*You* claimed that the only way to ensure anyone complied with a background check law was a registration list of gun purchases.
If Arizona doesn't compile a list of retail gun purchases, how do they enforce background checks for retail purchases?
Arizona requires retail gun purchasers fill out form 4473 and an FFL dealer submits the form to ATF.
Here is form 4473
Dealers must maintain record of firearm transactions for 20 years. ATF can access records at any time during a criminal investigation. If the dealer retires, they have to surrender their records to the ATF.
This is the "list" he thinks private party transfers subjected to background checks would generate. It's the same "list" California gun dealers have to compile for both retail and private sales. It's this "list" he thinks could possibly lead to wholesale gun confiscation around the country.
Either ParsedOut doesn't know his own state's laws on retail purchases, doesn't know federal law regarding retail purchases, or he's trying to portray himself as reasonable in this discussion even though underneath it all his position is way, way, way out of line with the rest of the country. This isn't just about universal background checks, his logic calls for doing away with all background checks for all purchases everywhere.
There are people who want form 4473 never, sometimes, and always. He wants it never. Some of us in this thread are arguing for requiring it always. If anyone thinks that we should have it sometimes, but not always, then explain the difference between requiring it for retail purchases and not for private party transactions. Currently we have it sometimes because the gun lobby has successfully argued that it shouldn't be required for private party transfers and politicians were still able to get it pushed through at the federal level. There isn't any logical reasoning for how the laws are currently--requiring it for retail purchases but not for private party transfers--and all attempts to explain why it's ok for retail sales and not private sales start to fall apart as soon as you question the person making the claim as happened here in this thread.
What becomes apparent is that people opposed to background checks for private party transfers are opposed to background checks, in general. They're opposed to background checks period but they aren't willing to own up to that because they know that *most* people will think they're on the fringe when they express that view. It calls into question how many of them holding this view actually submit the proper paperwork and do their due diligence whether a potential purchaser is a prohibited person or not. Their lack of respect for the law in this regard is one of the root causes of gun violence in this country; it's easy to cast it off as something that only street criminals are responsible for but every single person who shrugs off their responsibility when it comes to regulating guns in this country shares responsibility for the guns that circulate through our society and into the hands of someone who uses them in the commission of a violent crime.
If Arizona doesn't compile a list of retail gun purchases, how do they enforce background checks for retail purchases?
Arizona requires retail gun purchasers fill out form 4473 and an FFL dealer submits the form to ATF.
Here is form 4473
Dealers must maintain record of firearm transactions for 20 years. ATF can access records at any time during a criminal investigation. If the dealer retires, they have to surrender their records to the ATF.
This is the "list" he thinks private party transfers subjected to background checks would generate. It's the same "list" California gun dealers have to compile for both retail and private sales. It's this "list" he thinks could possibly lead to wholesale gun confiscation around the country.
Either ParsedOut doesn't know his own state's laws on retail purchases, doesn't know federal law regarding retail purchases, or he's trying to portray himself as reasonable in this discussion even though underneath it all his position is way, way, way out of line with the rest of the country. This isn't just about universal background checks, his logic calls for doing away with all background checks for all purchases everywhere.
There are people who want form 4473 never, sometimes, and always. He wants it never. Some of us in this thread are arguing for requiring it always. If anyone thinks that we should have it sometimes, but not always, then explain the difference between requiring it for retail purchases and not for private party transactions. Currently we have it sometimes because the gun lobby has successfully argued that it shouldn't be required for private party transfers and politicians were still able to get it pushed through at the federal level. There isn't any logical reasoning for how the laws are currently--requiring it for retail purchases but not for private party transfers--and all attempts to explain why it's ok for retail sales and not private sales start to fall apart as soon as you question the person making the claim as happened here in this thread.
What becomes apparent is that people opposed to background checks for private party transfers are opposed to background checks, in general. They're opposed to background checks period but they aren't willing to own up to that because they know that *most* people will think they're on the fringe when they express that view. It calls into question how many of them holding this view actually submit the proper paperwork and do their due diligence whether a potential purchaser is a prohibited person or not. Their lack of respect for the law in this regard is one of the root causes of gun violence in this country; it's easy to cast it off as something that only street criminals are responsible for but every single person who shrugs off their responsibility when it comes to regulating guns in this country shares responsibility for the guns that circulate through our society and into the hands of someone who uses them in the commission of a violent crime.
Comment