Puerto Rico's 51st Statehood Soon - Gun Registry and Licensing Requirements scrapped. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48033281]i don't think a gun registry would be very effective considering there's fucking billions of guns in the us and getting everyone to register every gun would be a massive headache. didn't canada bave a gun registry that they shut down because it was a bureaucratic nightmare? and they have way less guns than we do although i would totally support a license to buy and checks on private sales[/QUOTE] You already need a "license" to buy, which is the FFL paperwork and background check.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48032309]Am I reading the same article? All they did was make it so anybody anytime can walk into a gun store and buy a gun and carry it around without any problems, no state has such open policies, even Texas requires a ccw permit[/QUOTE] Umm... Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming do not require a license to carry, and it's been that way for years...

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48032771]Puerto Rico is still a [I]long[/I] way from gaining statehood and iirc, they don't even really care to have it.[/QUOTE] Brings them voting rights, but also gives them income tax. Wonder which one is more important to them?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032333]I think gun registration is something that everyone should be able to agree with. Gun owners don't like gun-owning criminals, and non gun-owners don't either. Gun licensing is more on the fence but I don't see why anybody disagrees with registration[/QUOTE] lol a criminal isn't going to register their illegally-obtained guns

[QUOTE=Kigen;48033641]Brings them voting rights, but also gives them income tax. Wonder which one is more important to them?[/QUOTE] federal employees already pay income tax here. still no voting rights :v:

Taxation without representation? Looks like it's time for another revolution.

[QUOTE=Crash155;48033666]lol a criminal isn't going to register their illegally-obtained guns[/QUOTE] I don't think that's the point somehow. No legislator ever would assume a criminal would follow the law, that's why we have the law. With a registry of some form you can actually track where guns are coming from, you'll know who owned it when, and assuming it's found at a crime scene or whatever you should be able to work out how it came into possession of a criminal. Considering that illegal guns have to come from somewhere (hint: it's not imports, it's not home made, it's legally obtained and could be yours if you aren't careful) being able to work out the history of a gun could be useful in returning it to the rightful owner or finding the inlets into the illegal market.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48032309]no state has such open policies, even Texas requires a ccw permit[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry[/url] [QUOTE=proboardslol;48032333]I think gun registration is something that everyone should be able to agree with. Gun owners don't like gun-owning criminals, and non gun-owners don't either. Gun licensing is more on the fence but I don't see why anybody disagrees with registration[/QUOTE] Gun registration accomplishes no utilitarian goal, so I don't see why I should support it. People think it accomplishes something because of CSI or something, but guns used in crimes are either bought illegally from/through other people (straw purchase), stolen or given without regard to the law. Usually serial numbers are defaced in situations where a firearm was sold or given illegally from a third party source. People who kill other people with firearms they've owned should be identified as the shooter, they shouldn't be implicated because the firearm they owned was used in a crime. That's poor evidence. The final edge case is somebody who owned a gun legally, gave it to a prohibited person illegally, and evidence leads to charges laid against them. This however, is exceptionally hard to prove since they can just say the felon stole it, or that it was stolen by somebody else and ended up in their hands. It would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and in situations such as those (you're basically talking about hard evidence here, witnesses, cameras) there isn't a need for registration since merely handing a gun to somebody who is prohibited is against the law. Also it sort of necessitates mandatory reporting laws which ends up fucking normal people without exceptions that make the law pointless. I see no reason for the state to have a list of people who own firearms but to take them away at their leisure. A case can be made it would make confiscating arms from those declared mentally ill, or newly made felons easier, but I'd honestly prefer a search of their effects after being committed or imprisoned. I'd prefer it much more than having to tell the government I own firearms. Hell I'd prefer that being an unsolved problem to that (and in fact, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to keep firearms after release from these facilities because the presumption is that they are fit to re-enter society and should be restored all rights afforded to them, but hey, whatever) [QUOTE=proboardslol;48032386]Gun owners stand to benefit from criminals not getting guns[/QUOTE] They'll never not have guns so long as the second amendment exist. It is a futile exercise. Either thefts will increase or people will just break the law as they always have because they're desperate and need money. People rob gas stations for money all the time, and it already carries hefty jail time.

[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;48033736]federal employees already pay income tax here. still no voting rights :v:[/QUOTE] What's the total percentage of federal employees out of the whole island population? Yeah, they don't care.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48034185]I don't think that's the point somehow. No legislator ever would assume a criminal would follow the law, that's why we have the law. With a registry of some form you can actually track where guns are coming from, you'll know who owned it when, and assuming it's found at a crime scene or whatever you should be able to work out how it came into possession of a criminal. Considering that illegal guns have to come from somewhere (hint: it's not imports, it's not home made, it's legally obtained and could be yours if you aren't careful) being able to work out the history of a gun could be useful in returning it to the rightful owner or finding the inlets into the illegal market.[/QUOTE] That's how the system works currently without a registry. There's a paper trail leading all the way up to the point of sale. If that person sells the gun privately and the person they sold it to uses it for a crime the original owner is held liable. So in essence that's already done. As stated before lots of guns usednin crimes are stolen, so that makes any registry moot at point of theft. If there were a registry the only difference it would make is that now the government knows you own exactly these many guns as apposed to you were ran for a background check to possibly purchase one. The way the current system works the government doesn't know what you have, but if they need to find out they can.

[QUOTE=catbarf;48032069]The article only talks about overturning a gun control law. What does this have to do with statehood?[/QUOTE] A prerequisite for Statehood is that state/territorial law must be in full compliance with federal as it exists at the time of statehood application, universal registration has been ruled unconstitutional already so it was a clear violation.