Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee
Over the last few years there have been numerous cases of military training taking place in small towns.   The stated goal was to train our troops for combat in urban areas.

Every single time the mission included going after drug dealers, weapons dealers, and other wanted persons.

You mean... the mission was to go after legitimate gun store owners?   Got a link for that?  Cause I've heard of the military training ... but I haven't heard of them going after gun stores or gun store owners.

[LauraTXNM]

Depends on the gun store owner, IMO.   I have only purchased weapons from stores where I knew the owner and trusted him.  I trust... that if or when TSHTF.... those records will axedentally be burned in a terrible fire.   

That makes sense.  As far as I was aware, gun store records are only kept to help if a gun is used in a crime.  That's correct, isn't it?

[truth_seeker]

The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.

Yeah, unless the FBI land upon the store in the dark of night, break in and confiscate them. Like Trump's lawyer.

[LauraTXNM]

The LGS I use in Louisville is run by former LEO's...I know beyond a doubt any records they have will die in a fire if any kind of registration is implemented.

@txradioguy  Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason?  Or do they think it's a waste of time?

P.S. Sorry -- I just read your later post, and you may have answered the question (?). 

[the_doc]

@txradioguy  Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason?  Or do they think it's a waste of time?

I doubt that records on gun store computers are relevant.  I assume that the State governments and likely the feds as well already have all of the registration records.

[XenaLee]

That makes sense.  As far as I was aware, gun store records are only kept to help if a gun is used in a crime.  That's correct, isn't it?

Yes, as far as I know, that's accurate.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy  Do the LEOs you know think gun store records are useful for any reason?  Or do they think it's a waste of time?

P.S. Sorry -- I just read your later post, and you may have answered the question (?).

Waste of time.

[XenaLee]

I doubt that records on gun store computers are relevant.  I assume that the State governments and likely the feds as well already have all of the registration records.

Are gun store owners routinely required to turn over those records to the feds?   If so, then this story doesn't make any sense....

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/

[LauraTXNM]

Are gun store owners routinely required to turn over those records to the feds?   If so, then this story doesn't make any sense....

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/

@XenaLee  That's an interesting story.  I'm glad the store owner is fighting the records seizure.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin
#1 is easily refuted.   Most violent crimes (~80%) are committed by people previously convicted of a felony, usually another violent crime.  Its already illegal for them to own or possess a firearm.

No, it isn't.  First, as soon as you use a word like "most" you're conceding that there are some instances where your argument doesn't apply.  Second, it dodges the point.  It being merely illegal to purchase or posses a gun is precisely the problem -- illegality probably won't stop them because under current law, because 1) there is no way to know if they already owned a weapon that the cops don't know about, and 2) it is much easier to acquire a weapon from a private seller when there are no requirements for private registration.  The purpose of registration and tracking of weapons is to make it harder for them to acquire those weapons even if they want to.  Now surely, many -- maybe even most of them -- will acquire a gun anyway.  But at least some won't.  That's just reality.

Making flawed arguments against registration -- such as "it will never prevent a single gun crime -- simply draws attention away from all the much better arguments we actually have.

#2 is equally a false sense of security.   If a court revokes someones 2nd amendment rights they could easily search that persons home.  Having a gun registered doesn't prevent someone from hiding a gun at another location.  Nor does it prevent them from having a multitude of other types of weapons.

They could -- but they generally don't conduct a massive search of an entire house every time they nab someone.  Especially in the case of someone who is mentally disturbed, there isn't any probable cause for doing so in the absent of registration records.  The cops simply can't bust into the parents home and start searching the entire house in the off chance there is a weapons there.  However, if guns were registered to someone living at that home, they could require them to be surrendered before the nutbag was allowed to live there.

I don't like that solution, but the reality is that in at least some cases, you might prevent a shooting.  And again, arguing that "no, this could never, ever prevent another shooting" simply makes no sense.  The real point to argue is that any marginal benefit that comes from registration places an intolerable burden on law-abiding gun owners even if it sometimes works.

[driftdiver]

You mean... the mission was to go after legitimate gun store owners?   Got a link for that?  Cause I've heard of the military training ... but I haven't heard of them going after gun stores or gun store owners.

@XenaLee
They weren't going after gun store owners.  The troops were going door to door, the press release said they were training to go after "weapons dealers"  not gun store owners.   

It was in the stories that covered the training exercises but I can't find the story right now.

[LauraTXNM]

No, it isn't.  First, as soon as you use a word like "most" you're conceding that there are some instances where your argument doesn't apply.  Second, it dodges the point.  It being merely illegal to purchase or posses a gun is precisely the problem -- illegality probably won't stop them because under current law, because 1) there is no way to know if they already owned a weapon that the cops don't know about, and 2) it is much easier to acquire a weapon from a private seller when there are no requirements for private registration.  The purpose of registration and tracking of weapons is to make it harder for them to acquire those weapons even if they want to.  Now surely, many -- maybe even most of them -- will acquire a gun anyway.  But at least some won't.  That's just reality.

Making flawed arguments against registration -- such as "it will never prevent a single gun crime -- simply draws attention away from all the much better arguments we actually have.

They could -- but they generally don't conduct a massive search of an entire house every time they nab someone.  Especially in the case of someone who is mentally disturbed, there isn't any probable cause for doing so in the absent of registration records.  The cops simply can't bust into the parents home and start searching the entire house in the off chance there is a weapons there.  However, if guns were registered to someone living at that home, they could require them to be surrendered before the nutbag was allowed to live there.

I don't like that solution, but the reality is that in at least some cases, you might prevent a shooting.  And again, arguing that "no, this could never, ever prevent another shooting" simply makes no sense.  The real point to argue is that any marginal benefit that comes from registration places an intolerable burden on law-abiding gun owners even if it sometimes works.

@Maj. Bill Martin   You are bringing up the question I have -- is it worth it to be able to temporarily remove weapons from people who are adjudicated mentally ill?  That is one of the only areas where I think we have a problem.

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee
They weren't going after gun store owners.  The troops were going door to door, the press release said they were training to go after "weapons dealers"  not gun store owners.   

It was in the stories that covered the training exercises but I can't find the story right now.

Military troops going "door to door" looking for anything would be a scary event.  I didn't hear a thing about that.  Wonder why.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin   You are bringing up the question I have -- is it worth it to be able to temporarily remove weapons from people who are adjudicated mentally ill?  That is one of the only areas where I think we have a problem.

Yeah, it's a valid concern, and I think we look dishonest if we don't acknowledge it.  I mean, we all agree that those adjudicated mentally unstable and dangerous shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but we don't bother checking to see if they actually own one already.  Which kind of defeats the purpose.  And the reality is that hearings, etc., are usually scheduled weeks or even months in advance.  So let's say the morning before the hearing, the guy walks into a gun store and buys a gun.  There is not yet an order, so he's clean.  That afternoon, an order is issued putting him on the no-buy list.  But too late -- the gun we don't want him to have is one he just bought that morning, and we have no means of tracking that.

Registration might help with that, but as I said, the other problems with it make that unacceptable to me.  So, we need to think of other ways to address that problem.  I'd suggest two things that could be done legislatively:

1) Many of these people are younger people who live with parents or relatives.  Some are minors, some aren't.  In either case, the other people in the home must certify that they do not have any weapons in the home.  If they refuse, then the person cannot live there.  Alternatively, maybe you have some kind of approved system to ensure that the crazy person cannot get the gun.  For example, an alarm on wherever they are stored that triggers the cops.  If the law-abiding people want to take their gun out, they should notify the cops ahead of time that it is an authorized user.  Obviously, for home defense, you'd just use it and explain later.

2) For those who do not live at home, such orders come with the person certifying that they do not own any guns, and that their home will be searched for guns.  It will be considered a felony if they are subsequently discovered to have a weapon that they didn't declare.

I don't think that's a perfect solution, but it's the type of thing that would minimize the risk without infringing on the rights of law-abiding (and sane) citizens.

[LauraTXNM]

Yeah, it's a valid concern, and I think we look dishonest if we don't acknowledge it.  I mean, we all agree that those adjudicated mentally unstable and dangerous shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but we don't bother checking to see if they actually own one already.  Which kind of defeats the purpose.  And the reality is that hearings, etc., are usually scheduled weeks or even months in advance.  So let's say the morning before the hearing, the guy walks into a gun store and buys a gun.  There is not yet an order, so he's clean.  That afternoon, an order is issued putting him on the no-buy list.  But too late -- the gun we don't want him to have is one he just bought that morning, and we have no means of tracking that.

Registration might help with that, but as I said, the other problems with it make that unacceptable to me.  So, we need to think of other ways to address that problem.  I'd suggest two things that could be done legislatively:

1) Many of these people are younger people who live with parents or relatives.  Some are minors, some aren't.  In either case, the other people in the home must certify that they do not have any weapons in the home.  If they refuse, then the person cannot live there.  Alternatively, maybe you have some kind of approved system to ensure that the crazy person cannot get the gun.  For example, an alarm on wherever they are stored that triggers the cops.  If the law-abiding people want to take their gun out, they should notify the cops ahead of time that it is an authorized user.  Obviously, for home defense, you'd just use it and explain later.

2) For those who do not live at home, such orders come with the person certifying that they do not own any guns, and that their home will be searched for guns.  It will be considered a felony if they are subsequently discovered to have a weapon that they didn't declare.

I don't think that's a perfect solution, but it's the type of thing that would minimize the risk without infringing on the rights of law-abiding (and sane) citizens.

@Maj. Bill Martin  Right, I think "minimization of risk" is maybe the "American" solution.  Convincing everyone that that *doesn't preclude gun ownership* is the difficulty.  I spent some time talking with @roamer_1 before about extending background checks to private sales, because that is the other area that concerns me. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin  Right, I think "minimization of risk" is maybe the "American" solution.  Convincing everyone that that *doesn't preclude gun ownership* is the difficulty.  I spent some time talking with @roamer_1 before about extending background checks to private sales, because that is the other area that concerns me.

The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.

The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.

[the_doc]

The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.

The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.

I'm all for background checks if we check voter registration before issuing the firearm.  (If we could keep Dems from shooting people, we could reduce gun homicides by about 90%.)

 

[LauraTXNM]

The problem is that if you extend background checks to private sales, you enable complete tracing of weapons, which could be used for confiscation.

The only way I could see that potentially working is if private checks did not include the serial number or identification of the weapon in question, and that nobody could keep a copy of that check except (optionally) the seller. That way, a person could not be legally presumed to still have a gun they purchased from a dealer, and so you couldn't take legal action against them based on the presumption that they still have the gun.

There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check.  There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun.  I don't believe there was any "registration" at all.  The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check.  I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.

I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever.  What do you think of that idea?

[Smokin Joe]

@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two.   There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm. 

I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.

The NICS data is required to be destroyed (on successful purchases) within 24 hours, as a provision of the law that formed the system. The BATF(E) under Clinton was caught amassing a database and ordered to destroy it (but no one was prosecuted, as they should have been). There have been no prosecutions I know of after refusals, at least some of which would (at a minimum) indicate perjury on the Form 4473. Others might be in error, but, for instance a convicted Felon filling out the form and signing it, they would have sworn by that signature under penalty of prosecution that they were not a Felon and prohibited from purchasing the firearm. I guess there are a lot of strippers to investigate, and I don't mean clips.

[Smokin Joe]

There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check.  There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun.  I don't believe there was any "registration" at all.  The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check.  I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.

I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever.  What do you think of that idea?

I'm guessing you have never bought a firearm. You have to fill out a Form 4473 at the FFL dealer. You identify yourself, your address, etc. and attest that you are an American Citizen, have no felonies, are not currently charged with any crime, etc. Then you sign it, under penalty of prosecution for providing false information on the form.

You produce identification (even if they know you, to prove you are who you say you are on the form and residency in the state for a handgun purchase), and the dealer checks the form against your identification and calls in the NICS check. When you are okayed, the transaction may continue. You pay for your firearm.

Depending on your local jurisdiction, if you possess a valid CCW permit, the process is streamlined a little, or you may experience a waiting period. In some of the more hoplophobic jurisdictions, you have to first obtain a permit to purchase the firearm, for each firearm purchased. (I don't live in one of those, and refuse to do so). If you have a CCW, the local chief of police and/or the sheriff have likely signed off on your application to approve it before the State issued it.

With a private purchase, you exchange money or an item in trade for the firearm. Period. Usually these are conducted among people who know each other because no one wants to buy a stolen gun, or wants to sell one that will be used in a crime. Some folks, when they buy a gun from someone they don't know, will have the serial numbers through NCIC first to make sure the firearm has not been reported stolen.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There was an idea I shared a while ago, from maybe NC or SC, where private parties could go to the Sheriff's office to do the background check.  There was no paperwork kept; the Sheriff just verified that the person could buy the gun.  I don't believe there was any "registration" at all.  The other possibility I'd seen, is that private parties would go to a gun store to process the background check.  I guess the gun store would keep a record of sale.

I thought the Sheriff option sounded good; no registration, just making sure the buyer wasn't an illegal alien or whatever.  What do you think of that idea?

I think that's great.  No reason a private citizen selling to someone they don't know shouldn't want a background check. But again, there can't be any recording of serial numbers, or even if the transfer was actually consummated.  I've actually done that at a gun show.

Now, if I'm selling to a buddy or relative whhm I know, then we just do the sale.

[Smokin Joe]

@XenaLee
In every recent mass shooting the ATF/FBI has been able to track down the history of the firearm within a day or two.   There is no way to do that if all you have is the firearm. 

I have no doubt they have a record of every recent firearm purchase and it isn't limited to the paper records in the gun store.

It can be done. Go to the manufacturer, with the serial number. they trace it to the distributor using shipping records, who traces it to a dealer (same way) who pulls the Form 4473 for that firearm as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, which yields the lawful purchaser. If that purchaser isn't the perp, either a record of the firearm being stolen, or the purchaser's account of a sale of the firearm would fill in the blanks.

[Cyber Liberty]

The NICS data is required to be destroyed (on successful purchases) within 24 hours, as a provision of the law that formed the system. The BATF(E) under Clinton was caught amassing a database and ordered to destroy it (but no one was prosecuted, as they should have been). There have been no prosecutions I know of after refusals, at least some of which would (at a minimum) indicate perjury on the Form 4473. Others might be in error, but, for instance a convicted Felon filling out the form and signing it, they would have sworn by that signature under penalty of prosecution that they were not a Felon and prohibited from purchasing the firearm. I guess there are a lot of strippers to investigate, and I don't mean clips.

The Form 4473 has to be retained by the store at least 20 years.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-long-are-licensees-required-maintain-atf-forms-4473

How long the NICS retains the computer record created by your FFL dealer calling in, I dunno.

[driftdiver]

It can be done. Go to the manufacturer, with the serial number. they trace it to the distributor using shipping records, who traces it to a dealer (same way) who pulls the Form 4473 for that firearm as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, which yields the lawful purchaser. If that purchaser isn't the perp, either a record of the firearm being stolen, or the purchaser's account of a sale of the firearm would fill in the blanks.

@Smokin Joe
If you believe thats how they are doing it then I have beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.

[driftdiver]

I think that's great.  No reason a private citizen selling to someone they don't know shouldn't want a background check. But again, there can't be any recording of serial numbers, or even if the transfer was actually consummated.  I've actually done that at a gun show.

Now, if I'm selling to a buddy or relative whhm I know, then we just do the sale.

@Maj. Bill Martin
If someone isn't safe to own a firearm, perhaps, now this is crazy, but perhaps they shouldn't be on the street.   There are a myriad of other weapons available to that person, assuming of course they dont get an illegal weapon.

What other Constitutional rights do you think should be restricted and constrained?