| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Feb 1st, 2010 04:25 am |
|
Please SUBSCRIBE to this column at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner
And DIGG and REDDIT the article at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d31-Pennsylvania-state-police-back-down-on-rifle-registration-scheme
SNIP
In July of 2009, the Pennsylvania State Police mysteriously told federal gun dealers in Pennsylvania that they were required to report to the police all purchasers' identity and item serial number information for transfers of certain long gun "frames" or "receivers" for guns such as the popular AR-15 rifle . . . Some gun dealers said "no way."
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 1st, 2010 05:19 am |
|
Heh, heh, heh.
See what happens when you go and illegally seize a pro-gun guy like Rich Banks when he's enjoying dinner? You make him dig in his heels and cause problems with your other little anti-rights schemes.
Go, Rich!
|
Grapeshot
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 2nd, 2010 05:57 pm |
|
I've heard that Rich's bite is considerably worse than his roar. 
Would love to have been a fly on the wall when Pennsylvania State Police were discussing his communications.
Yata hey
|
Old Grump
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 12:13 am |
|
When I read that I couldn't help but grin, sometimes the system does work. Wouldn't have affected my sisters 380 but if they could force registration of rifles through an illegal request what would they do with widows and their SD pistols further down the road. Feller needs a new job, pizza maker maybe.
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 01:37 pm |
|
"the database at issue is not a registry of ownership, but rather, merely reflects the applications/records of sale for handgun purchases that occur in Pennsylvania. The database does not maintain a record of all firearms owned by Pennsylvanians, which would include long guns, or firearms that are owned by Pennsylvanians, but not purchased in the Commonwealth. Additionally, the database of handgun sales does not include handguns that are transferred between spouses, parents and children, and grandparents and grandchildren. See 18 Pa.C.S. ยง 6111(c). Nor is the database a survey of existing ownership. The database maintained by the Commonwealth merely contains information regarding the sales of handguns in the Commonwealth. Such a database does not amount to a "registry of firearm ownership" as prohibited by the Firearms Act."
This is a foolish ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I have to admonish them for such idiocy.
This database constitutes an ad hoc registry of ownership, because law enforcement may assume the last person to purchase a gun is still the current owner, or they may at least follow the lead unless otherwise outlawed. Hitler's SS would have loved to have such information available when they were collecting Jews for slaughter. No, i'm not comparing the two, but when government leadership becomes evil, good people will be fired, and bad ones will take their place.
A registry of sale is just not as accurate for ownership purposes. Governments love to grab information from wherever possible to fight crime. At certain times throughout history, and into the future, evil governments get information when they wish to oppress or slaughter a segment of their population.
The bottom line. Databases can be used for good, but are also dangerous tools for tyranny. They are easily stolen, and laws can be changed, and information quickly transferred to places where it cannot be controlled by subsequent legislation before damage occurs.
http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
Oh, look here. The database has already been used for abuse of power. Where are the lawsuits here?
Some also claim that police officers in the field often erroneously treat the database as a registration database and unlawfully confiscate handguns from their owners if the handgun is not associated with the carrier in the transfer database.
Last edited on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 01:42 pm by Statesman
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 02:19 pm |
|
Statesman wrote: This database constitutes an ad hoc registry of ownership, because law enforcement may assume the last person to purchase a gun is still the current owner, or they may at least follow the lead unless otherwise outlawed.
Well, no, that's not the law of property and police who do this may be sued vuia a variety f causes of action - are gun owners suing? If not, shame on them.
The best thing that can happen to a gun rights organizer is to have his gun confiscated - don't go beg for it back - just sue them for violation of your due process and other rights in federal court under Section 1983.
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 05:08 pm |
|
"But while Banks and a loose network of gun sealer allies were in a tense standoff with the PSP"
"But while Banks and a loose network of gun dealer allies were in a tense standoff with the PSP"
Not trying to nit pick... But something that gets a lot of public exposure, well, you know....
I've never met a gun sealer before. That's all. ;-)
Oh, and what a bunch of douche bags the PSP are... You can be sure the ATF sympathizes and hasn't been out of touch. Didn't they collaborate with State Police to intimidate gun buyers by showing up at their neighbors' houses while they were at gun shows asking leading questions in an attempt to make them sound like criminals to their neighbors? I would not at all be surprised if the ATF 'unofficially' encouraged this from the start. The public stunt didn't work, so they tried it cloak and dagger style. I have no evidence of this, I just 'know those people.'
Last edited on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 05:13 pm by ixtow
|
jahwarrior72
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 04:25 pm |
|
ixtow wrote: I would not at all be surprised if the ATF 'unofficially' encouraged this from the start. The public stunt didn't work, so they tried it cloak and dagger style. I have no evidence of this, I just 'know those people.'
that's profiling, mister.
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 08:49 pm |
|
jahwarrior72 wrote: ixtow wrote: I would not at all be surprised if the ATF 'unofficially' encouraged this from the start. The public stunt didn't work, so they tried it cloak and dagger style. I have no evidence of this, I just 'know those people.'
that's profiling, mister.
Well, they put labels right on themselves... It's hard not it.
|
Current time is 05:16 am | |
|
