The Verminator
Moderator
Unless I'm the fool that sold it to the criminal.
That would end badly for me, I strongly expect.
New Background Check Rule
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
- Status
Unless I'm the fool that sold it to the criminal.
That would end badly for me, I strongly expect.
The Verminator
Moderator
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?
Last edited:
The Verminator
Moderator
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
Staff
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.The Verminator said:
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
New member
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.
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
New member
This was covered in post #169 that you didn't read.
The Verminator
Moderator
I read your #169........it just didn't make sense.This was covered in post #169 that you didn't read.
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.
zukiphile said:
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.zukiphile said:
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:
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.zukiphile said:
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
Moderator
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.
The background check information doesn't include the serial number of the gun in question.
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.
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:The Verminator said:
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.
The Verminator
Moderator
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.
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.The Verminator said:
2. Even if they do have it, they aren't allowed to make it into a searchable database.
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
Moderator
I wonder what is this "law" and who created it?
It seems to be designed to cripple the system.
The Verminator
Moderator
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?
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
The Verminator
Moderator
Yeah, I had totally forgotten that or never noticed, I guess.
They could save a lot of time and expense by adding it.
Thanks.
> 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.
> 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.
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.The Verminator said:
Congress does NOT want the BATF to make a list of gun owners and what guns they own/have owned.
The Verminator
Moderator
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.
- Status