[gwalchmai]

Let's say this ill-conceived affront to liberty passes. Let's say that you then don't ever buy or sell another gun. Then let's say that you get pulled over by a zealous representative of the state and you have your revolver on your seat, in compliance with your local ordinance. Let's further say you bought this gun in a perfectly legal face-to-face sale from a stranger in 2012, and have no paperwork to show that.

Who's to say that you didn't purchase that revo from "someone" this morning and didn't run a background check on it?

[sweetsdream]

That's the obvious problem right there.

Tom


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Bren]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Let's say this ill-conceived affront to liberty passes. Let's say that you then don't ever buy or sell another gun. Then let's say that you get pulled over by a zealous representative of the state and you have your revolver on your seat, in compliance with your local ordinance. Let's further say you bought this gun in a perfectly legal face-to-face sale from a stranger in 2012, and have no paperwork to show that.

Who's to say that you didn't purchase that revo from "someone" this morning and didn't run a background check on it?

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

Oh. Yeah. I hadn't thought about that.

You think that's how it'll work?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Oh. Yeah. I hadn't thought about that.

You think that's how it'll work?

There isn't really another way it can work - that is how law works. Unless they scrap our entire legal system and precedent going back to the Roman Empire, that isn't going to change.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Bren

There isn't really another way it can work - that is how law works. Unless they scrap our entire legal system and precedent going back to the Roman Empire, that isn't going to change.

Yes. Well. No chance of that, I guess.

[IndyGunFreak]

Originally Posted by Bren

There isn't really another way it can work - that is how law works. Unless they scrap our entire legal system and precedent going back to the Roman Empire, that isn't going to change.

I agree... we'll eventually reach a point where guns manufactured after XX date, will have a paper trail somewhere.

[Z71bill]

If Mr First buys a new S&W M&P from #1FFL dealer in 2010 (4473 completed)

Then Mr First sells the gun to Mr Second in a private sale (no 4473)

Mr Second sells the gun to #2FFL dealer

#2FFL sells the gun to me (4473 completed) and I leave it at a crime.

Police want to track the gun.

Can they?

They get the serial number from S&W and it takes them to #1FFL - they have paperwork that they sold the gun to Mr First

They try and track down Mr First and discover he died in 2012.

Or Mr First tells the police (honestly) he sold the gun but can't recall / never knew who he sold it to.




Change it up --


If when Mr First sold the gun to Mr Second they used #2FFL dealer to do the transfer so a 4473 was completed -

#2FFL then sells the gun to me (4473 completed) and it is found at a crime.


They get the serial number from S&W and it takes them to #1FFL - they have paperwork that they sold the gun to Mr First

They try and track down Mr First and discover he died in 2012.

Can the gun be tracked back to me?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak

I agree... we'll eventually reach a point where guns manufactured after XX date, will have a paper trail somewhere.

All guns sold at retail since 1968 already have a paper trail, that's how ATF does gun traces every single day.

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

The problem is that the law gives LE just another excuse to harm innocent people under color of law. I have been a victim of this. It isn't fun. Cops are going to enthusiastically abuse their power because they know what they can get away with, and they LOVE to harm gun owners, especially the law abiding kind.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

The problem is that the law gives LE just another excuse to harm innocent people under color of law. I have been a victim of this. It isn't fun. Cops are going to enthusiastically abuse their power because they know what they can get away with, and they LOVE to harm gun owners, especially the law abiding kind.

I've been a cop, in a police family, working for law enforcement agencies, etc., since I was born - what you said is complete BS and I notice you don't support it with any details.

[FloorPoor]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

The problem is that the law gives LE just another excuse to harm innocent people under color of law. I have been a victim of this. It isn't fun. Cops are going to enthusiastically abuse their power because they know what they can get away with, and they LOVE to harm gun owners, especially the law abiding kind.

I know of at least local 2 LEO's who will stand with the people if this stuff gets too crazy.




They're not ALL dicks.

[dogmower]

i tend to agree with z71bill. laws can be changed, and can add to our freedoms - just look at the expanded concealed carry laws in some states. i think we need to be clear up front, however, on what is and what is not negotiable. UBC, ok. Registration, no, and put some teeth in it. i personally would love to see the 86 ban on new full autos go away. i would lose a ton of money, but i don't care.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

However, you will still have to defend yourself. That probably means time off and paying for a lawyer. So that is the difference it makes. We don't need this. They don't prosecute the federal felons with guns charge anyway. I have seen a number of times that at both the state and federal level they do not have the time and resources to enforce the law. California has over 30,000 cases of known felons that still likely have possession of their firearms. They can't pursue them in a timely manner.

Additional the ex post facto deprivation of 2nd amendment rights of those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is unconstitutional, and even on a go forward basis questionable. I can't believe this has not yet been struck down. I don't defend domestic violence, but I do defend the Constitution.

With the exception of new technology that is not adequately covered, I think we have enough criminal laws, and not just related to guns and violence. We should just not let them pass anymore. I mean really, are there new violent crimes being invented that aren't covered by current laws? How about new physical crimes (theft, robbery, etc.)?

I think we have enough laws, probably too many.

[Spiffums]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

If the gun was made before the universal background check law, it means absolutely nothing that you don't have proof of when you bought it, unless you admit you bought it after or the government has an informant who says you did.

Too bad the media don't have to follow the whole burden of prove thing. Maybe we need a law so you can't report speculation and opinion like it was fact.

[FireForged]

Originally Posted by Bren

What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.

exactly.

[dango]

Universally speaki n, "IT SUCKS" , I 'm not that intimate with my wife !

[G26S239]

Yet some here at GT seem to want to wish a good outcome via surrender.

This is not a CA only problem. Anyone thinking these scum bags will stop short of your state after turning CA, NY, NJ, MA. HI etc into workers paradise is seriously deluded or just plain stupid.

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Let's say this ill-conceived affront to liberty passes. Let's say that you then don't ever buy or sell another gun. Then let's say that you get pulled over by a zealous representative of the state and you have your revolver on your seat, in compliance with your local ordinance. Let's further say you bought this gun in a perfectly legal face-to-face sale from a stranger in 2012, and have no paperwork to show that.

Who's to say that you didn't purchase that revo from "someone" this morning and didn't run a background check on it?

That's just one of many problems with the universal background checks, and another reason why gun control laws don't work.

[Louisville Glocker]

Hard to comment without specific legislation proposed yet, but I'd think that the enforcement would come at place of purchase.

Now if you have a gun, they could ask where and when you got it. But I'm thinking the seller is the one who could potentially get in trouble, not someone with a gun.

The feds know about every one of my guns, and personally I don't mind. But I've got nothing to hide, and I welcome police and military friends over to my house.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker

The feds know about every one of my guns, and personally I don't mind. But I've got nothing to hide, and I welcome police and military friends over to my house.

How do the feds know about your guns?

[Dennis in MA]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

How do the feds know about your guns?

He mails them regular inventories, just to be up-front.

Sort of like how Chuck Norris lets us all know he's around. . . so we are sort of at fault if we run into one of his fists or feet.

[pizza_pablo]

Originally Posted by Dennis in MA

He mails them regular inventories, just to be up-front.

Sort of like how Chuck Norris lets us all know he's around. . . so we are sort of at fault if we run into one of his fists or feet.

Awesome!

[plainsman]

That the government is copying 4473's from gunshops, and second that the FBI is keeping a record of firearm transactions contrary to the will of Congress.

As to what the yobama government can do to you, your cell mate will explain all those things to you.

[Louisville Glocker]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

How do the feds know about your guns?

Through FFL purchase records.