Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.
--
Ed Huntress
-----Original Message-----
From: Stormin Mormon
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:09 PM Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: [OT] Second Ammendment Question
I don't think I'd want to trust the government,
in any form, to have records destroyed.
I like having more gun safes, not sure about the
tax credit idea.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
===========================================
So, if you don't have purchase records, how do you detect straw purchasers?
Form 4473 doesn't provide a database for law officers to search. It's kept
in the "bound book" at the FFL holder's place of business. Tracking a new
gun sale is a nightmare, starting with the manufacturer's shipment records,
through wholesalers, and then on to retailers. Then it requires a manual
search, onsite, through the retailer's bound book. It's rarely done. If the
gun was sold used by the dealer, there is no manufacturer's shipment record
to check. Case closed, the trail is unrecoverable. Straw purchaser walks
free.
Form 3310.4, for multiple gun purchases, isn't much better. The state and
local police who are supposed to be notified with a copy don't have the
resources to connect the purchases with gun crimes that are out of their
jurisdiction. And other jurisdictions won't know where to look, except by
going through the ATF Tracing Center.
Since the forms at the ATF Tracing Center are paper or fax (they're not
allowed to compile them into a database), there is no simple way to search
them. That's another factor that the NRA lobbied for.
The NRA complains that laws aren't being enforced. Straw purchases are
illegal. But the NRA lobbied for, and got, a system in which the records are
destroyed or made practically unusable so that straw purchasers can't be
found.
Neat, huh?
--
Ed Huntress
==================================================
..
"Randy333" wrote in message
...
1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.
2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them. Also, I do't want some asshole newspaper to print a list of
names and addresses of every gun in the US.(like that was recently
done).
How about congress put some money behind their words and allow a 100%
tax credit for anyone who buys a safe. Be it a gun safe or any other
safe, as long as it is UL rated or rated by some other agency for
theft and/or fire protection. This will mean a lot more homes will
have safes for any guns, jewels, money and valuables. Hopefully this
will drop the number of break-ins if theives know they will not find
anything easy to steal other than a TV or 2. ( of course these new
big-ass TV's are getting harder to steal too)
My .02
Remove 333 to reply.
Randy
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...
1) Well, if the person is a first time gun buyer,
and the check is approved. Do you think that
person can now be called a "gun owner"?
Would that mean that pretty much anyone who
calls for background check is a gun owner?
Isn't that what I just wrote?
2) Do you trust the anti gun, socialist, take over
minded people in power to destroy information?
If you do, I think you're terribly naive.
Better luck, next time.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
No, anyone applying for a background check
could be a first-time gun buyer.
Records for successful purchasers must be
destroyed in 24 hours. That is, federal records.
In some states, you have a de facto registration
because you have to fill out a purchase form
(handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.
--
Ed Huntress