It all started out so innocently. On Friday, “tgirsch” at the LeanLeft blog proposed a new firearms law.
I’d like to propose a new state law. Basically, I think that there are a lot of fraudulent gun purchases being made, and I want to put a stop to it. So here’s what I’m proposing:
- We create a statewide gun purchase registry. Anyone who wishes to buy a gun of any kind must register in advance.
- When a resident wants to buy a gun, they must show a state-issued photo identification.
- Anyone selling a gun must check the purchaser’s photo identification. The name and address on the ID must exactly match the statewide gun registration list. If it does not, the purchase must be refused.
This seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me. Nobody who is legally allowed to buy a gun today would be prevented from buying a gun under this law, and it would prevent fraudulent gun purchases from taking place.
Uncle linked to it for “flame bait” over the weekend.
A number of gunnies stopped by let “tgirsch” know that 2/3 of what he wrote down was already the law, and also about how the registration part had been tried in the US before and was shown to be a prerequisite for firearms confiscation.
So, head up ass and full speed ahead, “tgirsch” comes back on Sunday with the following
Oh, did I say buy a gun? I’m sorry, I meant vote. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Just as useless as the owning a car/owning a firearm strawman, the dude compares the RKABA, listed as the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, to a something not explicitly listed in the BoR and only implied in the Constitution (and which has been Amended no less than three times in the history of the nation: 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments).
But who is caring about actual accuracy here. “tgirsch” is a liberal/progressive/leftist and he doesn’t need facts. His emotion (in this case: Anger) makes his cause righteous and above any and all need for facts or reason.
Which brings us to the actual QotD, from “workinwifdakids” who, unlike “tgirsch’s” fellow travelers, actually stands up and questions his intellectual honesty with his strawman
If voting were the same as purchasing firearms, you’d have to be 18 to vote in some elections, and 21 to vote in others; you’d have to take a literacy test, and then pay a steep poll tax to have your literacy test graded; the results would be entered into a federal database; when you decide to actually vote, they’d take your fingerprints and government-issued ID, and run you through a federal database to ensure you’re mentally competent to vote; and they’d hold the results for 10 days. If you were declined, they’d never, ever have to give you a reason. Upon being approved to vote, you’d have to show your government-issued photo ID again. Oh, and the best part? You could only vote for one issue or candidate every 30 days.
If purchasing firearms were the same as voting, you’d have to pinky-swear that you’re eligible to own one, prominent national politicians would be quietly asking if felons should be allowed to own guns, and the ACLU, NAACP, and MALDEF would be holding rallies if a single person were asked to show an ID to buy a gun. You’d also have federal investigations over why dead people, felons, and illegal aliens were buying guns, but the mass media would never run the story.
I would just like to add to that, that if voting in voting in Washington State were like buying a gun in Washington State, any police officer with visual access to your vehicle’s license plate would be able to run your name through the state’s voting database and see who/what/which party you voted for throughout your life time of residence and then be legally able to enact a traffic stop based on what he found.
Maybe I misunderstood something about WA state laws when I read that little pamphlet, but I thought it was illegal to conduct a traffic stop based on a possible weapon unless the officer had reason to believe a weapon was possessed illegally (e.g. I have a CPL and a TRO out against me)?
MadRocket is correct it take much more than a registered purchase of firearm in the data base to justify a traffic stop of any kind. In fact is does not count AT ALL. Considering that there is no registration requirements after purchase to resell a gun the data base is mostly usless for on site investigations, except to prove ownership when there is a dispute. I know as I work with it every day. You need to get off the anger dime and deal. YOU are letting your emotions control you typing finger.
And Mad had one of the keys at the bottom of his comment. The combination of a restraining order AND a CCW, while not cause for a traffic stop, can be seen by a LEO as cause for a search once the stop takes place. If the LEO ever gets proven wrong, it’ll be a cold day in hell before one of them will see actual punishment. And they know that. I did not include mentions of those orders in my statement because they are inconsequential to the point. The fact that it ever happens is cause for alarm and proves the point I was making: That if voting info was as easy to access as CCW info, it would be abused by some.
Some is more than none and therefore is “A Bad Thingâ€.
You may work with the database daily, but do you talk to the “boots on the ground†(aka: the LEOs)? I do and I hear how they “work†with the information available to them. I’ve listened to their fellow LEOs complain about their “procedures” and have even overheard Sergeants handing out royal ass-chewings to subordinates for pulling that “type of crap.” These are anecdotal to be sure, but that it HAS happened is, again, cause for alarm.
Using the word “legally†may have been an overstatement on my part, but finding a “legal†reason to enact a stop after the fact is rather easy: non-full stop at a signal/sign, lack of/too short of turn signal, “aggressive†driving, apparent drunk driving, etc., all open to the LEO’s interpretation.
Once the stop in enacted, the intimidation starts until the officer gets his way with those who do not know the full extent of their rights during said stop. Once an officer with the will to put a toe over the line knows he has someone with the combo of the CCW and the TRO he will do whatever he has to until he get what he wants, if what he wants is to search that vehicle and its occupants.
Anyone who denies that this ever happens is fooling themselves, to their own detriment.
As a matter of fact, the only actual “illegal” part of the scenario is the running the plate to find a name to run through the system. Everything else is up to the LEO in the field’s interpretation.
My “anger dime†is nothing of the sort.
The database of CCW holders and the firearms registered to them is nothing short of a government compiled list of owners and their firearms. It needs to be abolished and demolished permanently. I do not know the extent to which you “work with†the database, but your best course of action would be to find out who does the maintenance of it and ask for their price to destroy it so that we can start pooling the money together.
The only reason I have a CCW is because it is the only way to legally protect my self when outside my “castleâ€. Open carry is simply not an option in the tri-county area of western Washington and to carry concealed without one is a felony. Once again, government puts the honest citizen in a corner.
Just like the mandatory seatbelt law, which is now a primary cause traffic infraction, began its life as a non-primary infraction. It doesn’t take much for laws to change out of the citizen’s favor. Letting the government and its employees have the information contained in the CCW database, which is the “liquor and car keys to teenaged malesâ€, is dangerous and unconstitutional.
Since getting my first CCW, every time I have been pulled over for a traffic stop has been a lesson in restraint. As it is overwhelmingly likely that the officer already knows I have a CCW before he/she gets out of their car, I make sure to hand it to him/her with my WDL, Registration and Insurance Card. This will hopefully set him/her at ease knowing that I am beginning our interaction by being upfront and honest with him/her. I have received very decent treatment in past traffic stops by establishing this goodwill at the beginning of the interaction.
In at least four stops, I have been asked what make and model of firearm I have with me (and where I have it at). This is not done in a casual “BS-ing about pistols over coffee†type of way.
So far, I’ve been lucky (and I do see it as “luckâ€). But I know that one day my “luck†may not be enough and I will have to match wits with a person who will be given the benefit of the doubt above and beyond anything that I will be given. There are certain jurisdictions I do everything I can to stay out of because I know their attitudes towards an armed, law-abiding citizen.
Sorry if it offended you, Craig, but I believe that my comparison was quite on the money.
Yeah, like Seattle, a city I hate to carry in, and one I refuse to enter without my sidearm.
Your “comparison” is so full of wild ass assumptions that its hard to combat the hate spin. All cops perfect all the time? Hell no. But most don’t go looking for you because of some cause like dislike for CWP holders. “Intimidation”? more like control freks don’t like to give up any control and hate those that can make them even temp. Most likely your tud’e is what causes them to take another look out of survival mode. And yes I DO know how they think as I am a 30 year boots on the ground guy.
And I hate PC Hell Seattle too.
Craig S,
You’ve got plenty of hate in your posts too.
It makes you sound like just as much of a punk as you are accusing your host of being.
“Wild ass assumptionsâ€, Craig?
In case you missed it, I offered up evidence, again, anecdotal to be sure, that these “assumptions†have actually already happened. Not once, but multiple times.
Despite your assumptions of my attitude, I believe that there really are LEOs out there who are perfect all the time. I believe that wholeheartedly because I know a few of them. All LEOs; Absolutely not. And there are a number of them who do absolutely dislike CCW holders and that in and of itself should be cause for their termination of membership/employment in the LEO community.
One of the truths I realized long ago was “The 10% Ruleâ€: 10% of any population will ruin things for the other 90%. This holds true for Firearms Owners, Off-Roaders, Hot-Rodders, and any other sub-group of the population, including LEOs.
Unfortunately for the LEOs, there is something that they have that keeps their bad actors in the group. The hot-rodders, off roaders and firearms owners give their assholes the boot through ostracizing them, but that damned “thin blue line†keeps 99% of the LEOs 10% within the circle.
It wasn’t my “tude†or the “tude†of people who believe as I do that started this. The LEOs “tudes†started long before I was even born. Power does that to some folks.
LEOs have nothing to fear from me, the law-abiding citizen, and their defensive “tudes†should be (and so far have been) put aside during my traffic stops as soon as I let it be known that I’m being honest and open with them as I outlined in my last comment. They have no need for a “survival mode†dealing with me.
I wish you could see me now typing this, my previous response and this post. I am absolutely calm, hell, I’m not even frowning. I am not “angry”. I’m unhappy and I’m not pleased by having to pass this info along, but it needs to be said. I really do dislike blogging in these instances for the reason that it doesn’t always accurately portray emotions. Especially when your social and vocabulary skills are as bad as mine.
“And I hate PC hell Seattle too.â€
At least there is something we can all agree on here.