National Firearms Registry

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I was quite surprised to learn that some here feel that any ideas concerning opening the NICS to private sellers must also include a National Firearms Registry. Why would someone want to ruin a good idea that would stand a good chance of passing Congress by adding something that is sure to not even make it out of committee? Why would they want to stop a law that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and thus save countless lives? Is it disingenuous for these same people to accuse gun owners of having blood on their hands for being gun proliferators? It would appear that compromise is not what is sought but rather total submission by gun owners. I look forward to your thoughtful responses.

David

[cabluedem]

1. I would love to see all guns registered like we do with AW's in CA. No registration, off to jail.nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. That's fine but....

would you insist an adding that language to a bill that would allow NICS checks on all firearms purchases? Especially if you knew it would cause the entire bill to fail.

David

[slackmaster]

53. The biggest probem I have with California's "AW" registry is that it is closed

If registration was simply an extra hurdle one had to go through in order to legally acquire an "AW", it would be much less of an issue for me. But there is absolutely no way someone other than a law enforcement officer (with permission on department letterhead) can buy one here. That applies to used ones as well.

Please tell me you aren't actually suggesting implementing a similar system nationally.

[yodoobo]

68. Not much point in registration, if you allow open it up to all.

Ideally a registration system provides limitations on gun proliferation and keeps the worst weapons (i.e. aw's), out off the street.

if just just register everything, then whats the point? Even cars have requirements that must be met before registration is permitted (i.e. emissions, inspections etc)

[X_Digger]

69. So registration is only a means to an end, eh?

Thanks for admitting what many on the 'reasonable things like registration' side refuse to cop to.

We register cars when we take them off private property, kind of like when a person wants to carry concealed, they have to register with their state. Funny we don't do a background check for a car registration.

And pray tell, what is it about 'assault weapons' that make them the 'worst'?

[yodoobo]

72. Of course not, thats not what I said.

Registration is simply required to most enforcement of other common sense laws more feasible.

[X_Digger]

76. No?

"Ideally a registration system provides limitations on gun proliferation and keeps the worst weapons (i.e. aw's), out off the street."

"Registration is simply required to most enforcement of other common sense laws more feasible."

Registration leads to limitations on proliferation, and makes other 'common sense laws' more feasible.

Yah, I don't know how anyone could read that as "registration is a step to limiting access to guns and is a step required in something else" (I assume more restrictions.)

Crazy, no?

[Xenotime]

78. I like your thinking.

[grantcart]

2. Most non gun owners don't follow the specifics like you do.

Is the issue that they are going to expand background checks to private sellers, which you think is a good compromise, but that some want to include a national registry that would require every gun to be registered by either the state or federal government?

(Sorry for asking what is, I am sure to most people here, a stupid question.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Well...

A National Firearms Registry would ensure any bills failure. If a bill, that would allow for NICS checks on all firearms purchases instead of just purchases made from FFL dealers, was in Congress, why would anyone in their right mind add National Firearms Registry language that would kill the entire bill? If it's about keeping firearms away from criminals and saving innocent lives, why would someone insist on killing the bill? I apologize if I'm not being clear, I'm quite medicated at this point.

David

[grantcart]

7. I am guessing that support for the registry may be in part by people who want

the legislation and also in part by people who are against even the NICS provision to pass and so add the registry in order to defeat the entire bill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. In reality you would be right.

This was being argued by strident gun control advocates here and for the life of me I can't figure out why they would make that argument other than pure politics. I don't know if there would be much resistance to opening the NICS in Congress. Provided the process had fail safes in place and didn't place an extreme burden on the private seller I think the NRA would even support it. They did support NICS after all.

David

[spin]

5. Opening the NICS to private byers is a good idea....

and might be worthwhile.

Tying it together with a national firearms registry makes it a poison pill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. I thought it was all about saving lives, that appears to be pure politics.

[madrchsod]

9. delete-

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. It's okay I can take it. I value your opinion.

[madrchsod]

13. i misread the whole dam thing...

i`m not sure what to think of this....

[MichaelHarris]

11. Information

"Virtually every crime gun in the United States starts off as a legal firearm."
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf

"Many Federal firearms licensees have complained to ATF about the conduct of non-licensees at gun shows"
http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/gun_show.pdf

"Only 30 percent of gun vendors, both at shows in California and in the other states, were identifiable as licensed retailers"
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9296
www.physorg.com/pdf100839164.pdf

I own 3 cars, 2 boats, and an RV. I use each one legally. All three are registered with the state. Why would anyone, who is a law-abiding citizen not agree to a firearm registration system which would help lesson gun violence? The above pdf's show in California stricter gun show laws lower crime. If you really cared about protecting the second amendment AND lowering crime you would see this database would prove very helpful. Fear, the NRA, and a blind understanding of the second amendment continue to put firearms into the hands of criminals in this country. By refusing a national registry, which you oppose solely based on an irrational fear, law enforcement has a harder time identifying felons with firearms. If you cared about crime in America you would protest as much as we do. Most of us also have firearms, we just aren't sheep to the NRA.

[grantcart]

12. at this point the poster is arguing on grounds of practicality

the enhanced screening will pass while a national registry will not.

Opposition to the registry is based on a degree of paranoia on exclusive state control of fire power. On this the gun owners are atleast historically sound. The second ammendment was included as a safe guard against a military take over of the constitution.

Logical in those days, rather fanciful in ours.

[MichaelHarris]

14. paranoia

is the correct choice of words.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Thanks for being honest and fair minded.

[grantcart]

50. actually you and the others have persuaded me somewhat

Also I had a chance encounter with a young hunter who had just finished a 2 day session in order to get his hunting license. I listened patiently as he detailed everything that was covered in the course, including preventing forrest fires. It was impressive and he didn't object to doing it.


Obviously there are gun owners who take it very seriously, especially if they have had military training.


It seems unfortunate that there can't be a meeting of the minds with gun owners and people who would like more gun control for a voluntary effort to increase education so that all gun owners get the benefit of those that have had more disciplined training, somewhat along the lines that Obama proposes for pro choice and abortion foes to work together to reduce the number of abortions.


It is clear that on a straight practical point that there is not going to be a lot of legislation passed that doesn't have atleast some support among gun owners.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. It's okay, I don't expect honesty from you anymore.

[MichaelHarris]

17. hahahahahah

All my post had was government statistics and this moron calls me on honesty. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. I know a lot of people have crushes on firemen but this is ridiculous.

[MichaelHarris]

18. Here's honesty

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/mar/01/fed-inquiry-rounds-up-23-illegal-gun-dealers/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Fantastic, thats exactly what the BATF should be doing, enforcing current laws.

[krispos42]

41. You use each one legally on public roads or waterways.

Nobody is making you register cars you don't drive.


Identifying felons with firearms is easy. You identify the person as a felon (fingerprints or whatever). If they have a gun, they're a felon with a firearm. Ta-da. Arrest, trial, prison.



A national fingerprint registrly and national DNA registry would also help the police do whatever the civilian authorities that control the police tell them to do.



Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, let me ask you... have you voluntarily put your fingerprints and DNA in the national database? After all, if you have an accident while boating, and your body washes up on shore a day or week or month or year later, wouldn't you want to be able to be identified? Think of your family... you have to be missing for seven years before your family could collect on life insurance. Do you want to have to have your wife and kids sell the house and live in a cramped, cheap apartment while your bones bleach in some coroner's office someplace.... all because you didn't register your private information with the government?

[MichaelHarris]

49. fingerprints are

due to some sensitive work I've done in the past.

[Statistical]

44. "3 cars, 2 boats, and an RV" none of which requires registration ON private property.

Registration allows you to use public roads & waterways.

None of those products have ever been confiscated.
Guns HAVE been confiscated in other countries (UK, Australia) and in the United States (legally registered rifles were confiscated in CA).

Most states don't require registration but most require a permit/license to carry them in public areas (CCW).

[gorfle]

45. You know why.

Why would anyone, who is a law-abiding citizen not agree to a firearm registration system which would help lesson gun violence?

How many times does this have to be said?

The reason why we don't want firearm registration is simple:

We own firearms as insurance against a tyrannical government, just as our founders intended. Giving the government a list of everyone able to do this negates the entire point of owning firearms!

[beevul]

60. Mike, mike, mike...

"I own 3 cars, 2 boats, and an RV. I use each one legally. All three are registered with the state."


Most places, one does not have to register ones cars boats or RV...UNLESS they are to be used on public property.

Everyone here knows thats not what you are proposing.

Misrepresent much?


As to your PDF...


Did CA ever manage to pass the ban on di-hydrogen-monoxide?


It has nothing to do with the nra for many gun owners.

[flamin lib]

21. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we 95% there already?

Unless I'm mistaken firearms either imported or manufactured domestically are tracked by serial number to the point of sale (FFl dealer, gun shop, etc). When purchased, the buyer fills out the federal form that includes the serial number. That form is stored in the seller's location. The only link missing from a national registry is supplying the gun store form to the BATF. That and private sellers going outside the tracking system.

Seems to me that closing that final loop would make it a bit more uncomfortable for private sellers to pass on guns to people they don't know without somebody, like a FFL, doing a check.

But that's just me.

[MichaelHarris]

22. Please

this is the gun forum, stop making perfect sense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. That was the suggestion of the gun owners here, develop a system that private sellers can access.

[flamin lib]

27. Ya' seemed to have missed the point. A national registry already

exists. It's also possible to transfer a gun and access the NICS. All ya' gotta do is truck it on down to the local gun shop and have them do it for you. People do it with cars, boats and motorcycles all the time. Maybe cost ya' a couple a bucks but if this is about saving lives, it seems a small inconvenience.

[MichaelHarris]

28. flamin

it's not about saving lives for these guys, it's about an irrational fear of the government.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Now that's funny, right after you post an article about a police officer illegally selling firearms.

[MichaelHarris]

36. No offense Dave

but are you drinking tonight?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Can't drink this close to going to work.

[Callisto32]

43. Fear of a violent, controlling group that is willing to hurt you to get their own way is irrational?

The government is just an abusive spouse with an air of legitimacy, when it comes down to it.

[iverglas]

58. the government is "a violent, controlling group that is willing to hurt you to get their own way",

you say.

Well, I know what the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory would say.

[Callisto32]

63. You would deny that the government punishes, robs, and imprisons people

that do nothing to harm others? Take, for example, the thousands of people in prison in the United States that are in jail for possession of marijuana. The government says "you cannot have marijuana" and when people disobey, they are fined, imprisoned and otherwise controlled. This is violence.

Or do you just wish to question my sanity? I simply believe that it is wrong, ALWAYS wrong, to initiate force against another person. Crazy old me.

[iverglas]

73. Moi?

I neither confirm nor deny anything.

You're the one saying the government is just "an abusive spouse".

Somebody here thinks that spouses who put up with abuse may be lazy, or stupid, or needy, or greedy.

You should ask him whether that describes the US electorate, I think.

Why would an electorate put up with an abusive government??

Oh well, I guess the answer is the same as his answer for abused spouses.

Guns. Lots of 'em. More guns.

The question is: when are you going to use them? Everybody seems to agree that abused spouses oughta use them early and often. Why not abused electorates??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Maybe you'll answer. What agency is in control of this single database where all the info is stored?

[MichaelHarris]

34. Well

20 years worth of FFL forms in file cabinets all over the US in which law enforcement can access when investigating crimes. Where did you think it was?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. So thousands of little databases, got it.

[flamin lib]

39. Here's the deal, Dave:

Guns are tracked by serial number from manufacture/import to the point of sale. There they are registered, by serial number, to the end user. That registration is kept in the gun store/FFL's location. If a gun is used in a crime, the BATF/FBI or whoever tracks it to the gun store/FFL and the federal form with the name, address etc it turned over to the authority requesting it. If a gun store closes all those records become the property of the federal government.

So, yeah, there is one big database that tracks guns to a gazillion little ones, i.e. somebody's back room. Why not close that last loop and just register the end user with the BATF? All the other transactions have been registered. If the gun turns up it's gonna be traced to the end user anyway - - - UNLESS the end user gives away/sells/loses it and doesn't report it. Closing that last loop would simply shorten the investigation and discourage the irresponsible resale of guns.

[Statistical]

47. Which is Police work and involves warrants & due process.

No Police officer can demand a 4473 without a warrant.
No Police officer can request a warrant without cause.
No Police officer can request a warrant outside scope of an investigation.
So due process is involved.

So say the feds pass an unconstitutional law and planned on seizing firearms.
Lawyers for those affected could request the judge not grant the warrant. If it was granted they could seek an injuction preventing access to the 4473 while a case is heard on the Constitutionality of such access.

Lets compare this to CA. Citizens had legally purchased and registered rifles. CA decided they were now retroactively illegal. They had a current electronic database of weapons along with owners and addresses. Quick search and printout for the Police.

Firearms can be tracked without registration like you admit they already are.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. I'm aware of the law. Congress will never pass a new law including a National Registry.

[MichaelHarris]

40. bet

they know where your gun is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. The ones I sold or the ones I bought from other individuals or the ones passed down...

from family.

David

[Statistical]

46. No national registry "already" exists.

Federal law prohibits law enforcement from building a database of 4473.

LEO (FBI & local) CAN get a warrant and demand a particular 4473 but just like a warrant on anything else the scope is limited to a current investigation.

A Police Officer can't request a warrant that covers all homes in a city nor can they request one that covers all 4473 by all FFLs in a city.

So RIGHT NOW 4473 can be used by LEO to track down illegal firearms however such access is subject to due process.

[Euromutt]

42. That 5% makes a big difference

As things stand, the "database" is heavily decentralized. Manufacturers/importers are required to keep records on which guns that they made/imported went to which distributor; distributors need to keep records on which dealer they shipped which gun to; and dealers keep bound books on which customer they sold which guns to.

So if a firearm is recovered from, say, a crime scene, and it's gone through the legal market post-1968, it has to have markings identifying the manufacturer and a serial number. So if the local cops recover a gun, they can ask the ATF to trace it by its markings. And the ATF goes to the manufacturer/importer, who directs them to the distributor, who directs them to the dealer, who looks in his bound book whom he sold the gun to. Because the system is decentralized, an ATF trace can only trace one unique weapon at a time. Now they've implemented eTrace, it's a lot faster, but even though the queries (to manufacturers, distributors, etc.) are now electronic, they do still have to go to each link in the chain.

The upside of this is that some enterprising ATF agent can't sit at his desk and look up everybody in, say, Michigan who owns a Kalashnikov derivative, or a 16.5" barrel AR variant. He can only look up one firearm at a time by serial number. Why should the government be able to do more? Why should government agents be able to identify owners of entire types of firearm without probable cause?

[MichaelHarris]

24. not already a database?

"To date, federal records show Cheatham has bought 75 firearms since 2006 and 147 throughout his life. Newell said the man purchased the weapons legally, but he is suspected of breaking the law when he sold them without a license."http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/88487

Federal records showing all the weapons he bought throughout his life? OMG!

"During the Crossroads of the West Gun Show at the Arizona State Fairgrounds last weekend, undercover agents bought guns from the man, who they said had an inventory of 40 long guns and 15 handguns for sale at his booth."

No FFL needed here, he was only selling 55 weapons from a booth at a gun show.:sarcasm:

"Police said so far, six of Cheatham’s firearms were recovered as crime guns, including one in California and one in Alabama."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. What agency is in control of this single database where all the info is stored?

[MichaelHarris]

26. I would ask

Bill Newell, the Phoenix special agent in charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/88487

It was his case.

[slackmaster]

54. The information probably came from Mr. Cheatham's own records

I suspect he had a type 03 FFL (Collector of Curios and Relics) as do I. We are required to keep a bound book of all acquisitions and disposals of firearms into and out of our collections. BATFE can inspect that at any time on short notice, and compare the records to the actual collection.

[DissedByBush]

62. Good question

Remember all the government data leaks you constantly hear about? That could be your information.

My problem with the database is that it exists. Historically registration precedes confiscation. That often precedes persecution.

I don't trust them with that power and knowledge.

Clinton wanted the power to wiretap all conversations even over the digital networks. Don't worry, we'll only do it with a court order. Then comes Bush. If Gore had succeeded in the government getting the keys to all our encryption imagine what Bush would have done with it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Then it exists in violation of Federal Law.

The only gun registry databases that exist are in file cabinets at local gun stores.

David

[DissedByBush]

66. The kind that is proposed doesn't n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Proposed by who?

[DissedByBush]

70. The original poster

A national firearms registry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. I am the original poster. You seem to have misread the OP.

[DissedByBush]

77. Sorry, not you

The first response.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. You mean the police officer that was illegally selling firearms.

From your article

Authorities searched the Gold Canyon home of a veteran Mesa civilian police officer Thursday on suspicion he illegally sold firearms — including some they believe were used in crimes and at least one sold on duty, police announced Wednesday.

snip

Bob Templeton, who owns the traveling gun show, said he was not aware anyone was selling guns illegally at his show. He said he was never told federal authorities were conducting investigations there, but he supports their efforts and does not want people operating outside of the law at his shows.

“Unless they are selling as a hobby in an occasional basis, then they need to have a license,” Templeton said.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/88487

Sounds like Mr. Templeton is another law abiding gun owner, that runs a traveling gun show, that supports the BATFE in their efforts to stop illegal trafficking in firearms.


David

[MichaelHarris]

31. Huh?

Is anyone even discussing the gun show owner? I thought you started a thread about registration and the need for NICS check but not requiring an FFL for private sales?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Just posting some truth from YOUR article.

[MichaelHarris]

35. aaaaa

OK.

[iverglas]

48. sounds like Mr. Templeton was

what we in the law biz call "wilfully blind".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Usually takes proof in the law biz doesn't it.

[iverglas]

57. oh dear

Did I lock Mr. Templeton up and confiscate his horse when I wasn't looking?

Are you in the law biz? No? Then what are you doing here??

We here are engaging in the law biz, it seems. So you say, anyway. You've obviously lost your way. Run along now!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. Just hoped for a little honesty. Should have known better considering your profession.

[iverglas]

61. well then let me, as the expert, help you out

If Mr. Templeton is charged with something that sounds like "wilful blindness" in relation to his firearms-related business, and he stands up in court and opens his mouth to plead not guilty, and the judge bangs his gavel and says GUILTY and sentences him to a week in the stocks, then you have a problem.

Because yes indeed, in the law biz, no one may be PUNISHED unless his/her wrongdoing has been proved.

Now, let's see whether you can figure out the difference between me and Her Honour with the gavel there.







da da da da
da da da
da da da da
DA da-da-da-da da




Thinking?




Okay, time's up. Let's see your answer.

Did you get it right?

I'm not punishing anybody for anything!

It's an amazement, isn't it?

I say: sounds like Mr. Templeton was wilfully blind

and the world doesn't change an iota. Mr. Templeton is still walking the streets a free man, with all his bits intact, and his wallet no lighter.


You said:

Usually takes proof in the law biz doesn't it.

What's the subject in that sentence?

WHAT usually takes proof?

Somebody expressing an opinion on an internet board?


I don't thiiiiink so, Davey.

Certainly not from what I've gathered around here, anyhow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. You're right it doesn't take proof to make baseless accusations, just a lack of integrity.

[iverglas]

74. yer darn tootin

You should not have made the baseless allegation that I had said something that called for proof.

Glad you're clear on that now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. What do you call 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start. Just kidding Ivy. You know how dear you are to us.

david

[Tim01]

55. You make a good point with all of this dave.

I hadn't put all the pieces together like you did. I was just kind of perplexed that the gun control folks wouldn't support something that would actually work, and still would not create a registry.
What you say makes sense.