Your posts are a welcome addition to Slog, Chicago Fan.

Yep, time to raise standards for gun ownership across the board. Actually link up state databases to the federal background check system in a serious way and require that private transactions go through a background check. Basically, the president's plan would go a long way towards targeting this type of violence.

@2: Will the gun background checks work similarly to the background checks that the purveyors of much of this violence go through when they purchase bulk narcotics for distribution? Those work pretty well, so it seems like a natural fit.

What's with the hostility towards background checks? We already go through those when purchasing from an FFL; it's pretty painless. Heck, with a CPL, you don't even need a waiting period on handguns. FFL sales are smooth as heck right now, so I'm not sure what the resistance is to making private sales meet the same standards. It is certainly possible that I am missing some facet of this.

@5: I personally don't care about background checks, every gun I've ever purchased (except from my dad) has been through one.

I just can't believe people are naive enough to think that it will deter criminals, the same ones who currently distribute tens of billions of dollars worth of supposedly highly illegal substances into every single neighborhood in the country. Do you suspect, maybe, that the people who currently deal in those millions of pounds of drugs would *maybe* think about opening a sideline business in selling a few of the hundreds of millions of guns that are in distribution?

All of the urban gun enthusiasts in chitown will never go through checks, these fucks are criminals with broken minds, families, and morals. It would take the 101st division to clean house and maintain stability. Gun violence is a secondary bi-product of broken society.

You ever notice how the Strangers gun nut is a hillbilly cracker, yet most killers are urban blacks?

@4 - the gun violence in Chicago is not so much drug-related any more. It's more an epidemic of gun violence as a meme unrelated to anything but geography, like how suicide rates go up if you talk about suicide.
But I mainly know this stuff due to the two most recent This American Life episodes, so what do I know?

It's not so much that I think that the criminals will pass background checks, but rather that it would mean that we're doing what we can to keep disqualified people from owning guns (mostly) from within the current framework of laws. Pass more laws once the current ones prove to be insufficient. Don't expect that a good solution to poor enforcement is more laws.

Thanks, Chicago Fan.

You notice that that some of those whom we respect give their lives -- for a few moments, hours -- to pretense.

And then you offer not-very-well-known data as a way to re-open a conversation that we should have.

Speaking of enforcing existing laws, there's this:

"Interestingly, however, is the fact that while Chicago has one of the most stringent gun ownership laws in the nation, most criminals caught with illegal guns never do jail time."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/01/c…

I saw SPD Deputy Chief Nick Metz speak today. He was the commander on the scene at Cafe Racer, the Jewish Federation shooting, and the Capitol Hill Massacre. His daughters were there. He spoke movingly about how being the one who gets to go to peoples' houses and tell them that they will never see their loved ones again changes your perspective on "gun freedoms".

Cheryl Stumbo was there as well. She was shot at the Jewish Federation, but unlike some others survived. She comes from a gun-owning family; her own father was a member of the NRA (but is no longer).

When you see the living damage that gun violence does in our community, it hits hard, it really does. We tend to talk about punishment a lot in this country, but we don't talk about the misery of the survivors much. They are everywhere around us.

If guns are responsible for homicide deaths, then you are saying they are a "moral hazard"...one that encourages, entices, or augments a person's ability to perform a criminal act, correct? If that is the case, would you significantly lessen the sentence of, or even release, those who are serving time for gun related charges because under gun control it would have been impossible to do those same crimes?

Boring Dad Is Boring believed that all these deaths and injuries and shootings are worth it. He's more than willing to have innocents pay the ultimate price so he can have guns.

*believes

I'm sure the teens and gangs are totally buying guns from legitimate sources.

And, I'm sure their poverty and desperation level has nothing to do with any of this.

So, what you're saying is that Chicago is a shithole, right? Wow, tell me something I didn't know already.

It would simplify things if we just took any weapon that is not useful for hunting off the market. In terms of utility, one could argue that certain persons do need a shot gun. people living on tribal lands or in remote areas where grocery shopping just isn't a possibility, or who are too poor to sustain themselves otherwise, could be allowed access to weapons necessary to obtain food. Perons living in areas where wildlife can present a physical danger (polar bears, Burmese pythons, rattlesnakes, etc) could have access to said weapons as well.

There are no practical uses for handguns or assault weapons. These devices are only useful for killing humans. You cannot convince me that you are going to hunt deer with a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun.

Given that the whole problem is people murdering people with guns, those guns useful only for killing humans and serving no other purpose should be banned. I can also see banning firearms altogether in places where hunting does not occur, such as high human population density areas. I doubt anyone is going to hunt squirrel in Volunteer Park.

Beyond that, those receiving a permit for a gun should be able to demonstrate the proper use, safe storage, and maintenance of the weapon.This is primarily to remove any possible legal defense should the firearm belonging to such a person be used in a crime. If you have been certified, it must be a legal acknowledgement that if this weapon is involved in the death of a human, you will have no legal defense whatever. It is your responsibility to secure that weapon and not to misuse it or fail to maintain it.

it will take time to reduce the existing number of firearms on the street. Many of the legally purchased weapons are now in illegal hands. By turning off the tap, we do not empty the sink. Time has to pass before the drain can remove what's out there.

But at least we can stop the overflowing rivers of blood running down the streets of America's cities.

#23 - of course they're not using those weapons for hunting. They're getting ready for the second 'murkin revolution, when they will use their weapons to kill law enforcement officers, government officials, and anyone else who stands in the way of their revolution.* Why, it's right there in the Constitution!

* - they will only do these things in the fantasy world they live in.

@4 the difference between narcotics and guns is that all guns start out being purchased legally. We need a method for knowing who the straw purchasers are, and if we can track (at least all the new) guns that get sold that way (or identify who the common denominator is when illegal guns are found, that is a good first step. Are there a bunch out there already? yes. Will ANY new law change that? No. But it will start things off.

@25 Yes. Gun smuggling has never ever been a thing.

Ever.

@26 So, it's American poverty where greed and commercialism through advertisement meets gigantic income disparity and poverty.

Raising the minimum wage to $15-20 (which is where is should be compared to what it was 40-50 years ago once inflation and productivity is factored in) would probably do more to reduce firearm related violence than any of the gun-control proposals that have been discussed.

"Do the calculations and you realize that in the past 15 years, 8,083 people have been killed, most of them in a concentrated part of the city."

So does it make more sense to demand higher taxes to pay for more police to patrol that "concentrated part of the city"?

Or should the focus be on removing the legally owned guns from law-abiding citizens?

Strange how that always works out.

@ 31, name any legal proposition currently before any full legislative body that aims to "remov[e] legally owned guns from law-abiding citizens".

@32
Hi, Matt from Denver.
What was that?
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

"... my righteous judgment ..."

Well that's okay then as long as it is righteous.

@ 33, translation: "No, Matt from Denver. I know of no such bill before any legislative body in the United States."

I figured as much.

@34
"translation"

What was it you said about people who put words in other people's mouths?
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

I do not regard you as a rational person.
I do believe that you have trouble understanding basic English when the statements contradict your personal opinions.
I also believe that you have problems distinguishing your personal opinions from facts.
As evidenced by your previous post referring to your "righteous judgment" and your continuing claims that I have lied despite your inability to quote any specific lie.

Matt @34, the new New York law does exactly that. Just because people may not know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

We know that it's possible to restrict many kinds of guns, from hand guns to machine guns, to only those who can handle the responsibility. The NRA's reasons for warping the meaning of the Second Amendment are to distribute guns to the largest market possible. Every idiot with a credit card. As if freedom would die unless the most incompetent among us are armed.

Serious gun enthusiasts can get there hands on all manner of military hardware, if they really want it. This is about arming dilettantes who want an impressive gun collection without paying any dues. It's why the loudest defenders of "gun rights" sound so crazy: they're just the ones who wouldn't be allowed to have a gun under sensible rules. They know the governemnt isn't coming for everyone's guns, but the government is coming for every fuckhead's gun.

@ 36, when you won't answer a straight question, I will decide what you mean. If you don't like that, then just answer the question. It should make absolutely no difference whether I'm the one posing it or not, especially to someone who took great offense at my wondering whether your initials (f.u.) were a coincidence.

Also, you keep lying when you claim that I didn't catch you in a lie. Here.

@ 37, which law? Is there a link?

@39
"when you won't answer a straight question, I will decide what you mean."

Of course you will. Because you have "righteous judgment".
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

But if anyone else does that then they are:
"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"Also, you keep lying when you claim that I didn't catch you in a lie."

That link is to one of YOUR posts.
Not one of MINE.
Your "support" for your claim that I have lied is to link to a post of yours where you claim that I have lied.

Like I said, I do not regard you as a rational person.
I do believe that you have trouble understanding basic English when the statements contradict your personal opinions.
I also believe that you have problems distinguishing your personal opinions from facts.

Matt, try this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass…

@ 34 you said:

...and your continuing claims that I have lied despite <your inability to quote any specific lie.

I highlight the word "your" because you mean me, Matt from Denver. You mean that you wanted a link to ... one of MY posts. I gave it to you, and it names your lie.

Shifting the goalposts... shameful. And dishonest.

@ 41, thanks for that. Reading it over, this part sounds like it could be spun as "gun grabbing..."

On January 15, 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the New York Safe Act) which has a tougher assault weapons ban including provisions to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. This allows the revocation of gun licenses for those who are a danger to themselves and mental health case workers now have the official capacity to report the mentally ill to law enforcement.

But to me it sounds like the sort of common sense thing we want if we're trying to prevent any more Newtowns or Aurora theater shootings. It doesn't sound like @ 31's claim that there are laws being debated or enacted that will "remov[e] legally owned guns from law-abiding citizens".

The article may not explicitly state it, but the law also bans ownership of "assault rifles," with no "grandfather" clause. That's where the confiscation comes in.

@ 44, interesting. I'll research it more (when I have time - I got to get my daughter to preschool soon). But taking your word, does the law contain provisions for seizing those guns? If not, would that mean that it's unenforceable? Would it survive a constitutional challenge?

@43 And, ultimately who is to decide who is a danger to themselves and others? Is it the same groups who are actively throwing people in jail for nothing more than their associations and acquaintances?

Seizure? Only when they're discovered in the normal course. There's no provision for a house-to-house search or anything like that.

Is it constitutional? Well, your guess is as good as mine. But I'll bet we find out. This will definitely be heavily litigated.

@42
"I highlight the word 'your' because you mean me, Matt from Denver. You mean that you wanted a link to ... one of MY posts. I gave it to you, and it names your lie."

No.
What I had posted was:
As evidenced by your previous post referring to your "righteous judgment" and your continuing claims that I have lied despite your inability to quote any specific lie.

The "your" in there that you referenced was your inability to quote any specific lie.
So because you do not like that YOU decide that it meant that I was responding to a post of yours where you accused me of lying with a request for a link to a post where you accused me of lying.
And in your mind, that sounded rational.

Like I said, I do not regard you as a rational person.
I do believe that you have trouble understanding basic English when the statements contradict your personal opinions.
I also believe that you have problems distinguishing your personal opinions from facts.

@ 46, you're contradicting your stated desire to see all guns disappear.

@ 47, in that case, I'm conditionally okay with this - the condition being that it's constitutional. I'm not a fan of the 2nd, but I do regard the Bill of Rights as a whole, and fucking with one

@ 48, if I'm not rational, why waste your time with me? What's in it for you? I suspect that it's because no one else will play with you.

@49 What stated desire?

@ 50 - Sorry! I was thinking of what someone else said. It wasn't you at all.

@49
"What's in it for you?"

You become the poster child for gun control on these forums by virtue of having the most posts advocating gun control.
Your posts contain phrases such as:

"Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment ..."
"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

So the poster child for gun control in these forums is irrational and cannot understand basic English.
Thus giving the gun-rights advocates an advantage as they are able to reference real facts.

@ 52, that's funny, given that my position on gun control is restricted to things like background checks and waiting periods. I thought you'd take greater issue with calls for the permanent banishment of all weapons being called for in this forum.

Nope, nobody's buying that. Nobody except your sock puppets, anyway.

@ 47, after further reading up on the law, I'd say it sounds like it was rushed through (as critics contend), but aside from granting power to seize weapons from mentally disturbed people making threats (and I'd be concerned about the potential for abuse), I don't see anything outright making assault weapons outlawed. There's a requirement to register with the state, which might make some paranoid types fearful, but I couldn't find a provision for penalizing the noncompliant, or seizing the guns.

It's the seizure of guns that I was asking f.u. about way up @ 32, just as a reminder to anyone who wonders. This law (The NY Safe Act) comes close, but mentally disturbed people making threats aren't exactly law abiding citizens.

@53
"Nope, nobody's buying that. Nobody except your sock puppets, anyway."

What was that I had just posted about you being irrational?
I don't use sock puppets.
So think about how that sounds to someone you've just accused of really being me in disguise.

Yes, "Matt from Denver", it is true. Everyone who disagrees with you is actually "fairly.unbalanced"'s sock puppet!

The Feinstein bill that is currently proposed bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation” of a host of different firearms, individual features of firearms, and magazines that are “capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.” That includes transfer to your children or beneficiaries. In the event of your death they would be seized.

Outright confiscation was deleted from the recent New York laws:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23757/…

However, the law does require anyone owning a magazine holding more than 10 rounds to sell said magazine out of state:

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-refo…

(Apparently Cuomo believes that said magazines are not dangerous outside of New York State).

Additionally, while current owners of "assault weapons" may register and keep their weapons they are only allowed to sell them out of state. (Once again, apparently they're not dangerous except in New York State).

Many gun owners are understandably reluctant to participate in mandatory registration (as called for in the New York State law) after what happened with the SKS Sporter in California and Connecticut in 2000.

Jesus christ, fairly unbalanced, you're entering Sgt. Doom territory. Give it a rest already.

@ 55, that was known as a "tweak." Obviously I really have no way of knowing whether you and "randoma" are the same person, but your similar posting habits raise the suspicion. As would the need to be able to post with some credibility around here.

@ 56, "In the event of your death [outlawed weapons] would be seized." ≠ "taken from a law abiding citizen." Neither does anything else you list = "taken from a law abiding citizen."

Keep trying?

@58
"As would the need to be able to post with some credibility around here."

And now we're back to that again.
I do not care whether you think I have any credibility here or not.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

"Fuck you for being a dishonest little shit. Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit."

"... my righteous judgment ..."

Your posts show that you are irrational.
You are not capable of determining credibility because you believe that your OPINIONS are the same a facts.
And when someone disagrees with your opinions ...
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

@58, Funny, I thought my children and wife were law abiding citizens. If the Feinstein law passed and I dropped dead the next day, if I owned any banned firearms, they absolutely would be seized from what would be their new owners, who are law abiding citizens.

Or are you saying (this is a QUESTION, not a statement of your belief) that if I died, leaving all my worldly possessions to X, and the Federal government stepped in and seized them they would be seizing them from me and not my heirs? 'cause I'm pretty sure my heirs, assuming I left anything worthwhile, wouldn't see it that way.

@ 59, prove that you don't care. Your every answer to me demonstrates otherwise.

@ 60, if you have an illegally acquired piece of art (say, something looted from WW2), should your law-abiding heirs be able to lawfully inherit it?

@61
"prove that you don't care. Your every answer to me demonstrates otherwise."

What was it I had said?
Something about how you are unable to understand basic English.

I do not care whether you think I have any credibility.
I do care about you being the poster child for gun control in these forums because you are irrational.
And the reason I care is that you are irrational and when the poster child for gun control is irrational then there is an advantage for people who advocate for gun ownership.

And still you failed to understand what I have just plainly stated.

@61, The difference is that in the case you present, you have something that you acquired through illegal means. Therefore it could/should be seized before your death. In the case of Feinstein's bill, an item that you legally own, and legally obtained, and which currently is legal for your heirs to own, will suddenly become illegal on your death. You may not consider that seizure, I do.

If there was a clause whereby your heirs had to submit to a background check and register..etc., that would be a different.

@ 62, the fact that you keep responding to my charges that you lack credibility demonstrate that you care that I keep saying so. If you really and truly didn't care, you wouldn't post it.

Anyway, you needn't take my word for it. Besides @ 57's testimony, many previous f.u.-dominated gun threads have people deriding you for being unable to make rational arguments. That is obviously stinging you, leading you to project onto others (such as myself, but I'm far from the only one) that THEY are the ones who aren't rational.

I'm far from Slog's most able thinker and debater, but I do pretty well for myself, and better than you for sure. If anyone (besides a sockpuppet) disagrees with me and agrees with you, they'll speak up.

Anyway, until you switch over to your "randoma" account and address me @ 61, I'll leave you to fulfill your desperate need to have the last word. See if you can make it good and actually answer the challenge I directed at you way back @ 32 (provide evidence that anyone is attempting to pass laws seizing guns from lawful and law-abiding owners).

@64
"the fact that you keep responding to my charges that you lack credibility demonstrate that you care that I keep saying so."

Again, I do not care whether you think I have any credibility.
I do care about you being the poster child for gun control in these forums because you are irrational.

And I know that no matter how many times I make that same point you will not be able to understand it.
Because you are irrational.

"Anyway, until you switch over to your 'randoma' account and address me @ 61, I'll leave you to fulfill your desperate need to have the last word."

And again with the sock puppet claim.

"If anyone (besides a sockpuppet) disagrees with me and agrees with you, they'll speak up."

And so it continues.
You are quite insistent that there is something other than simple disagreement with your opinions.
Or how did you phrase it before?

"Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

@65 - pwned.

@27:

U.S. gun manufacturers alone produce over a million weapons per year, and this doesn't count the hundreds of thousands more produced by overseas manufacturers and legally imported into the U.S. So, why the fuck would anyone smuggle guns INTO this country, when we've already got nearly 300,000,000 (roughly one-third of the entire WORLD ARSENAL of small arms) here already, and have been the #1 EXPORTER of guns to the world market for more years than anyone can count?

Oh, right. Because in your paranoid fantasy world, that MUST the how criminals obtain their guns - because it's so much easier than just going to a gun show and buying one - or twenty - off a private seller who doesn't ask any pesky questions about what you're going to do with all those guns.

@ 63, what if you acquired it legally, then discovered later that it had been looted? I think that was the case with something in SAM's collection.

@68, Seriously? The bottom line is that, at some point the 'artwork' had been stolen. You're comparing that to something that started out completely legitimate.

@67, the FBI/BATF is actually very good at tracing lineage of crime weapons. They're just not very good at prosecuting people for providing criminals with weapons even though there are lots of laws against traffic in illegal firearms.

Unrelated, but have you ever been to a gun show? The statistic that 40% of sellers at gun shows are non-FFL's does not include the fact that many of the non-FFL sellers aren't selling firearms. Additionally, the majority of private sellers are selling collectibles, not cheap handguns. In fact, percentage-wise very few crime guns are purchased at gun shows.

Here's a short article for you:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…

Universal background checks are going to have minimal impact on most of the channels listed in the article.

@ 69, every gun used in a crime started out as "completely legitimate" as well.

Anyway, do you also oppose the estate tax? Because that also "confiscates" property before the heirs can claim it.

@70, "every gun used in a crime started out as "completely legitimate" as well." Uhh. What does that have to do with Feinstein seizing currently legal firearms?

Since I think the Federal estate tax currently exempts the first $5 million, and completely exempts anything left to your spouse, if you want to include an exemption in the Feinstein bill for the first, say, 20 (completely arbitrary number, just like the $5 million) firearms in ones 'banned' collection (for items left for heirs other than your spouse) and exempt all items left to your spouse, I'd say that would be a valid comparison.

Which is to say, the estate tax has an impact on about 1% of heirs. Feinstein's bill will have an impact on everyone that owns a 'banned' firearm. Additionally, the estate tax doesn't have any impact on things left to your spouse.

Nice try though.

@ 71, if the estate tax is legal, what difference does the number of affected estates matter?

My point is that there's already a law that "seizes"* something from the deceased before it goes on to their heir. Feinstein's law, if it in fact does that, is comparable

But now we get to the crux of the matter. The challenge, remember, was to name a propose law that "takes guns from lawful owners." If Feinstein's law takes a gun upon the death of the owner before it becomes the property of the heir, then it's not being seized from the lawful heir because... legally, it never belonged to that heir.

But I've been very generous in even going down this road with you. You haven't demonstrated that Feinstein's law does what you allege - this is the law that you did NOT link way back at 56, where you brought it up. Nor could I locate the provision when I read over the law myself earlier today.

In short, you're making shit up. Feinstein's law does NOT contain a provision for seizing any of the banned guns from the estates of their deceased owners, contrary to your unsupported allegation that it does.

* Using your vocabulary here, not saying that it's the correct word to use.

@72
So because you claim that a tax is a seizure then it is okay for the government to seize privately held guns because that is the same as a tax.
No.
A tax can be paid with money.
But Feinstein's proposal does not allow for that.

(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

So the gun cannot be transfered from father to son upon the death of the father.
Even though everything else could be, minus a monetary payment.
And that monetary payment could be gained by selling other inherited property.

(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

@ 73, ROFLMAOPIMP....

Let's play that again.

it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter...

So the heir just needs a license, too. Problem solved!

FAIL.

Oh, and nice bit of sexism you throw in there toward the end. Can't a mother own a gun? Nancy Lanza owned several.

But even if the heir couldn't get a license, you and your sockpuppet still fail to demonstrate a case for seizure of guns from lawful owners. Because heirs are not owners until the property transfers.

Wrap your head around legal definitions of ownership, not what covetous heirs feel they're entitled to.

IN CONCLUSION.... there are NO proposed laws before any legislative body calling for the seizure of guns (any kind of gun) from their lawful, law abiding owners.

Thanks for playing.

@74
Strange, I thought that "licensed" in that context meant such as FFL.
Not someone possessing a permit.

"Because heirs are not owners until the property transfers."

I know that Ayn Rand liked to make a case for taxation to be theft and such.
I do not agree with her.
Why wouldn't the heir be able to pay the tax and keep his lawfully inherited property?

Because you want the law changed so that the property is no longer lawfully inherited.
So you do not get to claim that it is because the property cannot be inherited because that is the change you want to make.

@ 75, if you feel the proposed law is unfair, I won't actually argue with you about that. It's been a fun exercise, but it's not a position near and dear to my heart. (I've been playing Devil's advocate with my examples of looted art and estate taxes, not arguing that this is a good law.)

What I AM arguing against, however, is the idea that this bill proposes to remove guns from the ownership of legal, law-abiding owners. First, because the heirs are not owners. That's just legal reality, bub - I'm set to inherit a family heirloom upon my parent's death, and everyone in the family agrees that it's going to be mine, and I even kind of regard it as mine (I know where it's going when I get it). But it isn't mine, and it won't be until both my parents are gone. Second, because there's a provision for transference if they have a license, an heir who possesses sense can apply for one. If he or she proves qualified, he or she will get it, and then get the gun later.

When people go around claiming that "Government is gonna grab yer gunz!!!", this is neither what they mean, nor what anyone imagines when they hear such a claim. My challenge way back @ 32 was for you (or anyone else) to show that lawful citizens were being threatened with arbitrary confiscation of legally acquired weapons, and this law does not meet that challenge.

@76
"First, because the heirs are not owners."

Unless you are proposing some means by which the concept of private property be abolished then the heirs are the owners.

"But it isn't mine, and it won't be until both my parents are gone."

I don't think you understood the point that was being made.
Once the owner of the gun is DEAD (in your example the owner(s) of the piece are NOT dead) then the gun becomes the property of the legal heir.

"Second, because there's a provision for transference if they have a license, an heir who possesses sense can apply for one."

No.
The license seems to be for an FFL and such.
Example:
A father owns a banned gun.
His son also owns a banned gun.
The father designated his son as his heir to receive his gun when he dies.
When the father dies, the son does NOT receive his father's gun.
Unless the son manages to qualify as an FFL.
Whereas TODAY all the son needs to do is to pay the inheritance tax of the gun.

Again, I know what Ayn Rand taught but taxation but it is NOT the same as seizure which you are claiming it is.

@ 77, so I own my parents' house? SWEET! I need to sell that heap so I can put my kids through college.

Anyway, aside from that absurdity, you raise nothing that challenges my assertion that this does not constitute the seizure of lawfully acquired guns from law abiding citizens. You'd be better off trying to find a law that does that, instead of contorting this one trying to convince anyone that this is such a law.

@78
"so I own my parents' house? SWEET!"

Remember what I said about you being irrational?
Unless you cannot tell the difference between living parents and dead parents then there is no need for me to answer that.
Is there a need for me to answer that?

"Anyway, aside from that absurdity, you raise nothing that challenges my assertion that this does not constitute the seizure of lawfully acquired guns from law abiding citizens."

Except that it does.
Guns that are TODAY the property of the heir via inheritance will be ILLEGAL if that law is passed.
Dead parents are not the same as living parents.
What is legal today is not the same as what is legal after a specific law is passed.
Rational people do not have a problem with those concepts.

Ayn Rand and you are wrong about taxation being the same as seizure.

I would comment, but apparently my sock puppet (if I'm "fairly.unbalanced"'s sock puppet, is he also my sock puppet?) has already covered it.

The proposed law is written the way it is because Feinstein knows that she'd get voted out of office if she proposed gun grabbing from living people. As it is, I give the law about a 5% chance of passing and if it does, I'm pretty sure that Feinstein and a lot of other democrats will have difficulty getting re-elected.

Which sucks. I think our country, if not our entire world, would be a better place now if Gore had become President. And I think that a large part of why he didn't was related to the 1994 AWB. It was certainly a major part of why he lost Tennessee.

I'd like to believe that if Gore had become president that we would never have invaded Iraq and the cost of that war and subsequent wars would not currently be weighing down our economy, which is responsible for more deaths than all forms of gun related violence. So while you could argue that the 1994 AWB saved several hundred lives (and that would/could be disputed), the overall cost of the 1994 AWB was certainly much greater.

@ 80, ah! The old "it would be written that way if she could get away with it" ruse.

Look. Either there is a bill that proposes to seize legal guns from lawful citizens, or there isn't. It's clear that there isn't. EVERYTHING else is beside that point.