[Vernal45]

Just got finished with a speaking with a friend of mine, friend of over 10 years. He is an FFL dealer, has had his FFL for over 20 years, nice store front, does a volume of business at the store and gun shows. 5 ATF agents show up for a routine inspection, gig him on a few paperwork mess ups, nothing unusual there as far as inspections go. The problem is, the ATF requested (demanded) a list of frequent/multiple/mass buyers from him, Alphabetized, with address and guns, type and number purchased, along with purchase dates....... :what:


NOW I know some of you will say, no way, it does not work that way, well, it does, I trust this friend with my life, he does not lie. Defacto regristration is here, under the guise of homeland security.

So all of you multiple buyers, frequent buyers, heads up. As for FFL holders, heads up as well.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't know when it started, but there is a separate form and background check when multiple purchases are involved. Most gun buyers aren't aware of it. I know I wasn't until the topic came up in a discussion with a friend who owns a gun store.

[DMF]

:rolleyes:

Where is a picture of a flag with the letters BS on it when you really need it?

At the very most all they could have "demanded" was that he comply with the law requiring FFLs report multiple sales of handguns to the same person within 5 consecutive business days. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#f5

[Vernal45]

NO, My friend know about the multiple purchase forms, and use them when a customer purchases more that 1 firearm. The request for the list had nothing to do with the gigs, it was a total different deal.

[TheGoodLife]

I have read some things written by James H. Jeffries, III on the web. He seems like a real heavy hitter when it comes to dealing with these kinds of situations. check this link out and read that article. The BATF abuse the law!!

http://64.176.154.98/batf.htm

Gun Owners Foundation


WHEN THE BATF COMES A-CALLIN'

by
James H. Jeffries, III

"There is no wholly satisfactory substitute for brains, but silence does pretty well." --Anonymous
PROBABLYone of the least favorite events for any Federal Firearms Licensee (hereafter "FFL") is a visit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereafter "BATF"). This can occur in one of at least six very different ways and your legal rights and recommended responses vary accordingly.

For purposes of the following discussion I will assume that you are a law-abiding licensed dealer or collector who tries to comply honestly with the federal firearms laws. If some of the discussion below seems excessively cautious, or even hostile to BATF, it is based on real world experience with an agency which has been found by Congress, by various federal judges and juries, by other federal and local law enforcement agencies, and even by some Presidents to be inept, indifferent to citizens' rights, and capable of the most outrageous abuses of the law.

[Ohen Cepel]

I don't think he's talking about the requirement when multipules are bought.

Sounds like they may have gotten onto the "Patriot Act" and are using that to require the paperwork to protect us from the guy who buys 3 lever guns in a week :cuss:

[taliv]

guys, what i think you're missing is that ATF (or any LEO) agents can ASK for anything they want. you, or your ffl friends, can play nice and say "ok, here you go. please don't get your jackboots out!". or you can say "no, piss off. that's illegal. you can't ask me for that", in which event, they will usually withdraw their request.

i'm not at all surprised at the request. however, i'm skeptical that this is the beginning of a nationwide scouring to compile a database.

[The Real Hawkeye]

DMF, what kind of Federal Agent are you? BATF? FBI? DEA? Just curious.

[Gordon Fink]

We’ve had de facto federal gun registration for a good while now. Many states also have de jure registration.

Thought: if we need to “compromise” in order to get some pro-RKBA legislation passed, why not offer up registration?

~G. Fink

[cracked butt]

Jeez, I wonder if the author of this thread knew about the binder than FFL holders keep filled with those pretty yellow pieces that list personal information of everyone whos bought a gun from the business. Should I break the news to him now that the BATF can take a look at those pretty pieces of paper at any time or should we take him into reality through baby steps? Oops, my bad, too late.

[tyme]

I've limited my retail gun purchases to less than 1 a month for precisely this reason.

What originally motivated me was the news quite a while ago of Chicago CAGE units getting federal government records of anyone who frequently bought guns (I've forgotten what their criteria were... several in a week or several in a month... something like that)... in any state, hoping to catch people who have bought lots of guns and moved to IL without getting a FOID card.

[Lennyjoe]

I've limited my retail gun purchases to less than 1 a month for precisely this reason
Jeez, wish I had the money to worry about that kind of problem. ;)

[2nd Amendment]

Not certain what your point is, Cracked? Yes there's all those pretty yellow forms, which F-Troop just demanded be alphabetized and provided in neat bite sized bits for their perusal based on purchases. That's the whole point...

And yes, F-Troop and others can ask for anything they want. You can also tell them to piss up a rope. Usually that's enough and away the little toads go. But not always. And if you happen to be one of those "not always" you can kiss most, if not all, of your life goodbye.

DMF, will you stop quoting "the law". Nobody cares what it says, leat of all the government employees generally in question.

[tyme]

I don't buy 1 a month, but whenever there were several guns I wanted, I spaced them out over several months, at least a full month between each transfer.

[DMF]

DMF, will you stop quoting "the law". Nobody cares what it says, leat of all the government employees generally in question. Sure I'll stop, because I wouldn't want facts and reality get in the way of a good tinhatted whining session. http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/upeyes.gif

Some people do care what the law says, especially those tasked with enforcing those laws.

[Vernal45]

Where is a picture of a flag with the letters BS on it when you really need it?


DMF, I have known this dealer for a decade. Hell, most of my firearm purchases were from him. He does not lie, he does not BS. To clarify, the ATF requested (demanded) a list be generated of people that made frequent purchases, in other words individuals that were buying a lot of guns. It is none of the ATF's business. Is had nothing to do with complying with multiple purchase paperwork (all of that was in order), IT HAD DO DO WITH PEOPLE THAT HAD PURCHASED A LARGE AMOUNT OF GUNS IN THE PAST. LAWFUL PURCHASES MADE BY CITIZENS. If you dont believe this, fine, I was just posting this to give a heads up and to share information, not much anyone can do about it since the ATF has little to no oversight. DMF, if you try to explain this, you are part of the problem.

(Art's Grammaw was fine with this, but I found it to be beneath the High Road. Carry on.)
--Don Gwinn

[Derby FALs]

What I hate is when they take all the 4473s back to headquarters because of a perceived discrepancy. Yeah, right...
:neener:

[cracked butt]

If someone goes to a gunstore and buys 5 handguns every week, it certainly is the BATF's business. If the guy checks out ok, no big deal, but if he's running his own second hand gun business catering to individuals who legally can't buy a handgun, they should fry his butt.

A local gundealer that I've bought several guns throughover the years was recently shut down because he was selling guns off the book to a friend who in turn was selling them to gangbangers. He wouldn't have been caught except for his buddy got robbed at gunpoint by one of the gentlemen that was a customer of his. The gun shop owner was a nice guy, I stopped in and talked to him often, but I really don't care one bit that he's in trouble with the feds because he blatently broke the law.

The idea that we need to fill out a 4473 to buy a gun really sucks. But it will probably never get any better than it is right now, and complaining about the Feds doing a quick check on people who frequently buy guns isn't going to help our situation either.

I don't know if the deal was with multiple handgun purchases per week or just frequent buyers. I've bought at least a dozen guns last year and 1/2 that many already this year and I worry not.

[2nd Amendment]

Some people do care what the law says, especially those tasked with enforcing those laws.

Unfortunately reality keeps proving otherwise.

[Dionysusigma]

taliv:... or you can say "No... that's illegal. You can't ask me for that," in which event, they will usually withdraw their request.
Source? Not siding with anyone, but I just wanna know.
Gordon Fink:Thought: if we need to “compromise” in order to get some pro-RKBA legislation passed, why not offer up registration?
Because of the words "shall not be infringed." It (the American Second Amendment) doesn't state that compromises between the people and the governing body can be made in regards to this issue--it states that infringement, of any kind, shall not happen. Ever.

[Barbara]

If someone goes to a gunstore and buys 5 handguns every week, it certainly is the BATF's business.

Nope.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Only in a nanny/surveillance state would it be government's business. Under liberty, the government knows not thing one about your daily activities, and cares not to know. Been a while since we've lived under liberty. I guess no one can remember what it was like. You'd probably have to be a bit over a century old to remember it.

[Alex45ACP]

If someone goes to a gunstore and buys 5 handguns every week, it certainly is the BATF's business.

:scrutiny:

:banghead:

[canaan]

the ATF requested (demanded) a list of frequent/multiple/mass buyers from him, Alphabetized, with address and guns, type and number purchased, along with purchase dates

In NE Ohio, my friend, FFL gun dealer, says it's SOP for ATF to just make copies of the paperwork.... :mad:

[canaan]

I was an IRS agent.

I am pleased to say that before I decided to save my soul and depart the world's largest criminal organization, I managed to harass a multitude of scumbag lawyers, (the kind that give the other 1% of lawyers a bad name)

I even managed to give some REFUNDS with my audits.

It took many many showers to wash off the evil I was a part of. I also served a 2 year sentence of being an 'enrolled agent' using my IRS skills against them to defend the basic 1040 taxpayer who was outgunned by them...

The reason I bring this up is that I believe that ANY organization, governmental or otherwise, will gradually increase it's power base, and spread it's influence as far as they can.

I did much more damage with a pen in my hand, than I ever did with an M-16 in the Marines.

:scrutiny:

[HonorsDaddy]

If someone goes to a gunstore and buys 5 handguns every week, it certainly is the BATF's business.

No it isnt.

Edit: Upon further reflection, I have a question.

WHY do you think it is the BATFE's business?

[pax]

canaan ~

I used to write junk mail for a living.

pax

One of my first jobs after college was in a public relations firm. A client would bring in a truth that didn't fit his purpose, and we PR guys would stretch it, twist it, and varnish it to suit his needs. Sometimes we would make two half-truths out of a whole truth, one of our specialties. After a half-truth had been fine-tuned by our technicians, my job was to gloss it over and put some spin on it before packaging. The work paid well and there was no heavy lifting, but for some unknown reason I had trouble sleeping nights. ... "No sleeping pills," Doc Fishbein said. "But, Doc," I countered, "I lie in bed all night with my eyes wide open." "That's because you lie at work all day with your eyes wide open," he replied. – Pat McManus

[AZRickD]

Thought: if we need to “compromise” in order to get some pro-RKBA legislation passed, why not offer up registration?

1) It doesn't reduce crime. One shouldn't be compromising by allowing stupid legislation to go through.

2) It violates the right to privacy and assumes that fed.gov or state.gov has the power and obligation to spy on our exercise of a Right denoted in the Bill of Rights.

3) Registration is a tool for confiscation (see Germany, France, Japan, New York City, California, et al).

4) Given the actions of what Ann Coulter calls "The Stupid Party" the GOP won't be up to the task in weighing the plusses and minuses (see 1986 FOPA). We will get less than we give up... and just like they did after 1986, the gun-banners will be back for more.

Now, as to the BATF request...I hope the FFL has the wherewithal to not comply with this under-color-of-law request; I hope he files an administrative complaint; I hope he files a civil complaint.

Rick

[Vernal45]

Jeez, I wonder if the author of this thread knew about the binder than FFL holders keep filled with those pretty yellow pieces that list personal information of everyone whos bought a gun from the business. Should I break the news to him now that the BATF can take a look at those pretty pieces of paper at any time or should we take him into reality through baby steps? Oops, my bad, too late.


Yes, I know about the binder, and record keeping reqirements of FFL's, so your sarcastic comment was wasted.

If someone goes to a gunstore and buys 5 handguns every week, it certainly is the BATF's business. NO, its not the BATF's business, and that statement proves that you are part of them problem we gun owners face.

[Omni04]

excuse my ignorance on this issue, but i wish to be enlightened. :)

Some people say the BATFE should be notified when people buy a lot of guns in a short period of time. The only agrument that backs this is incase these people are selling them to law breakers, bad guys and whatnot.

On the other hand, other people believe that we are excersizing a free right, gun ownership. And buying them, owning them, and firing them should not draw extra attention to ourselves.

the forms we fill out when be buy guns, are they kept secret form the BATFE? Do they have any access to them whatsoever, as it is? What is the usual method for finding people that DO buy handguns and sell them off on the 'black market'?

im just curious on all angles of this, if nobody minds explaining this :) i feel like i just got caught in the middle of a crickett match, :-/

[cracked butt]

NO, its not the BATF's business, and that statement proves that you are part of them problem we gun owners face.

If you think that we should all look the other way instead of having professional strawbuyers checked out, you are the problem, not me. The last thing lawful gunowners need is more criminals with guns in their hands that can be tracked back to legitimate purchases from dealers.

[HonorsDaddy]

If you think that we should all look the other way instead of having professional strawbuyers checked out, you are the problem, not me. The last thing lawful gunowners need is more criminals with guns in their hands that can be tracked back to legitimate purchases from dealers.


If you think we should all look the other way instead of having potential criminals checked out, you're the problem, not me. The last thing gun owners need is more criminals with evil black guns in their hands that can be traced back to legitimate purchases from dealers.

Based on your "logic", the BATFE should be notified whenever someone purchases a gun of a type which has ever been used in a crime or even purchased using a method of payment ever used by a criminal.

Sorry CB - but you're the kind of gun owner I frankly cant stand. You'll be fine with any restrictions as long as they dont directly affect you. Then i'll bet you'll scream bloody murder, wontcha?

Oh yeah - it still isnt the BATFE's business if someone purchases 5 guns in a week.

[The Rabbi]

For those who think it isnt the BATF's business.

1) Is it the BATF's business to enforce the laws concerning sales of firearms?

2) Does law enforcement also involve investigating situations that might suggest illegal activity is taking place?

Not all agents are jack-booted Storm Troopers. Not all FFLs are honest businessmen. One store here had its owner sent off to the big house because he was retailing stolen guns. I am sure if anyone here had bought one and then had an FBI agent show up demanding its return (without compensation) he would be asking why the BATF wasnt more proactive in shutting the slimy sleazebag down.

[HonorsDaddy]

Granted Rabbi, not all of them are JBT's but as they are actively involved in an effort to do away with my constitutionally protected right to own a firearm, I'm not terribly inclined to assume the majority are good guys.

The abuses of the BATFE are numerous and well documented. Trusting them is a fool's game. Comply to the letter of the law, but always remember they are NOT your friends. If they can find a way to put you in jail, they will do it.

I'd sooner trust Ted Kennedy with my car, a bottle of booze, my wife, and a lake.

[tyme]

Not all agents are jack-booted Storm Troopers. Not all FFLs are honest businessmen.
Not all (insert profession here) are honest businessmen. Not all customers are law-abiding citizens.

Time to do away with this "cash" stuff, require that all personal purchases are conducted through U.S. banks, and require all companies and banks to report all transactions to the government... yipee! We'll all be safe! Criminals and dirty corporations will be unable to do business!

[cracked butt]

HD- if we are not going to enforce laws on strawy buying, then why enforce any laws at all? The worst enemy to gun owners besides politicians is criminals. Those who willfully sell to criminals should be locked up. I'm not talking about thed guy who in one month buys two pistols and later sells one of them that he doesn't like to the guy next door, I'm talking about the guy who buys 5 pistols on thursday and sells them at the local dope emporium on friday night. If you can't see the problem with ignoring such people, then you have your head buried somewhere dark and warm.


Sorry CB - but you're the kind of gun owner I frankly cant stand. You'll be fine with any restrictions as long as they dont directly affect you. Then i'll bet you'll scream bloody murder, wontcha?

How about this? We all clamor, rant, and rave whenever the BATF actually does their jobs. If they stop enforcing laws, maybe the politicians will get smart and just ban guns altogether. Maybe then you will be happy.


Its my view that the BATF purposely does not enforce such laws enough. Maybe its on purpose...if there is a gun problem, there's a reason for the BATF to exist, if they actually do their jobs well, strawbuyers have a harder time turning a dime, crime becomes less of a high political priority and the BATF loses funding. This is the way all government at every level works- competance is penalized, and those that drag their feet get more funds.

[HonorsDaddy]

How about this? We all clamor, rant, and rave whenever the BATF actually does their jobs. If they stop enforcing laws, maybe the politicians will get smart and just ban guns altogether. Maybe then you will be happy.
Are you seriously suggesting that only because of the existence of the BATFE, which seems to exist solely to enforce paperwork requirements, keeps Congress from banning firearms?

Did you ever stop to think that bureaucrats are part of the problem, not the solution?

[cracked butt]

No. But if noone enforces the laws, stricter laws are sure to follow.
It doesn't take much of an envent to trigger new stricter laws, nor are politicians above making huge leaps of logic to push their laws. If we as tax payers are forced to pay for the BATF to exist, at least we demand that they do their jobs, and by that I don't mean harassing gun owners or sellers, but going after the criminals.

[Derby FALs]

What laws are you talking about. It was already illegal to kill someone with a gun, knife, fork, whatever...

[tyme]

CB, so because an unfortunate event will cause the sheeple to clamor for stricter preventive laws, we should accept and encourage enforcement of current preventive laws? What level of preventive laws are you willing to accept, given that the aforementioned unfortunate event will occur eventually, one way or another?

Your line seems to be a bit more accommodating of the government than mine and several other people's who have rejected your "let the BATFE enforce the law", but that doesn't mean we're right. All I'd offer is that the founders were spinning in their graves long before the 1968 GCA, so we're all pretty much sheeple from their POV.

[Baba Louie]

FFL Dealer goes out of business... His bound books go to ATF, Martinsburg West Virginia...

I wonder why? How many FFL's were there before the Clinton Admin directed the ATF to reduce that number NOW? How many are there today?

Multiple gun sales at one time, more than one gun a week (5 days) by same person, automatic form and notification of ATF and local po-po (or so I've been told). Maybe Wild Alaska or Marko can fill us in on specifics.

What about you guys with your C&R license? What does the rulebook say in way of inspections and bound copies of purchases?

And yes, it is to keep an eye on those who do act as gun-runners/straw man buyers, etc. And it may, or may not, go into that big tinfoil hat wearing computer database that we all know exists and fear will be used to round them all up some day... right?

And are you going to tell the guys and gals who grant you a license to do business to "Fold it five ways and tuck it where the sun don't shine" or say "Hang on a minute Vern, this will take a while. Why doncha have a cup of Joe or two while I stop everything else I'm doing and get it ready for ya?"

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm

Note the subtitle of "Alcohol & Tobacco DiveRsion" three lines below ONLINE at the top of page. Maybe there should be an addition of "Firearms" since it appears that some licensed dealers are losing control of their firearms via theft (ala Bullseye and the Maryland wack job)

Vernal45... whatchagonnado? This is a Bureacratic Dept that sets their rules and guidelines and no President, Congressman or Senator could ever muster enough votes to stop them from doing their perceived job in keeping the streets safe from bad guys buying guns through legal dealers. Everyone knows about it. The previous Administration hated gun owners, this one is so-so (at least Ashcroft said a few kinda good things about our RKBA). Who knows what the next Admin will be like?

Congress can say that they're not to blame, it's the Treasury or HSD (that darned Executive Branch again) doing, not theirs; cause we KNOW they'd never do anything to usurp our RKBA... right? :neener:

sigh

[DMF]

. . . the BATFE, which seems to exist solely to enforce paperwork requirements . . . Oh yeah, those guys never fight real crime.

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/061005sea_bandidosindicted.htm

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/062205dal_mansentenced.htm

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/063005no_coleman.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/062905tam_watkins.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/062805chi_menarrested.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/062305bal_speedguiltyplea.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/062205dal_thirteencharged.pdf

. . . and one particularly relevant to this thread:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/061305phi_njstraw_arrest.htm

Here's a few where they helped prevent crimes including murder:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/061405kc_guiltyplea.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/060305bos_mancharged.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/060305bos_chan-oneillplea.pdf (this case protected a gun dealer!)

How about stopping a serial arsonist:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy05press/field/060607bal_sweatt.pdf

[cracked butt]

CB, so because an unfortunate event will cause the sheeple to clamor for stricter preventive laws, we should accept and encourage enforcement of current preventive laws? What level of preventive laws are you willing to accept, given that the aforementioned unfortunate event will occur eventually, one way or another?

I can't understand why people have such a hangup about the BATF checking out people who make frequent multiple purchases. I'm willing to bet that many people here know about a gun shop in their area that's been reported to be the source of a inordinate percentage of guns used in crimes in the area. I know of one. Gun owners don't want to talk about this sort of thing and want to pretend that it never happens. If a shop sells a single gun to someone and it gets sold to a friend and the gun is used used in a crime the next week, there is little that can be done about this, even if it happens a 100 times over with different buyers. If someone is buying 15 handguns a month for 6 out of the last 12 months, common sense would dictate that there could possibly be something going on here and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have someone dig a bit deeper into it.

[cracked butt]

DMF- this is purely anecdotal on my part because I can no longer find the newspaper article that came out about 6 or 7 years ago, and I understand that the BATF can only be in so many places at one given time, but this one stuck in my craw.

Rememeber when the national news was that there were xxxxxx number of buyers rejected by nics because of a past conviction but noone ever investigated any of them? In Wisconsin at that point IIRC, there were about 1200 or so NICS rejects in Wisconsin at that point and none of them were pursued. A representative from the regional BATF office said (to paraphrase) "we don't follow up on potential buyers rejected by NICS unless they have 2 or 3 convictions for violent felonies"

So was there thinking about how they really don't seem to mind that a person who may have been convicted of rape, burglary, or violent assault may be trying to buy a gun, and broke several federal laws in the process. I guess that would be right in line with the thinking of a lot of people on this board.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm willing to bet that many people here know about a gun shop in their area that's been reported to be the source of a inordinate percentage of guns used in crimes in the area.If they have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, then they need to acquire a search warrant from a judge who agrees with them specifying the documents to be searched. That's what the Constitution requires. Otherwise, it is not the government's business who purchases what. ATF Agents are the federal government, and the federal government is constrained in the United States by the US Constitution. Show me in the Constitution where the government is given authority over supervising our gun purchases? If you cannot, the authority does not exist. Please read the Tenth Amendment.

[DMF]

cb, the phenomen you describe is not specific to ATF or NICS checks. As my first SAC said to me, "you need to learn we don't have enough agents, prosecutors, judges, or jails to get every bad guy. Sometimes a few small fish get away while we're going after a big fish, or netting a whole school of fish." Sad but true.

Contrary to what some here think the government, whether fed, state, or local, just doesn't have the time or resources to catch every person who breaks a law, and certainly doesn't waste time hassling innocent people. We try to prioritize the cases that come in, so we are getting the most bang for the taxpayers' bucks.

[Silent-Snail]

Time to do away with this "cash" stuff, require that all personal purchases are conducted through U.S. banks, and require all companies and banks to report all transactions to the government... yipee! We'll all be safe! Criminals and dirty corporations will be unable to do business!

Yay now I can't buy anything. If the above was sarchasm(sp?) I apologize.

[The Real Hawkeye]

cb, the phenomen you describe is not specific to ATF or NICS checks. As my first SAC said to me, "you need to learn we don't have enough agents, prosecutors, judges, or jails to get every bad guy. Sometimes a few small fish get away while we're going after a big fish, or netting a whole school of fish." Sad but true.

Contrary to what some here think the government, whether fed, state, or local, just don't have the time or resources to catch every person who breaks a law, and certainly don't waste time hassling innocent people. We try to prioritize the cases that come in, so we are getting the most bang for the taxpayers' bucks.Ever consider a career in public relations?

[DMF]

No, but thanks for asking.

[cracked butt]

If they have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, then they need to acquire a search warrant from a judge who agrees with them specifying the documents to be searched.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, part of being licensed to sell guns means that you must not only keep records, but allow the BATF to inspect them at their request once a year if they so choose.

I don't have a FFL but I do have a C&R. It would do me little good to squack and holler if they asked to inspect my bound book when I entered into an agreement with the Federal agency that allows them to do so as condition of granting me the license.

[TallPine]

I can't understand why people have such a hangup about the BATF checking out people who make frequent multiple purchases.
I can't understand how people who presumably know that gun control doesn't work could think that some gun control will work :confused:

But then neither can I understand why it is anybody's business what substances other people put in their own bodies... :p

[cracked butt]

I can't understand how people who presumably know that gun control doesn't work could think that some gun control will work

My whole point is that if we as gun owners have to jump through all of the hoops to legally buy a gun as a result of a few lowlifes who won't obey the laws, why not aggressivley pursue the lowlifes who: A) will not follow the restrictions placed on the rest of us, and B) who's actions will elad to more restrictive laws on the rest of us.


But then neither can I understand why it is anybody's business what substances other people put in their own bodies...

I can understand yet not condone illegal drug use. I can certainly understand why some people want them legalized- drug usage is mainly a victimless crime. When a convicted felon, one who has already proven to society that they will willfully break the law to harm others, wants to buy a gun with the likelyhood of wanting it to harm others, looking the other way or having a 'live and let live' attitude is counterproductive.

[SamlautRanger]

CB, I agree with most of what you said. The BATF has a job to do and that is to enforce firearm laws and investigate potential threats to society, especially in this age of terrorism and drugs. IF a red flag goes up then investigate. If you are not breaking the law, then you have nothing to worry about. If there is ever a time when the government decides to take away our right to bear arms all together, then we will fight ( what if Hillary and all the liberal homos get into office and the supreme court may be a possibility in the future). I get tired of gun owners who get pissed off that they can not own gernade launchers, RPGs, and machine guns and think their rights are being infringed.

It would be very suspicious if there was someone and a red flag would go up, if someone was buying 5 handguns everyweek for say a 6 month period. BATF invesitgates and finds out buyer is a rich guy who likes to have 120 Glocks and Sigs, then there is no problem. But if they find out that it is somebody straw buying for gangbangers and criminals or non registared aliens of middle east persuasion - then I am damn glad they investigsated and shut down the operation and brought justice.

[DRZinn]

If some scumbag buys five guns at a dealer and then goes out and sells them to his crack dealer firends, who kill innocent people in drive-bys -
...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...


WHY SHOULD THE GUNS BE TRACKED ANYWHERE? There's no legitimate reason for the government to track guns everywhere. Registration leads to confiscation, and tracking guns from the company to ABC gun store to Sneaky Sam who bought them legally is de facto registration. Sure, you might stop the crack dealers from shooting people - maybe - but in the process you've created something that a few years back some very good men risked everything to avoid.

No registration. Never.

[cracked butt]

WHY SHOULD THE GUNS BE TRACKED ANYWHERE? There's no legitimate reason for the government to track guns everywhere. Registration leads to confiscation, and tracking guns from the company to ABC gun store to Sneaky Sam who bought them legally is de facto registration.

Why should we have to drive on the right side of the road or why should we be required to wear clothes when in public? These rules were in place before you or I came along and will be here long after you and I are gone. There's nothing you can do about it, so you might as well make the best of it.

The government already does what you fear. They do track every gun from the factory all the way to at least the first private citizen who buys it. Like it or not, this is in place for almost 40 years and is not going to go away. The whole reasoning given for CGA 68 was to reduce crime. Why not tell .gov to step up to the plate and do what they said they would do, instead of pretending a problem doesn't exist and if you close your eyes and cover your ears, the 4473 forms will somehow cease to exist?

[spartacus2002]

When a convicted felon, one who has already proven to society that they will willfully break the law to harm others, wants to buy a gun with the likelyhood of wanting it to harm others, looking the other way or having a 'live and let live' attitude is counterproductive.

With so many felonies on the books that are purely malum prohibitum, not malum in se, the "convicted felon is a danger to society" argument has become VERY weak.

[cracked butt]

Then why bother punishing or convicting felons at all? :rolleyes:

Maybe we should all join hands and sing "we are the world" and all of the bad things in the world will go away and all of the bad people will stop being bad.

[The Rabbi]

I can't understand how people who presumably know that gun control doesn't work could think that some gun control will work

So let's do away with all gun laws. Heck, let's do away with all laws period. Think of the money saved on courts and law enforcement.
Of course you'll have to hunker down 24/7 in your livingroom with an AK on your lap to keep out all the bad guys/have-nots but you're a tough guy and can handle it. ;)

[The Real Hawkeye]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, part of being licensed to sell guns means that you must not only keep records, but allow the BATF to inspect them at their request once a year if they so choose.

I don't have a FFL but I do have a C&R. It would do me little good to squack and holler if they asked to inspect my bound book when I entered into an agreement with the Federal agency that allows them to do so as condition of granting me the license.You dont' require a license to do that which is your right to do. You have a right to make a living in the sale of items which people have a right to own. If your argument is that the Federal Government has the authority to supervise your profession, then show me in the Constitution where that authority was granted to it by the states. If you cannot, I would refer you to the Tenth Amendment.

[The Rabbi]

You dont' require a license to do that which is your right to do. You have a right to make a living in the sale of items which people have a right to own. If your argument is that the Federal Government has the authority to supervise your profession, then show me in the Constitution where that authority was granted to it by the states. If you cannot, I would refer you to the Tenth Amendment.

And when can we count on buying the first production Real Hawkeye carbines chambered in 500 Magnum? Purchased via the internet and delivered by UPS direct to our door? ;)

You can sit there and mouth off all day long about "my right to do this or that" but until you get up and risk serious jail time you're just spouting off.

[cracked butt]

Yup, I'll buy one of those Real Hawkeye carbines too.

[The Real Hawkeye]

And when can we count on buying the first production Real Hawkeye carbines chambered in 500 Magnum? Purchased via the internet and delivered by UPS direct to our door?

You can sit there and mouth off all day long about "my right to do this or that" but until you get up and risk serious jail time you're just spouting off.It is not necessarily the case that what is our right to do is without harmful consequences. We have allowed the slide towards totalitarianism to go too far without check. As a result of gradualism, and the passage of time, my assertions sound outrageous to you. Just because I do not choose to do something which will get me put in jail, doesn't mean that it is not my right to do it. The Jews of Kristallnacht had every right to operate their businesses in town without having their stores ransacked, and without themselves being beaten. They had every right to receive the assistance of the police in preventing it. The fact that they were victimized by their own government did not mean that they were acting beyond their rights to operate their businesses. Rights and abuses of government power are two separate issues. The abuse doesn't eliminate the right, and I am allowed to speak of my rights, clearly enshrined in the US Constitution, without necessarily acting on them. There is such a thing as prudence.

[The Rabbi]

Then get out there and strike a blow for liberty. We'll begin raising funds for your legal defense. ;)

[CAS700850]

I've prosecuted one case where BATFE Agents participated. One involved a guy who was basically running a gun shop out of his garage. Now, before anyone gets out the flamethrowers here, the guy was "selling" the guns for meth, meth-making materials, etc. He was also modifying certain guns by shortening the barrels, etc. My favorite was fitting some stolen H&K full auto trigger groups to semi-auto rifles, thus creating convertible rifles. Anyways, we confiscated almost 400 firearms from the guy. Asked BATFE to do traces on every gun, to determine if any of the guns were stolen. Almost two and a half years latyer, and a year after the guy went to prison, I'm still getting some of the traces back. Maybe got 30% back so far. They never determined where the full auto triger groups came from, though I did with a few phone calls.

Anyone who fears BATFE can relax a bit. They are disorganized, understaffed, and far from the imminent threat many of us fear.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Then get out there and strike a blow for liberty. We'll begin raising funds for your legal defense.I never said I was willing to become a martyr, especially since it will likely not improve the situation in general. I am content to simply state what our rights are, as enshrined in the US Constitution. I don't think we've quite reached the point yet in this country where this requires a legal defense fund. I might be wrong, however. There is, after all, the Patriot Act to consider. I might be accused of being a terrorist, resulting in my loss of Constitutional rights, in which case a lawyer would be no good anyway, as accused terrorists have no right of due process under the Patriot Act.

[TallPine]

So let's do away with all gun laws.
Amen! :cool:

Heck, let's do away with all laws period.
Qualified amen. Let's do away with all laws against "crimes" that don't have a victim.


And comparing gun laws to "rules of the road" is just ridiculous. We drive on the "right" side (British drive on the "wrong side" ;) ) so that we both know which side to pass each other on. I drive on the left side of the road all the time, to avoid mud holes and other hazards. But I get over when I meet another vehicle - not because it's the law, because I don't want to have a wreck.

[waterhouse]

I don't plan on taking a side one way or the other on the way things are vs. the way things should be. In terms of the beginning of the thread on "registration" I can at least tell you how it works as far as paperwork goes as there seem to be some questions about it.

4473s are required by the BATFE to be kept in an orderly way, which is defined by them as being kept "in alphabetical (by name of transferee) or chronological (by date of transaction) order." I keep mine in alphabetical. For a firearms transfer the 4473 must be kept for 20 years (when I can throw them away) or until closing of the business, at which time they get sent to the BATFE in West Virginia.

Furthermore, "ATF officers may . . .enter the premises of any licenced dealer . . . for the purpose of examining or inspecting any record or document . . ."

So if the ATF showed up and asked me to please compile a list of frequent customers, I could probably legally turn them down (as far as I know I just have to give them access to the paperwork, not do their detective work for them), but it would only take them a few minutes (perhaps 15) to flip through the alphabetical listing and find out which last names show up more than others.

Also, (since this was brought up earlier) if you buy more than 2 handguns in a 5 day period I have to fill out a fun form in triplicate that says you did so, and I keep one copy, one goes to the BATFE, and one goes to the local Police.

The good news, if you believe the BATFE (feel free to bash that clause all you want), is that when we do a NICS check there is a law against them storing personal data for "Proceed" transfers, so every day the NICS database is supposedly wiped clean. This means that you are on record on paper in my file cabinet for buying the gun, but not on the FBI computer for buying a gun.

[grimjaw]

Forgive me, but I am unfamiliar with the legislation around operating as an FFL. What I'd like to know is, how does this affect regular joe/grimjaw?

Fact: as a regular joe, I have purchased five handguns (at least) over the last two months, using individual FFL's or large chain stores. I had to sign the 4473 every time and wait for the phone call. The serial numbers were recorded, my vitals taken down. Wouldn't F-Troop (wonderful nickname) already know that I'd bought the five over a small timespan, using a computer database of some sort?

I'm trying to think what they actually gain by collecting the information they could theoretically already have. Maybe they're cracking down on FFL's for some reason, justified or not.

I don't agree with heavy-handed tactics, but I also don't see what good it would do them. The same logic I hear applied to theft applies here. If F-Troop is going to do something illegal, they're going to do it no matter what resistance you put up (i.e. refusal to provide the paperwork as requested). If they were going to steal information they aren't supposed to track (waterhouse states that the NICS database is 'wiped clean' daily), seems like there's an easier way to do it than to send agents out into the field to collect paper copies of information and then enter than information by hand into a database for easy perusal later.

I'm not questioning the veracity of the Vernal45's story, just wondering at the futility of it.

jmm

[TallPine]

Wouldn't F-Troop (wonderful nickname) already know that I'd bought the five over a small timespan, using a computer database of some sort?
No, the serial numbers are recorded on the 4473, but not communicated to NICS for the approval. All the dealer has to tell them is whether it's a long gun or handgun

The store I used to work at filed 4473s in chronological order - newest in the front. I don't know how the heck you could purge your files after 20 years (assuming you were in business that long) if they were in alphabetical order by name without a huge amount of effort.

[DRZinn]

Why should we have to drive on the right side of the road or why should we be required to wear clothes when in public?Yeah, you're right, those are exactly the same thing as gun registration. :rolleyes:

They do track every gun from the factory all the way to at least the first private citizen who buys it.No s---, Sherlock. I know damn well what they already do. You're arguing that it's a good thing because it might stop straw-man purchases. I'm arguing that it isn't. Ya see how that works?

Geez.

[Werewolf]

So...
If I go to my local gunstore and buy an AR-15, a pump shotgun with 18" barrel and a 1911 style pistol, along with 1000 rds of 5.56 NATO, 500 rds of 12 ga 4 shot and 1000 rds .45 ACP Ball all on the same day at the same hour and minute then I should expect a visit from the local LEO's and a gentleman from BATF? Afterall a multiple purchase form has to be filed with local CLEO and BATF in that case.

Of course there's a very legitimate reason I would do that since I would like to compete in local 3 gun competitions. But then there's no place on the form to state that is there?

So are the police and BATF gonna show up and question me just because I wanna shoot 3 gun? Can I tell 'em it's none of their business why I purchased all that stuff on the same day at the same store?

If so then this country's not goin' to hell - it's already there?

[waterhouse]

Werewolf, it only applies to handguns.

You can buy 10 shotguns from me at once and they just get recorded in my bound book and on the back of the 4473. Once you buy 2 handguns in a 5 day period then I have to fill out form 1140 "Report of Multiple Sale or other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers." Again, I'm not arguing how things should be, I'm just saying how they are.

Also, I've filled out this form several times. As far as I know (I've asked a couple of them) none of my customers has had anyone knocking on their door.

[cracked butt]

No s---, Sherlock. I know damn well what they already do. You're arguing that it's a good thing because it might stop straw-man purchases. I'm arguing that it isn't. Ya see how that wor

from this point forward, I'll just refrain from battling wits with an unarmed person.

[rock jock]

It is obvious that quite a few folks on THR don't think the govt, LE, law-abiding citizens, or Mickey Mouse for that matter should make any attempt to prevent hardened criminals from obtaining firearms that will be used later in criminal enterprise.

I am one of those who think otherwise.

[GunGoBoom]

guys, what i think you're missing is that ATF (or any LEO) agents can ASK for anything they want. you, or your ffl friends, can play nice and say "ok, here you go. please don't get your jackboots out!". or you can say "no, piss off. that's illegal. you can't ask me for that", in which event, they will usually withdraw their request.

Bingo, we have a winner.

[The Real Hawkeye]

It is obvious that quite a few folks on THR don't think the govt, LE, law-abiding citizens, or Mickey Mouse for that matter should make any attempt to prevent hardened criminals from obtaining firearms that will be used later in criminal enterprise.

I am one of those who think otherwise.Nope. In a free society, we punish people for doing things that violate the rights of others. We do not anticipate that having possession of certain objects makes them suspect and requiring a visit from their friendly Federal Agents.

[Vernal45]

Nope. In a free society, we punish people for doing things that violate the rights of others. We do not anticipate that having possession of certain objects makes them suspect and requiring a visit from their friendly Federal Agents.

AMEN!

[Guns_and_Labs]

I've purchased multiple handguns on several occasions (estate sales are a more fun if the deceased was a collector), had the "multiple sale form" filed, and have yet to have BATFE or my local PD visit.

My assumption was always that someone was looking it over and deciding that there was no probable cause to investigate further.

But this does beg the question of how the "multiple sale form" was justified, but there's a lot in the Brady Bill that falls into that category.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I used to live in NY State, where every handgun you purchase is registered as being in your possession at the local PD, as well as actually printed (with serial number) on the license itself, which you have to have on your person while carrying. I guess that's why multiple purchases in NY State had never been a problem for me. I've done it, and never received a visit from ATF Special Agent Friendly.

[GhostRider66]

The last thing lawful gunowners need is more criminals with guns in their hands that can be tracked back to legitimate purchases from dealers.

Is that really the last thing we need? I mean really?

Honestly, the criminals are going to get them one way or the other. That's proven. This whole argument about making it more difficult for them is really ignorant. First off, as far as the felons go, if they are not to be trusted with a gun which, legally or not, we all know is readily available anywhere, why is that person on the streets? Secondly, when we start to argue and debate the 'source' and the legitimacy of the 'source' we will eventually lose the entire war because, let's face it, the true source is manufacturer and if you want to eliminate guns in the hands of children and criminals...well we all know where that arguments leads.

[buzz_knox]

What I hate is when they take all the 4473s back to headquarters because of a perceived discrepancy. Yeah, right...

Actually, I saw something very comparable to that. Key words here, folks: I watched this happen.

In '94-'95, I was in a gunshop in Nashville. A Metro PD detective came in while I was there and said they had a report a gang member had bought a Mac-10. They were going to gunshops to see if any had been sold. The owner said no, and the detective said he wanted to see the 4473s. The owner said he couldn't allow that, and the detective effectively threatened him. The owner relented and the detective started copying down names, numbers, etc. He didn't find a Mac-10, but said it could have been an AK, so he just copied everything down.

When I left, he was still copying the owners' information down. No way that the store had sold that many "assault weapons" in a month, let alone in the time period the cop had requested.

As to a database, my favorite FFL ran a background check on me a few years back. The person doing the check confirmed she had my records, and rattled off everything I'd bought in the last few months. Yes, I know that's not supposed to happen or be possible. But it did.

[rock jock]

We do not anticipate that having possession of certain objects makes them suspect and requiring a visit from their friendly Federal Agents.
Please change "we" to "I". Such an argument defies the logic control center of my brain and is instantly rejected.

To clarify, persons with a history of violent criminal behavior have already demonstrated what their intentions are w/ regard to firearms. Furthermore, there is nothing in the writings of the FF that is for, and much in their writings that would seem to be against, the return of a RKBA to a violent criminal.

[buzz_knox]

To clarify, persons with a history of violent criminal behavior have already demonstrated what their intentions are w/ regard to firearms. Furthermore, there is nothing in the writings of the FF that is for, and much in their writings that would seem to be against, the return of a RKBA to a violent criminal.

Like what? Be specific, because the standard practice of the time of the FF (and well into the 20th Century in fact) was that a criminal, once released from incarceration, had his rights restored.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Please change "we" to "I". Such an argument defies the logic control center of my brain and is instantly rejected.

To clarify, persons with a history of violent criminal behavior have already demonstrated what their intentions are w/ regard to firearms. Furthermore, there is nothing in the writings of the FF that is for, and much in their writings that would seem to be against, the return of a RKBA to a violent criminal.Really? So you are saying that just by purchasing a couple of handguns at once, federal government agents may assume that it is likely you have a "history of criminal behavior" and begin an investigation on you based on that assumption? Doesn't sound like the America I learned about in school.

[The Rabbi]

Honestly, the criminals are going to get them one way or the other. That's proven. This whole argument about making it more difficult for them is really ignorant. First off, as far as the felons go, if they are not to be trusted with a gun which, legally or not, we all know is readily available anywhere,

Yeah, Heck I was offered shotguns, pistols, and subguns while pumping gas this morning. All before 10 AM. ;)

[Beethoven]

Let's say I lived in a state like CA where they only allow us peasants to purchase one handgun per month anyway.

If I do buy one gun a month, does that automatically make me a frequent purchaser? :scrutiny:

[Beethoven]

To clarify, persons with a history of violent criminal behavior have already demonstrated what their intentions are w/ regard to firearms. Furthermore, there is nothing in the writings of the FF that is for, and much in their writings that would seem to be against, the return of a RKBA to a violent criminal.


I'd like a straight, short and simple answer to this question:


If a criminal is SO dangerous that we won't let him own a gun after he's served his time, what the heck is he doing out of prison in the first place? :scrutiny:

[The Rabbi]

f a criminal is SO dangerous that we won't let him own a gun after he's served his time, what the heck is he doing out of prison in the first place?

Someone with a speeding ticket will pay more money for his insurance. If he is SO reckless that he poses an increased risk then what the heck is he doing on the road in the first place? ;)
A person who is a sex offender will probably never get a job supervising women or girls. If he SO dangerous what the heck is he doing working in the first place?

[Libertyteeth]

The BATFE should not exist. It is incompatible with the Second Amendment. And so are all the gun control laws they enforce. It is sad to see fed.gov's apologists lining up in favor of gun control. It matters not that guns are sold to criminals, what matters is stopping their predatory actions.

I don't think that convicted felons who have served their time should be denied their rights as citizens. On the other hand, why does the system keep releasing violent, predatory criminals back on to the street after just a fraction of their time has been served? Why, to make room in the prisons for all the non-violent drug dealers, of course.

Arguing that this is the way it is, and since it has been this way for a long time, we should learn to live with these infringements because nothing is going to change is defeatist. Be happy, don't rock the boat, don't complain-- the impending police state will vanish if we just refuse to see it.

[rock jock]

If a criminal is SO dangerous that we won't let him own a gun after he's served his time, what the heck is he doing out of prison in the first place?
A failed justice system. Its not going away anytime soon, and making the situation worse by giving said criminals ready access to firearms does not invalidate the fact that they should not be trusted with them.


Really? So you are saying that just by purchasing a couple of handguns at once, federal government agents may assume that it is likely you have a "history of criminal behavior" and begin an investigation on you based on that assumption?
Wow, talk about twisting my words around. If the feds are doing their jobs right and employing good investigatory skills, they don't assume anything. Until they have additional evidence that you have been selling guns illegally via straw purchases, their investigation goes nowhere and you have nothing to worry about..

[Flyboy]

If the feds are doing their jobs right and employing good investigatory skills, they don't assume anything. Until they have additional evidence that you have been selling guns illegally via straw purchases, their investigation goes nowhere and you have nothing to worry about.
Ah. So you trust the government to do the right thing, then.

[The Rabbi]

Ah. So you trust the government to do the right thing, then.

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then. ;)

[Derby FALs]

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then.

"Absolutely".


Someone with a speeding ticket will pay more money for his insurance. If he is SO reckless that he poses an increased risk then what the heck is he doing on the road in the first place?

Paying a higher premium doesn't make a driver reckless but if he has to pay then why not speed anyway?

[Baba Louie]

Ah. You trust the government to do the... the John Lawmaster thing??? Naaahhh. That was then, this is now.

Unless you start acting all "terrorist-like"... or maybe you own a firearm that fires the same type of bullet used to kill innocent persons in and around the nations capitol a while back.

"Just doing my job, ma'am"

[HonorsDaddy]

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then.

Well so far, they've got a really good track record on this. :)

In all seriousness, all I trust the government to do is find the least efficient way to do whatever the people will let it get away with doing.

[GunGoBoom]

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then.



"Absolutely".

+1. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing, which is why no registration database of guns should exist, at the federal or state level. And copying 4473s is an infringement of the 2A, unless there's a guaranty that the records will be destroyed after the search for the crime gun in question is completed. There's not such a guaranty, so the records should only be searched visually at the FFLs premises - then the police leave, whether or not they find the suspected crime gun 4473 in question. Only the very limited, narrow, suspected 4473s that might have been for the crime gun should be copied - but an AK doesn't look anything like a MAC-10 in that one example - wth?

[Art Eatman]

Hey, Buzz Knox: I remember from the "Anti-Federalist Papers" that there was a discussion on the 2nd Amendment. I don't recall the exact wording, but RKBA would not apply to "those of unsound mind" and to those of "ill repute". I take the latter group to mean what today we'd call felons.

Back before the feds usurped states' rights, Texas would allow an ex-con to have a gun in his home for self-defense, but he couldn't take it outside the home.

:), Art

[The Real Hawkeye]

Until they have additional evidence that you have been selling guns illegally via straw purchases, their investigation goes nowhere and you have nothing to worry about..Excuse me, but according to you the mere purchase of more than one handgun should trigger an investigation.

[cropcirclewalker]

:confused: This one single string has collected more statist, closet gun grabber, stealth Chuckie, anti 2a .gov apologists than any other string I have read.

It's remarkable that they would all join up to try to defend their jobs on this one more so than all the others. :neener:

:scrutiny: Just an observation.

[Flyboy]

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then.
As a matter of fact, I do. I find that assuming the worst of my government saves time in the end.

[HonorsDaddy]

Ah. You trust the government to do the wrong thing, then.

As a matter of fact, I do. I find that assuming the worst of my government saves time in the end.
Amazing how well that works isnt it?

[Vernal45]

This one single string has collected more statist, closet gun grabber, stealth Chuckie, anti 2a .gov apologists than any other string I have read.

Funny how that is. Several on here are closet statist's, ones that I thought never would opine in this manner.

[The Real Hawkeye]

This one single string has collected more statist, closet gun grabber, stealth Chuckie, anti 2a .gov apologists than any other string I have read.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Call me a tin foil hat guy (and I guaranty they will), but I seriously wonder if some of these guys are on the payroll, i.e., paid to enter these forums to, let us say, diffuse momentum.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As to a database, my favorite FFL ran a background check on me a few years back. The person doing the check confirmed she had my records, and rattled off everything I'd bought in the last few months. Yes, I know that's not supposed to happen or be possible. But it did.

A few years ago your legitimate purchases (up to 180 days) would have been kept in the NICS system by administrative rule of the Clinton Administration. So the feds would have been able to tell everything you purchased within a 180-day period during a NICS check.

That administrative rule was changed by John Ashcroft in 2001 while he was Attorney General for the Bush administration. Under the new rule, records of legitimate approved purchased are supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours. Also, this rule was changed from an administrative rule into law of the land by the Tiahrt Amendment, which made it illegal for the government to hold onto legitimate purchase information in the NICS system for longer than 24 hours.

[Vernal45]

which made it illegal for the government to hold onto legitimate purchase information in the NICS system for longer than 24 hours.



If only we could get that done on the 4473's

[spartacus2002]

records of legitimate approved purchased are supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours.

Key part is the boldfaced language....

[shooting time]

I have had ATF come into my shop and do the same thing they also just pick at random some names and SS numbers from the 4473's and do backround checks on them and I have had a few come back as convicted felons which they called me on and asked more questions about and instruced me if they ever came in again to call them.

[The Rabbi]

Of course they might have had convictions after the 4473 was filed.
Also possible that the system just screwed up and didnt catch the conviction.

[rock jock]

This one single string has collected more statist, closet gun grabber, stealth Chuckie, anti 2a .gov apologists than any other string I have read. I also noticed that this thread has more whacko, closet tinfoil hatter, drooling at the mouth, anti-logic apologists than any other string I have read.

As a matter of fact, I do
I got news for all of you. If you travel the public roads of America, or eat even a morsel of food not personally prepared by you, or breath the air outside, or have a drivers license, etc., etc., you are trusting in the govt. You are trusting in the govt. to properly inspect the food you eat, to ensure the air is safe to breath, that the roads are safe to travel. You are trusting in the FDA, the EPA, the DOT, etc.

Excuse me, but according to you the mere purchase of more than one handgun should trigger an investigation.
OK, better to have said that there would be no investigation triggered at all. Logically, this has to be true anyway. It is not possible to investigate every multiple-gun purchase, or even a small fraction of them, even if the feds wanted to.

[rock jock]

Key part is the boldfaced language
Do you have any evidence that they are not? If so, contact your Congresscritter or the NRA at once and request hearings and a criminal investigation be initiated.

[buzz_knox]

got news for all of you. If you travel the public roads of America, or eat even a morsel of food not personally prepared by you, or breath the air outside, or have a drivers license, etc., etc., you are trusting in the govt. You are trusting in the govt. to properly inspect the food you eat, to ensure the air is safe to breath, that the roads are safe to travel. You are trusting in the FDA, the EPA, the DOT, etc.

No, actually those items don't reflect trust. If it did, that trust would be grossly misplaced given that much of what the gov't does (including those regulations) is driven more by politics and money than by the subject matter. Instead, our use reflects our need to engage in those matters, regardless of our personal belief in or trust of the gov't. We don't have a choice but to "trust" the gov't because the gov't has stuck its nose into anything and everything we do.

But hey, what do I know? I just work for one of those alphabet soup agencies. But unlike those who worship at the altar of the all-mighty gov't, I'm willing to admit that politics and money often take precedence over the individual.

[rock jock]

No, actually those items don't reflect trust. So, you test the food you eat and air you breath? If not, then you are assuming them to be safe, which further means you are assuming those who are tasked with these responsibilities are doing their jobs.

Don't believe me? Go to a third-world country. I mean a really poor country, one with almost no resources for the govt to maintain or enforce standards of any type, you know....meddle (what some of you might call a paradise). Rampant disease from contaminated drinking water, food, and air. You will find a whole new definition of govt mistrust in those countries.

[buzz_knox]

So, you test the food you eat and air you breath? If not, then you are assuming them to be safe, which further means you are assuming those who are tasked with these responsibilities are doing their jobs.

Did you read what I posted? Apparently not. Let's try again. We aren't given the opportunity to opt out of the "benevolent protection" of people who may or may not be doing their jobs, or may be motivated by political/budgetary concerns as to how they do their job. Since we aren't given the opportunity to opt out and we want to do something outside of sit in our homes (which we can't do as we can't raise funds to pay off our rent . . . I mean, property tax), we have to do so.

[buzz_knox]

Don't believe me? Go to a third-world country. I mean a really poor country, one with almost no resources for the govt to maintain or enforce standards of any type, you know....meddle (what some of you might call a paradise). Rampant disease from contaminated drinking water, food, and air. You will find a whole new definition of govt mistrust in those countries.

"All hail the government. The government is mother. The government is father. Praise the government from whom all blessings flow. Without the government, we would be like those pitiful countries, whose governments helped destroy them. Our own self-interest and social attitudes are too pitiful and weak to have prevented these atrocities, which our government would never have done to begin with."

[GhostRider66]

You are trusting in the govt. to properly inspect the food you eat, to ensure the air is safe to breath, that the roads are safe to travel. You are trusting in the FDA, the EPA, the DOT, etc.

Trusting??? That's a stretch. Just because they do it doesn't make me trust them or not trust them in any way shape or form. Personally, I feel that every single one of these un-Constitutional agencies should be scrapped and those functions left to the free market, a newly-directed media, privately-funded institutions, insurance companies, etc. as they would most likely do a better job given the major motivator ($$$). At least the next time a car does poorly in the crash tests or a medicine starts killing folks we wouldn't get those flying letters from the manufacturers saying "We meet and exceed all Federal standards for yada-yada-yada" and "talk to our lawyers". But I guess that's an argument for another day.

[buzz_knox]

By the way, rock jock. Here's a project for you: find out who the worst polluter in this country is. I'll give you a hint: it's the same entity you credit for keeping America beautiful.

[GhostRider66]

Don't believe me? Go to a third-world country. I mean a really poor country, one with almost no resources for the govt to maintain or enforce standards of any type, you know....meddle (what some of you might call a paradise).

No resources?? Is that what we blame these things on? That is the weakest argument ever. Find me this country.

[Sarcasm]Of course, we all know that America is great because of our abundant resources, the fact that we stole everything from everyone else and our government.

All of the poor countries out there are poor mainly due to their own internal oppression and strife (namely "their governments"). We have grown strong and rich because of our limitation of our own government and despite it encroachments not because of them. Try reading Sowell's "Basic Economics" for a good hard look at what seperates us from them.

[cracked butt]

find out who the worst polluter in this country is

The biggest polluter also happens to be the biggest employer, so what's your point?

I also noticed that this thread has more whacko, closet tinfoil hatter, drooling at the mouth, anti-logic apologists than any other string I have read.
+1

[buzz_knox]

Personally, I feel that every single one of these un-Constitutional agencies should be scrapped and those functions left to the free market, a newly-directed media, privately-funded institutions, insurance companies, etc. as they would most likely do a better job given the major motivator ($$$).

+1. But the gov't does have a role in such matters. The gov't's role is to facilitate inter-personal relationships and protect freedom by providing a mechanism for redress, i.e. the courts and the concurrent ability to enforce court decisions. The free market is fine but injuries are best redressed by compensation for past injuries and prevention of specific activity to prevent specific future injury. The free market doesn't carry if company A contaminates an individual's food or water; it cares about contamination of a sufficiently large population to affect company A's bottom line (i.e. Glock isn't hurt by one kaboom, but multiple kabooms lead to loss of market share as people lose faith in the design and company). The individual's only chance for recovery is through an independent and objective legal system, not one tilted in favor of one side or another.

[rock jock]

find out who the worst polluter in this country is
Qualify that statement please.

[buzz_knox]

The biggest polluter also happens to be the biggest employer, so what's your point?

My point is that the entity that rock jock credits with keeping everything clean and wonderful is the same way responsible for most of the worst damage. As for being the biggest employer, it's a sad commentary that a society which was founded on the principles of limited gov't now, in large measure, owes its livelihood to said gov.t.

[grimjaw]

Go to a third-world country. I mean a really poor country, one with almost no resources for the govt to maintain or enforce standards of any type, you know....meddle (what some of you might call a paradise). Rampant disease from contaminated drinking water, food, and air. You will find a whole new definition of govt mistrust in those countries.

Are you blaming those problems on the lack of government, or the lack of a tax base on which a government would be founded? I would say those problems are due to a lack of prosperity and stability in those countries, not because they have a lack of government oversight. Indeed, in some of those countries, the governments are responsible for slaughtering people wholesale. Iraq and the Kurds, for instance, or South Africa in the not so distant past.

But this gets away from the original post, don't you think?

jmm

[buzz_knox]

I would say those problems are due to a lack of prosperity and stability in those countries, not because they have a lack of government oversight. Indeed, in some of those countries, the governments are responsible for slaughtering people wholesale. Iraq and the Kurds, for instance, or South Africa in the not so distant past.

Actually, gov't oversight was usually the problem in those countries. The gov't took the available resources and used them for its own ends.

[buzz_knox]

Qualify that statement please.

Qualify how? In terms of worse violations of existing environmental laws? In terms of most damage to the environment? The answer to both is the same.

[rock jock]

My point is that the entity that rock jock credits with keeping everything clean and wonderful is the same way responsible for most of the worst damage.
That is not true at all. Most air, groundwater, and surface water contamination in the U.S. is associated with the historical practices of private industrial and commercial enterprises.

[rock jock]

In terms of worse violations of existing environmental laws? In terms of most damage to the environment? The answer to both is the same. Also untrue.

[rock jock]

Trusting??? That's a stretch. Just because they do it doesn't make me trust them or not trust them in any way shape or form.
My point is, if you don't trust the govt to accomplish these basic tasks, then you are a fool for ingesting anything they are responsible for inspecting. That would be the equivalent of buying a vehicle from a company that has the worst QA/QC in the world. Would you take such a car on the highway? Of course not. You would be taking your life into your own hands.

[buzz_knox]

That is not true at all. Most air, groundwater, and surface water contamination in the U.S. is associated with the historical practices of private industrial and commercial enterprises.

Wanna bet on that? You think over 50 years of nuclear weapons manufacture with minimal restriction on activities for much of that time due to national security concerns didn't have a greater impact? How about the discharges from the thousands of vessels, military, and other gov't installations that were not covered for years? Let's not even talk about nuclear tests.

I grew up beside one of the largest Superfund sites in the world, Oak Ridge, TN. "Private industrial and commercial enterprises" played no role in putting a significant amount of the world's mercury supply into the groundwater in this area. And "private industrial and commercial enterprises" certainly didn't emit radiation in an amount dozens of times greater than from Three Mile Island several times a year for a few decades.

[buzz_knox]

Also untrue.

You'd better cite a source. You see, I've worked in the enviromental law field (including for the federal gov't) and it's status as the worst polluter isn't something that was contested too much.

[buzz_knox]

My point is, if you don't trust the govt to accomplish these basic tasks, then you are a fool for ingesting anything they are responsible for inspecting. That would be the equivalent of buying a vehicle from a company that has the worst QA/QC in the world. Would you take such a car on the highway? Of course not. You would be taking your life into your own hands.

What if that was the only car available? What if it was either buy that car and take the risk, or not go anywhere do anything?

You cannot imply trust when you have no real choice in the matter.

[buzz_knox]

rock jock, here's the fundamental disconnect. You talk about trust, when you're really talking about faith. You have faith that the gov't will do the right thing. That faith means that in the face of evidence to the contrary, you're still going to believe in the gov't.

Me? I don't. I've been involved in the gov't too long to have faith that we'll do the right thing absent the public holding us accountable. The public keeps the country safe by demanding that the gov't does the job it's required to, and follow its own regs. Absent that pressure, the desire to absolve itself of responsibility and focus on doing business (i.e. keeping itself safe and secure) is the primary concern.

[GhostRider66]

Interestingly enough I read an industry paper (some type of smelting process I believe) where they discovered that the EPA restrictions were actually delaying progress/updates in equipment and therefore prolonging and heightening level of air polution (arsenic I think). The gist was that most of these companies would have upgraded two or three times in the last decade to newer, faster and less poluting systems except that the EPA requirements are so strict that they would have had to upgrade the entire facility at the same time or be shut down.

[buzz_knox]

Interestingly enough I read an industry paper (some type of smelting process I believe) where they discovered that the EPA restrictions were actually delaying progress/updates in equipment and therefore prolonging and heightening level of air polution (arsenic I think). The gist was that most of these companies would have upgraded two or three times in the last decade to newer, faster and less poluting systems except that the EPA requirements are so strict that they would have had to upgrade the entire facility at the same time or be shut down.

Sounds like the New Source Rules controversy. Activists weren't getting the results they wanted through Congress, so they got EPA to reinterpet its regulations on NSR. EPA had for years held that modifications to an existing source was not the generation of a new source. Many companies told EPA what they were doing, and EPA agreed that there was not a new source. EPA changed the the interpretation so that the modifications were, in fact, the creation of a new source and full implementation was required. It then found companies in violation. Fortunately, courts have been seeing this scam as exactly what it is, especially given that EPA engaged in unconstitutional efforts to deny "violaters" due process and is being hoisted by its own statements contradicting its current position.

So, what was that about "trusting" the gov't?

[The Freeholder]

If true, yet another reason for spreading your business around.

[DRZinn]

Just to pick nits: faith is belief in the absence of any evidence. Belief in the face of contrary evidence is idiocy.

[Guns_and_Labs]

Let's say I lived in a state like CA where they only allow us peasants to purchase one handgun per month anyway.

That's for dealer sales. FTF has no such limit. I just bought three of Mr. Browning's finest from an estate. I filed the multiple purchase form and am waiting for my local chief to come by and try to get me to sell him one of them.