Virginia HB961 - Actual gun confiscation unless you register it with the state

[98cwitr]

No, this is set state by state. For a CCW in my state you only need to pass a background check.

Correct. In Georgia, it was simply a background check. I literally got my CCW the same day. In NC, it was an 8 hour class w/ a test at the end, range proficiency exam, and then it took 6 weeks to get my CCW back from the Sheriff.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Don't register? You're instantly a felon.

Only if they catch and convict you.

What do you lose by registering your assault firearm? You're not losing your constitutional right to posses one.

Why should it be anyone else's business? What does anyone else lose by simply leaving law abiding citizens alone?

 

[Yekcidmij]

What do you lose by registering your assault firearm? You're not losing your constitutional right to posses one.

On a separate consideration, I think there is some warranted concern that such a gun registry would simply be used in the future in any actual confiscation scheme. So maybe some people's concern isn't registering a gun here and now, but how that registry could or would be used against them in the future?

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, this is set state by state. For a CCW in my state you only need to pass a background check.

that is actually why I said states as it is a state issue and not all states have the same requirements.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Only if they catch and convict you.



Why should it be anyone else's business? What does anyone else lose by simply leaving law abiding citizens alone?

and in some counties that would be easier said than done, as sometimes when juries are unhappy with laws and want them changed they will simply refuse to convict, even if the "crime" is proven. This is part of how CA's three strikes law was loosened they had juries refusing to convict on a third strike because they felt that the law was wrong and that life imprisonment did not fit the crime.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

that is actually why I said states as it is a state issue and not all states have the same requirements.

Correct, but I don't see how that supports your point. You appeared to be trying to say that anyone carrying in public would have gone through training. However, this is not true for two reasons. First, not all states require training (and some don't even require special permits) to carry concealed. And second, even more states allow you to carry openly without a permit or training. So there is no guarantee that anyone carrying a gun in public will have had any sort of training in how to use it properly.

There are a few states where this would be true (California, for one), but it's not something that you can claim on a national scale.

 

[98cwitr]

and in some counties that would be easier said than done, as sometimes when juries are unhappy with laws and want them changed they will simply refuse to convict, even if the "crime" is proven. This is part of how CA's three strikes law was loosened they had juries refusing to convict on a third strike because they felt that the law was wrong and that life imprisonment did not fit the crime.

Jury nullification. Love it, but it only works on a case by case basis.

 

[iluvatar5150]

My guess is the visibility of assault rifles in mass shootings....they tend to get more coverage in the press.

So shouldn't we scrutinize media bias and push back for effective measure to save lives? Rather than focusing on the tool used, isn't imperative we understand the root causes what was is encouraging people to commit these crimes?

While I generally don't put a lot of hope in the efficacy of assault weapon bans and I fully acknowledge that they often attack mostly-cosmetic and ergonomic features, I would like to see some research done about how the cosmetics of these weapons influence shooters. IOW, given equivalent firepower between weapons, does the one that looks cooler somehow encourage a potential shooter to use it in a more dangerous manner?

At least from my research, the solution to this is to reestablish fathers in the homes by removing the incentives that kicked them out in the first place (see Johnson's "Model Cities" program from 1965...that's where a lot of this started)?

Sure, blame a short-lived, limited-scope attempt at urban revitalization and not the decades of racist policies that pushed blacks into poverty en masse, the war on drugs that then incarcerated them en masse, and then the austerity policies that block ex-cons from reintegrating into society.

Agreed! Not to segue, but guns save lives more than they take the lives of innocent people.

The data supporting that is, at best, inconclusive.

Correct. In Georgia, it was simply a background check. I literally got my CCW the same day. In NC, it was an 8 hour class w/ a test at the end, range proficiency exam, and then it took 6 weeks to get my CCW back from the Sheriff.

Those are both embarrassingly inadequate.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Jury nullification. Love it, but it only works on a case by case basis.

I know, but DAs in red districts know that it would be hard to get a conviction, so they may be more likely to either not file or offer a sweet deal for a conviction because if they go to trial and lose they have spent a lot of money with nothing to show for it. DAS are usually not stupid enough to try a case they KNOW has little chance. Why do you think DAs would offer sweet deals on weak cases?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Jury nullification. Love it, but it only works on a case by case basis.

There's really little that could be done besides jury nullification and local officials refusing to enforce state law. But the State could always just use state police and agencies for enforcement anyway without any necessary need to rely on local city and county police.

If you're in Va, you're just beholden to NOVA. The beltway bandits will decide for you.

 

[tall73]

Sure, those things are important. But they're also true (actually, I'm pretty skeptical about that 1 million figure since that's roughly the number of violent crimes committed across the entire country, but I'm not going to argue about it now) in large part precisely because there are so many guns in circulation. If, hypothetically, we had zero guns in circulation, nobody in that TX church would've needed saving and we'd only need a tiny fraction of those DGU's.

Meanwhile, between murder, suicides, and accidents, we have roughly as many people dying per year from firearms as Saddam was killing when he was going after the Kurds back in the 80's. IOW, our "protection" from a tyrannical government kills as many people as a genocide.

You acknowledge the problem though. There are hundreds of millions of guns here, and millions more to our south, (some exported from here, some from South America, and many now held by criminal elements that come and go across the border). The entire region of the Americas is extremely violent.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Getting back to anywhere close to European levels of guns, even if mandatory buybacks occurred tomorrow, would be quite difficult.

New Zealand, an island, with a much easier time limiting imports, lowered their number of assault weapons, but estimates vary and some indicate that they only got around one third of them, even with the mandatory buyback.

Guns are more numerous here, more entrenched culturally, and we are not an island.

So if going back to zero is not an option, then having your own weapon for defense, though flawed, may be you only option if you wish to defend yourself.

 

[tall73]

Meaning that if I sell a gun say I did a background check came back clean the next week the gun was used to commit a crime was I careless in selling the gun if I did a background check and had no reason to believe the person would do anything.

If you did a background check then they would trace it back to the Federal Firearms Dealer who did the transaction and see it was purchased. You wouldn't be involved.

 

[tall73]

Table 20

Since some have referenced the number of homicides by weapon data, I wanted to post it.

Below is a link to the FBI data for homicides by weapon used. If you click into the links you will find that Alabama does not report this for some reason, so those numbers are missing. But what I have put below is the totals from states that report.

Table 20

Handguns 7,032
Rifles 403
Shotguns 264
Unknown Firearms 3,283
Knives (cutting) 1,591
Other weapons 1,860
Hands, fists, feet 696

Total homicides by method other than firearms: 4,147

The estimated population of the US is around 330 million people. The population of Alabama, not represented here, is around 5 million. So if we just work from a population for these numbers of around 325 million those 4,147 deaths represent around a 1.27 per hundred thousand rate, for homicides by method other than firearms (feel free to check the math, it is not my greatest skill).

Now compare that to the Total homicides per 100k rate of other "developed" countries:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Japan .2
Norway .5
Switzerland .5
South Korea .6
Czech Republic .6
Austria .66
Italy .67
Greece .7
Portugal .7
Spain .7
New Zealand .7
Poland .8
Netherlands .8
Australia .8
Iceland .9
Ireland .9
Germany 1.0
Sweden 1.1
Scotland 1.1
Croatia 1.1
Serbia 1.1
Denmark 1.2
Finland 1.2
England/wales 1.2
Northern Ireland 1.3
France 1.3
Belgium 1.7
Canada 1.8

So the rate of 1.27 for homicides with instruments other than guns in the US is higher than the total homicide rate for many of those nations.

We then piled another 10,982 fire arm homicides on top of that. Our total homicide rate per 100k is 5.4 per the FBI:

Table 16

So what can we surmise from this?

a. The United States is more lethally violent than other developed nations.

b. Firearm homicides form the largest part of that. But they are not the only factor in greater violence. We kill as many people or more without firearms as most developed nations do total.

c. Rifles, of which assault weapons are only a portion, are responsible for only a small fraction of the firearm homicides. Handguns account for many more.

Despite all that, we are experiencing less homicides in recent decades. But that trend has started to reverse in the last few years, and numbers are starting to creep back up again.

 

[Belk]

Correct. In Georgia, it was simply a background check. I literally got my CCW the same day. In NC, it was an 8 hour class w/ a test at the end, range proficiency exam, and then it took 6 weeks to get my CCW back from the Sheriff.

In WA it was a background and then I got my permit in 3 days.

 

[Nithavela]

Only if they catch and convict you.

You might say the same with killing a person.

 

[tall73]

The presence of a gun in the "black market" means someone who legally owned a gun either had it stolen or sold it carelessly. And you think registered ownership would not help solve that problem. OK.

To put some numbers to the problem you are highlighting:

Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute

Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute.

In interviews, gun owners said they took their guns with them when they travelled by car – and because they felt empowered to do so, or because they underestimated the risk, they left them there when they worked, shopped or played. Thieves have apparently caught on to this trend. “It used to be the day of the radio and electronics, but there’s not a market for that any more,” said Richard Roundtree, the sheriff of Richmond County, Georgia. “The market now is for firearms.”

In 2015, the 25 police departments in our sample received reports of about 4,800 guns stolen from vehicles. In 14 of the 15 cities that also provided 2014 data, the number of stolen guns increased year over year by an average of 40%.

Research suggests that many owners never report losses and thefts to police – and in most states, they aren’t required to do so. Even in states that obligate owners to tell police if their gun is stolen, enforcement is lax.

Last year, Atlanta tallied more gun thefts from vehicles than any other municipality the Trace examined. Police logged about 850 guns thefts from cars in 2015, an almost 90% increase over 2009, when about 450 were reported stolen. Cars represented the most common source of stolen firearms in that city, accounting for 70% of all reported gun thefts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sounds like a reasonable law to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

While I generally don't put a lot of hope in the efficacy of assault weapon bans and I fully acknowledge that they often attack mostly-cosmetic and ergonomic features, I would like to see some research done about how the cosmetics of these weapons influence shooters. IOW, given equivalent firepower between weapons, does the one that looks cooler somehow encourage a potential shooter to use it in a more dangerous manner?

I know the argument you're talking about...and it's either misinformed or disingenuous.

It's usually along the lines of...

My hunting rifle shoots the same round as that assault rifle, it's semi automatic, it's got magazines with the same number of rounds. Why are they banning one and not the other? They don't know what they're talking about....

The reality is that, in general, there's several things that assault rifles do better. Things like...

- shooting at a target while advancing on it
- staying aimed in while moving
- taking cover
- firing from behind cover
- rapidly acquiring multiple targets
- staying on target while firing rapidly
- maneuvering the weapon indoors or in tight spaces

....to name a few things.

Now, realistically, these are still skills one has to practice. Simply having an assault rifle won't suddenly make someone proficient at those things. I'm just speaking generally.

 

[98cwitr]

There's really little that could be done besides jury nullification and local officials refusing to enforce state law. But the State could always just use state police and agencies for enforcement anyway without any necessary need to rely on local city and county police.

If you're in Va, you're just beholden to NOVA. The beltway bandits will decide for you.

I'm expecting VCDL and the GOA to file injunctions if any of these bills pass. I have yet to do my research on the VA court judges to see if any are activists or legitimate.

 

[98cwitr]

Table 20

Since some have referenced the number of homicides by weapon data, I wanted to post it.

Below is a link to the FBI data for homicides by weapon used. If you click into the links you will find that Alabama does not report this for some reason, so those numbers are missing. But what I have put below is the totals from states that report.

Table 20

Handguns 7,032
Rifles 403
Shotguns 264
Unknown Firearms 3,283
Knives (cutting) 1,591
Other weapons 1,860
Hands, fists, feet 696

Total homicides by method other than firearms: 4,147

The estimated population of the US is around 330 million people. The population of Alabama, not represented here, is around 5 million. So if we just work from a population for these numbers of around 325 million those 4,147 deaths represent around a 1.27 per hundred thousand rate, for homicides by method other than firearms (feel free to check the math, it is not my greatest skill).

Now compare that to the Total homicides per 100k rate of other "developed" countries:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Japan .2
Norway .5
Switzerland .5
South Korea .6
Czech Republic .6
Austria .66
Italy .67
Greece .7
Portugal .7
Spain .7
New Zealand .7
Poland .8
Netherlands .8
Australia .8
Iceland .9
Ireland .9
Germany 1.0
Sweden 1.1
Scotland 1.1
Croatia 1.1
Serbia 1.1
Denmark 1.2
Finland 1.2
England/wales 1.2
Northern Ireland 1.3
France 1.3
Belgium 1.7
Canada 1.8

So the rate of 1.27 for homicides with instruments other than guns in the US is higher than the total homicide rate for many of those nations.

We then piled another 10,982 fire arm homicides on top of that. Our total homicide rate per 100k is 5.4 per the FBI:

Table 16

So what can we surmise from this?

a. The United States is more lethally violent than other developed nations.

b. Firearm homicides form the largest part of that. But they are not the only factor in greater violence. We kill as many people or more without firearms as most developed nations do total.

c. Rifles, of which assault weapons are only a portion, are responsible for only a small fraction of the firearm homicides. Handguns account for many more.

Despite all that, we are experiencing less homicides in recent decades. But that trend has started to reverse in the last few years, and numbers are starting to creep back up again.

Two points:

1. None of this data attempts to address why people are wanting to kill others (that's the problem we're trying to solve, right?)

2. If you remove St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit, all cities with extreme gun control laws, the entire United States falls from 3rd to 189th in murder rate; that said, it does not tell the tale of what murders would have occurred regardless of access to a firearm...sometimes, a person wants to kill someone so badly, they'll use anything:

Chicago Isn’t Close to Being the Gun Violence Capital of the United States

U.S. doesn't have gun violence epidemic, Dem cities do - WND

What Is The Murder Rate If We Exclude Cities Like Chicago? - The Meme Policeman