The Problem With Mandatory Reporting Of Missing Guns Laws

After the post about the police recovering stolen guns, a reader contacted me. He pointed out how gun owners tend to be a little paranoid about the government knowing what they own, thus why they don’t report their guns missing.

It’s a fair point. As a community, we tend to try and keep that stuff as secret as possible.

He also brought up mandatory reporting laws, legislation that’s been proposed in various places that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within a certain amount of time.

Now, I have a major problem with mandatory reporting laws. Part of the reason? Well, it’s part of the same reason why I oppose universal background checks.

They’re unenforceable without gun registration.

Take my firearms for example. I’ve mentioned a couple here and there on this site, but I have a number I haven’t. Let’s say those guns were stolen and I failed to report them for whatever reason. How can I reasonably be caught breaking this law?

Without gun registration, I can’t. No one will know that firearm belonged to me. No one will know if it was stolen, lost, sold, or what. Not a soul.

The only people who will ever be punished are those who are honest enough to report their failure to comply with the law. That’s it.

What’s more, I can easily see this as being used to sell registration to the public. “We have to make people register them, so we know how the bad guys got the guns in the first place. This will also make people follow the reporting laws!”

An unknowledgeable public will shrug and think, “Makes sense.” They’ll back the new law easily enough.

Cries by gun rights groups of the potential downsides will be ignored. “You brought this on yourself,” they’ll say. “If only you and your crowd had complied with the reporting laws in the first place, we wouldn’t need to do this.”

The thing is, they don’t know that anyone failed to comply. All they’ll know is that they have guns with serial numbers not reported as stolen. They won’t have a clue just how they got there. They’ll just use gun owners as scapegoats.

Again.

Yeah, yeah, I hear the anti-gunners now. They think it sounds paranoid.

However, they say the same thing when we point out how they ultimately want to come for our guns. We’re paranoid because no one would want to do that. Except when they do.

They keep saying we’re paranoid, but we’re not the ones who are looking for any reason to impose new regulations on gun owners. We’re not the ones terrified of our fellow man being armed. We want those same people to have weapons and to have them on their person whenever they want. If we were truly paranoid, if we truly believed everyone was “out to get us,” we’d be screaming for the opposite. We’d want to be the only ones who have guns.

The truth is, we’ve gotten used to looking a few moves ahead. We know for a fact that we can’t look at what’s being talked about now in a vacuum. We need to also look at how this rule can justify the next one.

In this case, mandatory reporting is just an innocuous-looking gateway. Where it can lead is terrifying, and it’s why we should always oppose such proposals.

The post The Problem With Mandatory Reporting Of Missing Guns Laws appeared first on Bearing Arms.

Read more from Bearing Arm…

MLK’s Niece: To Fight Racism, Starbucks Should End Planned Parenthood Donations

What will go further toward ending racism and improving black lives: Mandatory “racial bias training” for the millennial who makes your latte, or defunding a group that ends the lives of 100,000 African-American children every year? It’s a jarring question, but one that was asked by someone who knows a few things about race issues…

The post MLK’s Niece: To Fight Racism, Starbucks Should End Planned Parenthood Donations appeared first on Conservative Tribune.

Read more from The Western Journal…

Evander Kane Signs 7-Year Contract With San Jose Sharks

Social Media Review Becoming Mandatory In More Job Interviews Nearly one in five employers requires a full review of a potential employees social media accounts during the interview process. Deputies: Man Got Into Woman’s Cameron Park Hotel Room, Groped Her Deputies in El Dorado County are searching for a man they say entered a woman’s hotel room and groped her while she was sleeping.

Read more from Job Interviews…

Building a new house? You may not have mail delivery

This may be a bit off the beaten track, but there’s a rule change going into effect at the United States Postal Service (USPS) which will have a direct impact on anyone who is thinking of building or purchasing a newly built home, as well as some newly constructed businesses. For most new structures being built after the rule goes into effect, you probably will not have direct mail delivery to your door. Instead, residents will need to establish group pick-up points where multiple mailboxes are assembled in one spot. Here’s part of the new rules from the USPS website.

631.1 General
[Revise the text of 631.1 to read as follows:]
The Postal Service-approved modes of delivery available for all existing delivery points, including newly established and extensions of delivery points, are in 631.24. Centralized delivery is the preferred mode of delivery for all new residential and commercial developments. Curbside, sidewalk delivery, and door modes are generally not available for new delivery points, with very rare exceptions, as determined by the Postal Service in its sole discretion, on a case-by-case basis. The characteristics of the area to be served and the methods deemed necessary to provide adequate service by the Postal Service are described in greater detail throughout this section.

[Revise the title and introductory text of 631.2 to read as follows:]
631.2 Centralized Delivery (Preferred Mode)
Centralized delivery service is the preferred mode of delivery and may be provided to call windows, horizontal locked mail receptacles, cluster box units (CBUs), wall-mounted receptacles, or mechanical conveyors (mechanical conveyors are only for high-rise and multiple-tenant buildings, and only if certain conditions are met; consult your postmaster for details).

On top of that, in residential areas where curbside delivery is still going to be available, mailbox locations will need to be on the property line of two homes. As Government Executive points out, this will impact almost all new “delivery points” (new construction) in the United States.

The U.S. Postal Service will no longer deliver mail to the door for new addresses, pushing mail users to instead cluster their mailboxes in a centralized area.

The new policy marks a sharp shift as the agency continues to find ways to cut costs and follows through on a proposal for which it has long advocated. USPS announced the change in a recent update to its Postal Operations Manual, in which it also made “centralized delivery” its preferred method of dropping off mail. Having letter carriers deliver mail to a cluster of mailboxes rather than to each individual door allows for more efficient routes that can be completed more quickly.

We already knew that the Post Office was struggling to stop bleeding money every year and were looking for ways to reduce costs. But I hadn’t imagined that one of the measures under consideration was to stop delivering the mail. Okay… that’s not entirely fair. They’ll be delivering it, but for most all homes you’ll need to walk down the street to some “central delivery” location where all the neighborhood mailboxes are located. In some cases you may only have to walk over to the border of your neighbor’s property where both your mailboxes will sit side by side.

Will there be exceptions for the disabled and the elderly who may face significant challenges in getting to the mailbox, particularly in inclement weather? Should there be mandatory security camera coverage of large groups of mailboxes right on the street which could prove tempting to thieves? This new policy certainly raises plenty of questions.

I suppose I’m a bit spoiled, living in a suburb where our postal carrier comes right up on our porch every morning to drop off the mail. I grew up in a rural area where all the houses had to have a mailbox mounted on a post right next to the road so the carrier could just pull over, take care of the delivery and pick-up and drive on to the next house. But maybe this “centralized” delivery will have a plus side to it. With everyone spending so much time plugged into their phones or staring at their laptops, perhaps a short walk outside where you’re more likely to actually see and even talk to your neighbors would be good for us.

The post Building a new house? You may not have mail delivery appeared first on Hot Air.

Read more from Hot Air…