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.
There really was no problem, and for the last time it was not private information as the ATF had the right to inspect. Tiahrt solved a problem that didn't exist, no record of abuse by local LE, just a paranoia by the congressman that LE was going to improperly regulate. We can agree to disagree.
When the OP started this thread he indicated this was an area for middle ground, sure doesn't appear that is the case. The only suggestions I heard were that the ATF needs to do a better job and they need more funding.
For the fifth time, I have to explain the 4th Amendment. Without probable cause, the disclosure of the dealer information is an illegal search. You aren't going to be able to access any business information without a warrant. This is true to every other business, why we make exception for firearm business? If you take that to court, it would be thrown out.
Why should ATF make such legal and private gun sales information available to other agencies when other agencies can't provide probable cause and have no warrant? Doing so is clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
That makes no sense at all. Like I said before, our nation's law and order is completely based on this due process of the law. If you don't see bypassing this is a problem, then we have nothing more to discuss as we are in completely different country.
Keep in mind, any investigation needs probable cause. Police can't even stop you on the street without probable cause. This is the basis of our legal system. To say "I need to access legitimate business transactions without probable cause or warrnat" shows the person has no understanding of our laws.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 02-12-2013 at 05:09 PM..
Good suggestions, seems like these things should have been put into place already. Presently the ATF is restricted from inspecting a dealer twice in the same year
I have no issue with this as a general rule, barring of course any type of actual evidence that should open up a full investigation. Which would have to hold up to some type of standard in order to comply with the 4th amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
and many dealers transfer the business to another relative, that needs to change.
I was just reading about this. The problem is discretion. Take shall issue vs may issue for CCPs as an example. Many "may issue" jurisdictions are "no issue" in practice. Many "may issue" jurisdictions are "shall issue" in practice. But I don't like the idea of putting this discretion solely in the hands of some bureaucrat at the ATF.
But I think this could be worked around somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
It's still not clear if the 1% are repeat offenders or a moving target, if they are repeat offenders I could not imagine why the ATF would not be able to shut them down. The ATF needs more staff for enforcement, 5000 employees and only a few hundred inspecting FFL's, they have other responsibilities.
I still think that using any type of efficient investigatory tactics, this is more than sufficient manpower. We don't need to perform massive numbers of random inventory checks etc. We need to analyze the data, and once there is reasonable cause to investigate, focus on those dealers individually. There are not that many of them, and it would probably be a relatively small effort to shut down the most egregious violators who put most of the guns on the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
I'm not sure that dealing with straw purchasers is such a difficult thing to do. If a gun purchased from a legit FFL is used in a crime, the original purchaser can be tracked. If the person that used it to commit a crime is that person's relative or boyfriend, arrest and charge that person. A strawman sale is a federal felony punishable by 10 years in prison. Lock up some wives/girlfriends that are buying guns for prohibited people and see how quickly things change.
Not a difficult thing to deal with on an individual basis. But a difficult thing to deal with preemptively since it's so widespread. Shutting down one corrupt dealer could have the same net effect as stopping hundreds of straw purchases by random individuals before they even happen. Dealing with straw purchases takes a much larger effort and is entirely reactive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Again, you aren't paying attention if you are looking for why these policies aren't pursued the ONLY groups standing in the way are the NRA, gun nuts who support the NRA, and the politicians who support the NRA and gun nuts.
Strawman alert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Pretending that liberals would be against those ideas
Strawman alert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
or have not mentioned those ideas is just uninformed nonsense. Carry on.
No, it's reality. You're being intellectually dishonest if you think this idea is anywhere in the realm of such idiocy as assault weapons bans, waiting periods, etc. as far as public outcry goes.
Go ahead, direct me to the massive outcry and legislative efforts concerning corrupt FFLs, because I could spend days on the rest.
I could probably dig through your posting history alone to make my case.
Liberals do want these things enforced but the NRA doesn't want gun sellers being prosecuted nor does the NRA want gun sells tracked in order to get a trace on where these guns are being sold.
You should inform yourself.
The NRA and gun nuts are against these kinds of investigations into gun sellers.
This is being ridiculous.
Provide evidence to support both of your claims.
NRA is only against tracing sales between private individuals. All of us should be against that because it's just one step further toward confiscation and solves nothing.
I have no issue with this as a general rule, barring of course any type of actual evidence that should open up a full investigation. Which would have to hold up to some type of standard in order to comply with the 4th amendment.
I was just reading about this. The problem is discretion. Take shall issue vs may issue for CCPs as an example. Many "may issue" jurisdictions are "no issue" in practice. Many "may issue" jurisdictions are "shall issue" in practice. But I don't like the idea of putting this discretion solely in the hands of some bureaucrat at the ATF.
But I think this could be worked around somehow.
I still think that using any type of efficient investigatory tactics, this is more than sufficient manpower. We don't need to perform massive numbers of random inventory checks etc. We need to analyze the data, and once there is reasonable cause to investigate, focus on those dealers individually. There are not that many of them, and it would probably be a relatively small effort to shut down the most egregious violators who put most of the guns on the street.
Not a difficult thing to deal with on an individual basis. But a difficult thing to deal with preemptively since it's so widespread. Shutting down one corrupt dealer could have the same net effect as stopping hundreds of straw purchases by random individuals before they even happen. Dealing with straw purchases takes a much larger effort and is entirely reactive.
Strawman alert.
Strawman alert.
No, it's reality. You're being intellectually dishonest if you think this idea is anywhere in the realm of such idiocy as assault weapons bans, waiting periods, etc. as far as public outcry goes.
Go ahead, direct me to the massive outcry and legislative efforts concerning corrupt FFLs, because I could spend days on the rest.
I could probably dig through your posting history alone to make my case.
You are in fantasyland, but carry on. If you think that liberals are the ones against those ideas or that those ideas have not been mentioned and pushed by liberals you aren't paying attention.
You are in fantasyland, but carry on. If you think that liberals are the ones against those ideas or that those ideas have not been mentioned and pushed by liberals you aren't paying attention.
NRA is only against tracing sales between private individuals. All of us should be against that because it's just one step further toward confiscation and solves nothing.
Lol, I don't care if you don't think reality is real, that's your problem.
For the fifth time, I have to explain the 4th Amendment. Without probable cause, the disclosure of the dealer information is an illegal search. You aren't going to be able to access any business information without a warrant. This is true to every other business, why we make exception for firearm business? If you take that to court, it would be thrown out.
Why should ATF make such legal and private gun sales information available to other agencies when other agencies can't provide probable cause and have no warrant? Doing so is clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
That makes no sense at all. Like I said before, our nation's law and order is completely based on this due process of the law. If you don't see bypassing this is a problem, then we have nothing more to discuss as we are in completely different country.
Keep in mind, any investigation needs probable cause. Police can't even stop you on the street without probable cause. This is the basis of our legal system. To say "I need to access legitimate business transactions without probable cause or warrnat" shows the person has no understanding of our laws.
The Tiahrt amendent effectively prevents law enforcement from using the data the ATF already has, are you telling me the ATF is already in violating the 4th amendment. The distribution of weapons, explosives, controlled substance, are already regulated and reported to a different standard, these are not normal businesses, they prevent a danger to the general public if misused.
You cannot equate a gun dealer anymore than a drug company to a typical business, they are quite different, this is not someone walking down the street.
Why should the ATF make information available to local LE .... to catch the dealers that are putting guns in criminals hands.
So tell me what where the specific instances of abuse by LEO that drove the Tiahrt amendment.
The Tiahrt amendent effectively prevents law enforcement from using the data the ATF already has, are you telling me the ATF is already in violating the 4th amendment. The distribution of weapons, explosives, controlled substance, are already regulated and reported to a different standard, these are not normal businesses, they prevent a danger to the general public if misused.
You cannot equate a gun dealer anymore than a drug company to a typical business, they are quite different, this is not someone walking down the street.
Why should the ATF make information available to local LE .... to catch the dealers that are putting guns in criminals hands.
So tell me what where the specific instances of abuse by LEO that drove the Tiahrt amendment.
Not sure how many times I need to explain to you. Do you understand there is due process of the law in this country? Do you understand all of us are free from LEO searches without warrant, which is clearly spelled out in the 4th?
If we can at least agree on these, let's proceed to look at the Tiahrt Amendment and why it is necessary.
Firstly, the Tiahrt Amendment doesn't prevent LEO to submit trace - it's done all the time. Traces from guns found in traffic stops and election violations have been submitted for trace.
Secondly, Tiahrt prevent ATF to share irrelevant trace data with anybody. LEO can still access this data if they have a warrant which can be obtained via presenting probable causes to a judge, same way as when they want to search you or anybody. So to say LEO can't do their job is total BS. That's how they do their job every day: find probable cause, get a warrant, do the search, find evidence and pass it on to DA for charges. There's no further "restriction" on gun crime investigation.
Now, anti-gun fanatics hate Tiahrt guts because they have lost some of the most powerful tools in their pockets. They want to access that data so that they can sue the lawful gun dealers out of business via nuisance lawsuits. They also want to use that data to compile a database that contains lawful gun owners - keep in mind these antigun fanatics aren't LEO, don't have any probable cause and definitely can't get a warrant.
I am very glad that Tiahrt shut all of them down because none of these is ethical, moral or constitutional.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 02-12-2013 at 07:18 PM..
One more thing, I shouldn't equate lawful gun dealers to drug company. At least, people who buy guns from dealers aren't criminals, mentally ill or illegal immigrants.
Who knows what kind of people buying drugs from a pharmacy. Got be some really sick people.
At least, people who buy guns from dealers aren't criminals, mentally ill or illegal immigrants.
Oh really? And you know this, how?
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.
