Nevada anti-gun (Common Sense Gun Control) people pushed for Universal Background Checks.  Bloomberg and Moms Demand spent millions campaigning to have the measure pass.

Voters barely passed it by a slim margin.  One of the key components of the new law is that it would cost the tax payers nothing.

The arrogant, ignorant law makers and anti-gun groups concluded that, since the FFLs and FBI already have a working background check system, they SHOULD have no problem piggybacking on that system for all gun transfers -- private sales, gifts, inheritances, etc.

Everybody who believed Universal background Checks would somehow save lives were literally stunned when the FBI refused to run the checks.  They had no legal authority to do background checks outside of requests from FFLs and law enforcement pursuant to retail sales through the FFL system.  Additionally, the FBI had no funding or resources allocated to accommodate the massive influx of background checks they would be expected to perform.

So, the arrogant, ignorant officials in Nevada said, "We SHOULD have no problem just raising the extra funding for the state to perform the background checks, since the voters had decided this new law was something they want."

The voters took the state to court, and the court ruled that what the state was doing was a "bait and switch."  The measure was presented on the ballot as one which would not raise taxes, and here they are raising taxes because they were too arrogant and ignorant to RESEARCH just a little bit -- enough to learn that their assumptions about what they SHOULD be able to do were just plain WRONG!.

The NRA was also in Nevada before the election educating the people that the measure would be Dead On Arrival if they passed it, but a majority of voters chose to believe the gun control and Universal Background Check proponents.  More arrogance and ignorance on the part of the voters.

This is a perfect example of why people who think like you -- pushing solutions they haven't bothered to examine below the very surface -- are arrogant and ignorant.  You're advocating for changes, but you have no idea of how any of the details will impact that solution.  Nor do you have any evidence that that solution will have any impact on violence or gun crimes.  And what you do know you ignore -- that these laws will serve to create even more legal landmines than are already on the books so law abiding gun buyers and owners will be at greater risk of being convicted of a felony for the bad acts of someone else.  I should not go to jail and lose my civil rights because I unwittingly sold a gun to a person who committed a violent act with it. 

Will the court take into consideration that the buyer would have passed a mandated background check anyway had I requested one, since he was not deemed "prohibited to own guns" under current law?

They should.

Arrogant and ignorant.

You ask of people you don't know to do something that you can't do nor explain how it needs to be done.

This is the problem.  People like you believe they can have an opinion based on "should", but have no clue about "is".

You're no different on this issue than a college kid holding a rally to "Ban Weapons of War from US Streets."

You don't understand the actual problem, so any solution you call for will be up to someone else to create -- even though your solution solves nothing and costs us more than any benefit it may provide.

You really can't come up with a good excuse can you, so instead you make ad hom attacks and suggest that because I used the word "should" that this clearly indicates something.

I think the government should protect our 2nd amendment rights but by your logic that's ignorant and arrogant blah blah blah.

A system is in place to do exactly this. I didn't suggest the NCIC take on a new task yet you keep replying as if I want some new system. I only said we should make sure that agencies who are supposed to enter data actually do. How is that so complicated? You want to find some IT excuse that isn't even relevant. Are you disagreeing just to argue?


You can't even answer why we should have any background checks for gun purchases at all.

You really can't come up with a good excuse can you, so instead you make ad hom attacks and suggest that because I used the word "should" that this clearly indicates something.

I think the government should protect our 2nd amendment rights but by your logic that's ignorant and arrogant blah blah blah.

A system is in place to do exactly this. I didn't suggest the NCIC take on a new task yet you keep replying as if I want some new system. I only said we should make sure that agencies who are supposed to enter data actually do. How is that so complicated? You want to find some IT excuse that isn't even relevant. Are you disagreeing just to argue?


You can't even answer why we should have any background checks for gun purchases at all.

I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...

A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to regardless (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction) of personal opinion
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)

If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?

I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.

At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...

A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to regardless (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction) of personal opinion
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)

If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?

I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.

At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct?

You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws.  Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell.

And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights.

You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct?

You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws.  Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell.

And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights.

Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Organized crime will find a market for whatever they sell (drugs, prostitution, guns, etc.) no matter what laws exist.  There are some cities that make it easier via corruption in government.  Chicago and Baltimore, MD, are two big strongholds of organized crime.

The problem isn't Joe Shmoe sitting on his couch playing video games.  We don't have gang violence because that guy said, "Hey, my rent's due this week.  I better go sell my guns to anyone I can to raise the cash.  I heard Chicago is a good place to go."

The problem is there are LARGE GANGS in many cities.  If Chicago can't find guns and Baltimore can, they trade the guns for drugs or cash.  It's an underground economy with no IRS reporting or taxation.

EEF saying Chicago can't be blamed because it's not a "closed system" is intellectually lazy.  Name one place in the US that IS a closed system, yet most have virtually NO gun violence while also having almost no anti-gun laws.

Ridiculous argument.

The "closed system" argument doesn't even remotely hold water.

Hawaii defeats that whole argument entirely.

We have strict gun laws. Yet we see illegal guns, even fully automatic guns.
We have a ban on drugs, yet we see all kinds of drugs a junky's heart should desire.
We have a ban on fireworks,  especially aerial fireworks....  holy shit you didn't take a look outside on New Years?

SMFH

The "closed system" argument doesn't even remotely hold water.

Hawaii defeats that whole argument entirely.

We have strict gun laws. Yet we see illegal guns, even fully automatic guns.
We have a ban on drugs, yet we see all kinds of drugs a junky's heart should desire.
We have a ban on fireworks,  especially aerial fireworks....  holy shit you didn't take a look outside on New Years?

SMFH

You’re talking like a logical and rational person. Gotta cut that out 

 

You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct? That is correct. Before the 1993 GCA amendment with the Brady Bill, there were no background checks. That happened because the President was shot.

You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws.  Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell. Using this logic, communism should work the next time because it wasn't implemented correctly and making it a "closed system"

And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights. What makes it unique? And yes there are restrictions but they're after the fact. You can't yell FIRE in a theater without repercussions. What else has restrictions? 4th Amendment? 5th Amendment? Ok I'll give on Section 1 of the 14th because it's not enforced, but taken by government. I will agree that we do need to find some sort of compromise and balance, but the protection of rights should always come first and that should be the test of whether the restriction should be in place. As for limiting certain actions, they already have. You can't carry in a Fed or State or Local Gov building or a school as well as other places as noted through local ordinances. It's already a crime to own a gun if you're a felon, or dishonorably discharged from the military or the other items on the 4473. But I will ask, how many criminals go through background checks? How many of the people arrested for gun crimes in the last year here in Hawaii obtained their firearms legally?

We can argue all day about should or shouldn't have restrictions. I can point to Idaho, a permitless carry state and how little gun related crime they have per capita. The same for Vermont (Socialist) or New Hampshire. You want to use California, Illinois, Washington DC as models? They call for more control because the criminals don't follow the law...?! Who's right or who's wrong? I will always go to the Constitution and choosing dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

(Man step away for this whole job thing and look what happens...)

I did bold the last sentence. And I did answer directly (see bold below). And no, I don't think there should be background checks. While I do not think criminals or the truly mentally ill should get them, background checks preclude the right because you prevent someone from exercising it by imposing a restriction on it. Do you make someone pass a competency test before voting? Which, is much more important in my book. Hell for that point, they should move the age back to 21 or better yet 25. How many 18 year olds can go to the bathroom without raising their hand; but we let them vote. We let 18 year olds sign valid binding contracts, but can't buy/own a firearm in Hawaii now because "they can't make adult decisions"...

I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...

A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to own and carry (that would be the keep and bear part) regardless of personal opinion (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction)
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)

If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?

I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.

At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I hope I answered your questions better this time

edit note: I moved some of my statements to make it easier (sic) to read

Realistically we live in a society that
quite frankly doesn't care about individual rights.
Democrats estimate they can deny you any right
under color of law and you won't get your
"day in court" till it no longer matters.
Cops will confiscate and sell your property
just because they can.
The guns they confiscate will sit out in a locked cage
open to the Hawaiian weather.
If you think Hawaii is free you are delusional.
We are no more and probably less free than the run of mill
Russian.
ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Jt9kLxDIo
( remove the space) This is an extreme example, but
driving into Big Island kine Waimea this AM I wish I still
had my bike. I could have cut 1/2 hour off my sheepish
law compliance.
My point is,  the more they squeeze, the less compliance they will
get,  they can't watch, or control everyone.
After arbitrarily making me into a criminal, by depriving me of my,
natural rights, don't be surprised if I now act like a criminal.

Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Hmmm, now that is interesting if true. Have a source?  I am interested in what variable might be at play there.

And no, I don't think there should be background checks. While I do not think criminals or the truly mentally ill should get them, background checks preclude the right because you prevent someone from exercising it by imposing a restriction on it. Do you make someone pass a competency test before voting? Which, is much more important in my book. Hell for that point, they should move the age back to 21 or better yet 25. How many 18 year olds can go to the bathroom without raising their hand; but we let them vote. We let 18 year olds sign valid binding contracts, but can't buy/own a firearm in Hawaii now because "they can't make adult decisions"...

You say you do not think criminals or truly mentally ill should get them but if not for background checks, how do you think we could enforce that?

What makes it unique? And yes there are restrictions but they're after the fact. You can't yell FIRE in a theater without repercussions. What else has restrictions? 4th Amendment? 5th Amendment? Ok I'll give on Section 1 of the 14th because it's not enforced, but taken by government. I will agree that we do need to find some sort of compromise and balance, but the protection of rights should always come first and that should be the test of whether the restriction should be in place. As for limiting certain actions, they already have. You can't carry in a Fed or State or Local Gov building or a school as well as other places as noted through local ordinances. It's already a crime to own a gun if you're a felon, or dishonorably discharged from the military or the other items on the 4473. But I will ask, how many criminals go through background checks? How many of the people arrested for gun crimes in the last year here in Hawaii obtained their firearms legally?

We can argue all day about should or shouldn't have restrictions. I can point to Idaho, a permitless carry state and how little gun related crime they have per capita. The same for Vermont (Socialist) or New Hampshire. You want to use California, Illinois, Washington DC as models? They call for more control because the criminals don't follow the law...?! Who's right or who's wrong? I will always go to the Constitution and choosing dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

The 5th amendment has some restrictions but the 4th amendment, I would say, has a much longer and storied list of exceptions, with a lot of it stemming from law enforcement. So while no one gets a background check for their 4th amendment there are numerous instances where a 4th amendment protection is denied. Not saying I necessarily agree with all of them but there is a historical precedence for restricted rights.

According to this article which quotes the ATF, in 2017 112,000 background check applicants were denied, of which 12,000 were referred for further investigation. Also in the article it says the FBI found that about 181,000 or 1% of firearm related background checks were denied because the person was prohibited from owning a firearm. It doesn't give a breakdown of why the applications were denied. And on top of that you have various states which have their own checks so there are going to be some amount of additional people who applied when they were prohibited. Percentage wise the number is not huge however that still does mean nearly 200,000 people who couldn't own firearms were going through background checks. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/06/gun-laws-report-finds-few-rejected-during-background-checks-charged/1213216002/

As for your question locally I don't know if that data is released to the public. Have to do some digging to see if it is available somewhere.

I don't think it makes sense to calling Chicago not a closed system to somehow justifying communism. A closed or open system is a scientific concept used in a number of different science disciplines from sociology to physics. If something is not a closed system it just makes it harder to determine the effect of a single variable because other variables are effecting it. So if Chicago were its own country with a secure border and the same strict gun laws but still high levels of gun crime then we could look at it and make stronger conclusions about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the gun laws. But since people can drive in and out of Chicago from other states with other laws it becomes much harder to prove what effect the strict gun laws in Chicago have on gun crime there. Even Hawaii is not a closed system though it is more closed than Chicago. But we do have lower rates of gun crime here too so the argument can cut both ways.

Realistically we live in a society that
quite frankly doesn't care about individual rights.
Democrats estimate they can deny you any right
under color of law and you won't get your
"day in court" till it no longer matters.
Cops will confiscate and sell your property
just because they can.
The guns they confiscate will sit out in a locked cage
open to the Hawaiian weather.
If you think Hawaii is free you are delusional.
We are no more and probably less free than the run of mill
Russian.
ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Jt9kLxDIo
( remove the space) This is an extreme example, but
driving into Big Island kine Waimea this AM I wish I still
had my bike. I could have cut 1/2 hour off my sheepish
law compliance.
My point is,  the more they squeeze, the less compliance they will
get,  they can't watch, or control everyone.
After arbitrarily making me into a criminal, by depriving me of my,
natural rights, don't be surprised if I now act like a criminal.

Even the Republicans have some history of doing that, including increased firearm restrictions.

Hmmm, now that is interesting if true. Have a source?  I am interested in what variable might be at play there.

It was done by the FBI. Its prob on their website somewhere.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Even the Republicans have some history of doing that, including increased firearm restrictions.

Other than the Bush racist  EO shutting down importation of some foreign semi auto's I can't really find
many examples of what you state.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
I looked.
I'm not a Republican.  I vote for Republicans
because I despise the Democrat party.
I'm not an Independent, whatever that is.
I'm an American.

Reagan signed serious gun control as governor of California, the Mulford Act in 1967, banning open carry (mostly in response to black people legally open carrying).

He also supported (post presidency) the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 nonsense.

You say you do not think criminals or truly mentally ill should get them but if not for background checks, how do you think we could enforce that?  You can't. Do the criminals go down to HPD and say "hey I need a background check so I can go steal a gun or pick one up from a guy I know for dirt cheap cause it's hot"? And the mentally ill are a whole other ball of wax that we as a society are ignoring at our peril for multitudes of reasons. Too many are ignored or thrown away. Most of the time when the mentally ill commit a crime it's our fault as today nobody wants to intervene for fear of legal repercussions. The Red Flag laws are too little too late and do nothing to truly help people. It just strips people of their rights without any true evidence, just the word of another under a secret court order. Think FISA for the people. If the gov't wants to help then pick them up and give them a 72 hour psyc hold. Oh, but you can't because it infringes on their civil rights and due process. But it's ok to strip them of their rights to own a firearm without due process.

The 5th amendment has some restrictions but the 4th amendment, I would say, has a much longer and storied list of exceptions, with a lot of it stemming from law enforcement. So while no one gets a background check for their 4th amendment there are numerous instances where a 4th amendment protection is denied. Not saying I necessarily agree with all of them but there is a historical precedence for restricted rights. But even 4th amendment violations make their way through a legal system and the "victim" is at least accused of a crime, not a "pre-crime". People aren't pulled over for going the speed limit, but the officer says they MIGHT be in the future.

According to this article which quotes the ATF, in 2017 112,000 background check applicants were denied, of which 12,000 were referred for further investigation. Also in the article it says the FBI found that about 181,000 or 1% of firearm related background checks were denied because the person was prohibited from owning a firearm. It doesn't give a breakdown of why the applications were denied. And on top of that you have various states which have their own checks so there are going to be some amount of additional people who applied when they were prohibited. Percentage wise the number is not huge however that still does mean nearly 200,000 people who couldn't own firearms were going through background checks. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/06/gun-laws-report-finds-few-rejected-during-background-checks-charged/1213216002/ If LEO is not going to prosecute, why are we even bothering? What purpose does it serve? Other than to impose a burden on the citizenry.

As for your question locally I don't know if that data is released to the public. Have to do some digging to see if it is available somewhere. please do and share

I don't think it makes sense to calling Chicago not a closed system to somehow justifying communism. (that was sarcasm) A closed or open system is a scientific concept used in a number of different science disciplines from sociology to physics. If something is not a closed system it just makes it harder to determine the effect of a single variable because other variables are effecting it. So if Chicago were its own country with a secure border and the same strict gun laws but still high levels of gun crime then we could look at it and make stronger conclusions about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the gun laws. But since people can drive in and out of Chicago from other states with other laws it becomes much harder to prove what effect the strict gun laws in Chicago have on gun crime there. Even Hawaii is not a closed system though it is more closed than Chicago. But we do have lower rates of gun crime here too so the argument can cut both ways.

What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
●       First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
●       Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
●       The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
●       The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
●       The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
●       The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
●       In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
●       It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.

In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers. To legally own a gun, an owner must hold a gun license, which costs R$1000, and pay a fee every three years to register the gun, currently at R$85. It is estimated that there are around 17 million firearms in Brazil, 9 million of which are unregistered.





The US doesn't even make this list and has the highest gun ownership in the world

referenced from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/gun-deaths-firearms-americas-homicide/

Reagan signed serious gun control as governor of California, the Mulford Act in 1967, banning open carry (mostly in response to black people legally open carrying).

He also supported (post presidency) the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 nonsense.

Puna,
Thanks.
That was about the time I got my first CA hunting license, I was twelve at the time.
I don't recall that particular law but take your word for it.
The only thing I remember was loaded weapons being a No-No
in vehicles and we had to keep them visible when transporting
eg in a rifle rack or on the dash
Cased, unloaded firearms were OK in the glove box, trunk, in the back of a station wagon,
or in the bed of a pickup.
As to the later  anti-gun support, wasn't he suffering Dementia then?

Brazil has lots of gun crimes. So many vids with 2 dudes on a moped or motorcycle robbing at gun point.

IIRC, they wanted to repeal their gun laws so any citizen can carry. Idk what ever came about that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk