TexasCHLforum.com

I wouldn't list the owner.. just that it's been reported stolen in history.

Thanks, ghostrider, I get that angle... If it's a govt database, they could track who accesses it (at least by IP) and who is inquiring about specific serial numbers... That makes sense.

AndyC wrote: If it's a "read-only database", how does any data get in there in the first place to be read?

We're talking about a registry of stolen firearms that is already there. I'm not talking about something new. It already exists. I compared it to the sex offender registry because almost everyone knows what that is. In other words, not everyone can add data to it willy-nilly. There seems to be an objection to making that data public... I simply don't understand what the objection is... I must be missing something and I'd like to know what it is.

AndyC wrote: Or do you imagine a blank database is useful?

That's constructive, Andy, thanks.

AndyC wrote: I'm not happy with ANY form of registration even if it's allegedly "helpful". You can support the government with that, because I sure as heck will not. You're the same guy who wrote this below a while back, aren't you?

How am I advocating for registration? I'm advocating for public access to a database that already exists. Letting me check it before buying a gun helps protect me from possibly being involved in illegal activity that I'm not aware of. It also helps make the property stolen by bad-guys less valuable.

I did write what you quoted. The context is me complaining about quotes being taken out of context for political goals.. I want to know the context of a statement before evaluating it at face value. And yes, my views may be different than yours, but I'm capable of respectful disagreement. And I don't necessarily support those that were quoted, but I couldn't find indications that they were suggesting outright bans on firearms, which is what was being suggested. I don't people should bend the truth to get their point across.. that's not a win. We're better than that. If you read that as support for "gun-grabbers", I did it wrong.

AndyC wrote: I find your faith in the goodness of gun-grabbers and government disturbing.

Clearly I need to do better in describing my lack of faith in government.
In terms my "faith" in "gun grabbers" - I don't know where to start. It's not like we (you and I) might have some common political ground on 2nd amendment rights or anything. You can bucket what you think my beliefs are, I certainly support your right to do that. Just remember that if I don't think exactly the way that you do, we might have more in common that not..



But back to my original question:
How does giving the public read access to an existing database on stolen guns cause a problem? I want it BECAUSE I don't trust the government. That is, if I bought a stolen gun via a private party (such as a gun show) I don't trust the government not to lock me up and throw away the key, regardless of what my purchasing intent was. I've got guns I bought 20 years ago or more.. And honestly, I don't have a receipt or a DL#. I can guess what happens in Williamson county if I ask a LEO to check them for me and I something that was stolen.. Additionally, I'd rather not fork over thousands in legal defense to get out of that situation or have my ability to be employed be impacted because I was arrested for receiving stolen property.. That's how much I don't trust our government. I don't want the database check to be a condition of private sale, a condition of transfer, and I don't want to register anything.. I'd just like to know if I'm buying stolen property. Tell me what I'm missing.

AndyC wrote:Silly darn idea, just begging to be abused.

Explain how it can be abused as a read-only database?

anygunanywhere wrote: You trust government more than I do. Transparent government is an oxymoron.

I don't trust the government at all.. I supposed you could trust it less than not at all.

Why should data on which guns are stolen be restricted? Makes no sense to me. Seems that exposing the data would make stolen guns a whole lot less marketable and would make my chances of buying one that is stolen a lot less...

Then again, it might expose a data trail on stuff like fast and furious...

anygunanywhere wrote: If more government is the answer it is a bad idea. Whatever permissions you give to the government they will eventually use it on you. Opening up a database to allow private transfers to see if a firearm is stolen is a small step towards requiring all sales go through FFL and background check. This is what the antis want.

I don't see it as more government, I see it as more transparency.
No requirement changes. No doc changes. Just the ability to check a serial number, like we can for vehicles.

bayouhazard wrote: Trivial for the antis to randomly add guns that aren't stolen.

Not a database that anyone can modify. Not wikipedia. Think about the same concept as the sex offender registry. You and I can read from it, but we can't add people...

Texsquatch wrote:I can understand wanting to be cautious, but this sounds a lot like what anti's would argue against private sales.

Maybe, but why don't we have this database? It'd be trivial.... You and I would use it.