearms Act violated the Fifth Amendment.

More recently, in 2015 a federal court held DC's firearm registration unconstitutional for violating the Second Amendment.

D.C. Gun Registration Law Ruled Unconstitutional

BREAKING: Appeals Court Issues MAJOR Gun Control Ruling

thefederalistpapers.org

CBS is also not a credible source, nor do they cite any Supreme Court decision other than Heller, which does not support their position. CBS is Fake News by the Enemy of the People.

 

[Glitch]

Nope, it's not.

As if you had a clue.

 

[csense]

Why would registering gun owners be unconstitutional? We register voters in every state... Not registered, you don't get to vote...

In your scenario, registration does not identify the voter to the ballot. It is still secret. That’s why it’s not an apt comparison.

If however, you had to register the ballot....

Understand?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Licensed, registered, fines, etc., are infringements.

Here is the only thing I'll support: Anyone committing a crime while in physical possession of a firearm gets the death penalty with very limited chance of appeal.

Another fact free post by @Mycroft.

Numerous firearms regulations/laws have withstood legal/constitutional scrutiny all the way up to SCOTUS.

 

[Liberal7360]

Nope, but voter registration has no user fee by law. It is also possible to register to vote on the spot (at the polling place) in many (if not most) states.

BTW, voter registration applies to the person - not to each vote that person may choose to cast. I have no objection to registering potential gun owners and carriers by allowing them to voluntarily pass the NICS BGC and then having their valid, state issued, photo ID stamped “GUN OK”.

If anyone wants to own a fully automatic weapon they must pay a fee to the government for an FFL, Federal Firearms License. Or if they don't have that FFL they will have to pay a much higher fee. That fully automatic weapon must be registered with the government

It is fully constitutional to require registration and charge a fee for a weapon.

It's been going on for decades.

 

[Liberal7360]

So you agree, as long as there is no fee to register a gun, then gun registration is constitutional?

No. It is fully constitutional to charge a fee and require a gun to be registered with the government.

That is the ONLY way a person can legally own a fully automatic weapon.

We should require the same fees and registration for semi automatic weapons.

We should also require weapon owners to have insurance. The cost of the violence from gun injuries is astronomical and I think that we tax payers shouldn't have to keep paying. Those who own the weapons and cause the injuries should be 100% liable for any and all injuries and deaths they cause. Only way to do that is with insurance.

 

[Liberal7360]

Nope, but registering legal gun owners would be. We do not register the “secret ballot” votes we register the voters.

Isn’t that the idea behind universal BGC laws - to assure that the person intending to take legal possession of any gun is not a ‘prohibited person’?

No it's not.

Anyone who wants to own an fully automatic weapon has to register it with the government and pay a fee.

If it can be done with fully automatic weapons it can be done with ALL weapons.

 

[Liberal7360]

We don't have gun registration, so this is all a nonstarter.

We do have car registation though, so let's try out those kinds of penalties for things like speeding and drunk driving. That might actually save lives, unlike your proposal.

We certainly do have gun registration.

If you want to own a fully automatic weapon you must register it with the federal government and pay a fee to own a Federal Firearms License. If you don't have the FFL, it will cost you much more for a fee. The weapon had to be made before 1986 and you must file more paperwork and pay more fees to transfer the ownership of that weapon from the old owner to you.

Some states require registration of weapons too:

California: All semi automatic weapons and 50 caliber rifles
Michigan: Pistol purchases must be accompanied by a local license forwarded to the state's pistol entry database
New York: All handguns and semi automatic weapons must be registered
Connecticut: All semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines must be registered
New Jersey: All semi automatic weapons must be registered
Maryland: All semi automatic pistols must be registered

Where the word semi automatic is used, the law actually uses the word assault weapon but I know that the far right goes crazy with that term so I don't use it but all the states above that I've type semi automatic, uses the words assault weapon.

All sane people know that a semi automatic and an assault weapon are the same thing but the far right will argue about it so I used a term that they don't argue about.

I don't know where you get the idea we don't have registration in the US.

 

[Aristaeus]

Yup, punishment. Harsh punishment. Including and especially Soros-owned DAs who sacrifice American lives for their Marxist ideology in service of their "Great Reset".

Qanon bingo.

 

[Noodlegawd]

We certainly do have gun registration.

If you want to own a fully automatic weapon you must register it with the federal government and pay a fee to own a Federal Firearms License. If you don't have the FFL, it will cost you much more for a fee.

Some states require registration of weapons too:

California: All semi automatic weapons and 50 caliber rifles
Michigan: Pistol purchases must be accompanied by a local license forwarded to the state's pistol entry database
New York: All handguns and semi automatic weapons must be registered
Connecticut: All semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines must be registered
New Jersey: All semi automatic weapons must be registered
Maryland: All semi automatic pistols must be registered

The OP wasn't talking about fully automatic weapons or state-level laws.

Where the word semi automatic is used, the law actually uses the word assault weapon but I know that the far right goes crazy with that term so I don't use it but all the states above that I've type semi automatic, uses the words assault weapon.
All sane people know that a semi automatic and an assault weapon are the same thing but the far right will argue about it so I used a term that they don't argue about.

They're not the same thing. Not even close. You don't need a 10-page definition in a piece of legislation to cover all semiautomatic weapons.

I don't know where you get the idea we don't have registration in the US.

I get the idea from the fact that we don't have gun registration in the US, as I mentioned.

 

[Liberal7360]

I don’t understand why anyone would purpose a fee for being the victim of crime. Your house is broken into and your possessions are stole , damn that sucks now pony up your victim of a crime fee. Punishment for the person who stole the gun is appropriate not for the victims.

If your house is broken into and your weapon is stolen, you have not properly stored your weapon and have broken the law.

If you have no properly stored your weapon you are not a victim. You are a criminal.

Why do you want to not hold criminals responsible for their crime?

 

[Noodlegawd]

If your house is broken into and your weapon is stolen, you have not properly stored your weapon and have broken the law.

If you have no properly stored your weapon you are not a victim. You are a criminal.

Why do you want to not hold criminals responsible for their crime?

We could also make a crime to say stupid things on the internet....

 

[Liberal7360]

I would eliminate the first clause of #2, but the rest of it is doable.

I think clause number 2 is a good idea. It will be a very good incentive for people to properly store their weapons. Instead of just leaving them out for children to find then someone dies. Or a criminal is able to steal it.

I have a nearly 5ft tall fireproof weapon safe. It has a timed lock. If you put in the wrong combination more than twice, the whole lock freezes and can't be opened for at least half an hour even with the correct combination. The only way to get that safe out of my home is several people and chains hooked to a truck. The only way for someone to get it open is to blow it up and if they did that, what's inside is destroyed.

That is the proper way to store a weapon.

We have laws that require proper storage of weapons. If you don't follow the law, you are a criminal. So if you don't store your weapon properly and it's stolen, I have no sympathy, you broke the law and should face the consequences.

There is a perfectly simple way to not have to pay that fine, get a safe and properly store the weapon.

 

[Mycroft]

Another fact free post by @Mycroft.

Numerous firearms regulations/laws have withstood legal/constitutional scrutiny all the way up to SCOTUS.

And numerous regulations/laws have gone down in flames courtesy the courts.

The OP's suggestions will never see the light of day.

 

[BlueTex]

In your scenario, registration does not identify the voter to the ballot. It is still secret. That’s why it’s not an apt comparison.

If however, you had to register the ballot....

Understand?

What does the secret ballot have to do with registering? You do realize their is no constitutional right to a secret ballot, correct?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No it's not.

Anyone who wants to own an fully automatic weapon has to register it with the government and pay a fee.

If it can be done with fully automatic weapons it can be done with ALL weapons.

The ‘slippery slope’ argument has a factual basis.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Firearm registration is unconstitutional, and you clearly are not pro-Second Amendment. So much for your solution.

America has implemented firearm registration even long before it’s inception. Every town and city had their own laws and ordinances. Some towns one had to check in their weapons with the local magistrate. Others one had to pay a tax on their ammunition. Unregulated and unfettered access to guns has never existed in this country. That’s a fantasy concocted by the NRA.

 

[Chillfolks]

If your house is broken into and your weapon is stolen, you have not properly stored your weapon and have broken the law.

I don’t buy into the “ if she didn’t wear that dress should wouldn’t have been raped“ approach to law enforcement you’ve described. It does not take nearly as much time or effort to break into the average safe sold at a big box store as commercials want you to believe.

If you have no properly stored your weapon you are not a victim. You are a criminal.

I agree with this statement and once you drop the stupidity of claiming having your gun in a locked house is not securing a weapon we can talk about the penalties.

Why do you want to not hold criminals responsible for their crime?

Hold on this has to be a joke, you are just trying to troll me right? There is no possible way someone can say if you’re house is broken into and someone steals your property you are not a victim of a crime, because you should have done just a little more to prevent yourself from having your prop stolen. Also claim others are not wanting to hold criminals possible. It’s physically impossible for anyone to say something that stupid and expect It to be taken serious.

 

[Glitch]

America has implemented firearm registration even long before it’s inception. Every town and city had their own laws and ordinances. Some towns one had to check in their weapons with the local magistrate. Others one had to pay a tax on their ammunition. Unregulated and unfettered access to guns has never existed in this country. That’s a fantasy concocted by the NRA.

That was before the 2010 McDonald decision. States were not required to abide by the Second Amendment until 2010. Now that they are, there are many State laws which are unconstitutional and need to be either rewritten or abolished. Which is why you find a large number of States suddenly changing their laws since 2010 to permit "constitutional carry." Since 2010 there have been 22 States that have changed their laws to allow constitutional carry. With at least three more following their example in the next year.

Every State, city, and town is now required to abide by the restrictions placed on them by the Second Amendment. Which specifically prohibits infringing on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Any attempt to permit, license, or register a firearm is an infringement and not allowed.

 

[Citizen]

Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

​

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

​

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.

No, No and No. Crazy asses will still take the gun to a public place and kill lots of people in a short period of time. Ban all high powered weapons, period.

 

[ataraxia]

Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

​

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

​

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.

It sounds interesting. I would certainly be willing to look at these proposals.

 

[Citizen]

Firearm registration is unconstitutional, and you clearly are not pro-Second Amendment. So much for your solution.

So...Where in the constitution does it say registration is unconstitutional?

 

[Citizen]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Licensed, registered, fines, etc., are infringements.

Here is the only thing I'll support: Anyone committing a crime while in physical possession of a firearm gets the death penalty with very limited chance of appeal.

How is that going to stop crazy asses from mass shooting.