search
top

Delaware Gun Shennanigans

SayUncle was on top of it while I was busy digging up Dan Cooper’s campaign donating records.  I guess the Pennsylvania State Police are giving free lessons on operating illegal gun databases to neighboring states.

You know, when the “crazy” folks said all this instant check stuff was really a conspiracy to register all gun sales, only to have people tell them “you’re crazy, there are built-in legal protections to make sure that doesn’t happen” — it’s usually not very helpful to make their worst paranoid delusions actually come true.  That destroys credibility, and makes it harder for us pragmatic persons, or “prags” as we are often called, to argue that the political process is a worthwhile outlet to redress their grievances.

7 Responses to “Delaware Gun Shennanigans”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    Well, like I said, most of these so called controls to keep guns out of criminals’ hands do nothing of the sort and instead only violates the rights of the citizenry. They are feel good measures that harm us more than help.

  2. Mike w. says:

    Those built in “legal protections” mean nothing if the .gov officials they’re aimed at don’t suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

    I’m actually more pissed off that they denied a woman’s purchase because of her age, gender, and disability than I am about the illegal database. Not that the latter is a trivial matter of course.

  3. Joe Huffman says:

    The same sort of thing has happened with NICS.

    I don’t know about the Delaware law, but in general the problem is that there is no penality if the state does something they specifically are told they cannot do. The law that says, “Destroy them within 60 days.” Should go on to say, “Records not destroyed are considered evidence of criminal misconduct and those responsible shall be fined up to X dollars and spend X months in jail. Any records used by the state after the 60 days, unless authorized by a judge for an active criminal case, shall result in summary execution (I’d be willing to negoitate this last point some) of all those involved.” And that should be a “strict liability” type of test. That is the defendent should have to prove they are innocent rather than having a presumption of innocence.

  4. B Smith says:

    Dear Government:
    What you DON’T have is a database of the firearms I’ve bought and sold in private transactions ( the type of which, thanks to your illegal activities and contempt for the rule of law, I now engage in almost exclusively).
    There will come a time, if you continue this course, when you finally succeed in creating a entirely new class of criminals where none now exist—i.e., peaceable, recreational firearms owners. When this event occurs, be advised that I (and several million others) will CEASE TO CARE about being branded a ‘criminal’, and such “mala prohibitae” laws will be widely and casually disobeyed. After all, why should one be concerned with laws passed by any legislature that holds its own members immune to and above those same laws? It is tyranny, and not the American Way.
    You can, of course, avert this new rebellion by simply obeying your own laws, and getting you big, fat nose the hell out of the business of private citizens engaged in lawful activities. Failing that, I’m afraid you have a rough course ahead of you.
    Much love (well, okay…NOT)
    B

  5. Mike w. says:

    I guess I should mention that my previous comment was inaccurate. It was her husband that was disabled not the woman who was denied the right to purchase a gun.

  6. J. Levin says:

    I have a question for a few of the folks on this list. Respectfully, why do you not want the state to register the firearms that you own? I like the idea of the state being able to know whose gun was used in an illegal activity. If a person is buying guns and selling them to people who are not legally allowed to own guns, or people formerly convicted of violent crimes, gang members, minors etc. or if someone who was legally allowed to own a firearm and commits a crime. I’d like the authorities to be able to track them down. If you are not doing anything illegal, you should have nothing to worry about. I purchased both within the past year. They called Harrisburg (I presume) and checked if there was any reason that i should not be sold the gun. It took 10 minutes total to fill out the sales forms and have the check done.

    I own two pistols, and living in Pennsylvania, I need to have them both registered (or the sales recorded). I have no problems with the government knowing I have them, It helps when I sell a gun to prove that it is no longer mine, so any violations involving that gun, is not my problem anymore.

    I would hate to have the cops show up to my door to arrest me for something involving a gun I sold two years ago. My neighbor had that problem and it followed him for several years. His wife was not amused when the FBI showed up at her doorstep demanding to know where he was.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Because you can’t compel criminals, who can’t legally own firearms, to register them. It’s a violation of their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination to charge them with a crime. The only thing a registry does is tell you who the legal owner is, which in the vast majority of crime cases is useless information. Crimes aren’t being committed, by in large, with legally owned guns.

    But the main reason to oppose registration is that it fails the Jews in the Attic test. It can be used by government in the event anyone ever decides to confiscate firearms. If you believe the Second Amendment was intended to protect us from government as much as criminals, then it can’t really serve its purpose if hypothetical despots can just print out a database, and go door-to-door.

    That said, we largely already have registration in this country, it’s just that the information is more distributed, in the form of Form 4473s being spread out among dealers all over the country.

top