New Background Check Rule

[44 AMP]

What about the 4473 that the new buyer filled out when I sold the gun through the dealer?

As far as I know, the physical 4473 stays with the dealer. The ATF doesn't even see it, until they inspect the dealer's records, in person at his place of business is the usual way its done.

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.

If they had the info from mine they certainly would have the info from his.

They don't have your info, or his, until they go look. Looking at the records and quite possibly talking to you or any other former owner/possessor of the gun in question can be part of their investigation.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

As far as I know, the physical 4473 stays with the dealer. The ATF doesn't even see it, until they inspect the dealer's records, in person at his place of business is the usual way its done.
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.

They don't have your info, or his, until they go look. Looking at the records and quite possibly talking to you or any other former owner/possessor of the gun in question can be part of their investigation.

Wait. So they have a gun used in a crime.

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.

[44 AMP]

Wait. So they have a gun used in a crime.

They can't check by serial number to see where it came from?

Sure they can. Its called a trace, and it starts with the manufacturer and can go through everyone who had it, until the trail breaks or all the way down to its recovery from crime scene or a criminal.

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.

[stagpanther]

IIRC, Congress passed a law prohibiting Federal agencies from keeping records on serial # registrations. That's why the traces/interviews.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnJSa

Garland's quote specifically notes that " Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license. "

If you offer to deal in firearms or otherwise manage make it clear to that you are dealing in firearms when you don't have a license, that's basically admitting you are violating the law even if you haven't sold any yet. That would have been just as much of a crime under the old law.

The idea that now things are different in that respect due to the new rule just isn't correct.

Note that you have again posited different language to interpret. Your language assumes that one is a dealer whereas the language used by Garland describes something different.

It's fine to read the document, but then it's important to understand the language the document actually uses.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Correct. The problem with your contention is that he doesn't say it's "less likely to have you deemed a dealer", the context is blatantly clear--he flat out states that it's ...'less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms.'.

The repetitive selling of firearms is only one possibly qualifying aspect of the law as you clearly know based on what you have posted here. Therefore you also know that being deemed to be "repetitively selling firearms" is absolutely not equivalent to "being deemed a dealer".

That would be crucial if anyone had argued that mere repetitive sale would result in prosecution or thought that Garland was just musing on what repetitive means in a vacuum and not in a document about a licensing requirement. Neither is correct.

Where

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

...repetitive selling of firearms is only one possibly qualifying aspect of the law...

...greater repetition is more likely to satisfy that qualifying aspect of being found a dealer than less repetition.

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

Originally Posted by zukiphile

...less likely to have you deemed a dealer

Since I haven't suggested that

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

being deemed to be "repetitively selling firearms" is [...] equivalent to "being deemed a dealer".

That isn't a problem with the explanation I provided.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Sure they can. Its called a trace, and it starts with the manufacturer and can go through everyone who had it, until the trail breaks or all the way down to its recovery from crime scene or a criminal.

If you ever owned it, you are part of that trail. There may not be anything more than the official paper trail involved...

Unless I'm the fool that sold it to the criminal.

That would end badly for me, I strongly expect.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Sure they can. Its called a trace, and it starts with the manufacturer and can go through everyone who had it, until the trail breaks or all the way down to its recovery from crime scene or a criminal.

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.

Well, isn't at least part of this "rule change" intended to stop these "trails" or "chains" of ownership from breaking and becoming a dead end?

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

As far as I know, the physical 4473 stays with the dealer. The ATF doesn't even see it, until they inspect the dealer's records, in person at his place of business is the usual way its done.

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.

They don't have your info, or his, until they go look. Looking at the records and quite possibly talking to you or any other former owner/possessor of the gun in question can be part of their investigation.

If this "trace" can't be done by accessing info in a computer system by entering the serial number........how is it done?

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

If this "trace" can't be done by accessing info in a computer system by entering the serial number........how is it done?

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.

Traces are run by starting with the manufacturer. The manufacturer tels the BATFE to whom they sold the gun (distributor, or directly to an FFL dealer). The BATFE then goes to that distributor or dealer and asks them to pull up the 4473 for the specific serial number and tell them to whom the gun was sold. Then the BATFE goes to that next person and asks where the gun is, and so on down the chain of custody.

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.

[dogtown tom]

The Verminator

What about the 4473 that the new buyer filled out when I sold the gun through the dealer?

What about what?
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.

If they had the info from mine they certainly would have the info from his.

Well how they heck are they going to know that unless they contact you?
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?

[dogtown tom]

The Verminator

Wait. So they have a gun used in a crime.

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.

This was covered in post #169 that you didn't read.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

This was covered in post #169 that you didn't read.

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.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

There is no context in which asserting that selling two guns in five years is less likely to have you deemed a dealer means you are in no jeopardy of being deemed a dealer.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Since I haven't suggested that

That isn't a problem with the explanation I provided.

You have repeatedly stated that Garland is saying that selling 2 guns in 5 years could render one subject to a life-changing prosecution. That is, that the BATF could take it as evidence that one is dealing firearms.

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:

Originally Posted by zukiphile

According to Garland, you are less likely to be prosecuted for selling twice in five years that if than if you do so "several times over a short period", but he does not rule out a life altering prosecution over it.

The information is a comparison contained in an explanation of what repetitive is, NOT in an explanation of what dealing firearms is. He's very obviously saying you're less likely to be considered selling repetitively if you sell fewer firearms over a longer period than if you sell more in a shorter period which is not at all alarming, it's basic common sense.

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.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

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?

And if "Joe's Gun and Bait" is a dealer they should already have the info since "Joe" would have taken down a lot of info and sent it RIGHT TO THEM with the background check.

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.

[JohnKSa]

The background check information doesn't include the serial number of the gun in question.

Why would they intentionally sabotage their own efforts?

They didn't. The sabotage is intentional, but it's on the part of Congress to prevent them from creating a registry.

Originally Posted by The Verminator

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.

What you are missing is that:

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.

I have a lot of trouble believing that their system could be so useless and poorly designed.

It's intentionally restricted by law to prevent the BATF in specific (and the government in general) from creating a registry using 4473 information.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Traces are run by starting with the manufacturer. The manufacturer tels the BATFE to whom they sold the gun (distributor, or directly to an FFL dealer). The BATFE then goes to that distributor or dealer and asks them to pull up the 4473 for the specific serial number and tell them to whom the gun was sold. Then the BATFE goes to that next person and asks where the gun is, and so on down the chain of custody.

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.

I understand, thanks.

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.

[mehavey]

"...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."

Hmmmm..... a federal database of all guns, and who has them.
(Did you really mean that?)

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

I just can't believe that they'd spend all this time door knocking when they had the information already.

1. They probably don't actually have the information unless the dealer you sold it to is out of business and/or has sent in the 4473 in question.
2. Even if they do have it, they aren't allowed to make it into a searchable database.

Do the taxpayers know about this?

Depends, but the majority of the ones who do are (so far) in favor of doing it this way because it prevents BATF from creating a registry.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The background check information doesn't include the serial number of the gun in question.They didn't. The sabotage is intentional, but it's on the part of Congress to prevent them from creating a registry.What you are missing is that:

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.It's intentionally restricted by law to prevent the BATF in specific (and the government in general) from creating a registry using 4473 information.

I wonder what is this "law" and who created it?

It seems to be designed to cripple the system.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Hmmmm..... a federal database of all guns, and who has them.
(Did you really mean that?)

It would certainly make tracking down guns used in crime a LOT quicker and less costly in terms of manpower.

What harm would it do?

[JohnKSa]

What harm would it do?

You really think it's a good idea for the government to keep a list of all firearm owners and the guns they own? Most firearm owners don't.

It seems to be designed to cripple the system.

Of course it is.

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

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The background check information doesn't include the serial number of the gun in question.

Yeah, I had totally forgotten that or never noticed, I guess.

They could save a lot of time and expense by adding it.

Thanks.

[mehavey]

> 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.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

They could save a lot of time and expense by adding it.

No, they couldn't. Adding it would be a waste of time. Even if they added serial numbers to the NIC, by law, they would have to discard the information after the check was complete--it would be illegal for them to keep it.

Congress does NOT want the BATF to make a list of gun owners and what guns they own/have owned.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You really think it's a good idea for the government to keep a list of all firearm owners and the guns they own? Most firearm owners don't.Of course it is.

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

Thanks again.

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.