2/16 Senate Gun Bills Real-Time Discussion

[teratos]

A serial number engraved or stamped on a gun has never prevented a gun from killing.

I'd like to see the actual numbers of how many crimes have been solved by tracing a S/N to the actual murderer. I'm willing to concede that confirmation of ownership may be obtained, but the S/N can not tell you who pulled the trigger.

It’s funny, maybe someone should ask our legislators all the things having a serial # will do for the investigation. Don’t forget to include what percentage of crime guns were stolen before the advent of easy ghost guns (> 90%). They should also explain what percentage of murders are solved by a serial number (<1%). Then we can all feel good.

I greatly appreciate your understanding! This is just hard sometimes

It’s can be a thankless job, and it’s hard for us lay folks to understand the legal constraints under which your arguments are crafted. We have things we’d LIKE to hear. It’s not always what we need to hear.

 

[Boxcab]

Which crime.



They are very uncommonly used to solve who might have committed the crime the gun was used in. It DOES happen that law enforcement traces the gun to a straw purchaser or someone who legally loaned or sold the firearm to someone known to them, who turns out to have committed the crime the firearm was used in.



Data? I can't find anything, but I've certainly read about a fair number of individual cases. Anecdotes aren't data though, other than to say it is certainly more than "never". And probably more than "exceedingly rare". But I'd certainly put money that it isn't common.



Though rarely prosecuted, it does often turn up straw purchasers or in some cases individuals acting as FFLs, without registering or performing background checks. A lot of guns turn up with criminals because of people acting as FFLs without registering as such and who then don't run background checks. Somehow the criminals often know how to find those "hobbyists" who are turning over dozens of guns a month at very tidy profits who aren't asking questions.



In rare cases it does also reunite a stolen gun with the owner and very rarely might also catch the criminal too (example, idiot criminal pawns a stolen gun and at some point the serial is checked and it shows up in the database of stolen guns).

Your right. I tend to focus on the murders, but your right about the "other" crimes.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Allen65]

This would seem to impair the use of the GCA '68 as justification for a new serial number regime. The court case against this will be interesting to follow.

The Government's argument is that if any of the materials, tools, or information used to fabricate the firearm moved in interstate commerce, it is within the Federal Government's authority to regulate it, including requiring serialization. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with them, that's just the bureaucracy's (and Congress's) view of the COTUS Commerce Clause.

 

[BeoBill]

I greatly appreciate your understanding! This is just hard sometimes

I deeply appreciate the time and passion you devote to our civil rights. Thank you! You are certainly a patriot.

 

[esqappellate]

I don't think it's a compromise, I have yet to buy one online, and if I did buy one, I would probably do it in person. For those that will say "It's cheaper online than in person" that isn't the point.

<dawning fire suit right next to you>

Dblas is right on this. The antis use on-line availability of kits as their strongest point for a ban. It has an impact on our supporters in the General Assembly.

 

[esqappellate]

I deeply appreciate the time and passion you devote to our civil rights. Thank you! You are certainly a patriot.

Thanks!

 

[PowPow]

The Government's argument is that if any of the materials, tools, or information used to fabricate the firearm moved in interstate commerce, it is within the Federal Government's authority to regulate it, including requiring serialization. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with them, that's just the bureaucracy's (and Congress's) view of the COTUS Commerce Clause.

Wow. That's all they got? Courts regardless of intent have abused the commerce and equal protection clauses to destroy our freedoms and justify government tyranny for far too long. Someday it would be great to see these abuses corrected once and for all. An Article V convention of the states is probably the best way.

 

[Bertfish]

The Government's argument is that if any of the materials, tools, or information used to fabricate the firearm moved in interstate commerce, it is within the Federal Government's authority to regulate it, including requiring serialization. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with them, that's just the bureaucracy's (and Congress's) view of the COTUS Commerce Clause.

By that argument if Ruger sells a gun to someone in Arizona then it doesn't need to follow Federal law. Unless they're claiming regulation over the raw aluminum needed to make it?

 

[Slackdaddy]

Is there text transcripts available from the committee hearings ?

 

[DC-W]

Is there text transcripts available from the committee hearings ?

If we were in Utah or Washington State, there would be, but this is Maryland and the General Assembly has settled on cameras made from potatoes and little transparency and accessibility to the State's business.

The closest things there are to transcripts are the automatically generated captions in YouTube, but those aren't downloadable as I'm aware. Press the CC button to turn them on.
https://youtu.be/ySL5G8uCVl8?t=9762

 

[Nickberg500]

If we were in Utah or Washington State, there would be, but this is Maryland and the General Assembly has settled on cameras made from potatoes and little transparency and accessibility to the State's business.

The closest things there are to transcripts are the automatically generated captions in YouTube, but those aren't downloadable as I'm aware. Press the CC button to turn them on.
https://youtu.be/ySL5G8uCVl8?t=9762

I've attached a generated copy of the transcript for that video, and I'm linking below how to view them directly in YouTube. There's websites like the one I used to download transcripts from YouTube, but beware as they're rather spammy.

How to view transcripts:
https://www.rev.com/blog/resources/how-to-download-youtube-subtitles-as-text-files

 

[DC-W]

I've attached a generated copy of the transcript for that video, and I'm linking below how to view them directly in YouTube. There's websites like the one I used to download transcripts from YouTube, but beware as they're rather spammy.

How to view transcripts:
https://www.rev.com/blog/resources/how-to-download-youtube-subtitles-as-text-files

WHOA! Slick!

 

[Slackdaddy]

So there is no official, legal transcript for what the legislators say in their official capacity in hearings???
Un Fing believable!!

 

[DC-W]

So there is no official, legal transcript for what the legislators say in their official capacity in hearings???
Un Fing believable!!

Believe it!

 

[Bob A]

Wow. That's all they got? Courts regardless of intent have abused the commerce and equal protection clauses to destroy our freedoms and justify government tyranny for far too long. Someday it would be great to see these abuses corrected once and for all. An Article V convention of the states is probably the best way.

The Commerce Clause is the govt's huge loophole. SCOTUS has only expanded it. Scalia said essentially there's no legal Preparation H that they can use to shrink it to a manageable size.

With the state of the states as it is, and their govts raddled with Prog totalitarians, I shudder at the thought of a Con Con. Bye bye, BoR.

 

[PowPow]

The Commerce Clause is the govt's huge loophole. SCOTUS has only expanded it. Scalia said essentially there's no legal Preparation H that they can use to shrink it to a manageable size.

With the state of the states as it is, and their govts raddled with Prog totalitarians, I shudder at the thought of a Con Con. Bye bye, BoR.

You shouldn't. A convention of the states is only for the purpose of proposing amendments (instead of them being proposed via Congress). It's not a constitutional convention, which is used to draft a new one. (more here https://conventionofstates.com/ if you're interested)

 

[Bob A]

You shouldn't. A convention of the states is only for the purpose of proposing amendments (instead of them being proposed via Congress). It's not a constitutional convention, which is used to draft a new one. (more here https://conventionofstates.com/ if you're interested)

Very interesting, thank you.

 

[BeoBill]

So there is no official, legal transcript for what the legislators say in their official capacity in hearings???
Un Fing believable!!

No, just your typical corrupt Democrat Machine run state government. We have the best General Assembly that money can buy...

 

[BeoBill]

You shouldn't. A convention of the states is only for the purpose of proposing amendments (instead of them being proposed via Congress). It's not a constitutional convention, which is used to draft a new one. (more here https://conventionofstates.com/ if you're interested)

Any you really believe that the lawless unprincipled Libtards wouldn't hijack the proceedings to gut the amendments they don't like with competing amendments? And the Lizard People in Congress wouldn't approve any drivel they came up with? C'mon, man...

 

[BeoBill]

.