Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

And still proves the point that only tyrants wants disarmament.

 

Actually, the tyrant got rid of the disarmament that was put in place after WW1.

 

Only to those who weren't his target.

 

...and? That certainly doesn't change the fact that he didn't implement wide-scale gun control.

 

If he had enjoyed a 60 Democrat Senate and a Democratic majority in the House, what changes to current gun laws could we have expected?

 

Probably universal background checks.

 

Which are neither "universal" nor enforceable.

SInce 2011, there have been over 100 gun control bills introduced in Congress, none of which passed. In the Democratic majority scenario, couldn't we expect that a majority if not all of them would have passed?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-gun-control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/


Actually, a search of Congress.gov found almost 400 gun control bills that were introduced, although many were simply repeats from a previous year (Gun Show Loophole Act of 2011, 2012, 2013, etc.)

 

The facts that background checks are not currently "universal", and that legislators aren't effectively representing the will of their constituents doesn't mean that government should enable loopholes to exist bypassing the passing of background checks.

 

What loopholes? Current law is based on the Brady Act, a law written by Democrats, passed by Democrats, signed by a Democratic president and affirmed by by liberal majority SCOTUS, and that law was written to specifically exclude private firearm transfers from its requirements. There are no loopholes; it's the law written just as the Democrats wanted.

In their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", the DOJ wrote that "universal" background checks could only be effective with full registration.

Universal background checks are only designed to make transfers between lawful gun owners onerous, as criminals, knowing that they are unenforceable, will simply ignore any requirement.

 

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that full registration was passed - similar to that that exists for vehicles.
Explain how straw purchases would still be a viable source of firearms for criminals.

 

Right now, straw purchases typically go from FFL to purchaser to felon. Those are already trackable, if found. Since the firearm isn't typically left at the crime scene, registration doesn't help solve crimes. Canada has handgun registration. It's never be shown that registration has solved any homicides there.

We know that when the gun owners of New York and Connecticut were asked to register their firearms or become a felon, those states saw less than 15% compliance. Similar rates nationwide would still leave over 200 million unregistered guns that could make their way into the hands of criminals over time.

 

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate private gun sales within a state. it isn't a loophole.

 

I can answer this. Criminals can buy the guns directly. Felons is the better term, for they cannot directly buy them and have to obtain them secondarily.

The answer is they will still buy them on the secondary market—either by a near immediate straw purchase or by buying a gun privately owned for some time.

Why? Because the financial motive will still exist, and as long as a felon is willing to pay for it he will still buy the guns through direct straw purchases and by later secondary sales. As long as the gun can be sold to the felon for a profit then it will continue to happen.

I tell you universal registration cannot stop or solve this problem. Here is why:

To enforce it you must make it a crime—to both possess a gun you have not registered and to transfer one without registering the gun to another. Now the illegal sale of the gun to the felon will never be observed, so government will not even be aware it has happened. All law enforcement will know is the felon later commits a crime with the gun (say a murder) and he gets caught. Assume for a moment they find him with the gun. What happens?

He has not registered his gun—and he cannot be prosecuted for failing to register it. Why? A law that compels him to register the gun he bought requires him to confess to the separate crime of having a gun as a felon, which would violate his 5th Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. So the felon’s 5th Amendment right to remain silent renders him immune from registration to start with.

Ah, but this does not mean you cannot pursue the registered owner. This is where some proponents of universal registration feel the deterrent effect lies—you can put him on trial for selling the gun to the felon without complying with the transfer registration requirements.

But a trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So what is your evidence to convict him? If he confesses, then you have him. His confession to selling the gun to our felon is corroborated by the gun being recovered off the felon, and you convict the registered owner. But he has a right to remain silent, and does not have to explain what happened to his gun. Even so, he could easily say “I put that gun in a dresser drawer and have not thought about it in a while, it must have been stolen and I just never noticed it ‘til now.” What do you do then? The only person who can prove this is a lie is felon/murder suspect. Do you go to him to help? He can remain silent as well, for any admission that he bought the gun is an admission that he committed the crime of possessing it (and likely a secondary admission linking him to the gun used in our murder). But assume he does spill the beans and say he bought the gun from our registered owner (yes it does happen). The registered owner, as a criminal defendant, has a 6th Amendment right to confront and cross-examine his accusers—so you simply cannot offer the felon’s statement against him. Rather, to convict the registered owner the felon is going to have to testify against him. Now this is simply not going to happen—for the felon will not do this out of a sense of moral duty. Rather, he will demand a deal in exchange for his testimony. This puts the prosecutor in the untenable position of having to make a deal with the murderer to go after the person who sold him the gun—which is akin to making a deal with the devil to have him help testify against one of his worshipers. It’s simply not a viable option.

I just want you to understand that there are serious problems with the enforcement of registration, and how these obvious problems will fail to deter anyone who wants to sell a gun under the table to a felon whose money is green.

Universal registration is like many laws debated today—things that might make sense when confined to the sterile vacuum of a 20 second sound bite—offered by politicians who feel “we have to do something”—without any serious thought as to how the law will likely fail to solve the problem it is intended to address.

I also note these problems exist independently of the serious question of the constitutionality of registration—which is always the first, the paramount, question with any legislation.

So let me ask this: How is universal registration constitutional to start with?

 

For one reason and one reason alone:
He could not get enough Democrats to vote for it.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no loopholes that allow you to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law.

- - - Updated - - -

I buy the gun.
I give it to you.
I report it stolen.

 

Every firearm sale has a background check. (Criminals look for cops in the background before selling the gun to another criminal!)

 

They don't even prosecute the criminals they catch, and when they do prosecute them they serve no real time.

Solution: moar laws.

 

No such loophole exists. Legally the only individuals who are under legal obligation to perform a background check for a firearms purchase, are those who are legally engaged in the business of selling firearms as a primary source of revenue. Simply liquidating a limited number of privately owned firearms is not the same as being in the business.

Are you in the business of selling furniture and/or books if either item is put up for sale on a garage sale?

 

You know what. It doesn't matter. The slaughter of a few innocents is a small price to pay for the illusion that somehow owning a gun is the ultimate evidence of personal power.

 

Is that a Democratic talking point or a personal fantasy?

 

That is an observation from listening to people who think that somehow having a pea shooter is going to protect them from a tyrannical government. Or that somehow having an " assault weapon" is going to effectively protect them from crime. Or that somehow having universal background checks is an infringement on their personal liberty.

 

LMAO it this personal observations or just personal bias. BTW which is it a peashooter or a so called assault weapon. The Viet Cong started out with light weapons only. Besides you don't know squat about asymmetric warfare.
And yes, my personal weapons and the acquired skills involved DO effectively protect me from crime. You on the other hand have a sign on your back that says FOOD.

 

Until you present actual evidence to show that the populace being armed will simply amount to nothing should the government ever become tyrannical, you have nothing to back up your position.

A great many firearms are classified as being so-called "assault weapons" to the point the term now holds no meaning whatsoever.

Since criminals are not prosecuted when they are already found in possession of a firearm, there is no purpose in even discussing them being implemented.

 

Well good then you don't need all those weapons to protect your freedom. Or are you fantasizing Russians or Chinese landing on the coast in submarines?

 

I don't own any weapons that I purchased to built to protect my freedoms. My fantasies include a 7 x 7 bull elk, a 5 shot 6" group at a thousand yards, a Master USPSA classification and earning the prize table at the local 3 gun events.

 

I know where a 7X7 bull is right now, however it is behind a breeding fence.