doublegunshop.com - home Forums Back Ground Checks on private gun sales

THe background check shows Joe Schmo at the Adress od 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC is applying to transfer/pruchace a Beretta shotgun with a SN of xxxxxxxxx from Joe Schmo Sr.


THey will know WHO at WHAT adress is buyine Which type gun and what Serial number is is.

Exactly why would the government need to know all that info if they didn't want to know exactly who has exactly what firearms....except to make a database of who owns what so when they come to confiscate them....they know what they missed.

And they didn't know this before because Joe Schmo Sr. got his from his father...and there are no records of it to know he owns it.

Perhaps we need to register condoms too...and make sure they are correctly used....

Because we all know unlicesned trouser Trouts cause far more problems every year than unliscenses firearms do.

Here's what it could do...

Example...

I buy a new handgun....few years down the line I sell it...it's sold again and again and finally ends up in the hands of some crazed crack head.

The said gun is used in a crime...it can only be traced to it's original purchaser.

If the gun had gone through a licensed gun dealer each time it was sold it could be better traced should it be used in a crime.

Only way that it would ever work would be to make it a felony to sell a fire arm without going through a back ground check at a licensed gun dealers shop.

That would stop all da baby mommas buying guns....

Ps...I think you guys are just too paranoid

OK, let's try again. Currently, there is no official firearms registration in the U.S. But the anti-gunners have been pushing for that for decades. The NRA and gunowners have spent a lot of time and money keeping registration at bay. However, under the current system of FFL transfers and NICS checks, there is a written record in the Form 4473 and in the dealers bound ledger books. This information includes not only your name, address, age, eye color, etc., but it also includes the make, model, caliber, gauge, and serial number of the firearm you buy from a dealer. Can you tell us why they need this information if you are a law abiding citizen who has not been adjudicated as mentally ill? Although Gun Registration is not legal, the government has been accumulating all of this data. When a FFL dealer quits, dies, or retires, all of his bound ledger books go to the BATF. Obama and Company have been very eager to expand this collection of who owns what to include every transfer by any means. They know it has not, and will not reduce gun violence or help solve crimes. Since they have not been able to get Congress or the American public to go along with Gun Registration, they are taking the backdoor approach which is Universal Backround Checks.

There is so much evidence that the anti-gunners would use this information against you. There is so much history in other countries to show what anti-gun politicians eventually do with this kind of information. Why would you trust them? Why does this seem so innocuous to you?

I think most of us wouldn't mind a system where the only requirement to buy a gun was some sort of criminal backround check that did not have any requirement to know exactly what gun you are buying, or even if you actually did buy one. Maybe a magnetic strip on your drivers license that could be scanned by any dealer that would simply show if you have a criminal record or have been diagnosed as mentally ill, just as scanning a credit card shows if you have exceeded your credit limit. The system could be updated to show if you had been convicted of a crime just as easily as your MasterCard is updated to show how much you owe and how much you have left on your credit limit. The same magnetic strip could also show poll workers that you are a citizen and are legally registered to vote. I'll bet the Liberal Democrats would howl about that.

I believe you really are an NRA member. But it is obvious that you have not been reading the NRA magazines to know what their positions are on these proposals, and why. Your NRA has been warning you about this for years, and especially since 2007 when Obama was running for office. It might have sounded like hysteria to some back then. Now that it's coming true, it ain't sounding so hysterical.

You are correct that the backround checks they do now don't require registration. In fact, it is forbidden. But they are doing it anyway. They are keeping that data. They now want it to include every gun and every gun owner. But the criminals aren't going to register your pistol when they steal it from you. And 99% of the time, when they use it to rob or kill, they won't be leaving it at the crime scene, so it isn't going to be traced at all.

So tell us why you want to help Obama?

No it would NOT,felons are NOT required to register or use a background check,look up Haynes vs US


Very little thought is necessary to render as a sick joke the oft-repeated claim that police benefit from knowing who has guns and who hasn�t. A registry tells authorities which law-abiding citizens have weapons and which don�t � which at best is useless information, and at worst is yet another case of government�s failing to do anything about the criminal and so going after the rest of us instead. The reductio ad absurdum of this tendency has been well documented by the historian Clayton Cramer. �The U.S. Supreme Court,� Cramer writes,

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren�t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren�t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

Advertisement
As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds �a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.� I have no great objection to this principle, but it does highlight the absurdity of an approach that would see constitutionally protected individual liberties being strictly guarded in the case of criminals but restricted when it comes to the law-abiding. Practically speaking, the Haynes decision legally exempts from any future registry the very people whose behavior is used to justify its necessity. Surely, if we are going to become so strict about the Constitution, then the Second and Fourth Amendments should share in the bounty?

Dave K, I forgot about Haynes vs. U.S., but you are absolutely correct. Excellent point!

Also jOe, people who use guns to rape, rob, and kill are already felons. What makes you think they will give a fat rat's ass about committing another felony by either stealing a gun or buying it in an illegal transaction?

And once again... why do you want to help Obama?

I'll add to the length. Again, here's a direct statement from the NRA that they recommend members and gun owners be aware of as 'facts' of the pRivate sales bAckground cHeck proposed laws.

Oh look, mr straw just walked into his local police station and claimed his 'collection' was just stolen. How come he and mr criminal buyer didn't just do the background check like you want them to. Maybe mr straw knew how the check would come out so he figured why skim lap dance cash off the top for the fees. Or, maybe they expect the lawful folks to follow the law, because they weren't gonna.

Truth is I'm as anti Obama as they come....I'm sure "they" won't care how they buy a gun but the baby momma that originally bought the gun legally and then sold it illegally will.

Keith:

"Although Gun Registration is not legal, the government has been accumulating all of this data. When a FFL dealer quits, dies, or retires, all of his bound ledger books go to the BATF"

I think this above point is well known but I have never been able to find out exactly what the BATF does with these turned in records. If they are just using them to trace a firearm from it's initial sale to the original owner that's probably fine if the gun does turn up as one used in a crime.
However; I have long suspected there records are being computerized as the start of an online registration system but can't prove it.
My intent is to NOT want to redirect this thread and agree we must resist a gun registration system at all costs.
Perhaps you or some other member here can clarify this?
Jim

You're absolutely right, Jim. My little raggedy-ass province of Nova Scotia passed a law six years ago to protect Canadians from the Patriot Act, as did British Columbia. Enormous amounts of Canadian data are stored in places like Texas.

Nova Scotia amended the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to address the perceived threat to privacy posed by the USA Patriot Act if the processing or storage of personal information is outsourced by Nova Scotia public bodies to companies operating in the US (or US companies operating in Canada)."

Canadian private businesses pulled data storage from the US because they couldn't permit the FBI or any other US agency rooting through their files. When Nova Scotians on a peninsula jutting into the North Atlantic make legislation to protect the integrity of information, Americans realize what's going on, too.

Another point is that commerce registers highly in the minds of men---sorry, the gender is an age thing. The FFLs seem a fragile link in protecting privacy. Guns are their bread and butter, reporting a regulation. Are their voluminous ledgers in pen and ink as in Dickens? Or filed digitally as you and I do our business?

I follow what you are saying King; but what I'm trying to find out exactly is what the BATF is doing with the 4473 records every firearms purchaser filled out at the time of sale and that the dealer had to turn in when they ceased business. To be clear; Turning these records in is a requirement for anyone who had a 01 FFL and is no longer in business. My concern is that the BATF is creating a database from these records which would be the start of firearms registration at the Federal level.
Jim