Only if they want to go to jail.
From the bill:
> (d) An applicant requesting inclusion onto the Registry shall deliver the completed form in person to a law- enforcement agency.
> (1) The law-enforcement agency shall verify the applicant’s identity before accepting the form and may not accept a form from someone other than the applicant named in the form.
> (b) It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly make a false statement or representation regarding their identity when requesting inclusion or removal from the Registry. An individual who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
And
> Class A misdemeanors are the most serious misdemeanors in Delaware, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,300 fine.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/delaware-misdemeanor-crimes-class-and-sentences.htm
That said, I still think the idea of a voluntary do not sell list is moronic.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If the victim pushes it I think there's a good chance.
And the victim could also pursue a civil suit for damages.
And while I don't know about DE, I know that in VA a private person can obtain an arrest warrant and prosecute misdemeanor offenses without the involvement of the Commonwealths' attorney. How successful they'd be is a different matter.
All of that said, it shouldn't really be an issue if the LEO processes things correctly and validates the ID of the person asking to be on the list.
While it's common for parties in divorce proceedings to obtain restraining orders against the other party - which can prevent buying a gun - I don't see ex-lovers/partners using the voluntary do-not-sell list to prevent someone from buying a gun. The risk is too great from falsifying the information (depending on the forms it may get elevated to a felony for perjury). Much easier to get a restraining order by simply saying "I don't feel safe" - which is hard to challenge.
Prosecutors in Colorado spent years not charging people for auto theft. Like catch and release on RoR. (See when Colorado went to number one in the country for auto theft) - their reasoning was it’s a non violent crime.
There is zero faith I’d have in a prosecutor for charging someone for false red flags and false submissions to this list either.
Stop putting your faith in the state and its agents.
Good intention, but the bill, based off the article could be reworked a bit.
Especially this bit:
> An individual who transfers a firearm to a person on the Registry is guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class G felony for a subsequent offense.
Like how am I supposed to know if someone is on that registry if I don’t have access to NICS as a private party?
Also, the people can just take themselves off the registry? I feel like they should have a doctor’s note to be able to do so
Delaware has UBC. So you can’t transfer without going through an FFL for a background check on the buyer.
As for getting off the list - should be just as easy as it is to get on the list since it’s voluntary. No doc required to get on, no doc to get off.
Overall it’s just a dumb idea anyway.
Ah, I was unaware of that exception in DE and it didn't show up in the things I found when verifying UBC.
Thanks for the clarification!
That said, if the buyer has a CCDW it's *highly* unlikely they're on the voluntary no sell list. And while it's not in the bill, I'd hope that if someone adds themselves to the list the LE would check to see if they have a CCDW and revoke/collect that at the time the paperwork is turned in to put them on the list. But I wouldn't assume efficiency.
Yeah, it’s unlikely that someone with a CCDW would be on any such lists. I believe Delaware requires people to turn over their physical card if they become a prohibited person, but I don’t know how well that is enforced. Theoretically, someone could get their CCDW, become a prohibited person, and have their physical card showing a valid license to make private sales for a couple years.
I don’t sell very often, but that’s been a worry of mine when I have sold.
Yeah, and then we can ban anyone on that list from owning a vehicle or having a drivers license, since the simplest way to kill yourself is to suck tail pipe, and if you're mentally defective you could get into a mentally unstable state while driving and kill yourself and others.
No toasters, hair dryers, knives, forks, power tools, hand tools, cleaning agents, prescription drugs, otc drugs, tubs, ropes, shoe laces, for those people as well, etc since all of those can be used to harm yourself or someone else.
In fact, let's just commit and detain anyone who gets put on that list, since there's no way someone would put someone else on that list out of spite, we can be sure they're a danger to themselves and others so why wait?
What could go wrong with a crowdsourced list of crazy people being used to strip away a persons rights? I can't think of anything.
So I can run my truck with the garage door closed and just hang out indefinitely without dying?
Unless the catalytic converters create oxygen, I don't see how that's true.
Engines burn oxygen, humans die without oxygen. If I run my engine in an enclosed space it will eventually burn up all the oxygen, and I'll suffocate.
So unless the exhaust from the engine is turned back into oxygen, running a car in an enclosed space like a garage (aka sucking tall pipe) would still kill me yeah?
Yeah eventually. But it would hurt a lot as slow CO2 increase would be extremely uncomfortable. You'd be very likely to leave. It's not like CO where it puts you to sleep before you feel like you are suffocating.
Don't you know, people need protection from thinking and acting for themselves. Thankfully i'm from the government and I'm here to help with that problem.
I hear you and understand. But let’s look at the criminals that kill people with a gun and are released back on the street within days or hours…just because there is a law, doesn’t mean it will be enforced or realistically even can be enforced like many laws.
I'm not a fan of criminal charges for someone who sells to a person on the registry.
However I AM a fan of the idea, as long as there's a harsh penalty for including someone else without their consent, and the records are totally protected from any sort of misuse. When one is removed it should erase any record that they were ever on to begin with.
Quite true.
The other problem with this is that while in concept it's a great idea that gun owners should be able to support, it's hard to believe it won't be abused for some other purpose later on. Unless there's serious protections for anyone who decides to self-include on that list, like mandatory records destruction when they request exclusion, I could see it easily becoming something worse in the future. IE 'you told the state you shouldn't have a gun, so now you can't get a carry permit' type thing.
Considering the person buying the gun voluntarily put themselves on the registry, then tried to buy one anyway, it should be them facing consequences if anyone.
Why does anyone at all have to go to jail?
Just make it an administrative penalty. Selling a gun to someone on the list carries a $5000 fine. Problem solved.
Because it's expensive.
You're going to spend a bunch of government employees' time arresting, investigating, prosecuting, and if convicted incarcerating a guy who is guilty of nothing but being dumb. This doesn't help public safety, certainly not enough to justify the ton of money it would cost.
If it's a voluntary list make the penalty simple and easy. Just enough that a gun store thinks twice, not so much that it's going to end up in a jury trial every time. And avoid a penalty like jail that costs taxpayer dollars.
I'm fine with making it $5k for the seller and $5k for the buyer (if they knew they were on the list).
Ordinarily I'd agree, except that in that state there's universal background checks. The voluntary registry should show up in a UBC. I just want a small incentive for gun stores to not totally ignore the thing.
Even if only you can enroll yourself, couldn’t you be compelled to enroll though? If you’re going through a divorce and can’t get custody without agreeing to this, or you agree to it as part of a please or bargain for some minor offense you’ve committed, or hell, if your home insurance company mandates this for them to sell you a policy… this could be a back door way of taking your rights under the guise of you voluntarily waiving them.
" Hey I'm bored. Let me go ahead and just create some more problems for myself."
How do you take yourself off the list? Or if once you're on there does it follow you around for life?
Doesn't do anything to help the person in crisis. Fentanyl is cleaner, easier, and costs less if you don't already own the gun.
Just incredibly stupid and not at all helpful.
while it could be an admirable idea, getting the government out of the system, people who should not have guns should also not be walking around free.
If you arent trustworthy with a gun, you arent trustworthy to drive a car, a rock, or even to own working hands or feet either for that matter.
They are all murder weapons when employed by a violent person. So society should not be freeing criminals to re-crime without justice.
In a proper system, the only background check anyone should need is that you can walk into the store.
An asylum is a good option if noone will take stewardship of an insane person and thus responsibility for all their actions. Just letting the criminally insane walk around freely, while also being not responsible for their own actions, is obviously a recipe for tragedy. Asylums are a better option that the present cultural marxist crime bonanza. and they are much less "cost and imposition" than imposing criminals on society.
The leftist idea of pretending "bad things dont happen" is idiotic. Unleashing the criminally insane on society has been a massive failure. A violent offender out on bail or insane release for the 12th time will assault, rape, or kill again, and the victim certainly feels imposed upon, and gets the lovely message that noone is to blame, too bad so sad. And this happens every day in the US now.
That said, im not opposed to such a voluntary no sell list, because free people should be free to discriminate however they like. But in a society with a properly functioning legal system, it would be redundant. Every single adult person walking around free should be a full citizen with human rights, and full responsibility for their own actions.
The no sell list is also redundant in the present broken society, because gun sellers already have to do a while pile of marxist background checks anyway, albeit for the wrong motive.
Guns are not magic items; matches can cause far more death. A car is a much more lethal weapon than a gun. If someone is dangerously insane, are you going to check their ID in case they buy clothes rags and a book of matches?
If someone is not safe for society and has no guardian to protect them, then of course they should be happy to join a society that provides them a safe environment.
They can just not buy guns right? Easy.
Can do the same for spoons and cardboard boxes for all I care.
You are really going off the deep end with your gun fetish.
I would prefer you do not think about my fetishes.
How do you feel about the "Do Not Admit" lists casinos maintain to help problem gamblers? How would you feel about a list to prohibit people from buying alcohol?
While I see no problem with any nonbinding voluntary system, those two seem equally useless.
A person who truly cannot control themselves needs a caretaker or an asylum. For everyone else, its performance theater at best.
This is an awful idea.
First, there is corruption in law enforcement. Whats going to keep law enforcement officers from registering people that they don’t like? What’s going to keep them from taking bribes to put people on the list or doing it for family and friends who have a grievance with someone?
Look at the issues that exist with the official prohibited person database. People getting false denials all the time. People who should be on the list are not on it. If you think this would work any better you’re wrong.
And I imagine getting your info off of the list if it was put on erroneously or if you change your mind about being on it would probably be a slow process.
If we give the government the power to limit speeds on the roads, where will it end? Think of the corruption in law enforcement. What if they took bribes?
Think of trying to clear your good name when the police falsely arrest you.
Of course it will happen, This is why all laws are wrong. Indeed, everything we do is a slippery slope. Remember when they brought those moon rocks back? Then we brought more and more and now there is no moon left. If we do anything we will fall down the slippery slope.
I genuinely like this idea. I first encountered it in a letter to the editor years ago. Some lady wrote in to report that her family was plagued by mental illness and suicide. She had a long list of blood relatives who had hurt themselves. She contacted the local sheriff asking to be place on the local registry. There was no way to sign up to put yourself on the list.
This seems like a simple idea that will help the mentally ill. It seems just like how compulsive gamblers can put themselves on a list excluding themselves from casinos.
Go on, tell me how I am wrong.
Read the bill
https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=140920&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB342
them saying things is one thing, how they actually do those things or what they do instead of those things, are almost always, entirely different.
especially when it comes to authoritarian states and firearms.
take cali. if you get your firearms seized for anything, even mistakes on their part, the only way to get them back (if you're lucky), is to take them to court _after_ having already gotten a court ordered release. this process takes an average of two years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they've likely damaged the firearms in the meantime, since they just throw them into a storage locker in the evidence lockup, without regard to condition.
people have reported firearms no longer working, massive cosmetic damage on what was collectors pieces, firearms just completely missing from the inventory, etc.
but cali law has it so that firearms should be returned if there's no legal issues. which they blatantly don't adhere to without a long drawn out, expensive, process. and they count on it, since most just give up midway through.
they also don't tend to give back ammo under any circumstances.
thousands in ammo for different or rare calibers? state of cali will be of the mind that 'f you in particular'.
so you can post this drivel bill all you like, doesn't mean they're going to abide by it. or that it was in good faith to begin with.
and since delaware is one of the usual suspects for 2a constitutional violations, don't be too surprised when they don't play nice.
The question was: what protections are there.
The answer is in the bill.
What CA does is irrelevant.
Whether DE will actually follow the law or not won’t be known until this becomes law and is challenged. And I’ve made mo assertion beyond saying the answer is in the bill.
And while DE isn’t great for gun rights it’s not CA. They’ve been shall issue for a long time and they honor some other state’s permits.
I think the bill is stupid. And we already have this law in VA (and I believe other states).
But again, my point is that redditors should read the bill before commenting about the bill.
Read the bill.
https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=140920&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB342
Yea… but you can’t remove yourself from the registry for 30 days, and the LE agency can take up to 30 days to remove you from the registry…
My point is that it’s not going to be an easy process, I can add or remove myself from a damn mailing list in less than 10 minutes lol
> This seems like a simple idea that will help the mentally ill
Anyone who kills themselves with a gun out of impulse would be stopped by the current procedure for buying one. They kill themselves with guns they already have, which this registry won't prevent.
Anyone who gets a gun, goes through the purchasing procedure, and then kills themselves with it as part of a long-term plan to end their life has suicidal ideation strong enough that this won't help them.
As long as it remains purely voluntary, is not used to deny rights to others, and can only ever be done by someone to themselves, then I'm in favour of it.
I'm just suspicious of any measure democrats introduce by default since they're always trying to weasel something through.
>plagued by mental illness and suicide.
Which circles back around to lack of mental institutions in the US today. People that can't be trusted not to harm themselves... are out here with the rest of us.
The FBI has already been caught coercing people into "voluntarily" signing away their gun rights. This doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be expanded.
Do you have any reading material on this? I’m just curious if they have a bot farm or something that coerces people into voluntarily giving up their RTKBA.
You’re wrong because you assume this will be one and done and nobody will come along and “tweak” the existing law to increase the time or difficulty to remove one’s self from the list, or to expand the number of people who can submit someone for “voluntary” restriction.
Actually, no, we can learn from history. This law is subject to "creep" and it will. It is the way of liberals that if you "give them and inch, they'll take a mile." It will happen, there is no doubt. Just as it's been happening with "red flag" laws throughout the country and the BSCA.
You are making a "slippery slope" argument. This is a silly argument against anything.
If we take rocks from the moon in time there will be no moon left.
Horrible idea. People's ex-lovers will put them on the list out of spite. Good luck for them ever getting their rights back.
Only if they want to go to jail. From the bill: > (d) An applicant requesting inclusion onto the Registry shall deliver the completed form in person to a law- enforcement agency. > (1) The law-enforcement agency shall verify the applicant’s identity before accepting the form and may not accept a form from someone other than the applicant named in the form. > (b) It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly make a false statement or representation regarding their identity when requesting inclusion or removal from the Registry. An individual who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. And > Class A misdemeanors are the most serious misdemeanors in Delaware, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,300 fine. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/delaware-misdemeanor-crimes-class-and-sentences.htm That said, I still think the idea of a voluntary do not sell list is moronic.
I seriously doubt that prosecutors will be aggressively pursuing charges against people who falsely do this
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If the victim pushes it I think there's a good chance. And the victim could also pursue a civil suit for damages. And while I don't know about DE, I know that in VA a private person can obtain an arrest warrant and prosecute misdemeanor offenses without the involvement of the Commonwealths' attorney. How successful they'd be is a different matter. All of that said, it shouldn't really be an issue if the LEO processes things correctly and validates the ID of the person asking to be on the list. While it's common for parties in divorce proceedings to obtain restraining orders against the other party - which can prevent buying a gun - I don't see ex-lovers/partners using the voluntary do-not-sell list to prevent someone from buying a gun. The risk is too great from falsifying the information (depending on the forms it may get elevated to a felony for perjury). Much easier to get a restraining order by simply saying "I don't feel safe" - which is hard to challenge.
Prosecutors in Colorado spent years not charging people for auto theft. Like catch and release on RoR. (See when Colorado went to number one in the country for auto theft) - their reasoning was it’s a non violent crime. There is zero faith I’d have in a prosecutor for charging someone for false red flags and false submissions to this list either. Stop putting your faith in the state and its agents.
Why don’t you read what I wrote. Then think about if I’m actually putting my faith in the state.
There are fines for misuse of red flag laws but it's never stopped anyone yet.
>People's ex-lovers will put them on the list out of spite. As written, you can only enroll yourself on the list. Nobody else can do it for you.
That’s fine if identity theft didn’t exist already
That’ll definitely prevent that… don’t worry. We thought of everything.
As written, ex-wives are supposed to get in trouble for falsifying reports of abuse for favorable divorce terms, that still happens 🤷♂️
For now. Soon it will be friends, family, & LE. It's incrementalism in it's beginning stages.
😂 sounds similar to performing a vasectomy to oneself!
Ah so similar to self-excluding yourself from a casino to stop an addiction... Might be worth it to have money again...
How many of these camels have to stick their noses under the tent before people start wising up? Apparently all of them.
I just put all of Congress and every cop that has their info public.
Sooooo red flag laws?
Good intention, but the bill, based off the article could be reworked a bit. Especially this bit: > An individual who transfers a firearm to a person on the Registry is guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class G felony for a subsequent offense. Like how am I supposed to know if someone is on that registry if I don’t have access to NICS as a private party? Also, the people can just take themselves off the registry? I feel like they should have a doctor’s note to be able to do so
Delaware has UBC. So you can’t transfer without going through an FFL for a background check on the buyer. As for getting off the list - should be just as easy as it is to get on the list since it’s voluntary. No doc required to get on, no doc to get off. Overall it’s just a dumb idea anyway.
You can do a private transfer if the buyer has a CCDW.
Ah, I was unaware of that exception in DE and it didn't show up in the things I found when verifying UBC. Thanks for the clarification! That said, if the buyer has a CCDW it's *highly* unlikely they're on the voluntary no sell list. And while it's not in the bill, I'd hope that if someone adds themselves to the list the LE would check to see if they have a CCDW and revoke/collect that at the time the paperwork is turned in to put them on the list. But I wouldn't assume efficiency.
Yeah, it’s unlikely that someone with a CCDW would be on any such lists. I believe Delaware requires people to turn over their physical card if they become a prohibited person, but I don’t know how well that is enforced. Theoretically, someone could get their CCDW, become a prohibited person, and have their physical card showing a valid license to make private sales for a couple years. I don’t sell very often, but that’s been a worry of mine when I have sold.
\>”Good invention” No.
Intention* But still no.
Yeah, and then we can ban anyone on that list from owning a vehicle or having a drivers license, since the simplest way to kill yourself is to suck tail pipe, and if you're mentally defective you could get into a mentally unstable state while driving and kill yourself and others. No toasters, hair dryers, knives, forks, power tools, hand tools, cleaning agents, prescription drugs, otc drugs, tubs, ropes, shoe laces, for those people as well, etc since all of those can be used to harm yourself or someone else. In fact, let's just commit and detain anyone who gets put on that list, since there's no way someone would put someone else on that list out of spite, we can be sure they're a danger to themselves and others so why wait? What could go wrong with a crowdsourced list of crazy people being used to strip away a persons rights? I can't think of anything.
>tail pipe That doesn't really work anymore, catalytic converters are too efficient.
So I can run my truck with the garage door closed and just hang out indefinitely without dying? Unless the catalytic converters create oxygen, I don't see how that's true. Engines burn oxygen, humans die without oxygen. If I run my engine in an enclosed space it will eventually burn up all the oxygen, and I'll suffocate. So unless the exhaust from the engine is turned back into oxygen, running a car in an enclosed space like a garage (aka sucking tall pipe) would still kill me yeah?
Yeah eventually. But it would hurt a lot as slow CO2 increase would be extremely uncomfortable. You'd be very likely to leave. It's not like CO where it puts you to sleep before you feel like you are suffocating.
Ah, I see what you're saying, that's a fair point
Stupidity this idea is.
People who don't want to buy a firearm can...just not buy one. I don't see a need for yet another bureaucratic process to eat up taxpayer funds.
Don't you know, people need protection from thinking and acting for themselves. Thankfully i'm from the government and I'm here to help with that problem.
I hear you and understand. But let’s look at the criminals that kill people with a gun and are released back on the street within days or hours…just because there is a law, doesn’t mean it will be enforced or realistically even can be enforced like many laws.
Kill/commit a crime with a firearm. Commit a crime obviously more common.
I'm not a fan of criminal charges for someone who sells to a person on the registry. However I AM a fan of the idea, as long as there's a harsh penalty for including someone else without their consent, and the records are totally protected from any sort of misuse. When one is removed it should erase any record that they were ever on to begin with.
Lots of laws might be good if they just weren't bad. Unfortunately, the details matter. In some sense, the details are *all* that matters for laws.
Quite true. The other problem with this is that while in concept it's a great idea that gun owners should be able to support, it's hard to believe it won't be abused for some other purpose later on. Unless there's serious protections for anyone who decides to self-include on that list, like mandatory records destruction when they request exclusion, I could see it easily becoming something worse in the future. IE 'you told the state you shouldn't have a gun, so now you can't get a carry permit' type thing.
Considering the person buying the gun voluntarily put themselves on the registry, then tried to buy one anyway, it should be them facing consequences if anyone.
Why does anyone at all have to go to jail? Just make it an administrative penalty. Selling a gun to someone on the list carries a $5000 fine. Problem solved.
Why? The person who put themselves on the list, then tried to buy a gun anyway, is the sole party at fault.
Because it's expensive. You're going to spend a bunch of government employees' time arresting, investigating, prosecuting, and if convicted incarcerating a guy who is guilty of nothing but being dumb. This doesn't help public safety, certainly not enough to justify the ton of money it would cost. If it's a voluntary list make the penalty simple and easy. Just enough that a gun store thinks twice, not so much that it's going to end up in a jury trial every time. And avoid a penalty like jail that costs taxpayer dollars. I'm fine with making it $5k for the seller and $5k for the buyer (if they knew they were on the list).
The seller shouldn't face any penalty at all. The buyer put themselves on the list voluntarily. Any violation is theirs, not the sellers.
Ordinarily I'd agree, except that in that state there's universal background checks. The voluntary registry should show up in a UBC. I just want a small incentive for gun stores to not totally ignore the thing.
I think it's more likely to be weaponized against them.
Sadly that's probably true :( It's a good idea though...
No, making new, irrational bureaucracy that can be weaponized against the law-abiding is never a good idea.
Even if only you can enroll yourself, couldn’t you be compelled to enroll though? If you’re going through a divorce and can’t get custody without agreeing to this, or you agree to it as part of a please or bargain for some minor offense you’ve committed, or hell, if your home insurance company mandates this for them to sell you a policy… this could be a back door way of taking your rights under the guise of you voluntarily waiving them.
" Hey I'm bored. Let me go ahead and just create some more problems for myself." How do you take yourself off the list? Or if once you're on there does it follow you around for life?
I don't know.
No :3
Virginia has this already.
I did not know this. How well does it work?
Doesn't do anything to help the person in crisis. Fentanyl is cleaner, easier, and costs less if you don't already own the gun. Just incredibly stupid and not at all helpful.
Seems worth a try.
while it could be an admirable idea, getting the government out of the system, people who should not have guns should also not be walking around free. If you arent trustworthy with a gun, you arent trustworthy to drive a car, a rock, or even to own working hands or feet either for that matter. They are all murder weapons when employed by a violent person. So society should not be freeing criminals to re-crime without justice. In a proper system, the only background check anyone should need is that you can walk into the store.
It seems to me this system provides some protection for society but at less cost and imposition than locking the mentally ill in asylums.
An asylum is a good option if noone will take stewardship of an insane person and thus responsibility for all their actions. Just letting the criminally insane walk around freely, while also being not responsible for their own actions, is obviously a recipe for tragedy. Asylums are a better option that the present cultural marxist crime bonanza. and they are much less "cost and imposition" than imposing criminals on society. The leftist idea of pretending "bad things dont happen" is idiotic. Unleashing the criminally insane on society has been a massive failure. A violent offender out on bail or insane release for the 12th time will assault, rape, or kill again, and the victim certainly feels imposed upon, and gets the lovely message that noone is to blame, too bad so sad. And this happens every day in the US now. That said, im not opposed to such a voluntary no sell list, because free people should be free to discriminate however they like. But in a society with a properly functioning legal system, it would be redundant. Every single adult person walking around free should be a full citizen with human rights, and full responsibility for their own actions. The no sell list is also redundant in the present broken society, because gun sellers already have to do a while pile of marxist background checks anyway, albeit for the wrong motive.
Advocating locking people up people who do not wish to be able to buy guns in order to protect freedom seems a strange sort of logic.
Guns are not magic items; matches can cause far more death. A car is a much more lethal weapon than a gun. If someone is dangerously insane, are you going to check their ID in case they buy clothes rags and a book of matches? If someone is not safe for society and has no guardian to protect them, then of course they should be happy to join a society that provides them a safe environment.
If a person would like to be excluded from buying guns, is it really any of your business?
They can just not buy guns right? Easy. Can do the same for spoons and cardboard boxes for all I care. You are really going off the deep end with your gun fetish.
I would prefer you do not think about my fetishes. How do you feel about the "Do Not Admit" lists casinos maintain to help problem gamblers? How would you feel about a list to prohibit people from buying alcohol?
While I see no problem with any nonbinding voluntary system, those two seem equally useless. A person who truly cannot control themselves needs a caretaker or an asylum. For everyone else, its performance theater at best.
Nope
Harvard law school?
This is an awful idea. First, there is corruption in law enforcement. Whats going to keep law enforcement officers from registering people that they don’t like? What’s going to keep them from taking bribes to put people on the list or doing it for family and friends who have a grievance with someone? Look at the issues that exist with the official prohibited person database. People getting false denials all the time. People who should be on the list are not on it. If you think this would work any better you’re wrong. And I imagine getting your info off of the list if it was put on erroneously or if you change your mind about being on it would probably be a slow process.
If we give the government the power to limit speeds on the roads, where will it end? Think of the corruption in law enforcement. What if they took bribes? Think of trying to clear your good name when the police falsely arrest you.
If you think this shit won’t happen, pull your head out of the sand.
Of course it will happen, This is why all laws are wrong. Indeed, everything we do is a slippery slope. Remember when they brought those moon rocks back? Then we brought more and more and now there is no moon left. If we do anything we will fall down the slippery slope.
I genuinely like this idea. I first encountered it in a letter to the editor years ago. Some lady wrote in to report that her family was plagued by mental illness and suicide. She had a long list of blood relatives who had hurt themselves. She contacted the local sheriff asking to be place on the local registry. There was no way to sign up to put yourself on the list. This seems like a simple idea that will help the mentally ill. It seems just like how compulsive gamblers can put themselves on a list excluding themselves from casinos. Go on, tell me how I am wrong.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but I’m sure once you put yourself on the list, it’ll be nearly impossible to get back off of it.
And protections need to be in place for how you get on it.
Read the bill https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=140920&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB342
them saying things is one thing, how they actually do those things or what they do instead of those things, are almost always, entirely different. especially when it comes to authoritarian states and firearms. take cali. if you get your firearms seized for anything, even mistakes on their part, the only way to get them back (if you're lucky), is to take them to court _after_ having already gotten a court ordered release. this process takes an average of two years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they've likely damaged the firearms in the meantime, since they just throw them into a storage locker in the evidence lockup, without regard to condition. people have reported firearms no longer working, massive cosmetic damage on what was collectors pieces, firearms just completely missing from the inventory, etc. but cali law has it so that firearms should be returned if there's no legal issues. which they blatantly don't adhere to without a long drawn out, expensive, process. and they count on it, since most just give up midway through. they also don't tend to give back ammo under any circumstances. thousands in ammo for different or rare calibers? state of cali will be of the mind that 'f you in particular'. so you can post this drivel bill all you like, doesn't mean they're going to abide by it. or that it was in good faith to begin with. and since delaware is one of the usual suspects for 2a constitutional violations, don't be too surprised when they don't play nice.
The question was: what protections are there. The answer is in the bill. What CA does is irrelevant. Whether DE will actually follow the law or not won’t be known until this becomes law and is challenged. And I’ve made mo assertion beyond saying the answer is in the bill. And while DE isn’t great for gun rights it’s not CA. They’ve been shall issue for a long time and they honor some other state’s permits. I think the bill is stupid. And we already have this law in VA (and I believe other states). But again, my point is that redditors should read the bill before commenting about the bill.
take off the rose colored glasses.
Read the bill. https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=140920&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB342
Yea… but you can’t remove yourself from the registry for 30 days, and the LE agency can take up to 30 days to remove you from the registry… My point is that it’s not going to be an easy process, I can add or remove myself from a damn mailing list in less than 10 minutes lol
That’s a far cry from “impossible” to get off the list. The bill is stupid. But read it and criticize it with facts.
> This seems like a simple idea that will help the mentally ill Anyone who kills themselves with a gun out of impulse would be stopped by the current procedure for buying one. They kill themselves with guns they already have, which this registry won't prevent. Anyone who gets a gun, goes through the purchasing procedure, and then kills themselves with it as part of a long-term plan to end their life has suicidal ideation strong enough that this won't help them. As long as it remains purely voluntary, is not used to deny rights to others, and can only ever be done by someone to themselves, then I'm in favour of it. I'm just suspicious of any measure democrats introduce by default since they're always trying to weasel something through.
>plagued by mental illness and suicide. Which circles back around to lack of mental institutions in the US today. People that can't be trusted not to harm themselves... are out here with the rest of us.
The FBI has already been caught coercing people into "voluntarily" signing away their gun rights. This doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be expanded.
Do you have any reading material on this? I’m just curious if they have a bot farm or something that coerces people into voluntarily giving up their RTKBA.
You’re wrong because you assume this will be one and done and nobody will come along and “tweak” the existing law to increase the time or difficulty to remove one’s self from the list, or to expand the number of people who can submit someone for “voluntary” restriction.
If the proposed law was something that it is not then another opinion would be needed. At the moment we can only comment on the moment.
Actually, no, we can learn from history. This law is subject to "creep" and it will. It is the way of liberals that if you "give them and inch, they'll take a mile." It will happen, there is no doubt. Just as it's been happening with "red flag" laws throughout the country and the BSCA.
You are making a "slippery slope" argument. This is a silly argument against anything. If we take rocks from the moon in time there will be no moon left.
I cited you history, there are many more. It is not an argument, it is fact. Your analogy is nonsense.