The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 31, 2013, 05:44 PM   #276
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Thanks. I thought there may have been mention of getting the gun through a private sale.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 05:49 PM   #277
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Yes, actually in this case I think he bought the gun from his own sister. The guys were not caught immediately and the family actually go wind of what they had done, confronted them about it, and they admitted it. That's when the sister and others in the family started to freak. Face it, they could be held accomplice if they didn't turn them in. It's a reasonable bet that's exactly where the anonymous tips came from that led to the fast arrests.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 06:24 PM   #278
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
The RKBA is a constitutional right. It's a civil right. It's a fundamental, individual right. It's just not subject to being violated in the way that you supposed.
While I disagree on the one hand I think I can continue in that vein on the other.

When I lease a house for rent what do you suppose I do before that?

When I hire someone to be my personal nanny, security guard, nursemaid; what do I do before I let them do that?

Is it a violation of their civil rights to ensure that someone is not unqualified To make sure that they are a bona fide and not child molester or felon before hand? Remember as individual (or a company or a municipality, whatever) I can not legally discriminate on for these things. To do so would be a violation of their rights.

Can the state require that all security guards and nurses and child care workers have a background check for any position? Is this a violation of civil rights? Provided I do it the same way every time?
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:13 PM   #279
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,835
Where are the examples you offer clearly and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Would you support a universal background check to vote?

Surely our benevo;lent,trustworthy government would never corrupt and abuse that law,and it would certainly protect the integrity of our elections,and,after all,if it would prevent just one fraudulant vote....

Now,please,a direct answer,no sidestep

Describe a workable method for the government to monitor and enforce universal background check for face to face sales.

The ONLY way I can see that would be effective is 1)Require everyone to submit a complete inventory of all the firearms they have custody of2)Require everyone to submit to audits3)If you have,or do not have,any firearm on the list,it is evidence of a non-background check transaction,and a crime.

Remember,we live in a country where Supreme Court Justice Roberts suupports the idea it is a crime to not buy health insurance.

I fail to understand why,if murder is a capital crime,we need more laws to prevent murder.

Every crime a person could possible commit with a firearm is also a very serious crime,often with extra mandatory sentencing.

What we DO NOT NEED is more laws that make people into criminals or give government the means to abuse us for doing nothing more than being in non compliance with some arbitrary stupid ineffective emotional response to "do something"

Sensationalizing these crimes in the media is contributing to copy catting.Perhaps we should severely restrict media coverage.After all,if it only saves one life,it will be worth it.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:42 PM   #280
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Would you support a universal background check to vote?
with all of the voter fraud- yes
and they should also know civics, so that test would be a must

Quote:
Remember,we live in a country where Supreme Court Justice Roberts suupports the idea it is a crime to not buy health insurance.

Last edited by BigD_in_FL; January 31, 2013 at 07:47 PM.
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 01:13 AM   #281
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,111
Quote:
This is not about society crumbling. It is about trying to improve things.
So..... you intend to fix it untill it no longer works?

Keep piling on the onerous laws, and folks will develop a healthy disrepect for the Law .....doubt me? How 'bout that 18th Amendment? How's that working out? .....Oh, Wait......

You keep holding to that idea that you .... can make people .... "better"..... it's a foolish notion, yet you Progressives are convinced of your noble intentions ......

There are none so dangerous to your Liberty as those who believe they are are curtailing your freedoms "for your own good"!
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:09 AM   #282
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Yesterday, I was watching some of the gun control hearings from earlier this week and NY Senator Chuck Schumer (I really don't like this guy), mentioned that universal background checks should be pushed forward WITHOUT firearm registration as the court had already said that registration is "illegal". Does anybody know where he got this from? Being that he is a huge progressive and will say anything, I was very surprised that he would voluntarily concede this ground.
win-lose is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:36 AM   #283
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
I support universal background checks.

Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us. The only people that background checks will hurt are people who shouldn't really have a gun in the first place.

I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me.

It's true that laws don't stop people from committing crimes. If that was the case their would be no murder. However, that doesn't me there shouldn't be a law against murder.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:41 AM   #284
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me.
So because it's fine by you, you think it should be fine by everyone else?

I don't think so.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 12:16 PM   #285
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
The RKBA is a constitutional right. It's a civil right. It's a fundamental, individual right. It's just not subject to being violated in the way that you supposed.
While I disagree on the one hand I think I can continue in that vein on the other.
I'm not entirely sure which part you disagree about. On the nature of the RKBA, I'm just telling you what SCOTUS has said:
Quote:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
Quote:
. . . .we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, . . . . or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,” . . .

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)(internal citations omitted)
Individual right. Fundamental right. It's not a criminal right (such as against unreasonable search and seizure (A4) or compelled self-incrimination (A5)). It's not a contract right or a property right, so it must be a civil right, correct?

Or do you disagree with my proposition on who may violate such a right and how it may be violated?

If that be the case, go back and look at the language of 42 USC 1983 that I posted. It's very clear on the "color of law" language. As I said earlier, I've spent ~7 of the last 10 years in civil rights litigation. Specifically, I've defended cities, their officers and agents from lawsuits. Virtually every federal lawsuit I've ever defended has been brought under s1983, in conjunction with some other constitutional provision.

Let me try another example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
. . . .individual (or a company or a municipality, whatever) . . . .
This is actually a critical distinction. The rights that you may have in relation to other persons or entitites depends, in part, on the nature of the entity in question. I know that you hate hypotheticals, but I want to illustrate the distinction between private and non-private violation of rights.

Example 1: Four guys burst through my door in the middle of the night, armed with shotguns and Glocks. Nobody is home, but they rummage through my stuff, and take some guns of mine.

Example 2: Exactly the same as Example 1, except that the four guys are police officers. They do not have a warrant.

Example 1 is a burglary, but it's not a violation of my A4 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Example 2 is a possible A4 violation. Why? Because the guys bursting through my door are agents of (acting on behalf of) the government. The four guys in Example 1 cannot violate my A4 rights. They may have violated a bunch of my other rights, but not the A4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
When I lease a house for rent what do you suppose I do before that?

When I hire someone to be my personal nanny, security guard, nursemaid; what do I do before I let them do that?

Is it a violation of their civil rights to ensure that someone is not unqualified To make sure that they are a bona fide and not child molester or felon before hand? Remember as individual (or a company or a municipality, whatever) I can not legally discriminate on for these things. To do so would be a violation of their rights.

Can the state require that all security guards and nurses and child care workers have a background check for any position? Is this a violation of civil rights? Provided I do it the same way every time?
In your examples, you're back to housing and employment (CRA of 1968). That's a different kettle of fish from the RKBA. Since you've asked the question, though, I'll see if I can sort some of it out for you.

As a general proposition, it would not violate someone's civil rights for the state to require someone to prove their qualifications to perform the essential functions of a job before they may hold a license to do so. Having a clean record, absent of any convictions for child abuse, child endangerment, child molestation, etc., is a perfectly valid requirement to have a license to run a day-care center or a nanny's license (if they have those), for example. It's also unrelated to any membership in the protected classes.

However, job requirements, background checks, and licensing requirements could be tricky. For example, if the background check that I want to run on someone checks for "arrests" rather than "convictions," that can be problematic. Why? Historically, minority groups have gotten arrested more than whites. That means that if I reject a protected-class applicant for having more arrests (but not convictions) than another non-protected applicant, and get sued, a court could conclude that because minority groups get arrested more often than whites, I'm simply using "arrests" rather than "convictions" so that I have an excuse to not hire minorities.

For RKBA purposes, though, the courts will stick with the framework already established. While employment discrimination laws are rooted in constitutional law (as all laws need to be), they follow a different analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
. . . . Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us. . . . .
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
. . . .The only people that background checks will hurt are people who shouldn't really have a gun in the first place. . . . .
I wholeheartedly disagree. The NICS system is already backlogged, and it will only get worse if universal checks are instituted. I have this sneaking suspicion that somewhere, there's a divorced woman with a stalker of an ex-husband who really needs her gun today, rather than in 3 days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
. . . . I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me. . . . .
Just because you are fine with the government having all of your information, doesn't mean you have my permission to give it mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
. . . .It's true that laws don't stop people from committing crimes. If that was the case their would be no murder. However, that doesn't me there shouldn't be a law against murder.
That's not a great example. The law against murder doesn't put any affirmative duty on law-abiding citizens. The only thing I have to do to comply with the law against murder is to not kill anyone. I think we all know that violent felons who want guns will not go through background checks. That being the case, why make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 01:00 PM   #286
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
I think we are dancing about, and ignoring the critical part of the discussion. Its not about whether background checks work, or if they are, or are not a good thing. It is about whether the govt has the legal authority to compel us all to use them. Certainly they can compel us, by passing a law, and enforcing it, but do they have the right to do it?

See this trend in other areas of our lives. Just because something is a good idea, and might have benefits for us as individuals, or for society in general, is it our govt's place to compel us to do it by force of law? And is it their right in general, or just for guns, and some other specific things, because they are "dangerous"?

Wearing seatbelts is a good idea. Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea. Having healthing insureance is a good idea. And we got along fairly well, I think, for generations with these good ideas. But today, it is the LAW that you MUST do or have this. And if you do not, even though there is no injury, you get punished by the govt for not having it. IS that right?

Along the same line of thinking are the proposals (and in some places laws) requiring you to have your guns locked up in your home. Sure, its a fine idea, but who benefits from it when you get caught not doing it? Only the govt.

I am up to my eyeballs in studies that say this, or that, is good, or bad for us. And I am fed up even further with laws and regulations based on "studies" touting the "cost" of not doing it, what ever issue is under discussion.

We are being forced to go to the nth degree in so many things, to be safe, from ourselves, and to reduce the "cost" of ..whatever to society, by LAW. It seems that the concept of both individual responsibility in committing an act, (or not committing an act) and the responsibility for paying for that act appears to be an outmoded and no longer relevant concept. It is, but I don't think it ought to be.

And I resent the laws that give the govt the legal right to pick my pocket, when no harm has befallen, simply in the name of safety for the masses.

And worst of all is the excuse that we "need" such things. It's not just a slippery slope anymore, its a vertical cliff. Studies, like surveys can be rigged to deliver any preconcieved result.

There is a "study" that claims that 99%+ of all criminals ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of commiting the crimes. Yet, at this time, no one is screaming we need to ban bread, or pass a background check to buy a loaf.

Why not?
after all, if it saves just one sandwich......
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 01:10 PM   #287
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Quoted from J3ffr0:
I support universal background checks.

Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us. The only people that background checks will hurt are people who shouldn't really have a gun in the first place.
I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me.
It's true that laws don't stop people from committing crimes. If that was the case their would be no murder. However, that doesn't me there shouldn't be a law against murder.
Wrong J3ffr0, now don't get bent. I don't mind, you can be wrong all you want. But you are still wrong and I am surprised that Spats agrees at all.

First a wrong assumption
Quote:
"I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me."
Both the dealer and the gov must destroy the records after a specific amount of time. The do not know what you have. that's why you have to keep filling out the form, the old ones get destroyed.

Quote:
Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us.
You are not responsible for their actions, you are responsible for your own. The only reason you believe that their actions reflect on you at all is that you are falling into the trap of allowing yourself to wear a label. Take that label off and burn it. You are an individual and you are NOT GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION, "Spats shame on you brother". You're drifting

Quote:
The only people that background checks will hurt are people who shouldn't really have a gun in the first place.
Wrong yet again. The reason you are wrong is that in order for background checks for personal sales can be implemented is if they do actually require registration and firearms tracking, and submission to searches for verification. The individual would have to submit to the same requirements as the FFL holder and this is what all of us should be afraid of.

So stop being wrong and start being right.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 02:45 PM   #288
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
Both the dealer and the gov must destroy the records after a specific amount of time. The do not know what you have. that's why you have to keep filling out the form, the old ones get destroyed.
Dealers must keep 4473's on file for 20 years. The NICS check info is only retained for 48 hours.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 03:05 PM   #289
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
All good to know, but the statement was correct, the dealer still must destroy the record after a given time.

What enables the ATF or LE to trace a gun that was used in a crime is exactly this.

The gun is seized by the police, they get the seriel number and run it through ATF. ATF links the gun to the manufacturer, to the dealer, to the name on the 4473 they have on file for the sale.

If I have this wrong please someone correct me.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 03:20 PM   #290
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
20 years is a long period of "given time."
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 04:06 PM   #291
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
It's one thing to call on a local retailer and say "This is Agent Smith, BATFE, and we need a trace on a gun you received in 1995, SN# xxxxx-xxxxx"

Dealer goes thru records, finds the 4475, says, "OH, it was sold to a John Ibuyguns on 25 Jan, 1987."

Agent Smith says "Thanx Pardner" Hangs up.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And the alternative, Agent Smith calls the retailer and says"We won't be calling you for gun traces anymore, just mail all your 4475s in and we will call it quits. We got everything we ever will need now."

"Thanx Pardner" Hangs up.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 07:39 PM   #292
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
"Dealers must keep 4473's on file for 20 years."

What happens when the gun shop closes (owner retires/dies,etc)?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 07:42 PM   #293
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
"Dealers must keep 4473's on file for 20 years."
Quote:
What happens when the gun shop closes (owner retires/dies,etc)?
All of the dealer's "bound books", as well as any Form 4473s that are newer than 20 years old, are transferred to the ATF.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:09 PM   #294
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
But of course none of that could possibly tempt anybody in an official position to abuse the system, and use data in unauthorized ways....
MLeake is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:12 PM   #295
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcpiper
You are not responsible for their actions, you are responsible for your own. The only reason you believe that their actions reflect on you at all is that you are falling into the trap of allowing yourself to wear a label. Take that label off and burn it. You are an individual and you are NOT GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION, "Spats shame on you brother". You're drifting
Not at all, lcpiper. I don't like it. The reflection on us is unfair, but I fear that a large faction of the non-gun-owning public does see the "nut jobs running loose" as a reflection of the rest of us.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:26 PM   #296
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
But of course none of that could possibly tempt anybody in an official position to abuse the system, and use data in unauthorized ways....
This is precisely what my main concern was about HB77 which just (fortunately) stalled in committee here in NM- they wanted to set up a state registration. I do NOT trust state employees with this information, at all.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 10:24 PM   #297
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
But of course none of that could possibly tempt anybody in an official position to abuse the system, and use data in unauthorized ways.
The 4473's aren't filed by the buyer's name, but by the date of disposition. Compiling a database from that would be random, laborious, and full of holes.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 01:45 AM   #298
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,111
Quote:
The 4473's aren't filed by the buyer's name, but by the date of disposition. Compiling a database from that would be random, laborious, and full of holes.
Well, if you have unlimited resources, and "close enough for gubmint work" is good enough (false positives can still generate arrests and prosecutions, after all- "Of the Lawyers, By the Lawyers, and For the Lawyers"!) .....

It does not have to work as advertised, it just has to encumber gun ownership, complicate the business of selling guns, create more sinecures for gubmint employees, and generate more business for the Legal Profession/"Justice" system ...... and the politicians get to say they "did something" ..... where is the downside for anybody but gun owners and those selling guns? When government mucks with the Free Market, it is always the folks using the product that suffer.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 03:23 AM   #299
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
Quote:
Quote:
Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us.
You are not responsible for their actions, you are responsible for your own. The only reason you believe that their actions reflect on you at all is that you are falling into the trap of allowing yourself to wear a label. Take that label off and burn it. You are an individual and you are NOT GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION, "Spats shame on you brother". You're drifting
I'm am indeed an individual, and I think for myself. I don't like labels very much, but people use them all the time -- here too. You think I'm wrong, and that's fine. I think you're are wrong, and that's fine too. It is indeed okay for me, you, or anyone else to be wrong. What I think is that maybe some folks are in denial. The evident fact is that if enough crazy people with guns do enough crazy things like shooting firemen, shooting bus drivers and kidnapping children, killing people in movie theaters and schools, then we will all see further erosion of our gun rights. Think about it -- Ford gave us cars-- many folks couldn't act sensibly, and people got hurt, so it all got regulated... speed limits, taxes, registration, forced insurance. If enough people continue to get hurt there will be more regulation -- it is inevitable. Us folks who own guns can help lawmakers choose something that is halfway reasonable. Or the alternative is it will be chosen for us. The choice of what we are willing to support belongs to each of us. Those who say they won't support anything are probably not helping anyone including themselves in the long run.

I personally don't want convicted felons who can't buy guns from a dealer buying guns at gun shows near where I live. I don't want mentally ill people buying guns. I don't want that nut in Alabama who killed the bus driver and took the kid hostage to have a gun. Universal background checks where mental illness is reported just might have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter. I think protecting the right to life of innocent people who are victimized by lunatics with guns is more important than worrying about "the govt has information on me." News Flash: They govt already has more information on you than you think. You pay taxes. You have drivers licenses. When a car is sold, the new owner registers it. Following some of y'alls logic, maybe they'll come confiscate our cars, or our houses using the info they already have on us.. and if they get our houses I'd imagine they'd get most of our guns too. Heck cars and houses aren't even protected by a constitutional amendment. Watch out for the mad run on those things when people realize that Obama is coming for them!

Anyway, I know most of y'all don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 07:10 AM   #300
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
The 4473's aren't filed by the buyer's name, but by the date of disposition. Compiling a database from that would be random, laborious, and full of holes.
That's only about a two week job at best to scan and compile them into a fully searchable and indexed database.
OCR software is nothing short of awesome in it's degree of sophistication these days.
As far as the job of actually scanning the forms in goes, that's child's play.
Just look at the sheer bulk of "documents" the US Post office scans.

There's very few technological barriers any more when it come to data gathering, data manipulation, data storage and data retrieval.

Last edited by Hal; February 2, 2013 at 08:55 AM.
Hal is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17768 seconds with 8 queries