Another week, another school shooting

[ParsedOut]

Well, I'll give you this much: you certainly live up to your name in trying to "parse" the difference between FFL's retaining records that are accessible by the ATF whenever they want for 20 years and any given state retaining those same records.

So why aren't you opposed to FFL's retaining their records for 20 years if your worry is that they would have to be compelled to turn over those records if a state's Congress passed a law requiring them to do so?

Haha, the ATF cannot obtain them in mass without court order. Anybody that knows me (not you) understands my healthy skepticism of our government and I don't say that I have warm fuzzies about the 4473 forms sitting in a filing cabinet at my local gun store. If the ATF wants to obtain millions of handwritten forms under legal court order (not easy) and have them data entered one by one into a database. Well there is only so much one can do, I'm not so tin foil as to only buy private party to "stay off the grid".

Hey, so you've conveniently avoided the conversation about addressing the root cause of violence instead of myopically focusing on only one aspect. Or have you not bothered to consider it?

BTW
So there is a registry in CA...of sorts.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#6

"If you purchased a handgun from a properly licensed California firearms dealer and underwent a background check via the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process, a record of your handgun purchase is already on file with the Department. Therefore, it should not be necessary for you to submit a FOR application for handguns previously purchased in California. Unfortunately, this is not the case with regards to rifles or shotguns. Prior to January 1, 2014, the Department was prohibited by law from retaining DROS long gun information."

[smooth]

You are so wrong it's laughable. There is a real registry in California, there is no "list" of any sort in AZ or most other states in the union. 100s of FFLs with filing cabinets full of handwritten 4473 forms is not a list, you can try to spin that however you like.

You continue to say, "mandate that private party...blah blah blah" but you keep ignoring the fact that you cannot enforce the law without a registry... If you want to make a stance that a registry is required and that you are for a registry then do it but stop trying to say that we don't need it without providing a viable way to do it. Our current system is only set up to enforce FFLs, private citizens cannot be enforced the same.

Well, I'll give you this much: you certainly live up to your name in trying to "parse" the difference between FFL's retaining records that are accessible by the ATF whenever they want for 20 years and any given state retaining those same records.

So why aren't you opposed to FFL's retaining their records for 20 years if your worry is that they would have to be compelled to turn over those records if a state's Congress passed a law requiring them to do so?

[ParsedOut]

You are so wrong it's laughable. There is a real registry in California, there is no "list" of any sort in AZ or most other states in the union. 100s of FFLs with filing cabinets full of handwritten 4473 forms is not a list, you can try to spin that however you like.

You continue to say, "mandate that private party...blah blah blah" but you keep ignoring the fact that you cannot enforce the law without a registry... If you want to make a stance that a registry is required and that you are for a registry then do it but stop trying to say that we don't need it without providing a viable way to do it. Our current system is only set up to enforce FFLs, private citizens cannot be enforced the same.

Admittedly I don't keep up with all the changes in every state, read a while back about a CA registry. If I'm wrong about that, well then so be it. Doesn't change the fact that there isn't a registry in every other state as you are proposing. Your entire argument about gun owners that are against private party background checks are therefore against the current system is false.

[smooth]

For the 4th time...FFLs are audited to ensure every firearm is accounted for, that's the enforcement of the current system. How do you propose we enforce that on an individual level without a registry? I feel like we've covered this before.

We have to go it every time you change your position, apparently.

***Mandate that private party transfers go through FFL's the same as retail purchases.***

There is a list for retail purchases already, both in your state and California. There's a "list" in every single state that complies with the federal regulations regarding form 4473.

If you have a problem with that potential "list" then you really have a problem with any and all background checks and requiring anyone to submit form 4473.

That's the only "list" that exists in California. Not sure which blog you're sourcing your carefully researched positions from, but the only "roster" that exists is a list of guns that can't be bought over the counter (but are exempt for private party transfers even though the transfers have to be facilitated by an FFL).

[ParsedOut]

Alright, I'll ask you again then...what difference does it make in your mind to require that all private party transactions go through an FFL dealer where they store the forms just like they currently do for retail sales?

For the 4th time...FFLs are audited to ensure every firearm is accounted for, that's the enforcement of the current system. How do you propose we enforce that on an individual level without a registry? I feel like we've covered this before.

[smooth]

Currently the background checks (which are little more than NICS checks for ineligibility) are retained at the FFL for a certain period of time and the ATF or any other gov't agency is not allowed to obtain the full records, only specific ones under due process. Myself I have purchased many guns through FFLs (actually I've never bought a gun private party, sold a few though) and don't really mind having my NICS check on file there.

Forms stored at the FFL are totally different than the registry CA has implemented. Keep making things up if that helps.

Alright, I'll ask you again then...what difference does it make in your mind to require that all private party transactions go through an FFL dealer where they store the forms just like they currently do for retail sales?

[ParsedOut]

Forms stored at the FFL are totally different than the registry CA has implemented. Keep making things up if that helps.

[marshallnoise]

Calguns is a great resource for all things firearms in California.

According to them, a background check as defined by completing form 4473 is not required at an FFL private party transfer.

Standard handgun requirements

The buyer must be at least 21 years old.

The buyer must have the Handgun Safety Certificate (Penal Code 12071(a)(8)(B))and perform the safe handling demonstration required by Penal Code 12071(a)(8)(D)

Handguns transferred through PPT are exempt from the Roster. (Penal Code 12132(a))

Handguns transferred through PPT are exempt from the 1 per 30 days rule. (Penal Code 12072(a)(9)(B)(viii)) Note that the City of Los Angeles has a local ordinance imposing 1 in 30 days even on PPT.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Buying_and_selling_firearms_in_California#Buying_from_a_Private_Party_-_PPT

Edit: Its buried, but the DROS initiates a background check.

[smooth]

*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

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

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.

[ParsedOut]

You didn't need to know I live in California, or was thinking of California, to answer the question. Arizona requires background checks on retail purchases.
No shit, but we aren't talking about retail.

So far, your logic has been that you don't support private party transfer background checks because it compiles a registry of gun owners. That's what Arizona currently does for retail purchases.
More proof of ignorance, I don't even feel bad saying it. Arizona does NOT compile a registry for retail purchases.

You can keep spewing non-sense if you'd like, but I'm confident enough that I've made my point and that you're off your rocker or in over your head.

[smooth]

That's your go-to response every time someone asks you to explain your logic.

I asked you why you support retail background checks but not requiring personal purchases to go through an FFL.

California is an example of states that requires both, but we aren't the only state.

You didn't need to know I live in California, or was thinking of California, to answer the question. Arizona requires background checks on retail purchases.

Why do you support background checks for retail purchases and not for private party transfers?

So far, your logic has been that you don't support private party transfer background checks because it compiles a registry of gun owners. That's what Arizona currently does for retail purchases.

The only answer that is consistent with your logic is that you do *not* support background checks at any level, private party transfers or retail purchases.

This is a very distant position than the one you implied when you stated that you were in support of universal background checks. In fact, you disagree with all federal and state level background checks for private or retail purchases.

You're so far out from the mainstream at this point that it begs the question why you even attempted to draw me into a conversation with you. I'm glad you're done talking *to* me.

[ParsedOut]

It's not simply a California regulation. Arizona also requires background checks for purchases.

Ok, you've obviously lost all grasp on what we're talking about here, so I'm done talking to you...

[marshallnoise]

Wow, God sure broke the mold. Didn't he?

[smooth]

It's not simply a California regulation. Arizona also requires background checks for purchases.

[ParsedOut]

it's not ridiculous. it seems ridiculous to you because you are *also* opposed to state level registries and state level universal background checks. that's not something you explained when I asked the question.

when you say that you're all for federal universal background checks in theory and I present how one works at the state level in practice and ask you how you see differences between the two, that's not a ridiculous question that's trying to figure out where you see the problems and benefits of one system over the other. if you come back after the fact and state that you're actually opposed to *any* level of background check in practice, and *any* type of registration list then that's an impasse with regards to the rest of the population and the discussion we were trying to have (or I thought we were trying to have when you pointed out you'd like to see a universal background checking system that worked).

Well there was obviously a misunderstanding in the wording of your question. I had no way of knowing that you live in CA (right here...lol) and you said "what they currently do", so you must have meant what they currently do in CA. So, -1 fail for you not being thorough in your question, -1 for me not being a mind reader.

You are correct, I don't believe in any sort of registration which makes universal background checks logistically impossible. I understand the desire for such checks and when the mass population aren't educated on the topic or understand the potential and likely ramifications then it's easy to say Yes.

It's like saying, "Hey Mr Citizen, do you support shaken baby syndrome or would you like to see it eliminated?", oh by the way in order for us to regulate this promise of non-shaken babies we need to implement a China like restriction on the number of children you can have because "statistics" show people with more than 1.5 children shake their babies more often.
I realize this example is absurdum but constantly floating the "Americans demand background checks!" argument is flawed in so many ways.