Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Background Check Data is Being Used to Enforce the Gun Registration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344

    Background Check Data is Being Used to Enforce the Gun Registration

    Ammoland has a new article about the Hartford Courant newspaper and how they are promoting the idea that "Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law."

    I've posted this article in full with permission:


    Connecticut: Use Background Check Data to Enforce Gun Registration

    Published on Sunday, February 16, 2014

    By Dean Weingarten

    Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- When second amendment supporters say that “Universal Background Checks” is just a step toward universal registration, which leads to confiscation over time, those who want a disarmed population insist, no, it cannot happen, background checks can never lead to registration.

    In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant is calling for exactly that. From courant.com:

    But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

    Any time legislators have attempted to create a way for background checks to be conducted without a paper or digital trail that can be used for later gun confiscation, those proposals have been shot down by the people who claim that “no one wants to ban your guns“.

    If “the state must try to enforce the law”, what are the writer’s views are on enforcing the law on illegal immigration, marijuana possession, and voter fraud? I suspect that the writer only wants the laws that he likes enforced.

    It is clear that the ban on future ownership of so-called “assault weapons” in Connecticut is in direct violation of the second amendment of the Constitution. It is a clear infringement, if ever there was one. It is directly in violation of the highest law of the land.

    The article in the Courant shows exactly why “universal background checks” are a very bad idea, and why private sales should remain private. They are the safety valve that prevents gun registration and gun confiscation.

    c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

    About Dean Weingarten;

    Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

    Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/conn...#ixzz2tWERvWUc

    or

    http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/conn...#axzz2tWDAuQ9D

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Even the state has argued and found that disclosing such information creates a safety risk for those that disclose...

    This story fits in nicely with such a premise.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432
    Last edited by scott58dh; 06-27-2014 at 02:11 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ha ! He looks like a tool for getting a permission slip.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432
    .
    Last edited by scott58dh; 06-27-2014 at 02:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    People up here either Love him or Hate him, but he's trying to get' things done & I for 1 hopes he can for 4 more years.
    Well, I'm certain he is a pro-2nd amendment supporter; he likely just does not understand...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    Here's what went down in my State when "They" wanted to know who all of the *Bad Peeps* were that had a CFP
    And here is what went down in my great state when the AP requested the names of all CHPs:

    "HELENA – Associated Press reporters in Montana have been subject to online threats after the news spread that Attorney General Tim Fox had denied AP’s request for the names and other information about Montanans with concealed weapons permits. On July 30, the AP filed a report with the Helena Police Department over the online threats, said Jim Clarke, AP chief of bureau for Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming."

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/ap-...a4bcf887a.html

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The issue is : the information as to who has a permit is already known to the party that most people have a permit to protect themselves from: the STATE.

    If the state was really concerned, they would just have open constitutional carry

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •