Good points. All solvable.
1+2). Ranges would need to be more secure than they are currently. More expense, yes but necessary for the reasons you note. With various high tech security systems and perhaps even the requirement of 24/7/365 human security it should be possible. Might well require a big change in how that industry is organized. The Germans do something of this nature so it should be possible to learn from others what words and what doesn't. What do National Guard Armories do now? Whatever it is, if it is OK for M16s it should work for AR15s.
So each gun club should spend $500k on a secure store room and then $120k/year on 2-3 security guards? Brilliant.
Also, even with that, there are thefts at those armories.
3) Not such a problem. Have people post a bond or just sign a legal document. Any law abiding citizen would comply. Those who don't get slapped with appropriate criminal charges. I would imagine a percent or so of guns might disappear this way but that would still be way less than what is happening today with both straw purchases and thefts from homes.
4) I actually wonder how expensive it would be per rifle. Figure not more than 1% would be stolen or burned up in a year nationally so that would mean an insurance fee of roughly 1% of a gun's worth added to whatever storage/usage fee the club would charge. Maybe less as I imagine the 1% figure is high.
#4, that is with guns separated (ie: only a few at each house and no way to verify what they have) there isn't much theft. If someone wants to get their hands on a bunch of expensive guns, now they only have to rob a couple of gun clubs.
That sort of unofficial sale is something that needs to end. You cannot sell a car these days without recording the sale if you intend to put it on the road so there certainly is precedent. The person buying should be forced to go through whatever background check is used in retail gun shops. Same goes for these semi formal gun show events. It is nuts that we don't have a single standard for every gun purchase and sale.
With a car, the sale doesn't have to be recorded until the buyer wants to put it on the road. I could buy a pickup to use around the property or to use as a parts truck and the government will have no idea that I own it unless I decide to register it to run it on the road.
Now, here in NY, if I want to sell it to someone else for them to register, I have to have a title in my name, but if I make the aforementioned pickup into a mud truck and then sell it sans title (as it will never run on the road again), the government will have no idea.
That said, I would be in favor of requiring that all gun sales (other than perhaps gifts to direct family members) be processed through a FFL. The following is an excerpt from the letter going to my state senator:
A far more effective alternative would be to require that all gun sales be processed by a FFL dealer who runs a background check, then fills out a form with one copy going to the seller, one to the buyer and one to the dealer stating (for example) that on 7 Jan 2012 a Ruger 10/22 serial 1234556676464 was sold to Tal Jones by Jim Fulano, that the sale was witnessed by the dealer and have all parties sign it.
On penalties, if someone sells a weapon without running it through a FFL, they can be held as an accessory to any crimes committed with that gun.
Aaron Z
