1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.
2. registration of all guns bought.
3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check - every time.
Safe storage laws, magazine capacity limitations and waiting periods may be eventually added, but the big three above will solve most of our problems.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
"What do you think?"
ReplyDeleteNah. I'll pass.
Requiring a background check for handgun sales by private sellers and licensed gun dealers helps reduce
ReplyDeleteillegal gun trafficking by as much as 48% within a state.
Strong, enforced gun dealer licensing laws are estimated to reduce illegal gun trafficking in a state by 64%
OK, those numbers come from Brady, but they are pretty significant if they are true. That warrants consideration in my opinion.
"Strong, enforced gun dealer licensing laws are estimated to reduce illegal gun trafficking in a state by 64%.
ReplyDeleteEstimated by Brady. Which means made up hogwash.
"Strong, enforced gun dealer licensing laws are estimated to reduce illegal gun trafficking in a state by 64%"
So why don't they lobby to enforce the current laws? They seem to get tired of hearing us say that we just need to enforce the laws we have. Sounds like they are estimating the same thing.
FWM, estimates are estimates. You can disagree with someone's conclusions, but do you have some basis other than you want it to be so, to claim these figures are made up?
ReplyDeleteDo you in fact know a damned thing about the data and reasoning behind the conclusions?
Or is this another of your knee-jerk responses?
The criticisms leveled here against the claims by the NRA, like the claim about gun registration leading to gun confiscation in CA, were legitimate. There is NO documentation of a single instance of a real person, a person who is not disqualified for being a felon etc., having lost their firearm post registration.
So, other than repeating something you heard without knowning the basis for it, what is your basis for your statement? Provide some data for your claim, some credible source.
Otherwise, you are just being a mindless follower, a low information single issue dumb and blind follower. So ......show us you aren't low information. Put up, or...you know.
Laci, is there any way you can find the basis for the Brady claim somewhere?
I think we need stronger storage laws, and some form of mental health TEST, not just check, is in order. Right now, the way our health privacy laws are set up - and rightly so - it is difficult for anyone checking to really know the mental health status of a buyer. I think an MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) would be a great idea.
ReplyDeleteI would add to that, some form of check for substance abuse - passing a drug test. Clearly, drugs or excessive alcohol use don't go well with gun ownership. So, I'd add drug testing - renewed/repeated periodically, the way one renews a drivers license with an eye exam.
Every time I see someone who has purchased a firearm, legally, and then turns around and blows away their family and friends, it occurs to me that we have not screened for, or restricted firearm ownership sufficiently.
Nothing we do will be perfect, but clearly, comparing our stats to other countries and our stats within states as a comparison for restrive gun laws, we can do more, and more does help.
OK, the estimates came from a recent analysis of U.S. firearm commerce uncovered that only 1% of licensed dealers were responsible for nearly 60% of guns traced to crime. Responding to the need for improved regulations, The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research experts consulted to help develop a 10-point gun dealer code of conduct adopted by Wal-Mart in 2008. This set of policies includes mandatory video recording of all firearm transactions, a computerized log of crime gun traces relating to the retailer, criminal background checks for all employees selling or handling firearms, and strict control of firearm inventory. Center research has continued to be used by mayors and state legislators to develop and advocate for policies to reduce criminally obtained illegal guns.
ReplyDeleteAs corrupt retail gun dealers accounted for more guns diverted into the illegal market than any other single trafficking channel, investigation of gun dealer regulation and oversight is a principal effort of the Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Center Research
POLICIES TO PREVENT FIREARM TRAFFICKING
Vernick JS, Webster DW
Injury Prevention 2007;13:78-79.
REGULATING FIREARMS DEALERS IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF STATE LAW AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
Vernick JS, Daniel DW, Bulzacchelli MT
Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 2006;34:765-775
EFFECTS OF POLICE STINGS OF GUN DEALERS ON THE SUPPLY OF NEW GUNS TO CRIMINALS
Webster DW, Zeoli AM, Bulzacchelli MT, Vernick JS
Injury Prevention 2006;12:225-30
EFFECTS OF A GUN DEALER’S CHANGE IN SALES PRACTICES ON THE SUPPLY OF GUNS TO CRIMINALS
Webster DW, Vernick JS, Bulzacchelli MT
Journal of Urban Health 2006;83:778-787
Of course, one can estimate on the low side as well.
Unfortunately, doing nothing reduces the amount of these deaths by next to nothing. So, FWM's proposal to do nothing is less appealing from a public health policy standpoint.
Another one for you from USDoJ:
ReplyDeleteReducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
If it comes from Brady, it is probably a lie or at the very least a distortion of some kind. Its not really their fault though since the truth is not on their side.
ReplyDeleteAs far as proof of that claim, please keep in mind that I am just estimating.
So, FWM, you actually have no valid basis for dismissing the Brady claims. All you have is your prejudice.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest rather that you at least know the basis for their estimate.
You don't appear to have any factual basis for YOUR estimates, FWM. Thank you Laci for those sources - you come through with substance, as usual.
The Brady numbers do tend to track consistently with the numbers from academic sources.
Yours, FWM......not. NRA......not.
Truth does not appear to be on your side, nor does fact, or reality.
And yet, you continue to embrace fantasy, factual deficiencies.
Why? Perhaps that is the question we should be asking.
Laci, thanks for producing the stats and the proof. I didn't want to ruin my reputation by doing that.
ReplyDeleteBut, isn't it telling that you needed to do it. The pro gun guys use the Eddie Murphy system of denying everything. Remember that one?
It's almost Pavlovian.
ReplyDeleteMention 'Brady' and the gunloons immediately kneejerk with "It's a lie !!"
Must make it tough for them to watch Patriot games.
Sidenote: have you ever noticed the NRA never has any research to back up its claims? But it's not for lack of trying. About 15-20 years ago, the NRA set up several front groups to conduct "research."
But the results were so transparently shoddy and laughable, the NRA has given up.
The NRA's tactic of handwaving hyperbole that lacks substance has been adopted and improved upon (?) by the SKKKortalMurKKKinPatriotiKKK Front.
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “There is NO documentation of a single instance of a real person, a person who is not disqualified for being a felon etc., having lost their firearm post registration.”
ReplyDeleteDog gone, how about this:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=3745
Also, let’s not forget about San Francisco’s 2005 total gun ban which included confiscation and destruction (without compensation) of all registered handguns for civilians. I don’t know why I have to keep bringing this up, we’ve discussed it many times here. It is like you guys want to forget that it ever happened so you can keep making “nobody wants to…” claims. Though it got turned over by the courts and never went into effect, they still passed a law requiring confiscation of registered weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)
You can thank me for those sources - I come through with substance, as usual.
California's Department of Justice has determined the SKS "Sporter" rifle is illegal and is offering owners $230 for the rifles
ReplyDeleteFrom this, if the owner is receiving compensation, or is offered compensation and declines, that is not confiscation. confication, by its definition is seizure without compensation.
So, TS, you are wrong by definition, this can't be confication.
Also, this does not violate the Fifth Amendment takings provision which requires that any government taking is justly compensated. Thus it is within due process.
Furthermore, The Supreme Court under Heller-McDonald has said that the Seocnd Amendment "right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller specifically mentioned "dangerous and unusual weapons" which courts are applying to these type of firearms.
So, you are out of luck, TS, this is not a government gun grab.
Laci, dog gone's comment used the phrase "taken away", which I pointed to an example of. You don't want to call it confiscatiom because there was reimbursment, but regardless it is still registered guns being taken away. Aside from that, I assure you that australia type confiscation with compensation is exactly why gun owners fight registration. You'll only further rally the non-gun owners who are against wasteful government spending with that one.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I DID give you an example of uncompensated confiscation with the san francisco 2005 gun ban. And that was far more encompassing than specific SKSs.
It's not confication by definition if you are:
ReplyDeletea) compensated
b) the item is returned
Confiscation, from the Latin confiscatio 'joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury' is a legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority.
You haven't provided an instance of actual confiscation since these reports mention compensation.
If the gun owners don't feel adaquately compensated, that's their problem.
Personally, I'd prefer some compensation to just having the object taken without compensation.
BTW, Australia allowed for another option, de-activation (or de-watting), unfortunately the 1968 gun act precludes dewatting in the USA.
It's not confiscation in any sense of the word. Of course, "confiscation" to the gunloon means not being able to ow whatever firearm he desires.
ReplyDeleteIt's not confiscation because 1. you're reimbursed; and 2. you still have the ability to obtain the same capability.
Real confiscation comes about when something is taken from you and you're not compensated and you can't obtain the same capability as before.
World Nut Daily is a source? They're still harping about birth certificates.
San Francisco's law was not enforced, nor did the article mention confiscation.
ReplyDeleteIt boggles the mind how a laws that was never enacted--much less enforced--is evidence of confiscation.
ReplyDeleteI should add that it is best that you use credible news sources to verify your claims.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is full of spurious bullshit to trap the unwary with all sorts of silly claims (part of the reason that "Second Amendment" types swarm to the place like flies on shit).
Unfortunately, the marketplace of ideas hasn't caught on to the global village concept or we might have a more enlightened discussion of the Second Amendment relating to the Militia and the amateur military tradition.
Unfortunately, it has become something to do with a spurious concept of "gun rights" found only amongst low information septics and not in the rest of the British culturally influenced world. That in and of itself should raise questions, but alas it does not.
Of course, since there were militia run artillery batteries, I demand my right to a howitzer!
This is really funny. Dog gone tries to make a point that we have nothing to worry about with registration, and Laci and Jade come around and affirm that we have every reason to oppose it. So we know that when you say "no one is coming for your guns", you really mean "it is not confiscation, if we thrown some money at you before we destroy your guns". Great. You two need to get on the same page as the rest of the movement. Repeat after me; "no one is going to take away your guns". Repeat as nessesary.
ReplyDeleteLaci, the san francisco ban follows your definition of a confiscation. It got overturned on state preemtion laws, not because there was no compensation. The point is you can't make the claim "no one has ever tried to confiscate registered guns" because here is the proof.
Jade it is evidence of an attempt at confiscation. Something of which you claim no one is after.
ReplyDeleteIt's evidence of nothing.
ReplyDeleteYou have no documented proof of confiscation.
To turn it around.
Second Amendment people are anti-governmentalists who would overthrow the government. There is no reason that we should allow these people the tools to overthrow the government.
Of course, I can document people who talk about overthrowing the government and actual acts (e.g. the Oklahoma City Bombing).
Given that the Constitution states that the penalty for such an act is death--what's taking away your guns?
TS: Nope. Not even close.
ReplyDeleteAs Laci points out, there's real, tangible evidence that gunloons are imbalanced quacks. Confiscation of guns? None.
BTW, polls show people overwhelmingly support things like gun registration, waiting periods, assault weapons bans, etc. It's not even close.
It is in no way evidence of confiscation; confiscation is the antithesis of compensation.
ReplyDeleteThere ARE categories of arms which are not permitted, which the SCOTUS approves - you can't have your own nukes, you can't have your own pet howitzers, as examples.
So if there is a prohibition on owning a type of firearm, it is not permitted except to a very few people who are allowed.
Clearly these people were disqualified from this kind of weapon, legally. That is no different from a felon or other category of person not being qualified. Some people are qualified for some weapons; some are not.
This idea that this implies that any of us are urging the government to come grab your guns is ludicrous.
We do argue for more care and restriction in permitting firearm ownership, but not banning all firearms to all people. Rather we wish to see fewer firearms legally end up in the hands of people who are not responsible - that would be the ones who blow away their families and friends, like the two murders and one suicide I just posted recently. It would also apply to those who don't take reasonable measures to secure their firearms, leading to theft, leading to kid accidents, etc.
You are trying to conflate very different things that don't go together, that aren't representative of what we are arguing for here, and that are far more extreme than what we have presented.
"The internet is full of spurious bullshit to trap the unwary with all sorts of silly claims (part of the reason that "Second Amendment" types swarm to the place like flies on shit)."
ReplyDeleteI think you're being too generous. The NRA and it's supporters run deliberate campaigns of misinformation.
Dog gone, this was not a case of someone aquiring an illegal weapon. This was a case of legal weapons that were registered and then later changed to be illegal and taken away (with compensation). This is what you asked for, so I provided.
ReplyDeleteNote: I'll play by your rules and only call it "confiscation" if no money changes hands.
So if your point is "no one is going to confiscate any guns, but we might just do some forced by-backs" then say so. But don't be surprised when gun owners oppose registration because they want to keep the guns they bought or inherited.
But then I did show an example of an attempted mass confiscation in San Francisco. So if your real argument is "no one is going to confiscate your guns without paying your for it because the NRA will sue the pants of anyone who tries, and you'll win in the courts" then say so.
I would argue, rather TS, that no one is going to come to grab your guns away from you.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take the NRA to do the suing either. The process is subject to consideration and evaulation by the courts for legality.
I don't wish to see anyone treated unfairly.
But to take your assessment, there would never ever be changes to regulations. That is unreasonable.
What I would agree with you is that changes perhaps SHOULD have a grandfather clause of some kind to address when changes occur.
I am in the middle of other things this evening, but I will check out those other claims.
News Nut Daily, home of batshit crazy Orly Taitz, queen of the birther conspiracy theorists and other wackos. They are not a sane, objective, much less factual source.
So if I can't verify claims with more deservedly respectable and factual sources, that won't hold water.
My argument is that if a certain category of guns is determined to be illegal, or a certain category of persons is deemed to be disqualified from owning firearm 'x', this is not a case of some big ol' government gun grab, but rather can be lawful regulation subject to proper due process. And THAT is reasonable and appropriate.
Dog gone: “So if I can't verify claims with more deservedly respectable and factual sources, that won't hold water.”
ReplyDeleteDon’t like the source? I know the story to be true, so I just linked to one of the first ones I found. But I have better. Below you will find a link to the scanned letters signed by the California Attorney General’s office ordering the confiscation. Yes, it is another pro-gun site, but that can’t be helped because pro-gun people are the only ones who draw attention to this. But these are links to the PDFs of the actual letters, so unless you claim the NRA forged these documents- it doesn’t get more factual than this.
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer2.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer3.gif
Oh, and yes I used the word “confiscation” instead of “forced by-back”, because as it turns out, I was wrong about that. The case does meet both Jade and Laci’s definition of confiscation because the 1550 counts in question were not eligible for compensation.
Unlike the SKS Sporter Buy-back Program which will be starting shortly, no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for relinquishing assault weapons registered after the Match 30, 1992 deadline.
Get that? They allowed these guns to be registered (because they deemed them legal), then later moved the bar and ordered them to be relinquished without compensation. i.e. confiscation- even by Jade and Laci’s measure. Unless you are going to count the reimbursement of the registration fee since the DOJ office cashed the checks? Are you going to say getting $19 back disqualifies it as a confiscation?
Dog gone: “My argument is that if a certain category of guns is determined to be illegal…”
And if you registered it, they know where to find you. That is the reason why so many people oppose registration, and it is the exact example I showed you after you said there has never been a single instance of this happening. At this point, you can say “yeah it happened, but it is rare, and I don’t approve- these are gun-ban extremists” and we can move on.
TS, You cannot own hand grenades and those nifty surface-to-air rocket launchers. Why aren't you bitching about that? Why have you drawn the line at pistols and rifles? And why can't someone else draw a different line?
ReplyDeleteRegistration leading to confiscation is a tired argument that most don't really believe in anyway. Do you, in your heart of hearts, do you really think that would happen?
And like the others have pointed out the word "confiscation" as you keep using it conjures up a very different picture than certain weapons being wothdrawn for compensation. The intent of that word is the classic Jack-booted government thugs kicking your door in. That's just nonsense.
I found this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/
to be pretty interesting.
The author states that in only a few instances of crimes committed with machine guns, in the U.S., have those crimes been committed by LMGGO's.
His stated reason?
"Today, nearly a quarter of a million machineguns are privately owned by law abiding US citizens. For many people this may seem incredible. But in the many decades since the NFA was enacted into law, there has been only three instances of a legally registered, privately owned machinegun being used in a crime. As a group, machineguns represent the least likely type of weapon to be used in a crime. This is because machinegun owners have chose to subject themselves to the close scrutiny of the Federal Government. Machinegun collectors have a lot at stake in their hobby. Even the most trivial technical violation of the law could result in the seizure of their collection. As a result, machinegun owners are extremely conscious of their legal responsibilities, and are more than willing to police themselves and report unlawful activities to Federal law enforcement officials."
Geez, that's coming from a guy who REALLY likes him some GENYOOWINE FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS!!
Mikeb302000: I think you should quote that paragraph right at the top of every single post you write about registration and regulatiion.
If it's important that machinegun collectors keep track of their weapons, use and transport them responsibly and report suspicious activity around their sale/possession then maybe they're onto something.
Look Mike, dog gone asked for a single instance. I gave her 1500. You guys said it doesn't count if it is a forced by-back. I showed you there was no compensation for those 1500 people. Now you further move the bar and say it is only confiscation if a door is kicked in. Give me a break. The letters threaten arrest, that is not good enough for you?
ReplyDeleteAnd an SKS is not a surface to air missle. The fact that so many on your side want to equate a detachable magazine with a SAM is part of the problem. CA has a bill in the works requiring registration of all long guns including prefectly legal fixed magazine SKSs. The precedent has been set that the AG can later call these assault weapons and have them confiscated. Why should gun owners trust that it won't happen? You should be disvowing these activites as much as we should disvow the irresponsible gun owner.
I keep asking for SPECIFIC names, TS, you only have allegations without backup.
ReplyDeleteI allege, TS, that you are only an astroturfer, paid to harass boards which write "anti-gun" material.
I have further allegations that I can make as well if you continue to post unsubstantiated claims.
One can allege anything, proving it is another matter.
TS, here's the deal,provide a reputable news source that backs up your claim of actual gun confiscation--AP, AFP, Reuters, etcetera.
ReplyDeleteWorld Nut News doesn't work, and neither does claims by the NRA.
If we are talking about actual, substantiated claims, you have yet to provide a single case using the above criteria.
As I said, I have many allegations I can make about you,TS, all unfounded of course, but I can allege anything.
It's proving it with facts that's the tough part.
You have yet to do that.
By the way, in my heart of hearts I can't envision massive wholesale confiscation throughout the country. Most states are pro-gun. The problem will be localized to citizens who live in anti-gun areas. I am also not so niave to believe the national dynamic can't change in the future. But remember, dog gone asked for ONE instance...
ReplyDeleteI showed you the letter for the AG, Laci, with a signature from Bill Lockyer's office ordering the confiscation. Did you read it? How much more proof do you need?
ReplyDeleteSorry for quoting world news daily. I don't follow them and they could be trashy as you said. But I followed that up with a scanned letter to individual gun owners. Come on man, just admit you lost this one.
TS: The bottomline is the law was never enacted and never enforced. No guns confiscated.
ReplyDeleteEvery year, there are dozens of referendums or initiatives that try to become laws but for one reason or another--don't make it. You can't seriously claim that laws that are never enacted or enforced oppress or hurt anyone.
"Sorry for quoting world news daily. I don't follow them and they could be trashy as you said. But I followed that up with a scanned letter to individual gun owners. Come on man, just admit you lost this one.
ReplyDeleteSeptember 20, 2011 3:47 PM"
And commenters from your side of the gun range say that the Brady Campaign is not to be believed. You pick up something from WND and post it without checking its veracity? Joseph Farah is a KKKristianist Dominionist (even though he's catholic, afaia) and wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass. Well, either that or he's a cynically manipulative profiteer making money off of credulous boobs like you.
Here's a hint, if it's the WND, the National Enquirer would likely pass on publishing it. WND makes FuckTheNew'sCorpse* dreck look like journalism.
* You may know them as Fox News.
Since you miss the point, TS, I may have to post my allegations about your child pornography empire.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can allege anything, but whether the allegation is backed up by verifiable sources is another matter.
You have not posted any information that is backed up by a reliable source. as democommie said:
And commenters from your side of the gun range say that the Brady Campaign is not to be believed. You pick up something from WND and post it without checking its veracity?
Is it too much to ask that you provide a reputable source that backs up your claim?
Or do I have to post about your Child pornography empire, TS?
Laci and democommie, I showed you all the actual letter from the California Attorney Generals office sent to registered gunowners reneging their registration and threatening arrest. Forgot about WND. They maybe a lie factor, I don't know, I don't care- but they were RIGHT on this one. How do I know that? For the same reason you know it is right- because I showed you the damn letter with signatures from the AG's office. You can address the letters, or admit you are wrong. Because what you don't have, Laci, is a letter with my signature on it confessing that I am engaged in child pornography. That is what I showed you.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jade, there are two things that I showed you. One was an attempt as mass confiscation thwarted by the NRA and SAF. The other was a completed confiscation of certain SKSs. You can address the former by claiming it wasn't enacted (but stop saying no one has ever tried it), but you haven't addressed the latter.
Once again, TS, since you keep ignoring this vital bit of the rules:
ReplyDeleteTS, here's the deal,provide a reputable news source that backs up your claim of actual gun confiscation--AP, AFP, Reuters, etcetera.
AND
I keep asking for SPECIFIC names, TS, you only have allegations without backup
The letters you posted are from the NRA website. There is no public record that verifies these documents as being legitimate. I tried finding the court case mentioned by the NRA, but it does not exist.
TS, I allege that you are a dealer in Child pornography and have quite an empire that nets you a fortune from the sale of this material*
The internet is full of unsubstantiated claims, which cannot be verified, or when verified are proven to be false or substantially different from what was claimed.
That is why I want to see some verification of your claim from a REPUTABLE and VERIFIABLE SOURCE.
You have yet to supply one of these, but I will give you examples: a reputable newsgathering agency, court dockets, public records, and so on.
Yes, I contend that your NRA provided letter is a fake and without any basis.
The internet is full of forgeries and lies. The Kenyan birth certificate claimed by Orly Taitz comes to mind. As well as my saying you deal in Child Pornography, which was done merely as an example of something made up on the internet.
Just because it is on the internet is no reason to trust it without independent verification.
Also Democommie, I didn't carelessly quote WND and then got lucky to find the AG letters to back it up. I knew about the letters. I read them years ago, so I knew it to be true and linked one of the first reports on it that google gave me. If you want to talk about WND's lies, I'll have to agree with you that they are not a strong source since they implied the gun owners were all compensated $230.
ReplyDeleteTS, I like to fact check and go to primary sources whenever possible.
ReplyDeleteI can't find a single actual name or person to check of your claimed 1550 counts of SKS confiscations. And Believe me--I check.
So, it is a matter of blind faith on your part that these even exist.
Unfortunately, compounding the problem, is the sources you cite both partisan and HIGHLY inaccurate. Apparently, you are not familiar with the concept of multi-sourcing. That means you have to verify that something from more than one independent source, not just the same uncheckable source quoted over and over. And that's what we have here.
Unfortunately, this is something that World Nut News, Faux News, the NRA and other partisan sources do quite frequently. And worse is that this is deliberate and intentional since these "sources" do not provide corrections once these stories are disproved.
Your letters are verified by WND and you make the claim that "I knew it to be true and linked one of the first reports on it that google gave me".
The problem is that digging deeper by trying to verify these claims through reputable sources comes back negative.
This is not true, but is an unsubstantiated claim.
I am doing something you should have done--contacted the California AG's office to have them verify the authenticity of the letters.
Laci, so you believe the signatures to be forged. Got it. I'll accept that as an answer from you (though very "birther-esque" of you). Thank you for at least adressing it. I won't pursue it any further because whatever I provide will be over the internet and could be fake in your mind. But maybe you should pursue litigation against these forgers. I mean, forging AG documents, that has to be pretty serious, right? There must be a gun nut who you can put in prison over this.
ReplyDeleteTS, how good are you with simple English?
ReplyDeleteI want these letters independently verified.
Is that simple enough for you?
So far, I only have your word for it and your verification was that the World Nut News published the letter.
Personally, I both letters are fakes in their entirity, not just the signature. You have yet to provide a serious, legitimate, verifiable source to back these up.
That does not work for me.
It shouldn't work for you either, but you are willing to accept a lie because it affirms your beliefs and fears.
Dog gone, thank you for taking the time to contact the CA AG's office. Please report back what they say, and if they confirm that the documents are forged per Laci's suspicion I will owe you both an apology. You will also be blowing the doors off quite the scandle, so we will see where it goes.
ReplyDeleteTS, this is what we should all do, all the time. It is something that should bring us all together by establishing a common ground of fact.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think this could blow the doors off a scandal and could be one of the most important posts on this blog.
I don't think we need to go to these lengths ALL the time. Conversation would stall if we have to make phone calls and emails to direct sources between posts. But if someone is going to call "forgery" on an official document, that is worth looking into.
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking this has to come from you, dog gone. Laci will accuse me of lying if I said I called or wrote the AG office and they confirmed it to be authentic. It has to be you. I trust you.
Come on, TS, when one of the sources posting this is:
ReplyDeletethewebfairy.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksrifles.htm
Wouldn't you start getting sceptical about its veracity?
Or do you trust everything the web fairy tells you?
So, far, I have yet to find a source that confirms actual confiscations whether compensated or not.
Better yet:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=13178
TS, anyone can check, it only takes a moment. Before anyone believes anything that is not multi-sourced, that comes form a single point of view, which is deeply ideological, you should check to see if it is true.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't as time consuming or difficult as you make it out to be. I believe it is important to know if something is true before I assert it, either publicly or privately. What I don't understand is why so many on the right don't seem to care enough to check--particularly when some of their most widely followed sources are so incredibly bad at being factual: whether it's Murdoch Propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, or worse. This creates a lot of sound and fury and noise and confusion that could be avoided.
My question to you, TS, is why would you believe this without checking for independent multiple sources? What I think you will find, TS, is that there was a single source for this and it was simply repeated by a lot of secondhand sources that notoriously don't care if it is true or not. They never fact check.
This isn't an accident, it's deliberate misinformation on their part.
I always start with the question--"is this true"--instead of relying on News Nut Daily for any information. They are a notoriously discredited source. The NRA isn't much better.
Dog gone, you asked why I believe this? Because I read the letter from the AG office. That is the direct source. It is not just coming from WND, it is coming from the CA DOJ directly. WND, was not the source of the PDF docs, by the way, and I am pretty sure that is not an official NRA site either. The contention is that Laci believes these documents to be forgeries. Do you? My question to you would be why do you assume official documents to be forgeries rather than admit you are wrong? That is a bold accusation. Very birther like.
ReplyDeleteSo if it only takes a minute, how did your research go authenticating these documents?
FYI
Bulletin no. 99-14-BCIA written 6/11/99
CA DOJ firearms department (619) 227 3703
Good luck.
TS, you might want to verify that document a little better since my search of 99-14-BCIA turned up:
ReplyDeleteTwo very different documents to what you are alleging
ag.ca.gov/childabuse/pdf/bcia04_14.pdf
and
DCJIS Information Bulletin 03-14-BCIA
www.dmh.ca.gov/services_and_programs/Forensic.../03-14-bcia.pdf
No offical State of California website has the document control number 99-14-BCIA.
Of course, the type of spurious website Dog Gone mentions has this document.
Why the discrepancy?
The word "Con" comes to mind.
As I have said, I have checked court dockets, lexis-nexis, westlaw, and other sources with no joy.
I am curious as to why your sources provide this when mine don't, TS?
TS, LexisNexis Group is a company providing computer-assisted legal research services. In 2006 it had the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records related information.
ReplyDeleteNow, wouldn't they have a copy of Bulletin no. 99-14-BCIA written 6/11/99, wouldn't you, TS?
Here's the screen cap of my search for Bulletin no. 99-14-BCIA written 6/11/99.
Now, TS, if it turns out you've been lied to, I want you to make a very large donation to VPC for them to keep up their good works.
"Also Democommie, I didn't carelessly quote WND and then got lucky to find the AG letters to back it up."
ReplyDeleteOh, but you DID quote WND without doing the tiny amount of checking that it would take to determine that Joe Farah and companys' contact with reality is fleeting, at best.
Furthermore, TS, what is your proof for the following statment?
ReplyDeleteIt is not just coming from WND, it is coming from the CA DOJ directly.
So far, the only places I have seen this are unreliable (as opposed to Lexis-Nexis which banks on its being a reliable source for that type of documents).
You have documents that purport to come from the California DoJ, but are not available from any State of California Website.
TS, (619) 227 3703, is a cell phone number (At least it was sprint).
ReplyDeleteDoes the S in TS stand for Sucka?
BTW, TS, World Nut Daily has copies of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate as well.
ReplyDeleteI take it that is also a real document!
As I said, I have yet to find the documents and verifiable proof of that document's existance from a reliable source.
Spurious documents with a cell phone number are hardly documented fact, TS.
It sounds more like serious BULLSHIT to me.
Laci: “TS, (619) 227 3703, is a cell phone number (At least it was sprint).”
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem with dealing with old documents. New number is (916) 263-4887. I am sure they can settle the issue on whether the document exists. Did you call that other number?
Incidentally, a search on Lexis-Nexis for document 03-14-BCIA (which you DO believe exists) also comes up dry. So it is fair to say “no hits” does not confirm a bulletin never happened.
Democommie: “Oh, but you DID quote WND without doing the tiny amount of checking that it would take to determine that Joe Farah and companys' contact with reality is fleeting, at best.”
No Demo. I already knew about the documents and also sent you a link to the actual letters written and signed by the CA AG’s office- and it is not affiliated with WND. So you also believe these documents must be forgeries? You too?
Or this number- specifically dealing with "assault weapon" registration. They can help you.
ReplyDeleteAssault Weapon Registration and Special Weapon Permits Phone: (916) 263-8100 Fax: (916) 263-0790
TS, I question the authenticity of any of these documents.
ReplyDeleteAmong other issues, I suspect that it is perfectly legal to post documents like these that are false, under the 1st Amendment freedom of speech/ freedom of the press.
You know - like the claimed true birth certificates the WND posted as FBI certified authentic.
As Laci has been helping me with some computer issues, we happened to be on the phone and discussed the authenticity concerns in that medium.
I made the suggestion that he contact the CA AG's office, by email. Email answers can be reposted here verbatim.
If we don't here back from them by Friday, we've agreed to contact them by telephone, and to report that information back here as an alternative.
Given the absence of any confirming data, you were TS a tad bit gullible to accept AG letters as valid without confirmation. There is NOTHING in the major newspapers, minor news print media, network or local television or radio from the period that confirms this.
That alone makes me suspicious.
I've seen all kinds of faked crap - particularly from World Nut Daily.
So, unless you've confirmed that the letter IS as represented, it is in question.
The lack of a named person at the top, with a verifiable address, should have alerted you.
So, as it is so easy to do.......why didn't you verify this with the AG's office, TS?
In fact, why DON'T you do so now? I won't even expect you to rely on Laci's and my words for the outcome.
Just be sure, if you do it by phone, to provide a number and a name, so we can check YOUR sources.
Yes, but 03-14-BCIA shows up on a google search and turns up on two different state of California websites.
ReplyDeleteAnd it showed up under an actual Lexis-Nexis search.
I see no proof you tried Lexis-Nexis, especially since you use an incorrect name for the service. Additionally, it is a fee paid service, and I doubt you have an account since it is a rather costly service.
The California AG's site does have information about the Zastava SKS, but that is not what you are talking about.
I have done a search of the California AG's website with no joy for finding the information you allege exists.
Quite frankly, I a beginning to believe that you are a liar, TS, who has yet to provide us with:
a) An actual verifiable source for a state of California document number
b) actual documented cases of firearms confiscation from a reliable newsgathering source--AP, AFP, Reuters,Lexis-Nexis, etcetera.
You have yet to do this, TS.
Nothing birther about it to ask you to backup your claims.
It's birther, on the other hand, to make wild and unverifiable claims.
Dog gone: “Among other issues, I suspect that it is perfectly legal to post documents like these that are false, under the 1st Amendment freedom of speech/ freedom of the press.”
ReplyDeleteReally? With forging individual’s (Doug Smith and Mike Broderick) signatures? People who work in the department of justice? Faking a letter issued from them acting in their official capacity- you are saying that is protect under the first amendment?
Dog gone: “You know - like the claimed true birth certificates the WND posted as FBI certified authentic.”
Actually, I don’t know. I never gave those people any of my attention.
Dog gone: “I made the suggestion that he contact the CA AG's office, by email. Email answers can be reposted here verbatim. If we don't here back from them by Friday, we've agreed to contact them by telephone, and to report that information back here as an alternative.”
Cool.
Dog gone: “Given the absence of any confirming data, you were TS a tad bit gullible to accept AG letters as valid without confirmation.”
We’ll see. I believe Obama was born in this country too. Call me gullible.
Dog gone: “The lack of a named person at the top, with a verifiable address, should have alerted you.”
It is a form letter. It is meant to go out to 1550 people. There is a name on the bottom with a signature from the AG’s office. That works for me. If it were a copy of an individual’s letter received from the DOJ, I would expect to see their name and address marked out.
Dog gone: “In fact, why DON'T you do so now? I won't even expect you to rely on Laci's and my words for the outcome.”
There are three reasons why I am not interested in doing that.
1) I already believe them. AG official letter signed by the Chief Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis works for me. It is you who doesn’t believe it. You call them.
2) I don’t want to look like a fool. Calling them to ask if a document that has been floating on the web for 12 years is a forgery seems foolish. I don’t know what their reaction would be, or how hard it would be to find someone to help you. To me, I would be wasting their time. As I said, I believe the document is real, it is you and Laci that does not.
3) What good would it do if I told you they confirmed it as real? Laci would say I am lying. How do I prove it? All I could do is ask you to call them too- so why don’t you start? I’ll make the follow-up call after you give me the name and number of the person who told you it is a fake. Like I said, you are the ones who don’t believe it. But it sounds like you are on it. Let me know how it turns out.
Just make the call, Laci.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it falls under the criteria for a fraudulent document (legally) if there is no addressee.
ReplyDeleteI will leave it to Laci to give a more erudite opinion.
But depending on when it was posted online - if it was after the AG had left the office, for example, and the alleged issuing AG was replaced by his Republican successor, there may very well have been no political will to act on this.
In any case........we will see if this is real or not. It is an easy check, and I think a pretty interesting one.
The best thing I read on this entire thread is when TS admitted he does not expect wholesale confiscations of guns in America. So, I say he should not use the word "confiscation," which conjures up exactly that. Isolated incidents don't count.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with the loaded word "ban." "Banning guns" sounds a lot more extreme than single types of weapons becoming prohibited.
These are words the spin doctors use to confuse.
As I have said, I have yet to have this confirmed as an actual document that was sent out.
ReplyDeleteIf you have other information, TS, please post it.
Otherwise, you are going to have to realise that you've been had.
But, I know that you lie since I just posted an actual Lexis-Nexis search that contradicts your claim that:
Incidentally, a search on Lexis-Nexis for document 03-14-BCIA (which you DO believe exists) also comes up dry. So it is fair to say “no hits” does not confirm a bulletin never happened.
I am a far better researcher than you are, TS, and as I said, I have yet to receive confirmation that this is a real document.
OK, TS, the number you gave (916) 263-8100 is for dealer licencing. There is another number for the office you mention.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, this document was never sent out.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteDealer licenses and assault weapon registration are listed as the same phone number.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/contact.php
Laci: “As I said, this document was never sent out.”
No, that hasn’t been your claim. You said the document was FAKED. That it was forged in its entirety by pro-gun people. Did you just change your tune? Are you now claiming that the document is real but never sent out? Did you learn something?
MikeB: “I say he should not use the word "confiscation," which conjures up exactly that. Isolated incidents don't count.”
ReplyDeleteThat is what your head conjures up. Pro-gun people get upset about ANY bans and ANY confiscations. You must know this by now.
Let’s not forget, this whole thread was started by Dog gone asking for an “isolated incident”. But you say they “don’t count”.
Have we received that "isolated incident"? I mean do we have a genuine, verifiable document, whose origin is a government agency of some sort, that shows that legal weapons were actually confiscated (in the legally accepted meaning of the word)? Or do we have a Gish Gallop of red herrings, unverifiable or unenforced/unenacted legislative initiatives?
ReplyDeleteI think you're an idiot, Mike.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you do, but would you care to elaborate a bit.
ReplyDelete