Another week, another school shooting

[marshallnoise]

Also, I like how you avoided my other question that really concerns your agenda here. What purpose does universal background checks serve if not to assist in preventing crime?

If he answered that, his participation in this thread would be reduced to mere theatrics. But then, I repeat myself.

[ParsedOut]

One can either be supportive of universal background checks and storing of records at an FFL dealer and trust/rely on the Constitution that firearms won't be confiscated from law abiding citizens *or* refuse any and all record keeping regarding firearm transactions under the belief that government can not be trusted under any circumstances to not compile private information linking individuals to said firearms.

You still absolutely fail to understand that you can't just apply the current scheme of FFL regulation to the private citizen. The current system, which can be argued that lists CAN be compiled through illegal and unconstitutional means does not mean it will work with private party transfers. It doesn't matter if we're against or for the current system of retail purchases, it is what it is. We're discussing expanding background checks to private party sales and yet again you avoid the question that I ask. HOW do you enforce the law unless a STRUCTURED set of checks and balances (registry) are in place.

If you're saying that a registry is no big deal since the gov't already has these lists on retail purchases, so why are we arguing against openly supporting an official registry? Well, I personally don't believe the gov't is compiling massive lists on retail purchases. So I'm not willing to open up to a structured registry to combat a problem that you (and many more people) refuse to critically evaluate the bigger picture of violence instead are trying to regulate the method of only one aspect.

I really enjoyed you jumping on the super right wing conspiracy of ATF compiling these "lists" to support your failing point. You believe the gov't is using these illegal methods of registration but think we're crazy for being suspicious of the anti-gunner agenda?

Also, I like how you avoided my other question that really concerns your agenda here. What purpose does universal background checks serve if not to assist in preventing crime?

[smooth]

The "List" exists.
The FBI doesn't dispose of NICS data the way it's required to by law.
The ATF illegally copies 4473's "just because" without connection to a criminal investigation.

So while the current law forbids the practices that would allow these agencies to establish a registry, they do those activities anyway.

I don't think background checks actually accomplish anything anyway.

California has been confiscating guns for a wide variety of tenuous reasons for a couple of years now. "Mental health" seems to be the buzzword of the day. They'll show up at the target's (someone on whom they have both a record of likely firearms purchase AND some item mental-health-related data) house with a freaking SWAT team, "talk" (intimidate) their way in because they don't have ANY legal basis for a search, then confiscate whatever guns they find.

on this, we agree.

I don't see how anyone like ParsedOut can throw around terms like "naive" and "ignorant" and bluster how much he distrusts the government for over half a dozen pages and then turn around and post that he doesn't have a problem with submitting a 4473 to an FFL dealer.

My point wasn't that lists don't exist, but rather that there is no different list created by compelling people to register their firearms and submit to background checks for private transfer. The ATF already has all the information they need to compile such a list on the fly...for the ones they haven't already, anyway.

It's a fiction to believe that one's friendly neighborhood gun dealer is going to go prison for any one of his customers. When the feds come knocking for your information his "Bound" Book becomes an "Open" Book commensurate with the size of everyone's asshole that suddenly gets pried wide open.

One can either be supportive of universal background checks and storing of records at an FFL dealer and trust/rely on the Constitution that firearms won't be confiscated from law abiding citizens *or* refuse any and all record keeping regarding firearm transactions under the belief that government can not be trusted under any circumstances to not compile private information linking individuals to said firearms.

Anything in the middle is simply ludicrous logic. Especially given that people arguing for this position also claim they are suspicious of the government (and then try to lay it on thicker by claiming people opposed to their bizarre logic must love and trust the government). So why, if they're so suspicious, do people who insist on this wacky middle ground trust that the government doesn't actually retain their private information and link it to their firearms? Because the law says they shouldn't? LOL

[ParsedOut]

The lesson: Register when instructed to do so by law and all will be fine.

Worked out well for the Jews.

[frankenbeemer]

Register when instructed to do so by law and they'll confiscate them later.

[marshallnoise]

They were given a period of time to register their AR-15's. As long as they registered them, and they liked them, they could keep them.

Those who registered after the cutoff or failed to register altogether are no longer able to keep their AR-15 legally. I believe their options are to move it out of state, render it inoperable, or sell to licensed dealer, etc.

The lesson: Register when instructed to do so by law and all will be fine.

No. Fuck Connecticut. It's an arbitrary law and serves no purpose.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Morrison]

Happened in Connecticut. They told everyone they had to register their AR-15s. If they didn't they were felons. The ones who complied now are on the state's shit list.

They were given a period of time to register their AR-15's. As long as they registered them, and they liked them, they could keep them.

Those who registered after the cutoff or failed to register altogether are no longer able to keep their AR-15 legally. I believe their options are to move it out of state, render it inoperable, or sell to licensed dealer, etc.

The lesson: Register when instructed to do so by law and all will be fine.

[The Dark Side of Will]

You must have missed the one by the lawyer who's been responding to inquiries from FFL's.

[BraveUlysses]

blog posts citing infowars for their primary sources and forums full of anecdotal evidence, look at these excellent standards you have for your arguments.

[The Dark Side of Will]

ATF/4473's: http://gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm

A LOT of anecdotal evidence by guys who like to be informed: http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums...ad.php?t=39383

California confiscation (among MANY other results): http://gunowners.org/oped08292013d.htm

Most of this info is available googling terms like "ATF 4473 copying", California gun confiscation mental health" etc.

[Dozyproductions]

@Dark side: Got any documentation? I just would love to read up on some of this stuff.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Haha, the ATF cannot obtain them in mass without court order.

Not legally... but they do anyway.

[The Dark Side of Will]

The "List" exists.
The FBI doesn't dispose of NICS data the way it's required to by law.
The ATF illegally copies 4473's "just because" without connection to a criminal investigation.

So while the current law forbids the practices that would allow these agencies to establish a registry, they do those activities anyway.

I don't think background checks actually accomplish anything anyway.

California has been confiscating guns for a wide variety of tenuous reasons for a couple of years now. "Mental health" seems to be the buzzword of the day. They'll show up at the target's (someone on whom they have both a record of likely firearms purchase AND some item mental-health-related data) house with a freaking SWAT team, "talk" (intimidate) their way in because they don't have ANY legal basis for a search, then confiscate whatever guns they find.

[ParsedOut]

as the link you cited points out, that didn't exist for rifles prior to this year. so obviously, or at least obvious to me, it can't account for the confiscations you were referencing in the thread earlier. the confiscations you were referencing earlier happened because California maintains a roster of prohibited rifles and some people refused to abide by the law. Similar to the feds requiring registration of fully automatic weapons, California required registration of banned "assault weapons." They didn't use the registration to confiscate the weapons, however, as lots of people wrongly assume.

What they did was confiscate weapons that *weren't* registered according to the law within the timeframe. Some people either refused to register or registered their banned rifles after the cut-off date and, when it was found out, got themselves into trouble. But again, it wasn't the list itself that caused the issue it was people refusing to adhere to the law. The people who registered their banned rifles still get to keep them to this day. And if they want to sell them they simply swap out the banned features and sell it through an FFL.

none of what you wrote has anything to do with background checks. these things you're now bringing up are completely unrelated to background checks.

no, I don't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime

I never said CA had previously confiscated guns, I said DiFi wants to take them all and given the congressional approval she knows exactly where they are.

Wait, so you say it's stupid to try and think about preventing crime? What purpose would these background checks serve then? Hmm...

[smooth]

as the link you cited points out, that didn't exist for rifles prior to this year. so obviously, or at least obvious to me, it can't account for the confiscations you were referencing in the thread earlier. the confiscations you were referencing earlier happened because California maintains a roster of prohibited rifles and some people refused to abide by the law. Similar to the feds requiring registration of fully automatic weapons, California required registration of banned "assault weapons." They didn't use the registration to confiscate the weapons, however, as lots of people wrongly assume.

What they did was confiscate weapons that *weren't* registered according to the law within the timeframe. Some people either refused to register or registered their banned rifles after the cut-off date and, when it was found out, got themselves into trouble. But again, it wasn't the list itself that caused the issue it was people refusing to adhere to the law. The people who registered their banned rifles still get to keep them to this day. And if they want to sell them they simply swap out the banned features and sell it through an FFL.

none of what you wrote has anything to do with background checks. these things you're now bringing up are completely unrelated to background checks.

no, I don't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime