No, Steve, it's not about stolen weapons, it's about people who would not be able to pass a background check intentionally evading those checks to buy from other sources, often straw purchasers. Those weapons end up in the hands of criminals, and contribute to gun crime, which is a concern for legitimate gun owners as well.
Yes, there is a privacy concern, but you're massively exaggerating the issue.
Surely you can see that background checks, which you claim to agree with, are made far less useful if they can be trivially evaded?
So why would someone who would not pass a background check willingly register their gun? If they can avoid background checks they can avoid the registry. Thus defeating the purpose of the registry.
Even someone involved in straw purchases can trivially remove serial numbers which also makes the registry useless.
So why would someone who would not pass a background check willingly register their gun? If they can avoid background checks they can avoid the registry. Thus defeating the purpose of the registry.
Obviously the point of the registry is to track the gun up to the point where it reaches the people who are not allowed to possess it, because that helps you to answer the very important question of how those people are getting the guns. That is something a registry can do quite well. The idea is to crack down on the people who sell guns to people who aren't allowed to have them, thus making it much harder for those people to get guns.
Even someone involved in straw purchases can trivially remove serial numbers which also makes the registry useless.
Forensic science is often capable of recovering the serial numbers even after removal. Also, it seems that removing serial numbers is not that common at the moment. Considering that people already have good reasons to do it and yet they don't, it seems to me that a gun registry would still catch plenty such people.
If, in the future, effective methods of serial number removal became highly commonplace, new technologies could be developed against the practice.
In short, despite your comments, a gun registry is far from useless.
I do think some sort of registry could be useful, provided we put it in place in such a way that it could not be abused, but I have a feeling that in the long run people might be able to avoid it entirely. There is a strong demand for guns for illicit purposes, and because of this many legal guns are turned into illegal guns via straw purchases and similar things. I just have a feeling that if we had any sort of strict gun control that demand would end up being met by new underground illegally build guns. I just have a feeling that there would be a lot of out of work machinists who would gladly take up work as an underground gunsmith if it payed well. If villagers in Afghanistan can build guns in fucking caves and people in the Philippines can make them in their garages out of like rusty pieces of boat then I think we could manage it. And I don't mean some zip gun made out of a couple pieces of pipe and a nail either.
There is also the very real issue of serial numbers not being mandatory until 1968.
I see your point on straw purchases and secondary markets and the desire to have a paper trail to trace each weapon but:
A) I do not trust the govt to keep the list private and not abuse the data. I expect criminals to work outside of the registry or otherwise launder their gun transactions so as to make the registry not work for this purpose. C) Licensed gun dealers are already required by law to keep records on all gun sales. D) FFLs are the biggest straw purchasers out there. As written anyone who can pass the background checks can get their FFL even if they don't operate as a traditional store.
With licensed dealers already tracking when a gun is sold doesn't that information satisfy the desire to trace a gun back to its source? If several guns are found at several crime scenes and the manufacturer (after a warrent) informs police which dealer sold the gun can't the police (after a warrent) find where the guns went and then arrest the buyer as a straw purchaser when they are found not to have many of the guns they purchased? Isn't this how straw purchasers are currently being caught?
Why create a gun registry to catch straw sellers when we already have the ability to catch them with the existing system?
Question, what do you think the government would do with a list of who owns guns? You go on about it a lot but haven't really given a reason why beyond a slightly paranois "Their watching me their watching me, Im not joking their watching me".
Question, what do you think the government would do with a list of who owns guns? You go on about it a lot but haven't really given a reason why beyond a slightly paranois "Their watching me their watching me, Im not joking their watching me".
It doesn't matter. In fact the driving point behind having a gun registry sounds an awful lot like,"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
Sorry but if I am expected to give up some privacy I expect to gain something of equal or greater value as part of the exchange.
On that note, let's talk about registration a little more. Yes, there is a legitimate privacy concern, but doesn't that just mean it needs to be done carefully and with proper oversight?
If access to such a registry requires a warrant in relation to a specific person or a specific gun, can it still be effective? Isn't that a sufficient privacy protection?
Makes sense. It's hardly a concern if they just run it like phone records and the like.
Also, for clarification: what are the purposes for a gun registry? How effective would one actually be? Are there better alternatives?
It varies state by state, as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure the ATF already keeps a record of some guns, certainly any AOWs, Short barreled rifles and shotguns, people who own suppressors, and so on. As for effectiveness, couldn't tell you either way, but a complete federal registry would be better than that what they have now, which is 50 different sets of laws regarding it. The privacy concerns are laughable - It's not like they don't already have access to your phone records, medical records, bank records, tax records, vehicle registrations and real estate ownership records trivially anyway, but being able to have a record of you owning a gun rather than having to go through maybe one or two more steps to find out, oh no no no that's just unreasonable. Huh, this guy has a gun license, spent the price of a firearm at this gun store on this date, had a phone conversation with the owner right at the time the waiting period was up, oh gee I wonder if he's got a gun or not shit I just can't tell.
I see your point on straw purchases and secondary markets and the desire to have a paper trail to trace each weapon but:
A) I do not trust the govt to keep the list private and not abuse the data.
What kind of abuse are you actually talking about here, Steve? Just saying "it doesn't matter" is ridiculous, because unless you can actually bring up legitimate concerns your point bears little to no weight. Yes, privacy is a genuine concern, but if you're talking about abuses you'd better give more detail.
As for not keeping the list private, can you elaborate?
I expect criminals to work outside of the registry or otherwise launder their gun transactions so as to make the registry not work for this purpose.
How would they do it? The point is that the person who bought the gun in the very last legitimate transaction bears responsibility for whatever illegitimate transaction followed it.
D) FFLs are the biggest straw purchasers out there. As written anyone who can pass the background checks can get their FFL even if they don't operate as a traditional store.
FFLs cannot be "straw purchasers"; if an FFL is breaking the law it's simply an illegal sale. I would like to see some statistics on how many guns used in crime were bought illegally from an FFL, though.
With licensed dealers already tracking when a gun is sold doesn't that information satisfy the desire to trace a gun back to its source? If several guns are found at several crime scenes and the manufacturer (after a warrent) informs police which dealer sold the gun can't the police (after a warrent) find where the guns went and then arrest the buyer as a straw purchaser when they are found not to have many of the guns they purchased? Isn't this how straw purchasers are currently being caught?
Why create a gun registry to catch straw sellers when we already have the ability to catch them with the existing system?
You have a slight point there, but a registry makes a far greater difference than you're suggesting.
Without the gun registry, it's much harder to pin a straw purchaser down because it's much harder to show that they didn't simply make a mistake on the form, or simply choose to resell their gun after buying it for themselves. Under current law, straw purchasers can only be convicted on the very narrow grounds that they were lying on the Firearms Transactions Record, which makes prosecution much more difficult as you have to demonstrate that at the time they bought it they were already doing so on behalf of the other person. Simply giving it as a "gift" is also perfectly OK. On the other hand, if the transfer of possession is required to be registered then that allows much easier grounds for prosecution - the prosecution wouldn't be have to be in relation to the straw purchase per se, but rather the unregistered transfer and the intentional avoidance of an associated universal background check.
Besides, there's a few other important points with respect to a registry: 1) Registration makes universal background checks much easier, as they can simply be conducted every time a transfer of ownership is registered; some people will be stopped simply due to failing the background checks. 2) Straw purchases aren't the only issue; people who are not allowed to have them can get guns after people have made private transfers or sales, and a registry allows those to be traced as well. 3) Having a registry would make the system far more efficient and manageable, and would free up a lot of the ATF's meager resources.
Question, what do you think the government would do with a list of who owns guns? You go on about it a lot but haven't really given a reason why beyond a slightly paranoia "Their watching me their watching me, Im not joking their watching me".
It doesn't matter. In fact the driving point behind having a gun registry sounds an awful lot like,"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
Sorry but if I am expected to give up some privacy I expect to gain something of equal or greater value as part of the exchange.
Yeah you get a fucking gun! You are already on a registry to vote, drive, medicine and a whole host of other things. Hell you are already on a fucking list to get a gun!. Its not like your off the grid here dude. Im afraid that logic does come across as a little bonkers and a odd distrust of the government.
Also that whole "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." is a real american thing. I trundle around in the UK knowing that Im being watched, when in town at least, by CCTV cameras and you know what, I don't care. Why the fuck would it bother me the fact that someone might see me scratching my arse walking down the street? I get where your thinking with the whole 1984 thing but gun registry thing is a far cry from that. Unless, you know, your crazy.
I do think some sort of registry could be useful, provided we put it in place in such a way that it could not be abused, but I have a feeling that in the long run people might be able to avoid it entirely. There is a strong demand for guns for illicit purposes, and because of this many legal guns are turned into illegal guns via straw purchases and similar things. I just have a feeling that if we had any sort of strict gun control that demand would end up being met by new underground illegally build guns. I just have a feeling that there would be a lot of out of work machinists who would gladly take up work as an underground gunsmith if it payed well. If villagers in Afghanistan can build guns in fucking caves and people in the Philippines can make them in their garages out of like rusty pieces of boat then I think we could manage it. And I don't mean some zip gun made out of a couple pieces of pipe and a nail either.
If this was to be the hypothetical case, do you believe that your Government is as inept as the Afghani government or other developing nations?
The number of guns on the street would be less if the Government followed up on checking and enforcing registration. They already eat this shit up for car registration, just make one for guns.
I can steal a car and file of the engine and chassis identifiers but the average person is going to have a hard freaking time finding a seller. If they do find a seller and it ends up being a murder weapon, they become an accessory to murder.
Ran into a lot of anecdotal stories on gun dealer forums of dealers both turning away and selling to people who may or may not be straws. Main take away is that if you bring a friend to help you pick a gun the shop will not sell to you.
Saw one ironic story where an obvious straw came in and dealer told him to come back later. Dealer than called local PD and had them hide in backroom. Did the sale and local PD comes in from the back while ATF comes in the front. It was meant to be a sting because someone had been sending anonymous tips to ATF but the sting got stung!
There is a very real fear among legit FFLs of straw stings so if it looks suspicious they will turn people away. The incidents where the sale was allowed typically involve chain stores that sell guns.
I still have not seen a compelling reason to give up my privacy. All I have seen is:
1) you already lost these other privacies so what's one more? 2) if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
So, still waiting on the magic reason to surrender some privacy.
Edit: I am also detecting a very curious vibe that those who are pushing for a registry are doing so because they believe owning a gun is criminal and having a registry of said criminals weapons makes them "feel better". Makes me feel like they view gun owners as no better than pedophiles. Not a perfect analogy but I think many of you understand what I am trying to say.
I am also detecting a very curious vibe that those who are pushing for a registry are doing so because they believe owning a gun is criminal and having a registry of said criminals weapons makes them "feel better". Makes me feel like they view gun owners as no better than pedophiles. Not a perfect analogy but I think many of you understand what I am trying to say.
I'm getting more of a vibe that a gun is like a car, both are tools, both need licenses both should need registration.
I am also detecting a very curious vibe that those who are pushing for a registry are doing so because they believe owning a gun is criminal and having a registry of said criminals weapons makes them "feel better". Makes me feel like they view gun owners as no better than pedophiles. Not a perfect analogy but I think many of you understand what I am trying to say.
I'm getting more of a vibe that a gun is like a car, both are tools, both need licenses both should need registration.
We already went through the car/gun analogy and a gun registry would not be in line because cars are only registered when used on the public roads. The car that sits in your collection and is never driven does not have to be registered. Cars used strictly for track racing and do not go on the street can not be registered.
So if you use the car/gun analogy you don't get the registry that is being sought as discussed here.
That article also suggests that straw purchases are more common than illegal purchases from FFLs. It also doesn't have a date or citations, which makes it pretty hard to verify those claims.
I think that figure is from the year 2000, so it may or not be accurate at the moment. Also, the fact that 60% of guns used in crime originally come from 1.2% of dealers is not particularly meaningful figure, and by no means shows that those dealers are "corrupt" or participating in any kind of illegal activity. The fact that those guns originally come from those dealers doesn't mean they're knowingly selling directly to criminals or anyone associated with such. Hell, it could easily be mostly a matter of those dealers being very, very big dealers.
Either way, the core issue is that, for a number of legal reasons, the ATF is severely restricted in its ability to trace how guns end up in the hands of people who are not supposed to have them. That is precisely the point of a registry.
So, still waiting on the magic reason to surrender some privacy.
You keep harping on about this, but if that data could only be accessed for illegal guns then what exactly is the privacy concern?
Also, as we've just been saying, the justification is that it would be a big help in tracking how guns end up in the hands of those not allowed to have them. Are you simply ignoring this?
Edit: I am also detecting a very curious vibe that those who are pushing for a registry are doing so because they believe owning a gun is criminal and having a registry of said criminals weapons makes them "feel better". Makes me feel like they view gun owners as no better than pedophiles. Not a perfect analogy but I think many of you understand what I am trying to say.
Is this really the kind of discussion you want to have, Steve? Do you want us to start talking about the "vibe" we get from you?
We already went through the car/gun analogy and a gun registry would not be in line because cars are only registered when used on the public roads. The car that sits in your collection and is never driven does not have to be registered.
Yes, and I already responded to your point by noting that self-defense is (according to the Supreme Court) the core purpose for gun ownership, and because your own self-defense involves other people there is an obvious state interest in self-defense weaponry.
In any case, given the level of paranoia about registration, a registry appears politically infeasible. Are there viable alternatives for achieving the same ends?
What if the registry is voluntary, but anyone who opts out is, like an FFL, held responsible for keeping documentation when they transfer a gun to someone else?
As long as people can only be penalised when the gun they failed to document properly winds up in illegal hands, is there any issue with this?
As we've just been saying, it would be an enormous help in tracking how guns end up in the hands of those not allowed to have them. Are you simply ignoring this?
You are making the same argument the NSA is making about spying on everyone.
We are talking about a right and all rights must be treated equally, this is the part where I find all of you to be sounding crazy. It doesn't matter to me if we are talking about guns or printing presses. Replace guns in this discussion with searches and seizures. Should we just allow the cops to come in without a warrant whenever they want because it makes their job easier? Should we eliminate anonymous speech because it makes it harder for people to silence their critics?
Yes we allow certain restrictions on our rights but the restrictions are very specific and designed to address a very specific problem. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can be sued for libel and slander. However in no case do we prejudge everyone as a criminal with intent to abuse their rights as would be the case with a gun registry. The stated goal of this registry is to catch law breakers.
18 USC Chapter 44 - FIREARMS Already makes private sales to prohibited buyers a crime. While background checks are not required for private sales it is in the sellers best interest to conduct one and record the transaction in case the weapon ends up involved in a crime.
Requiring a universal background check for all firearm transfers would alleviate the problems that the gun registry is being designed to correct. Further it would likely pass Constitutional muster because it is analogous to verifying someone's right to vote. The only potential sticking point I see is the cost, who pays for the check and how much?
A gun registry is very invasive from a privacy and Constitutional standpoint. The fact that so many of you are completely ignoring the Constitutional and privacy concerns is very troubling to me. Does that better explain the "vibe" I am getting from most of you and the point of view that I am looking at this issue from? Does what I have written make a bit more sense to you now?
I understand your point of view of wanting to get guns out of the hands of criminals but the right to bear arms is an individual right in this country. If it were not I would not be opposing this so strongly. I would say sure, track them like any dangerous item.
Edit: @LOC - I think that is already how the law works, last person in the paper trail gets punished if the gun ends up involved in a crime.
Not Acceptable, because your gun then exists on paper and is traceable, which means that the evil gubmit is gonna take them away because obummer is coming for your guns. WE HAVE TO RESIST THEM. OOH RAH WOLVERINES TO BATTLE. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
You are making the same argument the NSA is making about spying on everyone.
The NSA isn't analogous. If the NSA were managed in a way such that the information in their database could not be accessed without a warrant, there wouldn't be much of an issue. The primary issue with the NSA is that, due to their secrecy status, there is a severe lack of oversight and transparency, and so there is no way of ensuring that they have reasonable protocols and that those protocols are maintained.
The same issues simply don't come up with a gun registry.
We are talking about a right and all rights must be treated equally, this is the part where I find all of you to be sounding crazy.
The idea that all rights must be treated equally is just plain stupid. There is no principle anywhere that says they should be, and the plain fact of the matter is that they aren't. Felons and people who (due to mental illness) are at high risk of using a gun on themselves or on others are denied the ability to bear arms, and yet they are (quite rightly) never denied freedom of speech. Additionally, many felons are denied the right to vote (though I think this is an injustice).
It doesn't matter to me if we are talking about guns or printing presses. Replace guns in this discussion with searches and seizures. Should we just allow the cops to come in without a warrant whenever they want because it makes their job easier?
If access to the registry also requires a warrant, isn't that analogous to the status quo with regards to search and seizure?
18 USC Chapter 44 - FIREARMS Already makes private sales to prohibited buyers a crime. While background checks are not required for private sales it is in the sellers best interest to conduct one and record the transaction in case the weapon ends up involved in a crime.
Requiring a universal background check for all firearm transfers would alleviate the problems that the gun registry is being designed to correct. Further it would likely pass Constitutional muster because it is analogous to verifying someone's right to vote. The only potential sticking point I see is the cost, who pays for the check and how much?
With a universal background check, how do you catch and penalize the people who transfer weapons without the background check?
Without records of background checks, which are little different to a registry, and which the ATF is currently required to destroy within 24 hours, how do you identify when background checks are being skipped?
Q: What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction? When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.
There is no responsibility or punishment associated with being the last person in the paper trail.
II. KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES: 18 USC § 922(d). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment
So yes, their is a punishment associated with your gun ending up at a crime scene. If you have papers (bill of sale, police theft report, etc.) you can clear yourself but otherwise the last person on the list could face a charge of gun trafficking.
The law that you're stating there only applies in a very narrow and specific circumstance, because that only applies to someone who knowingly sells a firearm to someone who is not allowed to have one. Such a law is trivially avoided by conducting private sales with no questions asked.
Also, the person at the end of the paper trail is not necessarily the one who sold a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to have one; there could quite easily be more links in between.
Perhaps you've forgotten about the presumption of innocence, but you don't need papers to "clear yourself". Under the current system no one needs to keep papers because they don't bear any burden to keep track of who they sold their firearm to, and to establish that the person they're selling a firearm to is allowed to have one.
I would still like to hear what you think of this idea:
What if the registry is voluntary, but anyone who opts out is, like an FFL, held responsible for keeping documentation when they transfer a gun to someone else.
I have seen too much "guilty creep" in laws designed to "stop bad guys" that are sold under the guise of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
Money confiscation and financial tracking when a transaction exceeds $10,000. Too many of these laws are being written in a way that the authorities can take and the owner must prove their innocence and their ownership to get their stuff back. So, yeah... Not so sure the entirety of our government still believes in innocent until proven guilty.
Back to your point. Yes the law is specific and it is not prosecuted nearly as often as it should or could be however I do believe having ATF knock on someone's door is an effective deterrent to the person continuing the trafficking. Also, with the number of guns reported stolen from FFLs (that later end up in the hands of criminals) shows that even with a registry the intended goal would be easily thwarted.
Why isn't something being done about these FFLs that keep having guns "stolen" from them?
Regardless I am 99% unlikely to ever agree on a complete gun registry. I made an offer to meet partway with registration of handguns when used in conjunction with a carry permit and hunting weapons when getting a hunting license. That's as far as I am willing to go. Anything more is too intrusive to me.
We can keep going round and round but it appears pointless so this will be my last post on the national gun registry topic.
A gun registry is very invasive from a privacy and Constitutional standpoint. The fact that so many of you are completely ignoring the Constitutional and privacy concerns is very troubling to me. Does that better explain the "vibe" I am getting from most of you and the point of view that I am looking at this issue from? Does what I have written make a bit more sense to you now?
The privacy argument is pretty weak. First and foremost, if no one actually has access to the information without a warrant, then that already meets any reasonable standard of privacy. I still haven't seen a good response from you on this point.
Besides that, the idea that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your transfer of ownership of a gun is not that strongly supported. There is already significant precedent that information voluntarily shared with a third party is not protected. While I don't entirely agree with with the courts on this, when it comes to firearms the fact that they are already regulated in many ways. There is already existing precedent that there is a reduced expectation of privacy with respect to such a regulated industry.
I understand your point of view of wanting to get guns out of the hands of criminals but the right to bear arms is an individual right in this country. If it were not I would not be opposing this so strongly. I would say sure, track them like any dangerous item.
The right to bear arms is not a right to bear arms without anyone else knowing about it. Whether something is a right has little bearing on whether there is or is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
As per your own admission, it is OK to track some dangerous items. Not only that, but many things that count as types of "arms" are nevertheless monitored, and sometimes access is restricted or prohibited.
I'm not really afraid that the registry will lead to confiscation with our current government, and some future evil tyrannical government wouldn't need a registry to take your guns, they would just burst into everyone houses and search through your shit anyway. Plus does the second amendment even apply during martial law? I'm more afraid that our government would try to take away a particular type of gun and the registry would make it easier, like whats happened in some states already. Not so much an "Evil gubment gonna take r guns" but more people overreacting and the government trying to push something through to pacify the anti-gun people.
Back to your point. Yes the law is specific and it is not prosecuted nearly as often as it should or could be however I do believe having ATF knock on someone's door is an effective deterrent to the person continuing the trafficking. Also, with the number of guns reported stolen from FFLs (that later end up in the hands of criminals) shows that even with a registry the intended goal would be easily thwarted.
Your black/white perspective on this issue is highly flawed.
Your reasoning is based on a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and die-hard criminals who will do anything and everything to get their hands on guns. This simply isn't the case. Yes, it is a crime to obtain a gun when you're not allowed to have one, but such people are not necessarily seeking out guns for the express purpose of committing crimes with those guns.
Similarly, the supply of guns to criminals is also not such a simplistic affair. It's not merely people intentionally supplying criminals with guns, but rather a broader matter involving people who may simply be indifferent or ignorant when it comes to where the guns end up.
Even if the ATF knocking on the door might stop someone from being indiscriminate in future, that has little effect on other people who, for example, simply sell a gun on the Internet without being careful about who they are selling it to.
Quite a lot of crime (and we're talking about a broad category here, including, say, suicide) is opportunistic in nature, and so simply making guns harder to obtain can easily prevent a lot of unfortunate outcomes. The idea that some protections against crime can only be effective if there is absolutely no way around them is plainly false.
Why isn't something being done about these FFLs that keep having guns "stolen" from them?
There are number of reasons, but primarily it's because the ability of the ATF to act has been deeply sabotaged. Funding remains inadequate, and they did not have a permanent director for a period of seven years.
However, a major part of the problem is that they are severely restricted in their ability to collect and use the information they need to act. A registry would be a comprehensive solution to many of these issues.
For example, the ATF is barred from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks, which makes it very difficult for them to pin down any FFLs who are intentionally allowing guns to be "stolen". A registry would make it much easier, as they would be able to assess the inventory from their own records.
If the concern is tracking stolen weapons then we create a stolen weapon database.
If you want to track weapons stolen from private citizens, how are you going to do it? Unless either the citizens or the government are required to keep records, how is someone supposed to know what the serial number is for a weapon they no longer have?
We can keep going round and round but it appears pointless so this will be my last post on the national gun registry topic.
I don't think we're going "round and round". As I see it, we haven't even been able to establish where exactly it is that you disagree with me because you haven't really responded to my own points, and in the meantime you've run out of new points of your own and so you simply want to stop the discussion.
More importantly, though, if you're so strongly against a registry you should at least give serious consideration to alternative approaches.
I still haven't seen a response from Steve on mandatory record-keeping.
And you likely won't, since he's too gutless to answer questions that don't serve his argument. And if he read your post and quoted from it, but didn't answer, then you already have your answer - and that answer is "Too cowardly for comment."
Where we disagree? Privacy and Constitutionality. Everything else is barking in the wind until those two hurdles are crossed.
FFLs should be required to keep track of their inventory and be subject to inspections by the ATF.
I have offered alternatives. I have already stated my support for 100% background checks for all transfers. I also offered up a limited form of firearm registration.
Comments
Yes, there is a privacy concern, but you're massively exaggerating the issue.
Surely you can see that background checks, which you claim to agree with, are made far less useful if they can be trivially evaded?
Even someone involved in straw purchases can trivially remove serial numbers which also makes the registry useless.
If, in the future, effective methods of serial number removal became highly commonplace, new technologies could be developed against the practice.
In short, despite your comments, a gun registry is far from useless.
I see your point on straw purchases and secondary markets and the desire to have a paper trail to trace each weapon but:
A) I do not trust the govt to keep the list private and not abuse the data.
C) Licensed gun dealers are already required by law to keep records on all gun sales.
D) FFLs are the biggest straw purchasers out there. As written anyone who can pass the background checks can get their FFL even if they don't operate as a traditional store.
With licensed dealers already tracking when a gun is sold doesn't that information satisfy the desire to trace a gun back to its source? If several guns are found at several crime scenes and the manufacturer (after a warrent) informs police which dealer sold the gun can't the police (after a warrent) find where the guns went and then arrest the buyer as a straw purchaser when they are found not to have many of the guns they purchased? Isn't this how straw purchasers are currently being caught?
Why create a gun registry to catch straw sellers when we already have the ability to catch them with the existing system?
Sorry but if I am expected to give up some privacy I expect to gain something of equal or greater value as part of the exchange.
As for not keeping the list private, can you elaborate? How would they do it? The point is that the person who bought the gun in the very last legitimate transaction bears responsibility for whatever illegitimate transaction followed it. Indeed, but the current system makes the process far more difficult and time-consuming than it needs to be. FFLs cannot be "straw purchasers"; if an FFL is breaking the law it's simply an illegal sale. I would like to see some statistics on how many guns used in crime were bought illegally from an FFL, though. You have a slight point there, but a registry makes a far greater difference than you're suggesting.
Without the gun registry, it's much harder to pin a straw purchaser down because it's much harder to show that they didn't simply make a mistake on the form, or simply choose to resell their gun after buying it for themselves. Under current law, straw purchasers can only be convicted on the very narrow grounds that they were lying on the Firearms Transactions Record, which makes prosecution much more difficult as you have to demonstrate that at the time they bought it they were already doing so on behalf of the other person. Simply giving it as a "gift" is also perfectly OK. On the other hand, if the transfer of possession is required to be registered then that allows much easier grounds for prosecution - the prosecution wouldn't be have to be in relation to the straw purchase per se, but rather the unregistered transfer and the intentional avoidance of an associated universal background check.
Besides, there's a few other important points with respect to a registry:
1) Registration makes universal background checks much easier, as they can simply be conducted every time a transfer of ownership is registered; some people will be stopped simply due to failing the background checks.
2) Straw purchases aren't the only issue; people who are not allowed to have them can get guns after people have made private transfers or sales, and a registry allows those to be traced as well.
3) Having a registry would make the system far more efficient and manageable, and would free up a lot of the ATF's meager resources.
Also that whole "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." is a real american thing. I trundle around in the UK knowing that Im being watched, when in town at least, by CCTV cameras and you know what, I don't care. Why the fuck would it bother me the fact that someone might see me scratching my arse walking down the street? I get where your thinking with the whole 1984 thing but gun registry thing is a far cry from that. Unless, you know, your crazy.
The number of guns on the street would be less if the Government followed up on checking and enforcing registration. They already eat this shit up for car registration, just make one for guns.
I can steal a car and file of the engine and chassis identifiers but the average person is going to have a hard freaking time finding a seller. If they do find a seller and it ends up being a murder weapon, they become an accessory to murder.
It is a simple deterrent.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/ <- mentions 60% of illegal guns coming from 1.2% of corrupt FFLs.
Ran into a lot of anecdotal stories on gun dealer forums of dealers both turning away and selling to people who may or may not be straws. Main take away is that if you bring a friend to help you pick a gun the shop will not sell to you.
Saw one ironic story where an obvious straw came in and dealer told him to come back later. Dealer than called local PD and had them hide in backroom. Did the sale and local PD comes in from the back while ATF comes in the front. It was meant to be a sting because someone had been sending anonymous tips to ATF but the sting got stung!
There is a very real fear among legit FFLs of straw stings so if it looks suspicious they will turn people away. The incidents where the sale was allowed typically involve chain stores that sell guns.
I still have not seen a compelling reason to give up my privacy. All I have seen is:
1) you already lost these other privacies so what's one more?
2) if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
So, still waiting on the magic reason to surrender some privacy.
Edit: I am also detecting a very curious vibe that those who are pushing for a registry are doing so because they believe owning a gun is criminal and having a registry of said criminals weapons makes them "feel better". Makes me feel like they view gun owners as no better than pedophiles. Not a perfect analogy but I think many of you understand what I am trying to say.
So if you use the car/gun analogy you don't get the registry that is being sought as discussed here.
Either way, the core issue is that, for a number of legal reasons, the ATF is severely restricted in its ability to trace how guns end up in the hands of people who are not supposed to have them. That is precisely the point of a registry.
You keep harping on about this, but if that data could only be accessed for illegal guns then what exactly is the privacy concern?
Also, as we've just been saying, the justification is that it would be a big help in tracking how guns end up in the hands of those not allowed to have them. Are you simply ignoring this? Is this really the kind of discussion you want to have, Steve? Do you want us to start talking about the "vibe" we get from you?
Yes, and I already responded to your point by noting that self-defense is (according to the Supreme Court) the core purpose for gun ownership, and because your own self-defense involves other people there is an obvious state interest in self-defense weaponry.
What if the registry is voluntary, but anyone who opts out is, like an FFL, held responsible for keeping documentation when they transfer a gun to someone else?
As long as people can only be penalised when the gun they failed to document properly winds up in illegal hands, is there any issue with this?
We are talking about a right and all rights must be treated equally, this is the part where I find all of you to be sounding crazy. It doesn't matter to me if we are talking about guns or printing presses. Replace guns in this discussion with searches and seizures. Should we just allow the cops to come in without a warrant whenever they want because it makes their job easier? Should we eliminate anonymous speech because it makes it harder for people to silence their critics?
Yes we allow certain restrictions on our rights but the restrictions are very specific and designed to address a very specific problem. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can be sued for libel and slander. However in no case do we prejudge everyone as a criminal with intent to abuse their rights as would be the case with a gun registry. The stated goal of this registry is to catch law breakers.
18 USC Chapter 44 - FIREARMS Already makes private sales to prohibited buyers a crime. While background checks are not required for private sales it is in the sellers best interest to conduct one and record the transaction in case the weapon ends up involved in a crime.
Requiring a universal background check for all firearm transfers would alleviate the problems that the gun registry is being designed to correct. Further it would likely pass Constitutional muster because it is analogous to verifying someone's right to vote. The only potential sticking point I see is the cost, who pays for the check and how much?
A gun registry is very invasive from a privacy and Constitutional standpoint. The fact that so many of you are completely ignoring the Constitutional and privacy concerns is very troubling to me. Does that better explain the "vibe" I am getting from most of you and the point of view that I am looking at this issue from? Does what I have written make a bit more sense to you now?
I understand your point of view of wanting to get guns out of the hands of criminals but the right to bear arms is an individual right in this country. If it were not I would not be opposing this so strongly. I would say sure, track them like any dangerous item.
Edit: @LOC - I think that is already how the law works, last person in the paper trail gets punished if the gun ends up involved in a crime.
ATF FAQ
The same issues simply don't come up with a gun registry.
The idea that all rights must be treated equally is just plain stupid. There is no principle anywhere that says they should be, and the plain fact of the matter is that they aren't. Felons and people who (due to mental illness) are at high risk of using a gun on themselves or on others are denied the ability to bear arms, and yet they are (quite rightly) never denied freedom of speech. Additionally, many felons are denied the right to vote (though I think this is an injustice).
If access to the registry also requires a warrant, isn't that analogous to the status quo with regards to search and seizure?
With a universal background check, how do you catch and penalize the people who transfer weapons without the background check?
Without records of background checks, which are little different to a registry, and which the ATF is currently required to destroy within 24 hours, how do you identify when background checks are being skipped?
FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS So yes, their is a punishment associated with your gun ending up at a crime scene. If you have papers (bill of sale, police theft report, etc.) you can clear yourself but otherwise the last person on the list could face a charge of gun trafficking.
Also, the person at the end of the paper trail is not necessarily the one who sold a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to have one; there could quite easily be more links in between.
Perhaps you've forgotten about the presumption of innocence, but you don't need papers to "clear yourself". Under the current system no one needs to keep papers because they don't bear any burden to keep track of who they sold their firearm to, and to establish that the person they're selling a firearm to is allowed to have one.
I would still like to hear what you think of this idea:
Money confiscation and financial tracking when a transaction exceeds $10,000. Too many of these laws are being written in a way that the authorities can take and the owner must prove their innocence and their ownership to get their stuff back. So, yeah... Not so sure the entirety of our government still believes in innocent until proven guilty.
Back to your point. Yes the law is specific and it is not prosecuted nearly as often as it should or could be however I do believe having ATF knock on someone's door is an effective deterrent to the person continuing the trafficking. Also, with the number of guns reported stolen from FFLs (that later end up in the hands of criminals) shows that even with a registry the intended goal would be easily thwarted.
Why isn't something being done about these FFLs that keep having guns "stolen" from them?
Regardless I am 99% unlikely to ever agree on a complete gun registry. I made an offer to meet partway with registration of handguns when used in conjunction with a carry permit and hunting weapons when getting a hunting license. That's as far as I am willing to go. Anything more is too intrusive to me.
We can keep going round and round but it appears pointless so this will be my last post on the national gun registry topic.
Besides that, the idea that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your transfer of ownership of a gun is not that strongly supported. There is already significant precedent that information voluntarily shared with a third party is not protected. While I don't entirely agree with with the courts on this, when it comes to firearms the fact that they are already regulated in many ways. There is already existing precedent that there is a reduced expectation of privacy with respect to such a regulated industry.
The right to bear arms is not a right to bear arms without anyone else knowing about it. Whether something is a right has little bearing on whether there is or is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
As per your own admission, it is OK to track some dangerous items. Not only that, but many things that count as types of "arms" are nevertheless monitored, and sometimes access is restricted or prohibited.
Your reasoning is based on a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and die-hard criminals who will do anything and everything to get their hands on guns. This simply isn't the case. Yes, it is a crime to obtain a gun when you're not allowed to have one, but such people are not necessarily seeking out guns for the express purpose of committing crimes with those guns.
Similarly, the supply of guns to criminals is also not such a simplistic affair. It's not merely people intentionally supplying criminals with guns, but rather a broader matter involving people who may simply be indifferent or ignorant when it comes to where the guns end up.
Even if the ATF knocking on the door might stop someone from being indiscriminate in future, that has little effect on other people who, for example, simply sell a gun on the Internet without being careful about who they are selling it to.
Quite a lot of crime (and we're talking about a broad category here, including, say, suicide) is opportunistic in nature, and so simply making guns harder to obtain can easily prevent a lot of unfortunate outcomes. The idea that some protections against crime can only be effective if there is absolutely no way around them is plainly false. There are number of reasons, but primarily it's because the ability of the ATF to act has been deeply sabotaged. Funding remains inadequate, and they did not have a permanent director for a period of seven years.
However, a major part of the problem is that they are severely restricted in their ability to collect and use the information they need to act. A registry would be a comprehensive solution to many of these issues.
For example, the ATF is barred from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks, which makes it very difficult for them to pin down any FFLs who are intentionally allowing guns to be "stolen". A registry would make it much easier, as they would be able to assess the inventory from their own records. If you want to track weapons stolen from private citizens, how are you going to do it? Unless either the citizens or the government are required to keep records, how is someone supposed to know what the serial number is for a weapon they no longer have?
I don't think we're going "round and round". As I see it, we haven't even been able to establish where exactly it is that you disagree with me because you haven't really responded to my own points, and in the meantime you've run out of new points of your own and so you simply want to stop the discussion.
More importantly, though, if you're so strongly against a registry you should at least give serious consideration to alternative approaches.
FFLs should be required to keep track of their inventory and be subject to inspections by the ATF.
I have offered alternatives. I have already stated my support for 100% background checks for all transfers. I also offered up a limited form of firearm registration.
Elaborate on this 'mandatory record keeping'.