Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beside the fact that my comment was intended to address the issue in a more general manner...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
You did read where he said he bought 1 gun from a store 25 + years ago right?
Every 4473 is reported to the BATF, in addition they are required to be kept on premise by FFL's licensees for 20 years.
Quote:
And where was the NRA brought up? Your stretching to start an argument here.....
In my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad
You don't live in California.
No, I don't live in California, not that it matters. California may be rather restrict about types and styles of firearms that a state resident may purchase or possess, they still can purchase and possess firearms. And most importantly, post Heller their would be no earthly way that the state of California could deny private ownership.
Quote:
Also since you claim to be an attorney how about you be more helpful in this particular forum and save the BS for P&C.
I no reading for comprehension can be challenging, I have NEVER claimed or implied that I am a practicing attorney. As for BS, if you care to challenged that facts of my any statement that I might post feel free to do so, otherwise I will post when and where I choose to.
Quote:
Get the CCW like MOgal advised.
I've have continuously held concealed weapons/firearms permits since 1984 issued by each state that I have lived in during that time period. I currently hold one now. Further, I believe in the right of individuals to own and possess firearms, and I also support the "shall issue" laws that allow permits to be issued to citizens who for no other reason want one.
BUT!
I also support sane and reasonable restrictions on the sale purchase and possession of firearms up to an including type, caliber, and ammunition capacity - and before you get your underwear all tied in a knot - the Brady gun ban didn't meet that criteria. More importantly, I do not support the National Rifle Association in its current incarnation or its present leadership, and I think that far too many who do have long lost any sense of proportionality and too often a grip on reality.
A confession; I made a killing buying and trading "assault" rifles and high capacity mags in the period prior to the Brady assault gun ban. The profit potential of taking advantage of irrational behavior to an irrational law was simply too much to ignore, but the same irrationality that fueled provided me with a substantial windfall profit, forever negatively changed my view of far too many of my fellow gun owners. Watching cheap Chinese AK-47's triple and quadruple in price while the price of unbanned and functionally superior Ruger Mini-14's and Mini-30's remained relatively stable told me all that I needed to know about the irrationality of gun grabbing paranoia.
Every 4473 is reported to the BATF, in addition they are required to be kept on premise by FFL's licensees for 20 years.
Right about the requirement of retention, wrong about the reporting. The only report that needs to be filed after a sale is an MSR and only if the buyer has bought two or more firearms within the previous seven day period.
NICS does not include any information about any firearms to be disbursed, and all information about the buyer that may be collected for the check must be destroyed (at the NICS Center) before end of business that day (NICS do record the FFL who made the check).
FOPA explicitly prohibits the creation of a national firearm registry, and while BATFE is skating close to the edge or even over it depending on your perspective with some of the activities they're performing under the auspices of the FTS system, they do not have a local record of all sales made in the US, in general they're not even sure of precisely how many firearms are sold per year in the US.
So in effect the only record of a sale, tying an individual to a firearm is that 4473, and a line item in the FFL's A&D ledger.
Right about the requirement of retention, wrong about the reporting.
You are correct and I duly sit corrected.
Where I was wrong, was that copies of the 4473's were concurrently supplied to BATF. Rather the 4473 in bound book format are kept by the appropriate dealer until the dealer retires or ends their business as an FFL. At that time all records of the 4473's are to be transfered to BATF.
Further, at the heart of my argument is that in the case of the world comes to an end and the gov'ment comes for our guns the BATF would have all the power it needed to inspect those 4473's (as it does now in conjunction with either a criminal inspection or under the guise of a onsite inspection).
True or not?
If that is the case, unlike CCW which are state property, the much feared fedral guvment would have a far more comprehensive listing of gun ownership than any list of CCW permits could possibly provide, since CCW's applications (at least any that I have ever seen) don't ask any questions as to the number, type or serial number of any firearms that I might own, unlike a 4473.
Where I was wrong, was that copies of the 4473's were concurrently supplied to BATF. Rather the 4473 in bound book format are kept by the appropriate dealer until the dealer retires or ends their business as an FFL. At that time all records of the 4473's are to be transfered to BATF.
Further, at the heart of my argument is that in the case of the world comes to an end and the gov'ment comes for our guns the BATF would have all the power it needed to inspect those 4473's (as it does now in conjunction with either a criminal inspection or under the guise of a onsite inspection).
True or not?
If that is the case, unlike CCW which are state property, the much feared fedral guvment would have a far more comprehensive listing of gun ownership than any list of CCW permits could possibly provide, since CCW's applications (at least any that I have ever seen) don't ask any questions as to the number, type or serial number of any firearms that I might own, unlike a 4473.
Oh don't get me wrong, the requirement for 4473's and A&D records is one huge paper and electronic disconnected and distributed Database of the purchasers of new manufacture and resold firearms that are transferred through the FFL system. However it's pretty unwieldy, currently BATFE have over a 700M record backlog stored in various warehouses from defunct FFL's. Plus about half a million MSR's, and another half million records of trace data in weapons either used, or suspected to have been used in crimes. However once the firearm is purchased by an individual, then any subsequent disbursement of the firearm is not guaranteed, and is effectively gone from the system (unless the private seller keeps records similar to an FFL with the same retention periods).
At current staffing FTS can handle around 500k traces per year, there are a conservative average of 7.5M firearm sales in the US a year, from 1986 this means 195M firearms sales have been made. At 500k traces per year it will take BATFE 390 years to process. Even if they increase their staffing and systems by an order of magnitude to handle 10 times the volume it's still going to take at least 39 years, and most of them will result in "it was sold to someone else" and there is no requirement for a private seller to maintain records of who they sold it to.
Oh, for christ sake, as if 4473's wouldn't be enough, if you are the sort to entertain such overwrought and unwarranted paranoia considering the that only four years ago the Courts ruling in the District of Columbia v Heller would have put such paranoia to rest. But I suppose the NRA needs some sort of boogie man to keep the money rolling in.
Even then, I'm pretty sure that if the Government ever gets to the gun confiscation stage, it's going to be by kicking down the doors of every house on the street and doing a physical search.
No need to take a look at 4473's or CCW lists, and they'll get a lot more of the "unknown" guns that way.
I find it offensive that I, as a law-abiding nonfelon citizen, have to pay for a government CHL license to exerise my 2nd Amendment rights. Also, why should I have to show a government photo ID to purchase a firearm from an FFL? Or even have to obtain a license to carry in the first place?
I find it offensive that I, as a law-abiding nonfelon citizen, have to pay for a government CHL license to exerise my 2nd Amendment rights. Also, why should I have to show a government photo ID to purchase a firearm from an FFL? Or even have to obtain a license to carry in the first place?
I take it at your word that despite your anonymity that you are what you say you are, a law-abiding citizen without any felony convictions. But then as my wife continually reminds me, I am generally a trusting person.
But my wife on the other hand would say that she doesn't know you from Adam and that by law and conscience she can't abide non-law-abiding felonious citizens acquiring firearms, she frankly wouldn't care how hufffed up and insulted you got.
So to keep you from being insulted and my wife from insulting you, what would you consider to be a reasonable and sane method of identifying who is a felon not allowed to possess a firearm and a find upstanding citizen such as yourself?
By the way, what is your position of Voter ID laws?
I take it at your word that despite your anonymity that you are what you say you are, a law-abiding citizen without any felony convictions. But then as my wife continually reminds me, I am generally a trusting person.
But my wife on the other hand would say that she doesn't know you from Adam and that by law and conscience she can't abide non-law-abiding felonious citizens acquiring firearms, she frankly wouldn't care how hufffed up and insulted you got.
So to keep you from being insulted and my wife from insulting you, what would you consider to be a reasonable and sane method of identifying who is a felon not allowed to possess a firearm and a find upstanding citizen such as yourself?
By the way, what is your position of Voter ID laws?
Please turn on your sarcasm meter, as my post was bait for exactly the response you gave.
As a CHL holder I have no problem with the federal government denying violent criminals the right to own firearms. Hence, the background check is valid, IMO. But there should be no license requirement to carry.
Likewise, I don't care how huffed up & insulted anybody gets about a government photo ID being required to vote.
So if the federal government rules against voter ID, then it should rescind the ID requirement to purchase a gun and to carry one.
Just to be fair & consistent.
BTW - my wife of 45 years hates guns and has never fired one. lol
What is it about Missouri? My brothers FIL is from LOTO and will not buy a gun from a dealer because the black helicopters will monitor that micro chip the will put in his head if he runs the ATF form. LOL Jesus, paranoid much? If the government ever turns bad I think they are going to be more concerned with things bigger than if billy bob had a 38.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
