[UberPhLuBB]

I just had a great solution that would please politicians and Californian gun owners alike. It's a step in the right direction if nothing else.

Instead of making every person wait 10 days to purchase every single gun, why not have the wait only apply to new calibers? Since the law is supposedly to stop people caught up in emotion from comitting murder, if the law only applied to new calibers it would make more sense. Say you have a .22, but you don't have a .45. You already have a .22, so why make that person wait 10 days to get another .22? If they made the decision to commit murder, they already have a .22, they don't need a new one.

This occured to me today as I was contemplating buying a 10/22. I already have a .22 rifle, two .22 pistols, a .40 pistol and a .45 pistol. If I wanted to buy another .22 rifle, why should I have to wait 10 days? I already have the supposed impliment of death, whichever I would choose to use. What does it matter if I buy another if I'm already dangerous?

It makes sense to me.

Eh, who am I kidding. It's too logical to pass.

[Henry Bowman]

It makes sense to me.

Eh, who am I kidding. It's too logical to pass.

"Reasonable" and "common sense" gun control laws are not about reason or sense, they are about control. Save your breath and energy.

[R.H. Lee]

I don't want anybody tracking what I may or may not currently have in my possession thank you very much.

[UberPhLuBB]

I don't want anybody tracking what I may or may not currently have in my possession thank you very much.

If you live in California, they already are. Every single gun sold has a DROS (Dealer's Record of Sale) which the gun dealer keeps and also sends an electronic copy to the DOJ. They already know. My pseudo-idea wouldn't change that either, you'd still have to pay for and have submitted a DROS, you just wouldn't have to wait 10 days.

[R.H. Lee]

Yeah, I think you're right. They've already got my number. Your'e also right that it wouldn't be adopted. It's not about 'public safety', it's about control, power, and pandering. The more restrictive they can make firearms acquisition and ownership, the happier they are. We need to dump 70% of the state legislature.

[Telperion]

If you live in California, they already are. Every single gun sold has a DROS (Dealer's Record of Sale) which the gun dealer keeps and also sends an electronic copy to the DOJ. They already know. My pseudo-idea wouldn't change that either, you'd still have to pay for and have submitted a DROS, you just wouldn't have to wait 10 days.No, not quite. The particulars of a gun are only recorded and registered for handguns. Look at a DROS form for a handgun, and then for a rifle or shotgun. On the latter, the only information DOJ sees is that you bought a long gun. Model, caliber, serial number? They don't know. Additionally, the state is required to destroy even this little bit of information after 3 days. So your idea would require full registration for all guns, certainly something I wouldn't support. :scrutiny:

[Carnitas]

What's even more absurd is that if you have a CCW permit, you can walk into the gunstore concealing as many loaded weapons are listed on your permit, but somehow its a danger to public safety if you walk out with one more gun than you came in with.

[Gordon Fink]

In reality, the gun controllers just want to make it more inconvenient for law-abiding citizens to buy firearms.

~G. Fink

[Mute]

You seem to forget that the only reason they pass gun laws in Kali is to harrass, vilify, annoy and hinder law-abiding gun owners. Anything that may actually be beneficial to the public WILL be ignored.

[txgho1911]

How would a fed rule pre-emtion on states be a bad thing? I am speaking of something to reinforce the 2nd at the national level. There is no fed rule for a 7 day wait or ban on 50bmg based rifle.

[jnojr]

How would a fed rule pre-emtion on states be a bad thing? I am speaking of something to reinforce the 2nd at the national level. There is no fed rule for a 7 day wait or ban on 50bmg based rifle.

We would need the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment is an individual right and treat it the same as the First, Fourth, Eighth, etc. Amendments. Maybe in the next few years...

[jnojr]

In reality, the gun controllers just want to make it more inconvenient for law-abiding citizens to buy firearms.

Exactly. If common sense ruled, then maybe your first gun purchase (or first handgun, first rifle, first shotgun) would have a waiting period. Hell, I have seven rifles and six handguns now... waiting periods do nothing but annoy me. Same with "one handgun per month". Same with a "drop test" that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making sure there are as few guns available to me as possible, and they're made as expensive as possible.

If we could get the RKBA initiative qualified and passed, things could change.

[OpenRoad]

Every single gun sold has a DROS (Dealer's Record of Sale)

Just the ones sold legally.

[UberPhLuBB]

No, not quite. The particulars of a gun are only recorded and registered for handguns. Look at a DROS form for a handgun, and then for a rifle or shotgun. On the latter, the only information DOJ sees is that you bought a long gun. Model, caliber, serial number? They don't know. Additionally, the state is required to destroy even this little bit of information after 3 days. So your idea would require full registration for all guns, certainly something I wouldn't support. :scrutiny:

Well I've never worked at a gun store so I havn't seen exactly what's sent to the DOJ, but on my copy of DROS papers, all the information about the gun, from the make to the serial, is included. I assumed the DOJ would get an identical copy. Are you certain that's not the case?

In any case, I went to Big-5 today to pick up a Ruger 10/22 display model that was "discounted" to me at $179.99 ("regularly" $209). I ended up walking out of the store having spent $237.15 (TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN!) and I still didn't have anything to show for it besides a reciept and a gun lock I'll be returning the day after I pick up the gun. I swear I heard hearty laughing in Sacramento. It's a good thing Big-5 refuses to remove trigger locks so I can't inspect the trigger, so I know nobody else was able to fiddle with "my" gun either. :rolleyes:

If I didn't have as many friends and relatives as I do in Southern California, I'd leave in 11 days.

Oh yeah, and speaking of 11 days, Big-5 has another inane policy. Instead of enforcing California's 10-day waiting period (10 days to the minute) as every other gun shop I've been to does, Big-5 makes you wait 11 days. "Ten FULL days" they say. What a crock, as if 10 days isn't long enough, I get another day slapped in my face.

[Standing Wolf]

No American citizen should ever be made to wait to exercise his or her civil rights—ever!

[Pilgrim]

Well I've never worked at a gun store so I havn't seen exactly what's sent to the DOJ, but on my copy of DROS papers, all the information about the gun, from the make to the serial, is included. I assumed the DOJ would get an identical copy. Are you certain that's not the case?

Having worked in a CA gun shop up until March, I can authoritatively say that CA DOJ does not know what long gun you purchased. All firearms transactions are transmitted via the Internet to DOJ. In the case of handgun transactions, the make, model, and serial number are transmitted. In the case of long guns, all that is sent to DOJ is the fact that you purchased a long gun. If DOJ wants to know what long gun you purchased, they will have to go to the gun shop you purchased that long gun from with a legal reason to look, and examine the BATFE form 4473.

Pilgrim

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Ok I'll pitch in here; having managed a pretty good volume gun store in Santa Clara for most of the 90's I think I can safely...nah..absolutely say that Pipsqueak & Pilgrim are correct. The State DOJ required DROS has absolutely no record of long gun make, model or caliber. In fact you can make multiple long gun purchases on a single DROS form. The DOJ may know *when* you purchased a long gun, or even *how many* but no more than that.

Now the BATF required 4473 is a different story; that form records the exact particulars of each firearm purchased- handgun, long-gun, make, model and caliber in addition to serial number. But that form is NOT sent-to, provided or entered into any database at all. It is required to be kept on the dealers premise for as long as they are in business; if they go out of biz, they then are required to turn over those records to the ATF. Other than that you're good to go.

[cracked butt]

Here's a great idea that should be tried somewhere, though California might not be ready for it: put and keep violent criminals, especially those that have used a gun in a crime, in prison until their punishment is served. Note: I purposely used the word 'punishment' and not 'rehabilitation.'

[artherd]

Now the BATF required 4473 is a different story; that form records the exact particulars of each firearm purchased- handgun, long-gun, make, model and caliber in addition to serial number. But that form is NOT sent-to, provided or entered into any database at all. It is required to be kept on the dealers premise for as long as they are in business; if they go out of biz, they then are required to turn over those records to the ATF. Other than that you're good to go.

Thanks for the detailed info Chris. I do feel that the ATF does effectively retain and own information regarding which serial numbers we have.

Because they can, if I am correct in my FFL regulations knowledge, at any time come and request all 4473s on file at any particuliar FFL at any time, and that if said FFL disolves he has to remit all 4473s ever, then the ATF does indeed own and posess the information.

They are just outsourcing the storage of that information to the various FFLs :)

What is nice is that at least they don't have most of it centralised and searchable, yet.