Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns?

[IslandTractor]

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.



#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.


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

I don't think we are really that far off. I don't know what a security system would cost but that is why I suggested earlier that the sport shooting gun range industry may need to change. Maybe not every sports club is set up for AR15 type weapons and you need to drive to a regional center that is. I don't think inconvenience or even extra expense for the AR15 owner is a bad trade off if it helps keep such weapons out of the hands of nuts.

 

[wcampbell47]

Here is another thread that started out to be interesting, even informative until it was hijacked. Now it is not worth the time and effort.

 

[IslandTractor]

the only people who would even care about fines are "again" the law abiding public ,Lunatics /criminals /potential mass murderers are really not concerned about a fine , The availability in the gray market makes it too easy to find what you want if you really want it ,months ago with the shootings in Colorado even here there was a major run on ammunition and guns , now it's happening again , There will always be a way for them to get guns / bullets if they have the cash ! new laws or not !

I live in a state with very low levels of gun crime (and the lowest rate of gun ownership). I don't recall an AR15 type weapon used by criminals in the commission of a crime here. Might have happened but I don't recall it. Point is that criminals are not really the big problem with AR15s. Lunatics are the problem. More accurately, lunatics with very easy access to these guns and ammunition are the problem. Putting barriers in their way, even if it inconveniences sportsmen is justified IMO

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I live in a state with very low levels of gun crime (and the lowest rate of gun ownership). I don't recall an AR15 type weapon used by criminals in the commission of a crime here. Might have happened but I don't recall it. Point is that criminals are not really the big problem with AR15s. Lunatics are the problem. More accurately, lunatics with very easy access to these guns and ammunition are the problem. Putting barriers in their way, even if it inconveniences sportsmen is justified IMO

The point I'm trying to get across is the only people affected by any law are the law abiding public ,the nut couldn't care less if the legal guy has to dye his hair bright green when he buys a gun , you can never stop the grey market buyer with another new law , who cares ? the mentality that just because there is a new law that the nuts will stop shooting people is in itself crazy ! if they can't use guns they will use firebombs /drive thru the mall /the internet has provided many ways which I won't post and has also made it via the media a way for them to get their 15 minutes of fame !

 

[dennis52]

[[/I]

I live in a state with very low levels of gun crime (and the lowest rate of gun ownership). I don't recall an AR15 type weapon used by criminals in the commission of a crime here. Might have happened but I don't recall it. Point is that criminals are not really the big problem with AR15s. Lunatics are the problem. More accurately, lunatics with very easy access to these guns and ammunition are the problem. Putting barriers in their way, even if it inconveniences sportsmen is justified IMO

Island, you'll need and deserve a strong beer by the time this thread is through

 

[IslandTractor]

[

Island, you'll need and deserve a strong beer by the time this thread is through

I'm ready for a few Darwin stubbies.

 

[MF1433V]

Here is another thread that started out to be interesting, even informative until it was hijacked. Now it is not worth the time and effort.

:thumbsup:

 

[RadarTech]

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.
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.

National guard armories are manned 24/6/365 with deadly force authorization to prevent weapons from being stolen.......

Ill keep mine at home.... They are for hunting and it is a pain to get then from someone else...

This would become problematic wuick...

 

[RadarTech]

You wouldn't stop criminals from selling to other criminals. Law abiding citizens and those who might need to show proof of legal ownership of such a rifle in order to purchase ammunition would soon find it in their interest to comply. A few hefty fines for blatant abuse would make people think twice too.

Nope.... Ill just continue to reload.....

 

[RadarTech]

:thumbsup:

Yep!!!!