JOHN BOGERT: All the gun - or ammunition - laws in the world wo...

I had to look up a column I wrote back in 1994 about guns and ammunition just to see if I am as prescient as I think.

[Jarhead1982]

Ah, refreshing, someone who actually understands the realities, and doesnt live in the fantasy of "public safety"!

[Don L]

The only gun law of value is the second amendment. We are now in the hands of a Chicago street organizer who has the gaul and audacity to think and say out loud that he has better ideas to reform our nation, than did our founding fathers.

He does not propose his plans but seeks to impose his plans, among them we have already seen a casual loathing of life and the dignity of man (abortion, infanticide, and counsulticide anyone?)

The guns are to protect our freedoms from those who seek to take them away -the very reason this nation was built upon the principle of freedom by our forefathers - the ones that this man arrogantly assumes superiority to.

You are right in one sense - laws alone do not provide society with proper functioning, and the simple idea that still more laws will fix the ones we made already that have failed us is a leftist impulse. it is only by recognizing and elevating the role of morality, family, religion, the dignity of man, the sacredness of life, that we can ever hope for the good life. I hear none of this from Obama or his avid supporters-just control and hatred of that which is good!

[BobbyT]

The tax you mention already exists. Before you even see a pistol, rifle, or round of ammo its price has already been pushed up by a 15% tax that goes straight to Fedzilla.

Then the price is pushed up further by all the interstate restrictions and artificially-reduced supply since getting an FFL is practically impossible and the numbers keep decreasing.

THEN you get to pay the standard sales taxes on top of that. Oh and deal with 25,000 gun control laws across the country, begging for gov't permission to bear them in the form of permits, and the ridiculous urban restrictions (you know, to keep the law-abiders disarmed in the places with all the rapes and murders).

"Shall not be infringed" indeed.

[Doc]

Sir,
Your points are well taken.
Perhaps with more emphasis on the rights and protection of law abiding citizens and property owners who pay the taxes required to run the government and not as much as the criminal's rights, may be more citizens would be less inclined to arm themselves.
Police respond in minutes when seconds count.

[sudmuf]

It just means people in California will go out of state to buy ammo and circumvent your stupid new law.

[Dave Robertson]

Here's a novel idea:

Let's hold accountable those who actually commit violent crimes, and stop persecuting the vast majority who don't! Of course, that will never happen, because criminals rarely have deep enough pockets to satisfy the civil lawsuits, since we all know that true justice is about striking it rich through victimhood.

[Bruce V]

John, you must be the "one in a million" who lives in California and has an inkling of what we as a people are suppose to be about. Is this affliction of common sense that you seem to be suffering from communicable? If so, please go out and infect others in your state.

[Howard]

Mr. BOGERT

You are correct that the ammunition bill will not do anything to reduce crime. This bill is impractical and will be nothing but inconvienance ammunition purchasers.

You were right on in advocating training for firearm purchasers...

I have a few additional comments on the bill...

Please allow me to offer a few additional comments…

The federal program that was mandated in the Gun Control Act of 68’, and later repealed, was a wasted effort, and while the FBI did have a capability to perform that sort of database search, the volume of data searching required would have overwhelmed the systems many times over…

The individuals ideally targeted by this bill are prohibited from owning firearms, yet they have acquired them by either; theft, whether they have stolen the firearms themselves, or purchased them from someone who had stolen them; A straw purchase; where a friend or family member, who isn’t a prohibited person, purchased the firearm legitimately, and unlawfully transferred the firearm.

This bill doesn’t require the review of the data gathered by ammunition sellers, it only mandates that ammunition retailers collect the information, that it be retained for five years and be made available to law enforcement upon request. There is no requirement that law enforcement actually check the data. There is no funding for law enforcement to process the data. There is no requirement that the data be maintained securely. I expect that the information will be gathered in a format similar to a notary’s signature book, where subsequent ammunition purchasers will be able to see who has purchased ammunition before them, the prior purchasers identifying and address information. Advertising that these people have firearms in their homes, and making them potential targets for burglary or worse.

Criminal defense attorneys will quickly defeat the any charges brought inder this bill unless; the individual is caught with the ammunition in their possession; or the store clerk who entered the information is identifiable, available, and able to testify, under oath, that he actually delivered and the suspect took possession of the ammunition. Starting to make a purchase, then reconsidering and not completing the purchase is not a crime.

If this were an instant check system, where a thumbprint scan would immediately tell the retailer not to deliver the ammunition, I wouldn’t have an issue with this bill. Anyone prohibited from possessing ammunition would have their fingerprints in the state databases, the only information required to be retained would be related to an actual attempt to purchase ammunition that had been declined.

[Freebie Walker]

It always amazes me that the media does not give the same standing to the 2nd Amendment that they do the 1st amendment. Hypocrits.

[Honest Citizen in Texas]

Why thank you john for granting us peasants our limited gun priviledges. We unwashed ignorant ones are ever so greatfull when our lofty supriors throw us a meager bone.

John, your confusing priviledges with rights!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of that sentence is not understood.

Oh, I am also amused by your Alinsky tactics, focusing on the all emotional bromide of its for the children, the alleged epidemic of child deaths and accidental shootings, and fear in our church. Heaven forbid that reality should intrude when one discovers the fact that far more children perish in accidental drowning, choking, and parental neglect than will ever perish by the bullet.

But lets cut to the chase. Its really not about fear, its about power. An armed people frighten you John, and thwart your deep down desire to force us unwashed ignorant citizens to march step into your particular Stalinists earthly utopian masterbation fantasy.

[Former So-Cal]

Guns have never been the problem, it is the people. Proper training, proper background checks and licensing would do more thank removal. England, Australia and others have banned guns...does that stop violence by shooters, NO. Illegal weapons and violence will never stop and removing guns or ammo will only hurt the responsible one's that choose it for sport, collecting, work, or protection.
Thants why we are Former So-Cal, we moved to Arizona. Self-defense righteously is considered proper here, and those who don't obey that portion are considered criminal too. Both states suffer from gang violence, in particular from across our southern borders...there is the real issue...GANGS not GUNS
Thank you for your honesty

[Vic]

Dave Robertson wrote:

Here's a novel idea:
Let's hold accountable those who actually commit violent crimes, and stop persecuting the vast majority who don't! Of course, that will never happen, because criminals rarely have deep enough pockets to satisfy the civil lawsuits, since we all know that true justice is about striking it rich through victimhood.

Dave, you sound like one of those people who think PEOPLE are responsible for their own actions and not some inanimate object. I am constantly hearing about "gun violence", I have been around guns all my life and have yet to encounter so much as one gun that was capable of violence. All the guns I have been around (thousands) were very peaceable and just sat there until a human picked them up. When someone is butchered with a knife why is it we never hear about "horrible knife violence"? By the way Dave, this attitude that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions is wildly out of step with the party line in Obama's America. Just watch it.

[Bombs Dont Kill People]

Vic wrote:

<quoted text>Dave, you sound like one of those people who think PEOPLE are responsible for their own actions and not some inanimate object. I am constantly hearing about "gun violence", I have been around guns all my life and have yet to encounter so much as one gun that was capable of violence. All the guns I have been around (thousands) were very peaceable and just sat there until a human picked them up. When someone is butchered with a knife why is it we never hear about "horrible knife violence"? By the way Dave, this attitude that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions is wildly out of step with the party line in Obama's America. Just watch it.

I'm amazed that this argument--guns don't kill people, PROPLR do--continues to be used. Well then we should also allow people to keep bombs, bazookas, machine guns, tanks, chemical weapons because after all these items aren't harmful by themselves. And of course we need these to protect ourselves from our government or hostile foreign countries like Canada.
When the Founding Fathers gave the people the right to bear arms (for militia purposes), they had no idea what future technology of weapons would bring. Clearly as my above example argues, there has to be limits on peoples rights and the affects on peoples freedoms (mainly life!). This is not new, we do this all the time with all our other rights.
I'm not advocating banning guns by any means but restrictions on their use, types of weapons, required training etc are all good ways to do this. The ammunition law will not deter some criminals but you can never underestimate the stupidity of some and so I think tracking ammo purchases (and maybe even limiting them) is a good idea.

[guilty till proven not]

Jarhead1982 wrote:

Ah, refreshing, someone who actually understands the realities, and doesnt live in the fantasy of "public safety"!

If you were a jarhead (a marine) you would not say that. But maybe you are a jar-head, that is why you say what you said.

[DDD]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Trust me, if people couldn't get guns or ammo they would use knives. Should we out law knives?? People kill with there bear hands, beer bottles, it could go on forever. Any of these laws will not stop or lessen crime, just more money for the goverment to miss manage and us tax payers to pay.

So if guns kill people, did the spoon make Rosie O'Donneld fat???

It's about taking resposibility and education. Two things that are seeming to dissapear in this country. Not taxes and restrictions.

[guilty till proven not]

Just go to a gun show out of State to buy the ammo. Stupid California liberal pig legislator. The reason that crime is so bad in California is that we don't built more cheap prison, take Sheriff Joe in Arizona as an example, his prison is running cheaply and effectively. But we have bunch of liberal bleeding hearts who feel sorry for the criminals in prison. Another way to fight crime is to not support any politicians that supports or supported by ACLU. This ammunition law is just another way for this type of useless politician have excuse to exist and to enact another law to make non-criminals into criminals. It is not making California any safer.

[FederalExciseTax Boi]

There is already a Federal Excise Tax of 10% on guns and ammo.
I'm all for education. There should be a class taught in High School to teach a bunch of common sense things that people don't get taught anymore by their parents. One would be about how to load, unload, and shoot a gun and not point it at people just because you think (incorrectly) you have unloaded it. Another thing to teach is what the laws are and what the penalties are. Most people just don't understand they if they get caught with a couple of ounces of heroin that is distribution and they will do 10 years. You can fill in the blanks on the hundreds of other things it would be nice to teach people.

[guilty till proven not]

Bombs Dont Kill People wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm amazed that this argument--guns don't kill people, PROPLR do--continues to be used. Well then we should also allow people to keep bombs, bazookas, machine guns, tanks, chemical weapons because after all these items aren't harmful by themselves. And of course we need these to protect ourselves from our government or hostile foreign countries like Canada.
When the Founding Fathers gave the people the right to bear arms (for militia purposes), they had no idea what future technology of weapons would bring. Clearly as my above example argues, there has to be limits on peoples rights and the affects on peoples freedoms (mainly life!). This is not new, we do this all the time with all our other rights.
I'm not advocating banning guns by any means but restrictions on their use, types of weapons, required training etc are all good ways to do this. The ammunition law will not deter some criminals but you can never underestimate the stupidity of some and so I think tracking ammo purchases (and maybe even limiting them) is a good idea.

Another stupid an extremist argument to ban gun. of course the dumb liberals always states "we should also allow people to keep bombs, bazookas, machine guns, tanks, chemical weapons because after all these items aren't harmful by themselves." That is just pure stupidity, it is the same way to stop an argument that they don't have anything to back them on "they call people, and it is people not PROPLR, racist."

Funny how liberals love to restrict people's rights, except the deviant behaviors, like having sex with minors, have sex where ever and have abortions, smoke any drugs you want, if you become an addict and you are poor we will have the rich pay in higher taxes. You are irresponsible with your life, we will force rich people pay for your irresponsibility.

I hope you don't buy a gun or go to anyone with a gun for protection, because you give up your rights to survive, you should die when bad thing happens to you by a criminal.

[Jarhead1982]

guilty till proven not wrote:

<quoted text>If you were a jarhead (a marine) you would not say that. But maybe you are a jar-head, that is why you say what you said.

Sarcasm, silly, sarcasm!

[LarryR]

Why is it that many people opposing any kind of gun or ammunition control appear to get so bent out of shape that it seems they would be willing to kill someone supporting any kind of said reform.
It scares me that they are allowed to own a gun because they might well use it on me as part of their argument for no gun control anywhere, anytime. Go figure.