Long Gun Registry -Yes- No
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Inside voices Colpy.
So what, it's the same in the car, the police can just stop you and start questioning you on a hunch. I can choose not to drive if it is that much of an imposition. Just like you can forego any guns in your home and at that point not suffer an "inspection" of your home and guns. Big deal. Same rights as everyone else bud.
I am sure the local gang banger will argue that he gets hassled by the cops all the time. Looking for drugs, weapons, always a hard take down for the slightest infraction of the law. And if you ask him if he was profiled he will tell you definitely while the police will assure you he was not.
So don't give me the line about it's so rough to be a gun owner. If you don't like the regulations as much as you say, don't put your self through it. Get rid of the guns and the responsibility. Simple as that.
You seem to be quite ignorant of firearm regulations; they are not only not simple, but they have baffled judges, prosecutors, and defense barrisers since their inception. When learned counsel can't decipher "simple" regulations, how exactly do you expect the general population to do so?
Owning a house or car cannot make you a criminal, owning a firearm and having your license to do so lapse will. Many people drive with expired licenses and/or plates simply because they forgot to renew, that nets a fine, not a criminal charge. Why can't you get that through your head?
Ignorance still abounds. Police can stop you in your car but cannot search it on a "hunch". They still need probable cause, that is a court tested constitutional right. Your refusal to let police search your car cannot be deemed probable cause. You cannot refuse a firearm inspection. If you don't have the sanctity and security in the home you have nothing.
For many, the responsibility to defend themselves and those under their care is very important. Would you suggest that if the responsibility to defend a spouse and children is to great that the answer would be to get rid of them? I certainly hope not. And if you would willingly defer that responsibility to the authorities, you do them a great disservice and don't deserve them anyway.
There is never a shortage of people who feel they simply can not manage the arduous task of cueing up and filling out forms. Most lawyers and judges are worse, can barely manage the simplest of tasks. I know, I've hired them.
As I said, if it's too difficult for you to abide the regulations, don't own a gun.
Not as long as you abide the regulations. Sounds like a reoccurring theme here. No one forgets to renew their licence. Christ on a rubber crutch you get the forms in the mail three months before and they expire on your birthday. Do you often forget your own birthday? Yeah if you drive around with expire plates, or insurance then you're a criminal. If something bad happens while you don't have insurance, you're for it. If you can't manage to tell the government how many guns you have and what they are then you shouldn't have them. If you want to have a gun, simply follow the regulations.
Along with unconformity and angst. poor baby
Yeah as if. All the cop needs to do is bring the K9 unit out and say the dog indicated. No need to find something. So understand the police can ask you to submit to a search or simple hold you for a number of hours and then release you without charge. As we've seen during G20 in Toronto.
Of course a law abiding gun owner doesn't have something to hide from the police do they?
You think the police are violating the security of your home when they come to inspect your gun collection to make sure it is safe, legal and secure? You can refuse a gun inspection by not owning any guns.
So what you are saying is that you want a gun to shoot people with. I mean that's just fine by me. Hell I support the notion but you need to be up front about why you want firearms in the first place. Like claiming it's for hunting while it's really for shooting people who come into your home.
Life is a dangerous prospect. Of course you have a right to defend those you care for. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. But you can't just do anything you can think of because you want to prepare for any possible scenario. It's too dangerous to life like that anywhere near people. I mean if you really want to protect them there are plenty of extremely remote islands in Canada that you can hide away on, that will allow for you to avoid contact with other people and you can make the defences you want to a degree. But you can't do that within society. It makes it too dangerous to those who live around you.
Some things you just have to come to terms with. You're kids could die being run over by a bus or crushed by a falling box while shopping. All kinds of terrible things could happen that you just can't control.
Gun ownership can be regulated though.
Granted, the legal profession does have its share of dull stars, however, it is still their job to know and understand law. If it were as simple as filling out forms the debate would be limited, but the firearms act is full of traps and contradictions. If prosecutors, judges and defense can't agree on interpretation then the law is seriously flawed. Law enforcement agencies have a history of inadvertently violating the firearms act, with the OPP being one of the worst offenders, so I guess in your opinion they should be disarmed and criminally charged as well.
I don't know what the colour of the sky is in your world, everyone who lives a productive life will, at some point in time forget to renew some sort of license, unless they don't live long enough. The firearm license renewal forms only come in the mail as a courtesy, not a requirement. The license doesn't expire on your birthday once a year, it is every 5 or 10 years depending on the type of license. This accompanied with driver's licenses, plates, vehicle inspections, professional papers, and such that are good for more than one year guarantees a missed deadline at some point. People like yourself throw the term "criminal" around willy nilly to support your argument. An expired driver's license or registration in and of itself is not an offense under the criminal code, hence it is not a criminal act. An expired firearms license while in possession of firearms is, big difference.
Police can ask you to stand on your head and whistle Dixie too, that doesn't mean you have to comply, and they can't simply say the dog indicated something. You can refuse a search until they produce a warrant, and the search has to be conducted within the parameters of the warrant. Judges get really, really annoyed at police and prosecutors when citizens rights have been violated and evidence has to be disallowed.
We'll see how the G20 thing works out, if it is proven that people were arrested without cause there could be a bit of a $h*tstorm raining down on some heads, but David miller and his gang of enforcers were not big fans of civil liberties so I'm not holding my breath.
Do you? An honest cop lecturing a first year law class once said he can follow anyone around and catch them violating some law within 35 minutes. Everyone has something to hide, even if they don't know what that something is.
My security against unreasonable search and seizure? You bet. Do you think they are coming over for a cup of tea? When is the last time you've heard, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you"? As I said, it is easy to find something that will run you afoul of the law, and even if the police think you're doing something wrong, they seize your property, possibly charge you, you incur the convenience of repeated court appearances and gladly pay hefty legal bills, because you've done nothing wrong, and your cooperation is for the greater good. Right. Would you allow police to go on a fishing expedition in your home? Hell, even the most despotic English kings of centuries past affirmed the sanctity of one's home.
That's exactly what the leftyLibs and Ndippers want.
Hmmm, you support the legislation the previous government enacted in order to disarm citizens, (make no mistake, that was the intent), but you also support notion of someone wanting a firearm to shoot people, which is a sure fire way to be denied a license, a bit of a dichotomy here. I have yet to meet a legitimate firearm owner who wants to shoot people, however, the mere presentation of a firearm for defense nearly always suffices. It does happen quite often, and violent crimes are averted. Because it can land you in a world of hurt it is rarely ever reported, (it is unlikely a perpetrator will report it either) so there are no stats.
As for being up front, for example, I visited a cigar shop in Toronto and the shop keeper had a bat behind the counter. You don't suppose he was planning on playing a few innings during breaks do you?
Why would it be dangerous to live around people who are willing and able to defend themselves? Yes, life is dangerous, but the law as written has the perverse effect of causing even more danger. Disarming citizens emboldens criminals. Heavily ristricting handguns will mean rifles will more likely be used, and if discharged in an uban setting can easily result in tragedy. And since armed self defense is frowned upon it is harder for people to get the proper training it requires. The gunophobia that pervades our society is as misdirected as it is irrational. People have defended their homes with firearms for centuries, and I can guarantee that there are some doing it your community. You may or may not know who they are, the bonus is that neither do the criminals. Do you want them to know, or would you prefer that they knew no one had any means of armed defense?
Accidents happen, but still they happen by chance. Crime is no accident. Criminals seek targets, the easier the better. Violent criminals are often armed, may attack in groups and are intent on causing harm. Like any predator, they target their vicitms. I still don't understand the justification for leaving one's self vulnerable because it makes others feel better. It really is none of their business. There are some things we can control, we guard against them or at least try to mitigate any injury from misadventure that might befall us. If criminals target Wendy Cukier's home instead of mine, would that be an accident?
It has been regulated, for a long time, and the regulations get more onerous with each passing decade until firearm ownership is regulated into non existance. The funny thing is though, no amount of regulation has had any positive effect on the criminal use of firearms. What it has done though is driven a wedge between firearms owners and law enforcement, alienating very many of the same folks they used to rely on to help solve crime, now that's a tragedy.
Last edited:
Prosecutors and defence attorneys don't need to agree on anything. The judge interprets law as it applies to each case. That's the way law works. Anyone violating the firearms act should disarmed and charged. But it's ridiculous to attempt to treat a government agency as though it were a person. Why do you need to try and make these at best spurious connections if you have an actual argument?
Not all licenses are the same. If you forget to get your fishing license and go catch a trout, big deal, pay a fine.
You forget to get your license to practice medicine and go do some surgery, you're going to jail. Boo hoo. It's not a library card it's a permit to buy and keep a weapon. You must be held to the highest standard for safety sake. Same with explosives or pyrotechnics. No bozos. Sorry if that excludes you.
Yeah they can and have in the past.
Like I said you can do what ever you think you should but the police have the power to make your life very uncomfortable. A tiny little bag of Cannabis in your car and all the searching is legal. Just because some other family member or a friend left it doesn't invalidate the search.
Right off the bat of the over 1100 people charged, some 800 had the charges dropped, released unconditionally or never booked at all. That's fact, recorded for history and part of the public record. Miller is gone. But those whose right were violated remain. The other shoe is just starting to drop. How did you feel about the police action during the G20? Consider that when they come for you, all those people you never bothered to stand up for when their rights were being violated aren't there to stand up for you now.
Some laws are pointless and unenforced. Generalities aside, if you want to keep a gun which has a whole list of problems associated with it, then you need to be very careful about what you do with it and how you take care of it. If that is too difficult, like it is for some people to own a car, then you simply don't own one. It's not your right to have one in Canada.
Really? You actually think that in a stand off with the police you are some how going to win? Oh my I didn't consider that I was talking to mister koo koo bananas today. heh heh heh Ok dumb ass, because no one has told you yet, you don't have any where near the fire power to stand off the police. No matter how macho your 12 gauge might make you feel, in the end, you will be dead or in cuffs. So get the bull**** out of your head right now before you hurt yourself or those around you. If you feel your rights have been violated we have courts for that. You don't use a gun against the police ever.
Don't forget victims.
Hey if you want to own a gun it's quite legal to do. There are plenty of stores all around the GTA that will happily sell you rifles or handguns as long as you can show that you are legally entitled to buy and own them. Criminals don't get guns from trees or as Colpy asserts, make them themselves. They get them from people who own guns that are willing to break the law in order to make some fast money. That is who this registry is going to help trip up. Along with all the other regulations, it goes to reducing the problems that come along with guns and irresponsible people.
Maybe he just wants to brandish it? heh heh
A bat is one thing. It won't kill anyone from twenty feet away that could crush your head like a tick if you came close enough. That's what guns do. A gun makes the person holding it potentially lethal. Hence all the regulations.
Because people are sometimes emotional. Passions take over reason and tragedy happens. A gun, especially a hand gun, makes that quick and convenient without a whole lot of bother with reflection and sober second thought. Go try and do that with your kung fu moves. If you want to defend yourself, get a steel door and frame, good locks, a dog, insurance and have a phone handy to call 911. That in and of itself will resolve 99.9% of all your defence issues.
It's not frowned upon, it's illegal. You shoot anyone and you are going to be charged. That's the law. There are plenty of places that allow for armed home defence though in the US and you are welcome to move there and enjoy the peace of mind that sleeping with a hand gun under your pillow affords you. That is if you aren't a criminal. If you are, then good luck getting into the US. No one is more afraid than Americans. But understand it's not everyone around you that is screwed up because they don't want you to have a gun.
And very rare. It's not Mad Max out there, as a matter of fact crime has been dropping. Gangbangers have been killing each other, but that doesn't affect you at all does it? I mean you don't strike me as a young urbanite from a minority and a broken home, though correct me if I am wrong.
It doesn't matter how many guns you have, I can still put one right behind your ear as you come out to check the mail box or pick up the paper from the bushes. I can drive my car right into the back of yours and blow your brains out before you even get out of your car. Hell I can run over your kid on his way home from school and then call you to the scene and shoot you from someone's porch as you come running up. If everyone can have guns, then anyone can do that. So don't think for a moment that if you have a gun on your hip you would be any safer than you are right now.
Like I said, if you feel you really really have to have a gun in your home for what ever reason, if eligible, fill out the paper work, take the tests and get certified to own and keep a weapon. If you can't manage that, then you shouldn't have a gun. Simple as that.
There is a very powerful gun lobby in Canada second only to the one in the US. Regulations are in constant flux as politicians make regulations and others break them as we see Harper trying to do now. Not because of some sense of justice or to make life better, but only for votes and money. If we had gun owners and government working together to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we would be far more effective as preventing many of the murders, accident and suicides that are now every day occurrences in the US and Canada. Instead we have a War On Guns that makes sure everyone comes out a loser. Thank your local gun lobby for that. I am an avid drug user and promote the legalization of drugs openly and any time I have the chance. I still am friendly toward most police officers who are doing a job which doesn't run afoul of my enjoyment of drugs. Surely if you are responsible with gun ownership, you too can be cordial with the authorities.
You don't seem to get my drift. How do you expect Joe Sixpack to obey laws that even the learned legal professionals can't seem to understand? Government agencies, somewhat like corporations can indeed be like people legally; a corporation can be charged criminally, but that was not the point I was getting at. Individual LEO's violate the firearms act, either because of flaws in procedures or simply negligence. It is incumbent upon the senior officers to ensure compliance, but they fail to address violations either because of ignorance or misinterpretation of the laws. But in any case violators are rarely held to account because guilt would be spread too far and wide.
You would have to deliberately not renew a medical license and practice fraudulently because no hospital would grant O/R privileges. Again, a deliberate act and/or reckless disregard, and harm or a reasonable threat of harm is generally required before criminal charges are laid or a custodial sentence is considered, i.e. actus reas and mens rea. A firearm is an inanimate object that cannot do harm until in a person's hands, (unlike explosives), and while it may be reasonable for you to curse the hammer that hits your thumb, it is pure idiocy for anyone else to also curse that hammer rather than the hand that wields it. There are all kinds of things we can own that can be used for nefarious purposes, there are already remedies under law for those who use them improperly. It is the fault of the user, not necessarily the owner, and definately not the object itself.
You make it sound like you are okay with that. Police still need reasonable grounds for a search. Something in plain view will give them that. But you can still demand a warrant. Police can make your life miserable for a short time, but submitting to a search and having them find something you didn't know was there, can make your life miserable for quite a lot longer, sometimes a lifetime. The double insult would be that you voluntarily let them do it and it was unjust. Allowing a search voluntarily gives them carte blanche, a warrant defines the scope of the search, it is meant to protect your Charter rights.
Yes Miller is gone, but the same sheriff is still in town, and King Dalton is still in Queen's Park, and a lot of the same attitudes still prevail, with Ford there is hope. How do I feel about the police action? One word, disgusted. You don't understand me at all. The protest may have been justified, the hooliganism wasn't, they are two distinct and separate groups with different motives and actions. The hooligans destroyed private property and terrorized other citizens, I will never condone that. While I don't support the protesters' cause I do support the right for them to protest. I am disgusted with the official response to them just as I was with the APEC summit in Vancouver, (in that case I was also anti Suharto). If people want police with that kind of authority I suggest they move to Cuba or China. But the shoe is really on the other foot; how many of them support me and the ones fighting for our individual rights, while I voiced my condemnation to my elected representatives denouncing the violations of theirs?
Again, you miss my point, or are ignoring it to make yours. A person living a productive life will break at least three otherwise enforceable laws before lunch. People have to be responsible for their actions, but setting traps for them is not acceptable in a free society. Guns don't have problems associated with them, the actions of certain people who use them are the problems, which already had remedies under existing law. And until Bill C-68 came into law we did have the right to own arms, again a right affirmed by kings since at least the 13th century.
Sorry, I didn't realize you can't comprehend what I wrote, I'll write slower. I never mentioned anything about armed resistance to police, it is about police being able to search your house without a warrant and without cause, other than the fact you own firearms, and in the case of Toronto you happen to be over 75, under threat of criminal liability if you refuse, and you have to assist them in finding evidence against you.
The majority of illicit firearms are smuggled, I live near a port city, even people are smuggled, only about 2% of containers are inspected, ( I have friends who are stevedores and longshoremen), organized criminals obtain illicit firearms, among other things, from the easiest sources, which are rarely domestic. Laws meant to trip people up are unjust and unacceptable in a free country. Just laws are meant to deter antisocial behaviour and have legal redress for it. But in a free country you still have to behave badly first.
Well, a bat can be just as lethal Do you think a shopkeeper should have to get up close and personal to defend himself or should he be able to do it from a distance? What happens if there are more than one or two assailants? What if they are armed? I know he was using the bat for defense, that was obvious, he was using the only tool allowed to him by law. Do you suggest registering and regulating them too?
The incidence of that happening is rarer than random or targeted violence, and in fact women are twice as likely to use a weapon as men in the heat of passion. Men prefer fists and feet. If people have the criminal intent or are unbalanced no amount of regulation is going to stop them anyway, and disarming potential victims certainly isn't going to help either.
Provided you never go outside, and windows can be broken. A dog may be a good alarm, it gives you time to armour up, but the last call my wife made to 911 the RCMP response time was 4 hours. Even where we live now we cannot expect a response in less than 15 minutes, and that is only if the Tim's down the highway is still open. Ask any LEO, (an honest one anyway), they will not enter your home if they know there is an armed assailant in there, you're on your own there buddy. Even they will tell you, "police take pictures, not action".
Sorry, not entirely true. There are plenty of cases where intruders and assailants have been shot by defenders and no charges were laid. There are also many cases where charges were laid and the Crown decided not to proceed. There are also many cases where the defender was acquitted. Then there are the cases where the defender acted inappropriately and was convicted. There are those who lack proper training in armed self defense and our laws are complicit in fostering ignorance and inappropriate behavour.
So even you have to admit, then, that what we have now is unnecessary and ineffective. Crime rates wax and wane like economic cycles. Crime rates were dropping each time before more restrictive legislation was enacted, which would make a reasonable person question the motives behind such legislation.
Gangbangers killing each other effects all of us, but all the firearms legislation has done nothing to prevent that. Those from the demographic you describe are more likely to perpetrators than victims. You know little about me, random violence is hard enough to protect against, but my family was targeted for the better part of a decade. A senior police member in SK told my wife, (the prime target) that they could not possibly protect her or our children. His honest suggestion was to arm and learn how to defend ourselves. The police could not take action unless and until someone actually did something even though we were under a credible and identifiable threat, and they knew the party. Even after we moved thousands of miles away, and the threat was ultimately eliminated he still kept in contact, I appreciate that.
It doesn't matter how many guns I have because I can only use one at a time anyway. No normal person is going to do what you say could be done, and if anyone were to do what you say could be done no amount of regulation could stop you or anyone else from doing it, I know that first hand. Any law that disallows me from having the tools and means to legally stop you is perverse. In essence, the law is vicitimizing law abiding citizens. That being said, I don't imagine you as a spook, you know a only bit of my history, you would have a hard time getting that kind of a drop on me. But that's me, there are plenty of others out there with no chance at all. BTW, if I had a gun on my hip you would not get very close to me, unless of course you do happen to be a professional.
I do, I am, and I did. I have been trained by an SAS instructor's instructor, ( he taught the teachers for the British version of what Delta Force and our JTF2 are modeled after), passed the FBI certification, (for what that's worth) and am reasonably competent. That is manageable, what isn't is the unreasonable maze of unintelligible and contradictory legislation that goes with it. It is not that simple, and, really, what you think doesn't matter when it comes to my right to life liberty and the security of person.
Gun owners did try to work with government, but in the adversarial arena of politics the Wendy Cukiers of the country had the lectern, and wouldn't give it up, (nor would the Liberals make them). Firearms laws had no effect in reducing the murder or violent crime rate in this country, nor did they have any effect on the suicide rate, only the method. Accident rates though, did go down. On the other hand, where firearm laws were relaxed in the US the rate of violent crime did decrease. The highest violent crime rates are in cities and states where firearm use and ownership is strictly controlled. The gun lobby did not create this environment, it is strictly the doing of the disarmament movement. It was such bad legislation that even the then commissioner of the RCMP denounced it. It was and still is all about disarmament, had they worked with the "gun lobby" we would have respectfully workable legislation.
Firearms have been vilified by Hollywood since the production of Bambi. The misrepresentation and exaggeration of the use of firearms is lapped up by the simple public. A gun in someone's hand will no sooner turn them into John Dillinger than a hammer will turn them into Mike Holmes, unless they are already predisposed. The movies will have you believe otherwise, and make no mistake, while guns make for good action flicks, the film industry is extremely pro disarmament, and are very good a P.R. The fault for the "gun wars" can be laid directly at the feet of the abolitionists, compromise does not exist in their vocabulary.
Am I to assume these are illicit drugs? If so, tell me, do you register them? Can the police, by law come into your place of residence and check that they are kept safe and secure? Do you have to show them your stash even if they show up with a warrant? Do you have to let them in without a warrant? Unless you have bail conditions to abide by the short answer is no. I don't really care what you do, it is none of my business. But if in your quest to have your recreation legalized you are acting illegally, that would make your entire position on firearms legislation disingenuous.
I will tell you that a majority of break ins, home invasions, muggings, are perpetrated by those involved in the drug trade. Just as when I lived in the north and people wanted goods they could fence to buy booze, and the stuff was even legal. You want to enjoy your drugs, others want to enjoy their booze, I want to enjoy and defend the security of my self and those under my care, as well as my property from those who would threaten it.
I have several friends and relatives on various forces, some I am quite close to, you can be very cordial while still asserting your rights under the Charter, but bending over and being submissive helps no one, especially yourself.
Unforgiven: You have absolutely no clue about the long gun registry and it's abuses of laws and charter rights do you?
The most important point of the whole law is that it targets law abiding taxpayers and tries to make criminals of them while doing absolutely zero to combating criminal activity by those with illegal automatic hand guns.
It is perverted laws like this that cause such widespread disrespect for the rule of law and our government.
The most important point of the whole law is that it targets law abiding taxpayers and tries to make criminals of them while doing absolutely zero to combating criminal activity by those with illegal automatic hand guns.
It is perverted laws like this that cause such widespread disrespect for the rule of law and our government.
I just got a phone call this Sunday Morning, from a Representative of the Conservative
Party of Canada, asking about my stance & knowledge on the Long Gun Registry.
It was brought up in regard to the last vote in Parliament (the two vote loss thing with those
who had supported the abolishing this thing earlier flip-flopping, etc...), and a campaign
to heavily advertise in the ridings of those in the Liberal & NDP camps who flip-flopped
right at the vote time. Hmmmm....
Party of Canada, asking about my stance & knowledge on the Long Gun Registry.
It was brought up in regard to the last vote in Parliament (the two vote loss thing with those
who had supported the abolishing this thing earlier flip-flopping, etc...), and a campaign
to heavily advertise in the ridings of those in the Liberal & NDP camps who flip-flopped
right at the vote time. Hmmmm....
Hey taxslave take heart, these bloody idiots have been spewing this nonsense ever since day one about 10 years ago and about 50 thousand posts on this forum alone. So it's absolutely no use to repeat
It's a huge waste of money to register law abiding gun owners.
Criminals are the problem and they don't register guns.
If the criminals were registered and locked up, guns wouldn't be a problem.
So they are wasting even more money running up phone bills. It makes a guy wish he could have just one day in Ottawa to do what he likes (and none of the idiots down there have the brains to figure out)
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than in Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.
But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia. and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four States alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting - It's not just a way to fill the freezer, It's a matter of national security. There you have a small example of our well regulated Militia.
Do not let them regulate you.
Well according to your latest poll numbers, Goob - Canadians are not as far apart on the issue as I might have thought.
Mr. Harper is dead on when he speaks to the need for resources being focused on training, firearms and legislation. I cannot remember the last time I heard of some gang member whacking anyone with a deer rifle. The main focus should be on finding a way to keep the illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals. Every time I hear of another gang shooting on the coast, I just cringe and wonder when someone I love might get caught in the cross-fire. These guys haven't registered their guns - you can be sure of that.
Put the money where it is needed - on control of illegal weapons.
Better still control of illegal criminals. Well one of the Bacon brothers just got put away for 7 years, so I guess he won't be living high on the hog for awhile. :lol:
Registering either is a ridiculous waste of time, energy and resources better spent on training and licensing owners.
You know, I used to doubt the claims of the gun people that only one half or less of firearms in this country were registered, due to the unwillingness of people to comply.
I don't know why.....the gun people have consistently been correct.......I remember Liberal arrogance and scorn in Committee back in 1995 when the National Firearms Association told them a) people wouldn't comply and b) their 2 million dollar project would cost at least 500 million. That was 2 BILLION dollars ago......
Anyway, I work in a high security area. My co-workers are investigated, vetted, drug tested, criminal-record free.....the most law abiding of the law abiding.
Four of them own firearms, all own a number larger than one.
NONE of them are in compliance. NONE. All have unregistered guns, and two refuse to even get a license.
So much for gun laws.
Without compliance of the best of citizens, a complete waste of time.
That is what the government has gained by treating shooters with contempt.