http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1

Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

While he says he doesn't want to take anyone's guns away, by his comments in that article, it's obvious he wants to make it as hard as possible to obtain one.

Here is the CA law that he says he supports on a Federal level;

AB1471 would require that after a certain date, the make, model, and serial number of the firearm be micro stamped onto the interior surface or internal working parts of all handguns in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted onto the cartridge case upon firing. Under AB1471, the manufacture, sale, and transfer of handguns that do not include their identifying information would be a crime.

Think about it. That law won't work as the gun control people state. (Although their core intent is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a gun)

Here's a scenario using the logic of the CA law.

Joe Citizen has a legally obtained hand gun that "fingerprints" the cartridge as stated in the CA law. He goes out and does some target shooting at the range or out in the woods. He doesn't reload, so he leaves his brass where it falls after being ejected from his firearm.

Jim Criminal obtains one or more of these casings by ether finding it in the woods (Which isn't as hard as it seems. I can take you out and within minutes of getting to any one of a number of locations hand you a whole bag full of brass I picked up) or maybe he dug through the range's trash and found them.

Jim Criminal goes out and robs and shoots someone with either a legal (not likely) or illegal (most likely) gun. He picks up the casing from his gun and drops one or two of the casings he picked up from the range's trash or from out in the woods.

Joe Citizen wasn't anywhere near where the shooting took place, but since his "fingerprinted" brass was at the scene, he's arrested and charged with the shooting.

See any problems with this law???

Also, this law requires registration and a database of the gun owners.

Currently when you purchase a firearm, only the dealer has a copy of the paperwork. The records have to be made available to the BATFE if they show up with a subpoena.

Below is an excerpt from an article by Wayne LaPierre; (Yeah, I know he's the Executive VP for the NRA, but he sticks to the facts and not his opinion) The whole article can be found here; http://www.nrapublications.org/standing%20guard/index.asp

There is no element in the poisonous alchemy of the globalist gun ban crowd more dangerous to American freedom than the twin evils of gun-owner licensing and firearm registration. Never forget that they exist only as precursors to gun confiscation.
Registration is the key ingredient in the anti-gun rights brew marking presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s core beliefs. And photographing and fingerprinting honest American citizens as a condition of potential gun ownership is the key gun control scheme of Hillary’s rival, U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill.
As for gun confiscation? Both leading Democratic candidates, Obama and Hillary, are supporters of firearm bans. For Clinton, that includes the confiscations that took place in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Hillary has pushed vigorously for a harsher version of Bill Clinton’s semi-auto ban, a hallmark of their “co-Presidency” and a stark reminder of what 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would have in store for you upon the return of this “political team.”
For his part, Obama has variously supported bans on the manufacture, sales, and possession of handguns; the extension of the Clinton gun ban; and most remarkably, in 1998 as a state senator, embraced the call to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
In seeking to capture the White House in November 2008, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are lying in saying they support the Second Amendment.
A look back into recent history reveals the truth.
As a prominent leader of the George Soros-funded and Rosie O’Donnell-hosted Million Mom March in May 2000, Hillary Clinton made this single demand:
‘’We have to license and register all handguns.” But as the New York Times elaborated, it was more than that:
“If elected to the Senate, Mrs. Clinton said she’d work with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on her bill that would require prospective gun buyers to first obtain a gun license by passing a background check and a safety course exam. The bill would also establish a national registry to record all gun sales.”
As for Obama, as the U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear the landmark challenge to the District of Columbia’s total handgun ban, he blithely labeled that draconian law “common sense,” and said he believes it is constitutional. D.C. not only bans private ownership of handguns, but also prohibits operable long guns in private homes for self defense.

Nah, Obama doesn't like guns. Neither does Hillary.

BANG!
BANG!

That was DUHbya's toy gun from his toy cowless ranch.

I think all gun owners should have to license their weapons. And those that are caught with a gun or using a gun without a license should face a stiff penalty. True law abiding gun owners should have no issue with this, because the license would be free of charge to obtain.

Why should I need a license for a right guaranteed in the constitution?

Its not a privledge that can be taken away, its a constitutional given right! Want to change that, change the constitution.

I need to license my car and my dog, why not a gun? And, you wouldn't be denied a license unless you had a criminal background. So, all law abiding gun owners would have no issues unless they weren't law abiding like they say they are.

First off, it's not a right for you to drive a car, it is a privilege. We were all taught that in drivers ed.

Same thing with your dog. (Although probably not taught in drivers ed!)

Neither is guaranteed by the constitution.

Second, registration is just a precursor to confiscation. England and Australia are perfect examples of this.

Third, who is going to maintain this huge database and where are the funds to manage it going to come from? Would you trust the government to manage it?

Maybe we should have to register our computers so that people don't type inappropriate or anti-government messages, emails or letters. No. Wait. We can't do that. The First amendment guarantees free speech.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s the right to bear arms.

Skybill,
I'm a gun owner, and I support gun rights. However, the way evidence obtained from a crime scene is used to charge and try a person for a crime involving a shooting is a matter not addressed by that law. A criminal could also place an item (including a shell casing) containing someone else's finger prints at the scene of a crime. The police and DA would still review a plurality of evidence before charging someone and trying him before a jury.

I'd support something in the barrel that marks the BULLET instead of the casing, much like the riffling of a riffle barrel does. Bullets often stay in bodies and walls, etc after a shooting, so it would be much harder to falsify that kind of evidence. I do NOT support prohibiting the transfer of older weapons without these markings. I can see banning the SALE of the weapons after a couple of decades (with exceptions for historic/collectable firearms), but still the use, transfer (as a gift), and transportation of the older guns would remain legal.

I would support a license system that would review someone's mental health history before they could own a firearm. But the issue of how many firearms a person owns should remain private. I do not support registering the guns themselves.

Shane, I thought about the barrel thing too when I first read about the case marking scheme.

Bullets (as I'm sure you know) are pretty deformed most, but not always, of the time when they hit their target. It's part of what gives them the stopping power.

Also it wouldn't work for a shotgun.

I don't think there should be a time limit on the sale of a weapon. What if you had your grandfathers hunting rifle and decided you wanted to sell it to me. Should it be prohibited just because the gun is over X number of years old?

I don't think a license system to own a gun is the way to go.

Currently, when you purchase a gun the FFL has to do a background check. What the need to do is to somehow link the databases together that have the mental health records with the FBI data base so that when the check is done it shows up.

You only have to do a FFL, if your a licensed gun dealer.

You can all argue till the cows come home. Until we (which means us as the people and our elected leaders as well) get it right, we will continue to see the mentally distraught purchasing firearms and killing innocent people as they conduct their acts of rage.
This is far more challenging a problem then dealing with gang turf wars. The bad guys will always be armed and dangerous. There is little any law can do to prevent that. However, something that works must be done to protect society against the unfortunate victims of mental illness whose acts against society are alarmingly on the increase.

Hey, bin Laden want's a nuke and the shrub bombed Iraq. What the f*ck is that? Weapons of the assault variety all the way up to nukes is another problem we haven't found a proper way to address either nationally or internationally. The NRA would have you think that anyone should be able to buy a howitzer and park it in the driveway. Somehow, I often think they as well as the far left are missing the point. You can't responsibly claim that no regulation is a solution any more than more regulation would be. Truth is (Nwokie take note) that the government has the right to regulate anything that we consume, inferred in the Preamble and spelled out in Article 1 under the Necessary and Proper clause. They have tried with only a modicum of success to keep weapons out of the hands of the emotionally diseased. The NRA's knee jerk reactions do the country a disservice. The Pro-control lobby is no better.

If Mr. Obama is brave enough to address the issue, it should be met with at least a "wait and see" attitude. Nothing a candidate proposes ever makes it into law as originally proposed. That's what the political process is supposed to do. Make good ideas better. Of course after 8 years with an imbecile leading the country, it is no surprise that we have become so much a polarized society that some of us see only black and white on a number of issues. I want my country back. I want someone in the Whitehouse that isn't the same old same old. I want the country back on track. Too many of you have become a little too secure because the disintegration of the economy in the U.S. hasn't caught up with you .... yet. If it does, when it does, some of you might change your whistle and start realizing what issues are truly important and that only compromise of ideals can further both your own and the country's best interests.

"The NRA would have you think that anyone should be able to buy a howitzer and park it in the driveway."

Shirley you jest.

I don't think he is and stop calling him Shirley!