Government Gun Records?

[steelerdude99]

That is the way it works, believe it or not. It is in fact, illegal for the BATF to create a database from 4473 data.

...

There are plenty of ways to follow "the letter of the law". Contract out the records keeping OR just not have BATF actually "perform the records keeping"... How about scan all 4473 looking for "stolen guns" or missing "crime guns" and pass that off to some other agency? Whatever words exist in any law, agency "staff lawyers" can advise on how to "keep" yet "NOT keep" records.

Even if there was a records keeping violation, who would prosecute? The United State's AG? Is that not an Executive Branch conflict of interests?

chuck

PS: When about 16 years ago a sitting president sat before congress and said he IS NOT having an affair, then I guess anything is possible. In his argument, he was not (right at that very second) having an affair.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There are plenty of ways to follow "the letter of the law". Contract out the records keeping OR just not have BATF actually "perform the records keeping"... How about scan all 4473 looking for "stolen guns" or missing "crime guns" and pass that off to some other agency? Whatever words exist in any law, agency "staff lawyers" can advise on how to "keep" yet "NOT keep" records.

Even if there was a records keeping violation, who would prosecute? The United State's AG? Is that not an Executive Branch conflict of interests?

chuck

PS: When about 16 years ago a sitting president sat before congress and said he IS NOT having an affair, then I guess anything is possible. In his argument, he was not (right at that very second) having an affair.

That's what I'm saying. It's sort of the dept. of redundancy dept. By law they can't review the 4473's except in the case of an investigation anyway. Just let the state handle the BC's and records. Some of them are already doing that. Or would that reduce the size of gov't and save the tax payer some money? We wouldn't want that for sure.

 

[4v50 Gary]

California keeps it forever. Years ago I ran myself on the computer and found everything I bought. California.

 

[dogtown tom]

Styx ...If it's illegal for BATF to create a database from 4473 data, where are they storing the data that FFL holders must send them when they go out of business and/or no longer have a FFL?

Out of business records are sent to ATF, who stores them in a cave. In the event of a firearm trace they search by hand.

Once a FFL sends this info to BATF, do they do they still need a court order to get trace my firearms to me?

Huh?
ATF doesn't need a court order at any time to conduct a firearms trace.

....FFL holders across the country are require to send BATF the 4472 data whenever a person purchases 2 more firearms within a week.

Not true.
If a dealer transfers more then one HANDGUN to the same buyer in any five business day period, he must report the transaction on a Multiple Sale of Handgun form.

Where is BATF storing this information?

Multiple Sale of Handgun Forms MAY be incorporated into a database per Federal law. it is stored at the ATF National Tracing Center.

Where is the police department storing this information?

Typically in the Records unit. The instructions on the back tell LE what to do with the form.

Speedo66 Anyone who actually believes any enforcement agency ever truly destroys information must also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Anyone who believes the government can create a usable database has never tried to use ATF E-Forms.

If the FBI NICS actually DOES keep background check info why doesn't ATF contact them for a trace? (that's because the FBI isn't given anything other than Handgun, Long Gun or Other)

CoalTrain49 ....A background check is proactive, preventing something before it happens.

How does a background check on a buyer prevent a crime?
While it may prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm but little else.

Heck, we even made cannabis legal so we could tax it like tobacco.

Marijuana is NOT legal under Federal law and not taxed.

That would be a pure inexpensive background check and would meet the NICS requirements. If the state wasn't after revenue and gun registration it would work. Unfortunately some want both but the true agenda is never exposed. It would eliminate the fee that an FFL charges for a required in depth background check. This NICS BC is becoming a business by itself and is totally unnecessary.

What fee?
The FBI NICS is a toll free call and done at no charge to the dealer running the check.

It doesn't work anyway because it's a fed agency in charge of it.

You obviously have ZERO experience with FBI NICS.
FBI NICS is a very efficient outfit. If they ran the post office your mail would be delivered tomorrow, in person, with a smile and thank you.

I've only had six or seven denied transactions and while six were successfully appealed.........all were valid denials. (meaning the FBI DID find disqualifying information on the buyer or that the buyer had the same name as a prohibited person)

That's what I'm saying. It's sort of the dept. of redundancy dept. By law they can't review the 4473's except in the case of an investigation anyway. Just let the state handle the BC's and records. Some of them are already doing that. Or would that reduce the size of gov't and save the tax payer some money?

Sorry, while I don't like the GCA/NFA/etc.............turning the responsibilities of background check databases and firearms records over to states is the most backwards action possible. I guess you don't remember the days BEFORE FBI NICS do you? (when there was a five day wait for local PD to run your check)

FBI NICS is not the problem. It's your state legislature.

 

[JRH6856]

There are plenty of ways to follow "the letter of the law". Contract out the records keeping OR just not have BATF actually "perform the records keeping"... How about scan all 4473 looking for "stolen guns" or missing "crime guns" and pass that off to some other agency? Whatever words exist in any law, agency "staff lawyers" can advise on how to "keep" yet "NOT keep" records.

Even if there was a records keeping violation, who would prosecute? The United State's AG? Is that not an Executive Branch conflict of interests?

chuck

PS: When about 16 years ago a sitting president sat before congress and said he IS NOT having an affair, then I guess anything is possible. In his argument, he was not (right at that very second) having an affair.

I saw an article a few months ago (I wish I had saved a link to it) written by a reporter trying to find out what it took for police to trace the ownership of a gun. They followed the path from manufacturer to distributor to FFL only to find the FFL was out of business which means all records had been turned over to BATF. Going to BATF, he found that all of these records were stored in a warehouse (I think in West Virginia) and had to be searched manually. There was no computerized database or summary of the data. Just boxes of records, some of which were in bad shape and getting worse. BATF officials complained that they could only make paper copies, as digitialy scanned copies would require a computer for access.

 

[CoalTrain49]

How does a background check on a buyer prevent a crime?
While it may prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm but little else.

If a prohibited person (felon) takes possession of a firearm that's a crime.

Even making a false statement on the 4473 is a crime and people have been charged..

Being an FFL I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Marijuana is NOT legal under Federal law and not taxed.

I didn't say it was taxed by the fed. I said it was taxed, and it is. Fed tax isn't the only taxes people pay.

What fee?
The FBI NICS is a toll free call and done at no charge to the dealer running the check.

Not the fee you are charged. The fee you charge everyone for being their agent. At least that's how you explained it in a previous thread.

You obviously have ZERO experience with FBI NICS.
FBI NICS is a very efficient outfit. If they ran the post office your mail would be delivered tomorrow, in person, with a smile and thank you.

How could I not have experience with them if I fill out their form and wait on a proceed? I've had 90% of my NICS delayed. They hardly ever come back proceed and have never came back denied. That's because the system is broken. It can't respond in a timely manner. If the FBI ran the post office the carriers would be agents and they would do surveillance on their customers just like they do with your electronic communications.

Sorry, while I don't like the GCA/NFA/etc.............turning the responsibilities of background check databases and firearms records over to states is the most backwards action possible. I guess you don't remember the days BEFORE FBI NICS do you? (when there was a five day wait for local PD to run your check)

FBI NICS is not the problem. It's your state legislature.

If the federal government is so efficient why are they running such a huge deficit? Why is there sequestration and across the board mandatory cuts in every agency? My state always finds a way to stay inside a budget. The fed can't even agree on one.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I saw an article a few months ago (I wish I had saved a link to it) written by a reporter trying to find out what it took for police to trace the ownership of a gun. They followed the path from manufacturer to distributor to FFL only to find the FFL was out of business which means all records had been turned over to BATF. Going to BATF, he found that all of these records were stored in a warehouse (I think in West Virginia) and had to be searched manually. There was no computerized database or summary of the data. Just boxes of records, some of which were in bad shape and getting worse. BATF officials complained that they could only make paper copies, as digitialy scanned copies would require a computer for access.

A very good point.

I doubt the FBI/AFT has the resources to do everything people say they do. I saw an article in a newspaper that said the ATF doesn't even have the resources to do the required periodic checks on the FFL dealers records. The agencies lose funding every year due to budget cuts. They have to ask the DOD (who has most of the money) for help in investigations.
As fed budget gets smaller every year the states are going to have to pick up the slack.

 

[JRH6856]

A very good point.

I doubt the FBI/AFT has the resources to do everything people say they do. I saw an article in a newspaper that said the ATF doesn't even have the resources to do the required periodic checks on the FFL dealers records. The agencies lose funding every year due to budget cuts. They have to ask the DOD (who has most of the money) for help in investigations.
As fed budget gets smaller every year the states are going to have to pick up the slack.

And some of those dealers need checking just to make sure they are maintaining records properly. The article described one dealer's records--instead of an actual bound book, he recorded each transaction on a roll of toilet paper using a felt tip pen. When he died, BATF got several cases of toilet paper from the estate.

 

[morcey2]

A very good point.

I doubt the FBI/AFT has the resources to do everything people say they do. I saw an article in a newspaper that said the ATF doesn't even have the resources to do the required periodic checks on the FFL dealers records. The agencies lose funding every year due to budget cuts. They have to ask the DOD (who has most of the money) for help in investigations.
As fed budget gets smaller every year the states are going to have to pick up the slack.

This is slightly off-topic, but I _wish_ that the federal budget was getting smaller every year. With the exception of the sequester, there haven't been any budget cuts, just reductions in the rate of growth. And that rate of growth has outpaced population growth and inflation.

Matt

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
How does a background check on a buyer prevent a crime?
While it may prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm but little else.

If a prohibited person (felon) takes possession of a firearm that's a crime.

Even making a false statement on the 4473 is a crime and people have been charged..

Being an FFL I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I do know that and even mentioned it above........but that wasn't your point was it? You stated: "A background check is proactive, preventing something before it happens." Again, explain how a background check prevents crime.

Quote:
Marijuana is NOT legal under Federal law and not taxed.

I didn't say it was taxed by the fed. I said it was taxed, and it is. Fed tax isn't the only taxes people pay.

Correct........but AGAIN you conveniently leave out the part where you said "we even made cannabis legal so we could tax it like tobacco." It ISN'T legal and therefore cannot be taxed. There is case law regarding taxation of illegal substances. Whether your state attempts to charge a tax is immaterial.

Quote:
What fee?
The FBI NICS is a toll free call and done at no charge to the dealer running the check.

Not the fee you are charged. The fee you charge everyone for being their agent. At least that's how you explained it in a previous thread.

AGAIN, you sidestep what I was referring to. You wrote: "...It would eliminate the fee that an FFL charges for a required in depth background check.."

I don't charge a background check fee. I DO charge a transfer fee for receiving the firearm and associated paperwork. If you think transfer fee=NICS fee you would be very wrong.

In some states that are their own POC they charge the dealer for every background check.......but FBI NICS (used by the majority of states does not).

While your state may profit from such a fee, the dealer does not.........and he will have expenses that his transfer fee covers.

Quote:
You obviously have ZERO experience with FBI NICS.
FBI NICS is a very efficient outfit. If they ran the post office your mail would be delivered tomorrow, in person, with a smile and thank you.

How could I not have experience with them if I fill out their form and wait on a proceed?

I believe you said previously that YOUR STATE conducts the background check....not FBI NICS.
And NO ONE fills out any form for the FBI. The Form 4473 is an ATF Form.

I've had 90% of my NICS delayed. They hardly ever come back proceed and have never came back denied. That's because the system is broken.

No sir, you are flat wrong. What you describe is the "system" working PERFECTLY. When your background check is run your identifying information results in multiple records being returned.....and at least one of those records is that of a prohibited person. The "delay" gives your state agency/state police/whoever additional time to research your records. Per the Brady Law, they have three business days (beginning the next business day) to do additional research. If there is no resolution within those three business days, the Brady Law does not prohibit the dealer from transferring you the firearm.

Simply being "Delayed" doesn't mean "the system" is broken.

It can't respond in a timely manner.

Sorry, but FBI NICS does respond in a "timely manner"............99% of my NICS checks are PROCEEDS and I get that status in minutes.

Your problems seem to stem from your state POC......which is NOT the FBI NICS.

If the FBI ran the post office the carriers would be agents and they would do surveillance on their customers just like they do with your electronic communications.

Paranoid much?
http://newsblogged.com/spot-aluminium-price-usd-24-hour-graph-chart-latest-news-real-time-updates

Quote:
Sorry, while I don't like the GCA/NFA/etc.............turning the responsibilities of background check databases and firearms records over to states is the most backwards action possible. I guess you don't remember the days BEFORE FBI NICS do you? (when there was a five day wait for local PD to run your check)

FBI NICS is not the problem. It's your state legislature.

If the federal government is so efficient why are they running such a huge deficit?

Good grief man..........you could misconstrue "Help! Please call 911!!!!"
I didn't say the federal government was "so efficient".....I said the FBI NICS was efficient :banghead: I'll restate to make it very clear: The FBI NICS Section is a very efficient, polite and customer friendly operation.

Why is there sequestration and across the board mandatory cuts in every agency? My state always finds a way to stay inside a budget. The fed can't even agree on one.

You'll need to ask Congress, the FBI NICS has nothing to do with sequestration or budget cuts. I would hope you understand why that is.

 

[CoalTrain49]

^
I hope you have a good attorney.

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49 ^
I hope you have a good attorney.

For what?
If I posted something that is illegal please point it out.
And yes, I do have a good attorney.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Dog: Pot is legal in Colorado and several other states. Colorado is taxing pot already but that is not going to pay for the damage it causes. Making broad statements usually doesn't result in good results for both parties involved in this thread.

 

[Sam1911]

Dog: Pot is legal in Colorado and several other states.

Actually no.

Pot has been made "not illegal under state law" in those states. They CANNOT make it legal because FEDERALLY it is still completely forbidden. If you are using cannabis in CO, you ARE breaking federal law. Just not CO state law.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Sam: That is YOUR interpretation, and probably the correct one, but the Feds have no intention of prosecuting anyone so it is LEGAL. It is not right but is legal by default despite the opinions of the brain trust of this site. Not recognizing reality is a symptom of insanity.

 

[Sam1911]

That actually makes no sense.

The law says what it says. Lack of enforcement cannot, possibly, change what the law says. Not enforced =/= not illegal.

The text of the law defines legality and illegality. Enforcement merely defines punishments for breaking the law.

 

[USAF_Vet]

So background checks prevent crime?

Please tell me more about the Washington Navy Yard shooting, Beltway sniper shootings, Ft. Hood attacks, and every other shooting where the perpetrator passed a background check and legally purchased a firearm.

 

[dogtown tom]

Unbelievable.

 

[dogtown tom]

USAF_Vet So background checks prevent crime?

Please tell me more about the Washington Navy Yard shooting, Beltway sniper shootings, Ft. Hood attacks, and every other shooting where the perpetrator passed a background check and legally purchased a firearm.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on an answer to that gem.
Sounds like a Bloomburg argument.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sam: That is YOUR interpretation, and probably the correct one, but the Feds have no intention of prosecuting anyone so it is LEGAL. It is not right but is legal by default despite the opinions of the brain trust of this site. Not recognizing reality is a symptom of insanity.

Hogwash. There is no such thing as being "legal by default." Not recognizing legal reality is a symptom of gross ignorance.

1. It's all about the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors generally can decide how to use limited resources.
   
   
2. In some cases a policy decision to back off of certain types of crimes might be driven by a conclusion that enough people, particularly among the current administration's constituency, find the conduct relatively benign. That might not be the case with other matters. The current administration could reasonably conclude that it has adequate political cover to support a policy decision to back off on prosecution of medical or recreational marijuana use. But if the subject were a matter about which the current administration's constituency was likely to feel differently, e. g., guns, I don't think we could count on the same level of prosecutorial forbearance.
   
   
3. And looking at the marijuana issue, the Obama administration might have a policy not to vigorously enforce federal controlled substance law with respect to medical or recreational marijuana use. That doesn't mean that the Obama administration isn't going to vigorously enforce federal gun laws with regard to persons who are unlawful users of a controlled substance and who are unlawfully, under federal law, in possession of a gun. (See this article, for example.)
   
   
4. And the fact that there's a current policy to "soft peddle" federal prosecution of medical or recreational marijuana use doesn't necessarily mean that will be the policy tomorrow.

The legal reality is that Marijuana is illegal under federal law. It is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 801, et seq). That means that under federal law it may not be prescribed, used or possessed. It also means that under federal law any user of marijuana is a an unlawful user of a controlled substance, even if legal under state law, and is therefore an unlawful user of a controlled substance prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

 

[HorseSoldier]

That actually makes no sense.

The law says what it says. Lack of enforcement cannot, possibly, change what the law says. Not enforced =/= not illegal.

The text of the law defines legality and illegality. Enforcement merely defines punishments for breaking the law.

Reference marijuana, welcome to what law enforcement in Alaska has looked like for years. Until we voted it legal a month ago, it was technically illegal under state law to possess, but reasonable personal use amounts in the residence were never prosecuted because that law violates the AK state Supreme Court's decision back in the 70s making it legal to have personal use amounts in the home. Even without adding federal law into the picture, it was bizarrely contradictory.

The upshot was deals like a call I was on looking for a guy with a warrant -- home owner invited us in to verify the guy we're looking for wasn't there. Happily walked me through his combination marijuana and tomato hydroponic grow room to show me suspect wasn't hiding in the closet in that room. Nobody charged with anything, thank him for being so cooperative, remind him MJ possession *outside* the home can still get him in trouble, and on to the next call.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Reference marijuana, welcome to what law enforcement in Alaska has looked like for years....

Very nice story but completely irrelevant.

As I described, marijuana remains illegal under federal law. And a marijuana user, even when legal under state law, is prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition.

Anyone who owns guns and uses marijuana is welcome to trust his fate and future to the tender mercies of federal agents.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Call it what you want but here in Colorado we have an abundance of stores selling pot, an even larger number of people growing it, and state officials slapping themselves on the back for the revenue it is producing for the state. You can say it is illegal all you want but it is here, it is happening, and the justice system is doing nothing. As I said, it is illegal on the federal level although the law is not being enforced so it is by default legal. A law that is not enforced is a law that doesn't exist for all practical purposes.

But, I think some would prefer to argue rather than see the reality of where we are going.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Short of arguing over gun records and BC's, which always seems to happen, I will submit this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-512-gun-sales-a-day-slipped-through-checks-last-year/

"We have a perfect storm coming," FBI manager Kimberly Del Greco told The Associated Press during a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the (NICS) system.

In roughly two percent of the checks handled by the FBI, agents don't get this information in time. If three business days pass without a federal response, buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was completed.

the FBI says states are largely to blame for this problem. They voluntarily submit records, which are often missing information about mental health rulings or criminal convictions, and aren't always rapidly updated to reflect restraining orders or other urgent reasons to deny a sale.

"We are stewards of the states' records," Del Greco said. "It's really critical that we have accurate information. Sometimes we just don't."

"It takes a lot of effort ... for an examiner to go out and look at court reports, look at judges' documents, try to find a final disposition so we can get back to a gun dealer on whether they can sell that gun or not," Del Greco said. "And we don't always get back to them."

The FBI acknowledges there is a problem with NICS. The problem exists because of budget cuts at the fed level. Call centers are staffed by contractors. When there is less money for contracts there will be less contractors to handle the workload. States have the same problem. They can't allocate the resources to get the data to the FBI. The states don't care if NICS has the data or not because it isn't a funded statutory requirement for them. They have more pressing and urgent business to take care of. Maybe they know that for a BC to work the database has to have up to date, accurate information.

So I reject this notion that it is a state problem that NICS doesn't work. It's a fed gov't problem and states would do well to move away from it entirely if they want a BC that means anything. Thirteen states don't use it because they have a better system. They keep their own records and contract the service just like the fed does and they get better results.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it is by default legal...

Where do you some up with this sort of nonsense? There is no such thing as being legal by default. Cite competent legal authority supporting the proposition that something which is illegal by statute becomes legal by default.

...A law that is not enforced is a law that doesn't exist for all practical purposes.

It exists and it applies whenever the prosecutorial authority decides to enforce it.

...I think some would prefer to argue rather than see the reality of where we are going.

And apparently you prefer to remain ignorant and to try to spread your ignorance. The reality of what the law is has been described by Sam and I.