Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree. The ATF received over a 350,000 requests from law enforcement for gun ownership tracings last year. When the police have a gun that was used to commit a crime, knowing who the gun belongs to is often useful. Although a database of gun ownership is never completely accurate, it can give investigators a lead in tying the gun to the perpetrator.I was just wondering how long before "taking away the guns" would come up.
The law seems quite reasonable if law enforcement in Illinois ever hopes to have a record of who owns the guns.
Law enforcement doesn't need a record of who owns the guns.
well you know these ass clowns repub-lie-tards, they're afraid of every thing ...they lose their gun, then they buy another one, just so they can be shot by the one they lost ... that way they can say "see criminals have illegal guns too" ... who needs a back ground check, who cares if a felon has your stolen gun ... who cares if a felon buys your gun from you ... that's the ass clown repub-lie-tards way, they don't want no stinking regulations... they just want to complain how abuse they are by the gubment ...New gun law requires owners to report missing firearms
Illinois gun owners will have to report missing firearms to police and check the background of potential buyers under a law Gov. Pat Quinn enacted Sunday.
Quinn signed the legislation at a South Side park near where an off-duty Chicago police officer was killed with an illegally trafficked gun in 2010. He said the law will make it easier to recover stolen weapons and help ensure that only responsible people buy firearms. The measure passed both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly with healthy majorities.
Can you believe they actually had to make this a law?? -- to get gun owners to act like responsible citizens. (I believe most of them do)
I'm guessing that's because a lot people in rural areas buy a fancy new AR-15, have some funning killing cans and pumpkins, then the darn thing "goes missing" when it comes time to pay the credit card bill -- they have no idea how it ended up down in Juarez Mexico.
Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.In regard to tracking gun ownership, there is no violation of your 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd only guarantees your right to bear arms.Gee, really? Law enforcement doesn't agree? You don't say. That whole pesky Bill of Rights is a big pain in the ass for law enforcement and makes their job a lot more difficult than it would be if we didn't have it all, but thankfully it's there to help protect us from them. This wouldn't be a very hospitable place to live if law enforcement were free to run ramshod all over our civil liberties, now would it.Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree. The ATF received over a 350,000 requests from law enforcement for gun ownership tracings last year. When the police have a gun that was used to commit a crime, knowing who the gun belongs to is often useful. Although a database of gun ownership is never completely accurate, it can give investigators a lead in tying the gun to the perpetrator.
It is impossible for you to present a sound argument to this effect.No. A requirement to register gun ownership does not infringe on your right to own a gun.
Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.In regard to tracking gun ownership, there is no violation of your 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd only guarantees your right to bear arms.Gee, really? Law enforcement doesn't agree? You don't say. That whole pesky Bill of Rights is a big pain in the ass for law enforcement and makes their job a lot more difficult than it would be if we didn't have it all, but thankfully it's there to help protect us from them. This wouldn't be a very hospitable place to live if law enforcement were free to run ramshod all over our civil liberties, now would it.
Thus, an infringement.
Parade permits are constitutionally premissible because they, in their entirety, have to do with the time, place and manner of the exercise as related to the use of public property and the safety issues related to same.Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights.Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.In regard to tracking gun ownership, there is no violation of your 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd only guarantees your right to bear arms.
Thus, an infringement.
It creates a precondition to the exercise of the right - that is, a restraint- not inherent to same.Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.
I was just wondering how long before "taking away the guns" would come up.One day, if they're ever about to come and take everyone's guns, I wonder how many will suddenly be reported 'missing' right before? Mine will
The law seems quite reasonable if law enforcement in Illinois ever hopes to have a record of who owns the guns.
Law enforcement doesn't need a record of who owns the guns.
Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.In regard to tracking gun ownership, there is no violation of your 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd only guarantees your right to bear arms.
Thus, an infringement.
I was just wondering how long before "taking away the guns" would come up.
The law seems quite reasonable if law enforcement in Illinois ever hopes to have a record of who owns the guns.
Law enforcement doesn't need a record of who owns the guns.
Spoken like a true criminal.
I think it means you don't know what you're talking about.Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.
Thus, an infringement.
The Supreme Court has said that the latter is an infringement that is permissible. I guess that means that you are lying about the first not being an infringement.
I think it means you don't know what you're talking about.Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court has said that the latter is an infringement that is permissible. I guess that means that you are lying about the first not being an infringement.
Same for you, as proven here:I think it means you don't know what you're talking about.Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court has said that the latter is an infringement that is permissible. I guess that means that you are lying about the first not being an infringement.
Good to see Flopper is someone who knows his limitations.Parade permits are constitutionally premissible because they, in their entirety, have to do with the time, place and manner of the exercise as related to the use of public property and the safety issues related to same.Gun registration is no more an infringement on your right to bear arms than a requirement for a parade permit is an infringement on 1st amendment rights.Gun registration restrains the exercise of the right until those who woudl exercise that right meet a condtition placed on said ecercise by the government that is not an inherent part of that right.
Thus, an infringement.
Thus, your analogy holds no water.
It creates a precondition to the exercise of the right - that is, a restraint- not inherent to same.Gun registration in itself does not restrain your right to bear arms.
Thus, infringement.
It is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.
