This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • dawg59 Jul 9, 2013

    Hey Junkmail5....get a job.

  • junkmail5 Jul 9, 2013

    But again- my idea doesn't even require a form 4473 AT ALL so I'm confused why people keep bringing that form up.

    In my idea you don't even need to bring the gun to the store. There doesn't even need to BE a gun.

    My idea simply allows a private seller to comply with the suggested new law by having any FFL perform an NICS check.

    Which again is a check of the PERSON, to verify they can legally purchase firearms.

    Nothing about the GUN is part of that check.

    So the idea it leads to some kind of "gun registry" is insane since there's literally NOTHING gun specific in the information involved.

    (and even the person info is not retained by anybody- it's generally a 30 second check on the phone that comes back with a yes or no and that's it...)

  • junkmail5 Jul 9, 2013

    Who has legal access to it? Can the government obtain access to it? Is a warrant needed?
    Lightfoot3

    The ATF can, if a gun is used in a specific crime, and they have the make and serial number, begin a gun trace.

    Step 1. The ATF contacts the manufacturer of the gun with the serial #. The maker tells the ATF what dealer the gun went to.

    Step 2. The ATF contacts that dealer with the serial # and asks if they sold it to a consumer or another dealer- if a dealer they repeat step 2 until they find who sold it to a consumer.

    Step 3. The ATF then asks that dealer to check his paper records to find the 4473 specific to that gun, and tell them who purchased that gun.

    That's pretty much the end of the paper trail... and it's about as far from 'gun registration' as you can get short of nobody keeping any record of anything.

    the ATF can't just look up if random person A has any guns, nor do they have any master list of any kind concerning where all the guns are, or a way to create one.

  • Lightfoot3 Jul 9, 2013

    "it stays written, in a piece of paper, locked in a cabinet at the store you purchased from." - junkmail5


    Who has legal access to it? Can the government obtain access to it? Is a warrant needed?

  • junkmail5 Jul 9, 2013

    Lies without any substantiate method and forethought.
    NC Red Shirt

    You are writing words but they don't make any actual sense in the order you've arranged them.

    Right. The 4473 is the defacto registration. RKBA

    Except, it's not... because there's no registry that collects that info.

    it stays written, in a piece of paper, locked in a cabinet at the store you purchased from. It's not electronic, it's not searchable, nothing.

    And my expanded NICS system doesn't even USE a 4473, nor would it have any reason to do so.

    So you're making stuff up again.

    Repeating untruths doesn't make them become true.

    It's federal gun registration.
    RKBA

    But you're the one repeating untruths... there's literally NOTHING about the GUN contained in NICS checks. It's like claiming I'm forcing a car registration system on you by seeing if you have a drivers license.

    It's DEMONSTRABLY false and nonsensical, but you keep repeating it.

    So again- no ACTUAL objections to my ACTUAL idea.

  • sctech Jul 8, 2013

    I'll agree to any new legislation that does not affect a law abiding citizen.

  • Spock Jul 8, 2013

    "Without infringing anyones constitutional rights in any way at all." junkmail5

    Lies without any substantiate method and forethought.

  • stymieindurham Jul 8, 2013

    "Or did you purposfully fail to mention that one in your rebuttal? radiodj
    ============================================================
    ====

    Can you not read. We are discussing the Gifford's fraudulent "round-table", not abortion.

  • Bartmeister Jul 8, 2013

    Wow. So many experts on this page but one thing is still crystal clear to me and should be to all. Nothing changes at the end of the day. So if you want or wanted something different than when this story published, you didn't get it, and most likely won't in the near foreseeable future. And for the record, I'm not say'n it's good or bad but some of these comments about what should be done just gets tired and old after about 10 hours of blogs. Go split an atom or cure a disease with your knowledge will ya?

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    No, just the illegal DWI roadblocks.
    RKBA

    No court has ever said these roadblocks are illegal.

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    Right. The 4473 is the defacto registration.
    RKBA

    And it stays at the gun store.

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    "Following this logic, then perhaps we should do away with DUI/DWI laws"

    No, just the illegal DWI roadblocks.

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    72 people shot in Chicago over the 4th of july holiday, 12 died!!! Didn't hear anything about it on the news! 20K

    So how did you find out? Psychic ?

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    "Because NICS only checks the PERSON."

    Right. The 4473 is the defacto registration.

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    "Without infringing anyones constitutional rights in any way at all."

    Repeating untruths doesn't make them become true.

    It's federal gun registration.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    Your suggested facts are of those that compromise an opinion that clearly suggests that you fail to prove your hypothesis.
    NC Red Shirt

    ... what?

    The current system blocks 10s of thousands of felons a year.

    Most agree FFLs only cover somewhere from 40-60% of gun sales though.

    So if you extend the SAME NICS check to private sales (no registration, no new agencies, no new nothing needed, just a visit to any FFL and a 2 minute phone call) then it would block tens of thousands more.

    Without infringing anyones constitutional rights in any way at all.

  • 20K Jul 8, 2013

    72 people shot in Chicago over the 4th of july holiday, 12 died!!! Didn't hear anything about it on the news!!! Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation! This shows more gun laws will not work! Punish the criminals not law abiding citizens!!!

  • Spock Jul 8, 2013

    "But do it exactly as I suggest, and it does NONE of those things but DOES block tens of thousands of felons from buying a gun." junkmail5

    Your suggested facts are of those that compromise an opinion that clearly suggests that you fail to prove your hypothesis.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    "Expanded background checks" CLEARLY paves the road to registration and also eliminates private transfers.- soderstromk

    see, there's no reason for to at all.

    (I agree several of the senate proposals WOULD have headed the way you suggest- and don't support them)

    But do it exactly as I suggest, and it does NONE of those things but DOES block tens of thousands of felons from buying a gun.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    I'm glad you posted that 4473 link though- it SPELLS OUT that you are wrong.

    Customer ID info is section A.

    Gun ID info is section B.

    Now read question 21A on the form.

    it asks if the INFO IN SECTION A was sent to NICS or not?

    Because NICS only checks the PERSON.

    They don't ever even GET the record of the GUN(s) involved.

    It's not registration. Or even vaguely LIKE it.

  • soderstromk Jul 8, 2013

    "Expanded background checks" CLEARLY paves the road to registration and also eliminates private transfers.

    The fact Schumer, et al refused to open NICS access to private citizens demonstrates his motive is not "checks" but to create more burdensome regulation of law-abiding citizens with the temerity to provide for their own defense.

    Gabby and her astroturf husband don't speak for real Constitution-supporting Americans.

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    Thats incorrect. Form 4473, section D, contains all info on the firearm(s) being bought. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
    Jameson

    And the form stays at the store, does not get sent to NICS. After your NICS check you may decide to buy an additional firearm and the store will not conduct another NICS check.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    junkmail5, It wasnt and isnt a debate. Its a statement.- Jameson

    yes, it was an incorrect statement.

    As I've clearly shown you several times.

    so why do you keep making it?

    The idea does not infringe any right of yours.

    You can tell, because when I asked you to name what right it infringed you were unable to.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    There is no compromise position on an absurd suggestion- Jameson

    but you haven't explain what is "absurd" about it.

    You haven't in fact addressed the actual suggestion AT ALL other than to just dismiss is as an infringement of rights, despite the fact it's demonstrably NOT one.

    Hence your objection thus far does not make any sense.

    "You can buy multiple weapons with one NICS check as the weapon info is not part of the check or the 4473. How is that registration?" -Quagmire

    Thats incorrect. Form 4473, section D, contains all info on the firearm(s) being bought. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
    Jameson

    No, that IS correct. There's still only ONE NICS check.

    And it doesn't ask about the guns.

    You are mixing up 4473 which is a form that STAYS AT THE FFL, with the NICS check.

    The NICS check asks for a couple lines from 4473 (name, address, etc... to run the ID check)- it does NOT ask for the whole form.

    There's no registration of ANY kind there

  • Jameson Jul 8, 2013

    junkmail5, It wasnt and isnt a debate. Its a statement.

    No new gun rights infringements.

  • Pretzel Logic Jul 8, 2013

    RE : so, what would be your compromise position - i.e., you're counter offer to Junkmail's idea?

    How about Enforcing Existing Laws / Penalties that Address the Use of a Firearm during the Commission of a crime.

    How about Enforcing Existing Laws / Penalties that Address the Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon during the Commission of a Crime.

    How about Enforcing Existing Laws ??? Before making New Laws that will add to the Un-Enforced Laws in this country.

    We are a Country of Laws, Without Enforcement Laws mean Nothing...

  • Jameson Jul 8, 2013

    "You can buy multiple weapons with one NICS check as the weapon info is not part of the check or the 4473. How is that registration?" -Quagmire

    Thats incorrect. Form 4473, section D, contains all info on the firearm(s) being bought.
    http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

  • Jameson Jul 8, 2013

    "Yes, I understand you think it's unacceptable but the question is why? None of us can get our way 100% of the time - so, what would be your compromise position - i.e., you're counter offer to Junkmail's idea?" -BGJ

    There is no compromise position on an absurd suggestion.
    The question is what gun rights infringements will we be doing away with first.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    junkmail5 thats unacceptable

    no new gun rights infringements
    Jameson

    Except nothing I suggested infringes your gun rights in ANY way.

    If you think it does, please complete this sentence:

    Junkmails idea infringes my constitutional right to: BLANK.

    Fill in the blank.

    (hint: there is no correct answer- since my idea doesn't infringe any rights)

    Junkmail, That particular pilot only had 43hrs in a 777. Not enough training to be turned loose. Goes back to the point, any device in the hands on an "untrained" person, can be a deadly weapon. A lot of times, the person is responsible for the crime, whether it is a drunk driver, a pilot in this case, or a person pulling a trigger on a gun.

    Focus on the person... Not the object...
    scooter13

    that's making a case to require training and certification to even OWN a gun.

    THAT would be unconstitutional.

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    NICS and the 4473 is most surely registration.- RKBA

    Except, it's not. Even slightly.

    For one thing, the two aren't even the same thing.

    4473 is if buying from an FFL.

    IT WAS NOT PART OF MY SUGGESTION AT ALL.

    So once again, you're making up stuff I never even mentioned to create an objection.

    Further, 4473s stay at the FFL as long as he's in business. There's no central database at all. No registry.

    AND THEY AREN"T EVEN INVOLVED IN THE IDEA I SUGGESTED.

    NICS, there's not only no registry, they don't even keep the records.

    They're REQUIRED BY LAW to destroy the records daily.

    Every audit done since that law has found they do that.

    Further, the only thing it would register was "this guy is legal to buy a gun"

    The check contains NO info about the -actual gun-

    So you're paranoid they might create a registry of anyone who can pass a check?

    they ALREADY HAVE ONE- that's how they can DO the check.

    In short- you've yet to present a single ACTUAL objection.

    Again.

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    The 4473 includes weapons data but stays in the store.

  • Quagmire Jul 8, 2013

    NICS check=registration RKBA

    You can buy multiple weapons with one NICS check as the weapon info is not part of the check or the 4473. How is that registration?

  • BGJ Jul 8, 2013

    "...junkmail5 thats unacceptable...no new gun rights infringements..." - Jameson

    Yes, I understand you think it's unacceptable but the question is why? None of us can get our way 100% of the time - so, what would be your compromise position - i.e., you're counter offer to Junkmail's idea?

  • Pretzel Logic Jul 8, 2013

    RE : That particular pilot only had 43hrs in a 777. Not enough training to be turned loose.

    He was not Turned Loose... He was not alone in that cockpit,,, There were other senior pilots along for the ride, Something else aside from human inexperience was going on/went wrong.

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    NICS and the 4473 is most surely registration.

    If you believe that the same government that listens to all phone calls and all scans all emails, doesn't save NICS check data that's fed to it (and IMMEDIATELY entered into a computer) , you're in denial.

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    "given that that has LITERALLY nothing to do with NICS checks your post is -exactly- the example I was talking about"

    NICS check=registration.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion at hand.

  • Pretzel Logic Jul 8, 2013

    These phrases,” the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “the right of the people to be secure in their homes, refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state ???

    With waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms,,, etc, The ready availability of guns today, is being blamed for recent mass shootings? Compared to the lack of mass shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera, et cetera,, et cetera...

    Machine Guns are legal to own (Expensive but nevertheless Legal) However We Must Ban "Assault Style Look-a-Like Semi Autos with BIG CLIPS.

    Says a lot about the State of mind of a lot of these anti gun people,,,

  • Jameson Jul 8, 2013

    junkmail5 thats unacceptable

    no new gun rights infringements

  • scooter13 Jul 8, 2013

    Blaming guns for shooting issues is the same as blaming Boeing for the crash in San Fran. (pilot error in this case).- scooter13
    Last I checked we DO require a pilots license to fly the thing though. junkmail5

    Junkmail, That particular pilot only had 43hrs in a 777. Not enough training to be turned loose. Goes back to the point, any device in the hands on an "untrained" person, can be a deadly weapon. A lot of times, the person is responsible for the crime, whether it is a drunk driver, a pilot in this case, or a person pulling a trigger on a gun.

    Focus on the person... Not the object...

  • ripetomatoes Jul 8, 2013

    The over-militarization of the American police is a different issue, but if you'd like a similar level of training and oversight in order to own an AR-15, I agree, that's an excellent idea. familyandamerica

    What similar level of training and oversight do you believe exists?

    It only takes a 17 week course at the local community college to get a badge and a gun.

    That means the under-educated high school bully in your gym class is a police officer with pretty much unlimited rights as pertaining to knocking you into next week over your bad attitude with just a little over 4 months of "training and oversight".

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    Sorry- typo... that should read is wasn't UNTIL Heller v. DC that the court found...

    My apologies.

    Anyway, still waiting for someone to present a valid objection to my actual idea.

    (not some other crazy idea that imagined, but the actual one I am suggesting).

    Which is:

    Pass a law requiring a private seller of a firearm, if selling to anyone but a close relative, get an NICS check done to confirm the seller is legal to buy his gun.

    Further, require ALL ffls to offer this service using the normal NICS process for a small, fixed, fee.


    That's it. That's the entire idea.

    No registration of any kind, no transfer records of any kind. In fact at no time would anyone with the FFL or government even know WHAT the gun or guns in question were or if the sale actually went through or not.

    Just that legal sellers have to get the check on the buyer.

    That's the entire idea.

    It would, provably, block tens of thousands of sales to felons among other benefits.

    Objections?

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    All legal scholarship dating from the creation of the Second Amendment and extending through the first decades of the twentieth century considered the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right- Dnut

    That's completely and totally wrong.

    It wasn't under 2008 in Heller that the court explicitly found an individual right in the 2nd amendment.

    It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense

    it's one of the things that made it a landmark case.

    And even in THAT decision the 4 justices against explicitly rejected that- claiming that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended.

    Now, I think the majority got it right in Heller- but to pretend the previous 200 years of cases said something they didn't is another thing entirely.

    And even THEN Heller oked SOME infringement (NFA etc)

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    Smokin: I disagree that we should continue to "pay for her care". She is the one who chose to stand in a supermarket parking lot without proper security...She does not fit into the same "group" as combat wounded veterans- ncveteranwife

    Why not?

    By your logic the wounded soldier just wasn't careful enough- they should get NOTHING and like it, right?

  • BGJ Jul 8, 2013

    "...>>>Quit your manic/panic talk, he only offered the ammo, AFTER his protest was completed. Not before..." Dnut

    From the article: "The group, which last week offered 100 rounds of free ammo.." Last week, Dnut. Not so much manic / panic as laughing at the article. Lighten up.

  • dare107 Jul 8, 2013

    See is a hypocrite! How would gun control have prevented her being shot?

  • junkmail5 Jul 8, 2013

    Blaming guns for shooting issues is the same as blaming Boeing for the crash in San Fran. (pilot error in this case).- scooter13

    Last I checked we DO require a pilots license to fly the thing though.

    You're uninformed, or being intentionally misleading.

    Go google "SKS rifles and California Attorney General Dan Lungren"

    Then tell me nothing could happen.
    RKBA

    Given that that has LITERALLY nothing to do with NICS checks your post is -exactly- the example I was talking about.

    Paranoid folks bringing up irrelevant, unrelated, concerns to the actual idea I'm discussing.

    It's like I'm suggesting we put a speed bump on a street there have been a lot of crashes on- and you're screaming about how I want to confiscate your car.

    It's defacto registration, and you know it.
    RKBA

    except, it's not.

    Because the system ALREADY exists and REGISTERS NOTHING.

    EVER.

    We'd just be having more people use the EXISTING system that does NO KIND OF REGISTRATION OF ANY KIND AND CAN'T.

  • WRALSUCKS Jul 8, 2013

    "Blaming guns for shooting issues is the same as blaming Boeing for the crash in San Fran."

    I agree with Scooter13! :-)

  • hppyhourhero Jul 8, 2013

    RKBA: "First, to ensure our right to be able to effectively push back against an oppressive government, should the time arise?" How many times in your life time have you taken up arms against our "oppressive government"? Please answer that question

  • renaissancemon Jul 8, 2013

    "We are strong supporters of the Second Amendment." So said Mark Kelly. This is just lip service. The media should challenge him to ILLUSTRATE his statement with an EXAMPLE. "So, Mr. Kelly, what would be a new kind of gun control law that you would NOT support, because it would violate the 2nd Amendment in your opinion? What kind of gun spec/access/use rule should Americans NOT EVER need prior govt permission to exercise?"

  • BGJ Jul 8, 2013

    "...All this noise about "relevant use" is secondary to this fundamental question...." RKBA

    If only we could have a time machine where we could understand what people from over 200 years ago were thinking. If only we had some understanding that had not developed and grown and developed and changed over the course of those years. If only there were a group of people with whom we could speak that descended directly from that group. I've got it! Let's ask the GOP.

Oldest First