Florida police asking gunshops for info

[rtpzwms]

I'm glad for most of you that you don't live in the great state of commifonia! Our state has records of every gun purchase made going back to the 80's. The local police would be waisting time going to the dealers! They have Names Addresses Model # Serial # the only thing they don't have on the record is a photo but they can get that from the DMV.

There is a balance here where the community as a whole has a right along with the gun owner. As for our honest police I would agree that they don't want to look at anything more than they have too, BUT the other staff that goes through the office.... I wouldn't be as sure. The phone companies were embarrassed back in the 80's when there information leaked. I'm not altogether sure of the ability of everyone to honor and keep information private.

I have had guns stolen from me and I can tell you there is nothing worse than to go and tell the police. The were very nice about it and we glad to see that I had great records of the missing firearms. It was through the ATF system that I got one of the BACK! It was recovered from a crook I had t show up in court and testify. But because I had done my part in reporting I was NEVER questioned about the crime just the ownership of the gun.

In this day of the information hwy information is easy to get on anyone. You just need to know how to search for it. What little we can keep private we should to keep private. I would like to point out that EVERY fed gov web system has failed their own security audit. Until they start passing do we really want more info in their hands? I took a class on security at a local college and scanned the network myself. I saw the database files that had financial information. I did NOT open any files just there existence. I reported it to the college and explained to them immediately that I was not pleased with there security (my info was in there I'm sure).

So my thoughts are don't give them more than they have to have until they prove they are able to handle what they have already! It is how we train our kids and it works for them.....

[Al Norris]

I think some few here are going way far afield with this.

The only records being (voluntarily) requested, are those of a certain make & model sold in a certain period.The authorities are not asking for everything the FFL has sold.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), Firearms Transaction Records (ATF Form 4473) are treated as tax returns under Federal Law. While the dealer is not required to treat these forms as such, the federal government is so required. Does this extend to State and local authorities? That would be up to the State legislatures.

So there may already be a statute in place to keep the information private. I suggest someone from Florida find out, before we continue the paranoid posturing.

[animal]

Well, the request for information is asking for voluntary responses. You could choose to comply or not and do so for whatever reason you want. You don't have to give a reason, but since you have and a prolonged one at that, you do seem to have some issues. It may be best that you not talk to the cops. Your words are very revealing about things other than the issue at hand.

Sorry, I nearly always give a reason for refusing a request that I would like to fulfill. Call it a fault. What you have here is a guy that wants to be able to trust the cops but pointing out why it may not be prudent on both a personal and societal level.
I’m not going to go into detail about the "issues" because they’ve been effectively dealt with a few years ago and some would take the actions of the bad apples as representative of the group … when they are most definitely not. The only "issue" remaining are the guys that are still around that tried to cover for them out of a false sense of brotherhood, and they won’t even look me in the eye now. I "won" my little personal battle (more correctly, my enemies destroyed themselves). That part is over. Now I feel the obligation to make sure I do not play a part in causing a similar battle for someone else. The only thing I lost long term was a little naiveté, something that I shouldn’t have had as an adult anyway.

Right and wrong are not defined by legality and illegality, but by morality. The law is just a codified general guide for operation within society, and is woefully inadequate when it comes to specific questions of moral principle.

Since the request by the Florida police was a question of voluntary compliance rather than an order, there is no question of its legality (in my view) and the specifics of how the records are to be treated are largely (though not entirely) irrelevant. The main question left to consider was whether it is morally correct to comply.

I have come to have a firm belief that correct principles of moral operation can be demonstrated to remain true across variations in the situations and regardless of the size of the system (a view of morality akin to searching for a physics formula, only instead of trying to describe actions of planets and particles, you’re attempting to describe the actions of societies and individuals).

One of the things I now view as morally wrong is misplacing trust. Thus, I was morally wrong in the beginning of my personal problems with the police just as those cops who trusted the ones incorrectly coming after me were morally wrong. Also, as long as I believe that those cops retain the quality that caused them to look the other way instead of questioning the actions of the bad ones, they remain a threat, and it would be morally wrong to trust them. I view myself as betrayed by the bad ones, sure … but truthfully, the good cops in the local PD suffered a far worse form of betrayal than I ever could have. By extension of my belief in moral principles holding true regardless of the size of the system, I view it as morally wrong to place trust in any group that is a member of a larger group, and remains silent when other member groups violate a trust.

The reason I "got personal" was to drive home the principles of correctly and incorrectly placed trust and how trustworthiness is transmitted from the individual level to the group and from smaller to larger groups … as well as the reverse form from the group to the individual If that’s off-topic, then I apologize to the moderators but it seems to me that this is how most people post whether it is openly stated or not.
The trend that appeared to be emerging in the thread (at least to me) was the "cop side" protesting that the cops would not abuse the information because they and those they personally know would not do so; versus the "paranoid side" that is overly suspicious of police motives. Thus, both sides are merely posting from their own prejudice. I chose to expose my personal experience to illustrate how I arrived at my conclusion that the police must justify their request if they expect compliance. Of course, you are free to assume that I am merely exposing the reasons for my own prejudice, but that might be a mistake given that I do supply information to the police when I believe they will use it properly.(usually volunteered rather than satisfying a request, and quite often measured against the average).

The cops are expecting the public to trust them…. Fine and dandy. The question I would like them to ask themselves is : What have they done on a personal, departmental, and national level to demonstrate the trustworthiness or lack thereof, of the police on the issue of how firearms records have been used ?

The OP involves the exercise of police power on a departmental level. Can we not examine this department in light of actions taken by other police departments concerning how firearms records have been used by them? I firmly assert that we can (just as I judged my local PD as untrustworthy by the acquiescence to the wrongful actions of a few of its members) . UNLESS the department in question has taken steps to separate themselves from the wrongful actions of other departments. Here , each department is just acting as an "individual" in the larger group of police departments.

"words very revealing"? ... Yes, but reading things into them according to your own experience might reveal more about yourself than me. We’d have to know each other really well to answer that question, imo.

"At length" … Well, all I can do is hang my head a little and apologize. If brevity is the soul of wit, then I am obviously soulless, witless or both.

Again, to the moderators : If the above does not satisfy the requirements for showing how the personal experience was "on topic", please let me know, and I apologize.

[carguychris]

As I stated earlier, why such a seemingly long period between the murders and now looking for a specific weapon?

It's possible that the the police are acting on a tip from a prison inmate. Such tips often come long after the fact because (a) a prisoner may not have previously heard about the manhunt due to lack of media access, and (b) a prisoner may fear being seen as a "snitch", so he or she may not offer the information until there's a choice opportunity (an offer for a reduced sentence) or some other form of motivation (a desire for a transfer to another unit because of an unrelated threat from a prison gang).

How do you know there is a ( single criminal )? Assuming? It has taken them 4+ years to let the public know that they are looking for a particular weapon.

It's possible that the weapon wasn't even used in the murders or owned by the killer- it was merely owned by someone who is believed to know the killer's identity.

I believe there is more to this than the DBPD is letting on to.

This is a virtual certainty.