|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 26, 2024, 08:12 PM | #176 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,906
|
Quote:
The information of the phone background check isn't sufficient to tie a specific gun to a specific person, and I believe is not allowed to be kept beyond a certain time frame, by statute law. Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
April 26, 2024, 08:19 PM | #177 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
They can't check by serial number to see where it came from? If they're that primitive it's no wonder they don't catch people. |
|
April 26, 2024, 10:47 PM | #178 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,906
|
Quote:
If you ever owned it, you are part of that trail. There may not be anything more than the official paper trail involved, or they may be more, at the discretion of the investigating agency. None of this has any direct bearing on the proposed ATF rule change, that I see.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 26, 2024, 11:17 PM | #179 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,861
|
IIRC, Congress passed a law prohibiting Federal agencies from keeping records on serial # registrations. That's why the traces/interviews.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
April 27, 2024, 06:38 AM | #180 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,474
|
Quote:
It's fine to read the document, but then it's important to understand the language the document actually uses. Quote:
Where Quote:
Therefore, where the other facts are the same, a failure to satisfy the repetitive selling test will mean that one is not a dealer under that leg of the test, and make it Quote:
Since I haven't suggested that Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||||
April 27, 2024, 07:13 AM | #181 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
That would end badly for me, I strongly expect. |
|
April 27, 2024, 07:19 AM | #182 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
Last edited by The Verminator; April 27, 2024 at 09:51 AM. |
|
April 27, 2024, 07:32 AM | #183 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
If nearly all the info is held by thousands of dealers in their physical files......how in the world could anybody find info on a specific gun beyond manufacturer and first dealer and buyer? The "trail" could dead end there or very soon thereafter quite often, I'd guess. |
|
April 27, 2024, 01:15 PM | #184 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
Quote:
Which is why your supposition that selling guns through FFLs means the BATFE will never knock on your door is incorrect. If they are tracing a gun that you ever owned, unless you bought it in a face-to-face private sale, the chain of custody runs through you and the BATFE WILL come knocking on your door (or calling your phone number), because they will have traced the gun as far along the chain as you, so they'll want to either see the gun (which, of course, they already have if it's a crime gun) or find out who you sold it to.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
April 27, 2024, 01:16 PM | #185 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,104
|
Quote:
You asked how or why ATF or other LE would come knocking on your door and in post#169 I laid out the firearm trace process and how it could lead ATF to contacting you directly, ie knocking on your door. Whether you subsequently sold that firearm to another nonlicensee or to an FFL does not alter the trace process. AGAIN, the 4473 you filled out will lead ATF to YOU. Quote:
AGAIN, ATF doesn't get the 4473, it stays with the FFL until the dealer goes out of business. The firearm trace has led them to you, now you tell them "I sold it to Joe's Gun & Bait" and guess where they go next?
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||
April 27, 2024, 01:18 PM | #186 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,104
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
April 27, 2024, 03:21 PM | #187 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
I read your #169........it just didn't make sense.
I have a lot of trouble believing that their system could be so useless and poorly designed. If I sold the gun through a dealer that transaction would require the next buyer to identify himself and give the info for a background check. All that should be in the big government computer--filed by serial number........and all done again at the next sale and so on. So as long as the gun went through dealers they should HAVE the info and there should be no need to contact previous owners. Thus they shouldn't have this painstaking and time consuming job of finding and talking to all the previous owners. That's why I said they shouldn't ever have to talk to me........they'd already have the info. If they don't do it that way their system seems intentionally designed to be far, FAR slower than it needs to be (AND, of course, fail at the first sale that doesn't go through a dealer). So if I have this straight...........they already have the info they need and they just throw it away to make their job slower, more costly to taxpayers and more difficult. That seems a little too bizarre and incredible to believe. |
April 27, 2024, 03:25 PM | #188 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,023
|
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is that Garland is saying that selling 2 guns in 5 years (as opposed to more in a short period) is less likely to have one deemed as selling repetitively, NOT that it is less likely to have one deemed as being a dealer. You keep saying things like this: Quote:
Trying to take a quote from that comparison out of context and make it sound like it means that selling 2 firearms in 5 years "could render one subject to a life altering prosecution" is disengenuous and alarmist. It's like taking an explanation where an official says that someone is more likely to get a speeding ticket if they drive than if they do not and saying that means the simple act of driving renders a person subject to a speeding ticket if they ever drive a car. No one can dispute the fact that it's certainly more likely that you will get a speeding ticket if you are driving but the simple act of driving is not going to get a person a speeding ticket, they need to actually break a law. The same goes here. I say it again, and it remains as true as it was the first time I posted it. "If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence." In exactly the same way that if you are honest you will have to admit that driving a car is not going to put a person in jeopardy of getting prosecuted for speeding in the absence of other evidence.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
April 27, 2024, 03:32 PM | #189 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
And they just threw that away? Why would they intentionally sabotage their own efforts? The whole thing is a little too crazy to be true. Sorry to seem so obtuse.......it just doesn't make sense. |
|
April 27, 2024, 03:34 PM | #190 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,023
|
The background check information doesn't include the serial number of the gun in question.
Quote:
Quote:
1. They probably don't have any record of that transaction unless the dealer has gone out of business. 2. Even if they have the record, they don't have the means to determine that dealer would have ever had possession of that gun because they are not allowed to compile the records into a searchable database. That means, if they find a gun they start tracing it from the dealer end. At some point, if the records are complete, that trace will lead them to your doorstep. At that point, you can send them to the dealer that helped you sell the gun, but they won't know to go to the dealer until they talk to you. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
April 27, 2024, 03:45 PM | #191 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
I just can't believe that they'd spend all this time door knocking when they had the information already. It must add tremendously to the cost. Do the taxpayers know about this? And what if the seller can't remember who he sold it to??? That must happen.........then they're dead in the water. This is so stupid when they should be able to get the entire history of the sales of a gun in a few seconds with a simple serial number inquiry on the computer. |
|
April 27, 2024, 03:51 PM | #192 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,912
|
Quote:
(Did you really mean that?) |
|
April 27, 2024, 03:52 PM | #193 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,023
|
Quote:
2. Even if they do have it, they aren't allowed to make it into a searchable database. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
April 27, 2024, 03:54 PM | #194 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
It seems to be designed to cripple the system. |
|
April 27, 2024, 03:59 PM | #195 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
|
April 27, 2024, 04:01 PM | #196 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,023
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is EXPLICITLY designed to keep the BATF, in specific, and the government, in general, from compiling a registry of gun owners. It's not just one law, here is some information on the topic. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12057.pdf
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
April 27, 2024, 04:04 PM | #197 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
|
April 27, 2024, 04:05 PM | #198 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,912
|
> the Brady Act prohibits the establishment of a registration system
> of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions > with any records generated by NICS, except for records on persons > found ineligible to receive or possess firearms. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12057.pdf That is a VERY deliberate provision (with a long track record in our history) to keep what invariably happened (continues to happen) in totalitarian countries... from happening here. ...at least in theory. |
April 27, 2024, 04:05 PM | #199 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,023
|
Quote:
Congress does NOT want the BATF to make a list of gun owners and what guns they own/have owned.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
April 27, 2024, 04:10 PM | #200 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
I never really thought about it. Is there really a chance that they'd try to use that information to confiscate all guns? Seems highly unlikely as much as some would probably like to do it. Lots of guns and a huge undertaking--doomed to fail I would think. Recent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed gun rights quite decisively. |
|
|
|