[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.

LG, I don't mean to pick on you. I've read your posts and I think you're a good guy. However, I'd like to explore this post just a little. Bear with me if you will and understand that I don't mean any of this as a personal attack.

What do you think is the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment?

[skorper]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

I'm not following you. Your FFL reports your purchases to "the feds"?

Without getting into specifics, identifiers for any firearm encountered by a law enforcement agency can be submitted for a "trace". This will find and include all transfers of the firearm through any FFL back to the earliest.

In the case of a very old firearm that was never sold through a dealer and never changed hands except through a private sale, the firearm would not be traceable.

If the government requires all sales to go through an FFL then all firearms will eventually be traceable to the seller and buyer.

[spcwes]

To the OP, this is also our understanding of a system that does not exist as of yet. The people trying to push this agenda have no idea how its going to work, they are just spewing a magical name of something that does not exist. It is full of issues and there are certain criteria that will have to be met for it to be successful and without registration of firearms the proposal that everyone thinks is what is being discussed will not work.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by spcwes

To the OP, this is also our understanding of a system that does not exist as of yet. The people trying to push this agenda have no idea how its going to work, they are just spewing a magical name of something that does not exist. It is full of issues and there are certain criteria that will have to be met for it to be successful and without registration of firearms the proposal that everyone thinks is what is being discussed will not work.

Correct. I am now responding to any comment about "universal background checks" with "You mean universal registration, right?" This leads into a discussion of the problem, which is helpful.

[SC Tiger]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

I'm not following you. Your FFL reports your purchases to "the feds"?

My LGS maintaines a ledger that states when, and (I think) to whom, each gun is sold. Probably an ATF requirement.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by SC Tiger

My LGS maintaines a ledger that states when, and (I think) to whom, each gun is sold. Probably an ATF requirement.

Yes, as was discussed, this is the system as it exists now. This won't work for "universal background checks (UBC)" because there is no way to enforce it. The antis who are pushing for UBC know this and are using UBC as a springboard for universal registration.

[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?

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

...

Can the gun be tracked back to me?

Only if they have a registration database associating serial numbers to owners.

[NickC50310]

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.

This is spot on. The gov and or cops cant just snatch up your legally owned and carried firearm to run a trace just for fun.

Hopefully this can be done without universal registration or i will be standing in line just like everyone else fighting it. Imho it can be done without universal registration.

Heres how it works: ffl sells firearm to person a. Person a sells firearm two years later to person b. Person a is required to check state id and check for permit to carry or permit to purchase. Bada bing all new laws were followed.

If person a sells the gun without checking and then the gun is used in a crime gov uses current 4473 tracking methods to find out if person a followed the law. If the gov can prove they did not then person a is punished accordingly. If they cant prove it its just like any other crime.

Now with that said this method makes it a difficult law to enforce and that is how it should be. No further changes are acceptable to me.

In all honesty we should all be checking id and permits anyway. As gun owners we have a vested interest in keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by NickC50310

This is spot on. The gov and or cops cant just snatch up your legally owned and carried firearm to run a trace just for fun.

Hopefully this can be done without universal registration or i will be standing in line just like everyone else fighting it. Imho it can be done without universal registration.

Heres how it works: ffl sells firearm to person a. Person a sells firearm two years later to person b. Person a is required to check state id and check for permit to carry or permit to purchase. Bada bing all new laws were followed.

If person a sells the gun without checking and then the gun is used in a crime gov uses current 4473 tracking methods to find out if person a followed the law. If the gov can prove they did not then person a is punished accordingly. If they cant prove it its just like any other crime.

Now with that said this method makes it a difficult law to enforce and that is how it should be. No further changes are acceptable to me.

In all honesty we should all be checking id and permits anyway. As gun owners we have a vested interest in keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

How does this differ from what we have now, in which Person A is expected to verify to the best of his ability that he's not selling to a prohibited person?

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

How does this differ from what we have now, in which Person A is expected to verify to the best of his ability that he's not selling to a prohibited person?

I think the current standard - at least in Texas -

Is not - seller is expected to verify to the best of his ability that he's not selling to a prohibited person.

It only requires the gun not be sold - IF the seller KNOWS or has a reason to think the buyer is not legally able to buy.

BIG difference.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I think the current standard - at least in Texas -

Is not - seller does need to do anything to determine if the person is legal to purchase.

It only requires the gun not be sold - IF the seller KNOWS or has a reason to think the buyer is not legally able to buy.

BIG difference.

Fair enough. So if Buyer A in the above scenario says the guy showed him a CCW permit, but the guy really never had one, what happens? What about a fake permit? Will the antis accept Buyer A's story?

The other flaw is this - in order to trace the weapon Buyer A must now keep a bound book.

[Z71bill]

It is a little bit strange under current law -

I can legally SELL a gun (I violate no law) to a person that can not legally own a gun - and is committing a felony when he buys it from me.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

It is a little bit strange under current law -

I can legally SELL a gun (I violate no law) to a person that can not legally own a gun - and is committing a felony when he buys it from me.

You can't legally sell it to him if you know he's prohibited.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Fair enough. So if Buyer A in the above scenario says the guy showed him a CCW permit, but the guy really never had one, what happens? What about a fake permit? Will the antis accept Buyer A's story?

The other flaw is this - in order to trace the weapon Buyer A must now keep a bound book.

Far as I know - the standard is as long as the seller did not know the person was - a felon, mentally ill, addicted to drugs, not a resident of the state - whatever else would make them prohibited - they are GTG.

They have no duty to check anything - so if they do check and the ID is fake - I can't see where it would matter.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

You can't legally sell it to him if you know he's prohibited.

That is not what I said -

I do not know you - I have a gun for sale - I am at a gun show - I have a sign on my back that says G19 & 3 mags $400.

You come up - hand me $400 - I hand you the gun.

I broke no law - even if you are a convicted (just escaped from prison) felon with a mental problem that is addicted to crack.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Far as I know - the standard is as long as the seller did not know the person was - a felon, mentally ill, addicted to drugs, not a resident of the state - whatever else would make them prohibited - they are GTG.

They have no duty to check anything - so if they do check and the ID is fake - I can't see where it would matter.

So how do you as Buyer A prove to the BATFE that the guy showed you the (fake) ID? And how do you tell them who has the gun unless you keep a record?

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

That is not what I said -

I do not know you - I have a gun for sale - I am at a gun show - I have a sign on my back that says G19 & 3 mags $400.

You come up - hand me $400 - I hand you the gun.

I broke no law - even if you are a convicted (just escaped from prison) felon with a mental problem that is addicted to crack,

True, which is why many sellers ask for a DL and CCW.

I'm getting Jeeves from MIB saying "He looked OK to me..." here.

[mgs]

Originally Posted by Riverkilt

I can see a parallel with another program. In Arizona, and I imagine other states, if you're going to be employed around children then you need to get a background clearance from the state department of public safety (Highway Patrol). You get fingerprinted, fill out the standard FBI fingerprint card and send it off. A couple months later you get your card. Five years later you have to do it again - renew - prints and all. So you have this card you can carry around to prove to your employer, or any prospective new employers, that you have this clearance that says you're a "good guy." Background checks for firearms "could" work like that. You'd have to show your "good guy" card to buy a firearm. Course the current system hasn't curtailed child abuse since most child abuse doesn't come from professionals, it comes from people the kids know - like their parents or a weird uncle...but damn...we got them cards....

Here's the BIG JOKE. My Daughter did this to become a Teacher and put the wrong Social Security number down and she passed with flying colors. She reversed two numbers by accident. What do they really check?....but take your money! They can't even match simple data.

[NickC50310]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

Fair enough. So if Buyer A in the above scenario says the guy showed him a CCW permit, but the guy really never had one, what happens? What about a fake permit? Will the antis accept Buyer A's story?

The other flaw is this - in order to trace the weapon Buyer A must now keep a bound book.

Just like any other law that is broken- the gov must prove person a broke the law. Pretty simple really. If person a is really on point they will do a bill of sale for whatever firearm they sell. If person a wants to take it to the next level of cya they will keep a picture of the buyers permit. With all that said it is not person a's responsibility to prove their innocence. It is the govs job to prove their guilt. That is how our justice system works.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

So how do you as Buyer A prove to the BATFE that the guy showed you the (fake) ID? And how do you tell them who has the gun unless you keep a record?

Why does it matter?

You had no obligation to even check an ID -

You committed no crime by looking at a fake ID -

You have no obligation to keep any records -

You have no obligation to tell the BATFE anything -

[NickC50310]

Originally Posted by gwalchmai

So how do you as Buyer A prove to the BATFE that the guy showed you the (fake) ID? And how do you tell them who has the gun unless you keep a record?

Again the basics of our justice system. The burden of proof isnt on you. You dont have to maintain any records or prove anything. The gov must prove your guilt.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by NickC50310

Just like any other law that is broken- the gov must prove person a broke the law. Pretty simple really. If person a is really on point they will do a bill of sale for whatever firearm they sell. If person a wants to take it to the next level of cya they will keep a picture of the buyers permit. With all that said it is not person a's responsibility to prove their innocence. It is the govs job to prove their guilt. That is how our justice system works.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Not so sure --

I am not a lawyer -- but have been involved with the legal system (mostly civil) many times.

You can actually get yourself in MORE trouble sometimes when you have good records - and are in many cases better off NOT having any records.

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Why does it matter?

You had no obligation to even check an ID -

You committed no crime by looking at a fake ID -

You have no obligation to keep any records -

You have no obligation to tell the BATFE anything -

Originally Posted by NickC50310

Again the basics of our justice system. The burden of proof isnt on you. You dont have to maintain any records or prove anything. The gov must prove your guilt.

I'm referring to your proposed "no database" UBC system, not how things work today.