New house=Cabelas denied gun purchase

This is one of the problems I have with the jack-booted thugery of the waffen BATFEces. :barf:

The 4473 already makes it incumbent that the purchaser fill out the form correctly with current information or otherwise be prosecuted for lying on the form.

The NICS check confirms the purchasers identity along with criminal history and current state of residence.

To a reasonable person the legal criteria has been met.

We may not live in nazi Germany................yet, but their apparatus seems to be operating with impunity in this country.
 
I don't know what state you live in but Texas is the same way.

Your alternatives.

Lie about your current address. Personally I wouldn't.

Get your address changed on your license. It takes an hour, is a pain, but the paper temporary license along with your DL is good enough in TX.

I know it's irritating because it's happened to me before. Luckily it was a week day, I was off, I went, changed my address, and was shooting my gun that afternoon.

If you have a CHL you really might want to hurry and get it changed, in TX not updating your current address can get your CHL suspended or revoked.

I'm very glad to live in a state that doesn't require a permit just to buy or own a firearm.
 
I would rather we didn't have to present any ID. End of problem.
Click to expand...
So you are okay with illegals, wanted felons, people skipping bail, people with restraining orders against them, the mentally ill and others just picking up a firearm whenever they please.
 
I don't know what state you live in but Texas is the same way.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what state you live in, this is a country wide ATF rule.

If your state issued Identification doens't list the address that you say you live at now, why would you get upset that the AFT wont' proceed your purchase?

I don't like the ATF anymore than anyone else, but they can't by law keep your information 'ready and waiting' unless you call them and request them to do so (that's what the Unique personal ID number is for).

So any time a dealer does a new nics check on you what address your ID has needs to be the address you put on the 4473. If it matches no one but you will know that you do or don't live where your Id says you do.


Don't be upset at the dealer, the ATF has ZERO tolerance for ANY ERROR. As told to me by my favorite dealer. He was issued a stiff warning and a fine for having 74 bits of information missing... out of 33000 total bits of total information. He showed me his letter form the ATF stating " though your records were 99.88 % accurate, NO MISTAKES ARE TOLERATED." That would be enough to set me be a rule following 'nazi' as well.
 
So you are okay with illegals, wanted felons, people skipping bail, people with restraining orders against them, the mentally and others just picking up a firearm whenever they please.
Click to expand...

Well, the general argument goes that either (A) at least some of those above are just as entitled to a weapon for self-defense as you or I, and/or (B) at least some of the above will just get ahold of a gun through other channels anyway.

Either way, I think this thread is at least to some extent an example of why laws will often only keep honest people honest. He could have just lied and put his old address on the form...nothing would have happened. Given a fake ID there are ample opportunities for a prohibited individual like those you list to get ahold of a gun through legitimate channels (rather than back alleys)...like gun shows. Really I'd say at the end of the day many gun laws are just as likely to hinder a law abiding citizen from getting a gun than a criminal.

I remember I was down on vacation in Florida when the plot in the UK was uncovered and suddenly you couldn't have liquids or gels on the plane. Yet I had a medication in gel/paste form that I kinda needed to keep handy on the way home. Guess what? Into the pocket it went. Laws often only control the law abiding, and locks only keep honest people honest, and insert any other cliches you choose.
 
(B) at least some of the above will just get ahold of a gun through other channels anyway.
Click to expand...
There are people that will get away with murder too...should we just make it legal? People get drugs every day, then we should legalize them also.
 
There are people that will get away with murder too...should we just make it legal? People get drugs every day, then we should legalize them also.
Click to expand...

Without going into drug legalization, I'll say that keeping possession of a firearm illegal for certain individuals and having point-of-sale checks are two totally different animals. There's no reason that a felon on parole (as an example), if stopped for another crime, couldn't still be punished for possession of the firearm just because we stopped enforcing rigorous paperwork checks at point-of-sale.
 
Without going into drug legalization, I'll say that keeping possession of a firearm illegal for certain individuals and having point-of-sale checks are two totally different animals. There's no reason that a felon on parole (as an example), if stopped for another crime, couldn't still be punished for possession of the firearm just because we stopped enforcing rigorous paperwork checks at point-of-sale.
Click to expand...
When you step into the territory of supporting giving guns to all, despite violent histories and other factors, you quickly step into the role of extremist gun supporter which does more for the anti-gun movement than anyone who hated guns.
 
When you step into the territory of supporting giving guns to all, despite violent histories and other factors, you quickly step into the role of extremist gun supporter which does more for the anti-gun movement than anyone.
Click to expand...

True. Which I wasn't supporting anyway. I do think some (like illegal aliens, those who've served their entire sentence including probation/parole, some others) have as much right to self defense as I do, but that wasn't my point. I was just questioning the effectiveness of point-of-sale procedures, weighing the pros (impeding the sale of guns to prohibited persons) against the cons (impeding the sale of guns to those not prohibited).

I think at the end of the day the rigmarole required at point-of-sale is generally at most a minor impediment to a prohibited person. It's also at most a minor impediment to a non-prohibited person, but at some point I think it's fair to assess whether the latter is worth the former...especially since we're talking about a Constitutional right.

I don't think that admitting that somebody who wants a gun will likely get one (either from a car trunk, gun show, wherever) regardless of whether they're allowed to have one or not makes one an "extremist." Anybody who will be turned off by that argument wasn't going to be particularly reasonable regardless.


For the record, I think that having some kind of paperwork verification at point-of-sale is worth the trade-off in general. I don't like the current implementation(s), because they are often too restrictive, too lax, or both at the same time. In the OP I think they were too restrictive.
 
So you are okay with illegals, wanted felons, people skipping bail, people with restraining orders against them, the mentally ill and others just picking up a firearm whenever they please.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top