Gun Registration - sort of

[dogtown tom]

Mike38 ……. If no one in the Federal Government keeps records of gun sales, how did she know that I bought a shotgun?

Because the State of Illinois told them. Illinois dealers do not contact the FBI NICS directly, a state agency instead.
ATF doesn't know anything about your purchase because dealers do not send that information to ATF, it's simply recorded on the Form 4473 and stays with the dealer.
The FBI doesn't care about firearms because that isn't their responsibility, only the background check of the buyer.

Given that Federal law prohibits a database of Title I firearms......can you tell us more about how the Federal government keeps records of gun sales? I would really like to know being that ATF has seen but maybe 2,000 of the 19,000 + Form 4473's sitting in my file cabinets. And of the 2,000 4473's they audited, they didn't copy a single one.

[44 AMP]

There is no system that lets the cops go to the ATF (or anybody else) and say "find all the guns that Joe Sixpack bought". Cannot be done.

Sure they do....it's called a demand letter.

Slight misunderstanding here. They can ask, they can demand, sure. What I meant was no system can find all the guns, it can only find what is in the system. It can't find any guns he legally owns that never went through the system, and it can find anything he illegally owns, either.

[Tom Servo]

Yet I've had three instances where they didn't have a gun and were attempting a trace anyway.

I got a series of trace requests for guns we'd never sold. They were still sitting on our shelves. The first time, I thought it was odd. I called back and told the tracing center the gun was on my premises. The operator thanked me but couldn't give an explanation as to how a gun that had never left the retailer was classified as a "crime gun."

Then two more requests came in, same situation. They were all from the same distributor. Best I could figure, there were problems on their end with an IoI audit, and they asked to have the guns traced.

I'm not sure what kind of paper trail follows a "crime gun," but all three were returned to the distributor.

[Aguila Blanca]

Data are entered into systems by humans, and humans are fallible.

A number of years ago I purchased a used handgun from a large, reputable gun shop up-state. My state requires an authorization from the state police before an FFL can sell a handgun. I have a carry permit, and the authorization was duly requested and approved on the spot, by telephone. I walked out of the shop with the gun and brought it home.

Imagine my surprise when, weeks or maybe even months later, I answered my phone at home and was "greeted" by a rather nasty sounding state cop asking why I hadn't submitted paperwork on the pistol I had sold on ____ date. I had to think about that for a bit, because I couldn't recall selling any firearms in recent memory, and certainly not that gun, which I was using at the time for competitions at my local range.

I checked my records, and found that the date the cop had cited was the date I had bought the gun. I told him that, and I told him that I still owned the gun and that if he wanted to send a trooper around to my house I would be happy to show them that I still had it. He mumbled something and rang off.

Awhile later he called back to report that the clerk at the gun shop had screwed up. He had called in the transaction as if I was the seller rather than the buyer. Then, when he realized his error, instead of correcting it he called in again and obtained a second authorization number with me as the purchaser. But the authorization for me to sell was in the system and never completed, and apparently the system isn't sophisticated enough to have picked up on the fact that it showed me as selling a gun before I had bought it.

[44 AMP]

I remember hearing about a fellow (though I can no longer remember who, or exactly when) who got into a hassle with the cops because they thought his pistol was stolen. Apparently those cops were unaware that it is possible for two different model guns from the same maker, in the same caliber can have the same serial number. The owner did have the needed documentation to prove his gun wasn't stolen, but it still took multiple visits with some detectives to get them to accept it.

The problem came from the cops having incomplete data. They had only "S&W .38 special, ser# xxxxxxx.

Absolutely possible that today some stumble fingered data entry would cause a trace on the WRONG gun. Despite all our advances in computer tech, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is still an operative issue, and likely always will be as long as humans are involved.

[MTT TL]

I remember hearing about a fellow (though I can no longer remember who, or exactly when) who got into a hassle with the cops because they thought his pistol was stolen. Apparently those cops were unaware that it is possible for two different model guns from the same maker, in the same caliber can have the same serial number. The owner did have the needed documentation to prove his gun wasn't stolen, but it still took multiple visits with some detectives to get them to accept it.

The problem came from the cops having incomplete data. They had only "S&W .38 special, ser# xxxxxxx.

The system for tracking stolen guns is much worse than the system for tracking gun purchases. Some LEA's will enter in a stolen gun's information incorrectly, incompletely and there is no standard for how the gun is listed. Most often what will happen is that the gun will come back as not stolen when in fact it is stolen.

An example might be Kimber, who has more models of 1911 offerings than Baskin-Robbins has flavors of ice cream. Just their Micro line alone has had more than 20 different models in the last few years. Putting in the wrong model name will likely result in a negative response when the gun is seized later at a crime scene.

This is compounded by the carelessness of some gun owners who happily leave their guns in their unlocked vehicles under the driver's seat. They don't know the model number, the make of the gun, sometimes not even the caliber forget about the serial number. Sometimes after a vehicle break-in they are not even sure if the gun was in there.

[reynolds357]

. remember hearing about a fellow (though I can no longer remember who, or exactly when) who got into a hassle with the cops because they thought his pistol was stolen. Apparently those cops were unaware that it is possible for two different model guns from the same maker, in the same caliber can have the same serial number. The owner did have the needed documentation to prove his gun wasn't stolen, but it still took multiple visits with some detectives to get them to accept it.

The problem came from the cops having incomplete data. They had only "S&W .38 special, ser# xxxxxxx.

Absolutely possible that today some stumble fingered data entry would cause a trace on the WRONG gun. Despite all our advances in computer tech, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is still an operative issue, and likely always will be as long as humans are involved.

I worked for many departments before I retired. Let's just face it, most officers are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I worked with quite a few who wouldn't rank butter knife.

[MTT TL]

I worked for many departments before I retired. Let's just face it, most officers are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I worked with quite a few who wouldn't rank butter knife.

This is certainly true for most gun owners, people that work at McDonalds and investment fund managers. Now that I think about politicians, cat owners and college professors should all be kept away from pointy objects. Really anyone that works for the government at any level, people in the military and medical doctors are shockingly dumb. Except some of those that are rocket scientists. But all the rest I am way smarter than all of them guys. I should know I did well more than half the things on that list.

But we digress.

[Tom Servo]

Absolutely possible that today some stumble fingered data entry would cause a trace on the WRONG gun.

This reminds me of a case I had to deal with when I was in the business. It illustrates my biggest problem with registries, which is the potential for harassment.

I ran a gun shop in the south. We had an obscure, expensive target pistol in stock. A guy in a certain northern state wanted it. He bought it from us, and we shipped it to a dealer in his neighborhood. He filled out the paperwork and underwent the background check. THEN the dealer gave him a slip with the data for the gun, and he had to go to his county clerk's office to register the gun, which he did.

Problem is, the clerk entered the serial number into the system incorrectly.

A couple of years later, the man went to a neighboring state to do some shooting. On his way back, he got pulled over for a traffic infraction. He informed the officer that he had a handgun in the car, and the officer took the weapon and ran the serial number.

See where this is going? Yeah. The gun was confiscated, the man was arrested, and the state tried to charge him for a low-level felony.

He had a lawyer, but not one who knew firearms law very well. Had a simple trace been done on the gun, it would have been apparent that the clerk had entered an erroneous number. But no. They wanted to prosecute.

It wasn't until the lawyer was at his wits' end that he called the shop. They told him the serial number on the complaint was in fact the same one they had transferred, and that the county had the wrong number. He called me, and I verified the same thing.

The county would not let it go. Both the northern dealer and I submitted affidavits, and it looked like they were going to pay for me to fly up there to testify. Then, at the last minute, the DA relented and charges were dismissed.

I'm told the legal fees were around $6000. The man also had to retain the lawyer to file a motion to have the gun released back to him, which cost even more.

That's the real point of registries.

[MTT TL]

That's the real point of registries.

While I found your story intriguing I missed the point of it. If the point is to play "Gotcha" with gun owners that would require a lot more introduction of error in to the process.

[zukiphile]

While I found your story intriguing I missed the point of it. If the point is to play "Gotcha" with gun owners that would require a lot more introduction of error in to the process.

...or malice, bad faith, an inclination to abuse power, or any of the other vices people display.

The idea behind limited government is that it limits the misuse of government. If a registry gives rise to a system in which an possessor carries the burden of proving that he possesses legitimately, that's a reduction of the individual right and an expansion of government power.

We should expect it to be abused; that's how people are.

[Pathfinder45]

Well, this all serves to encourage me to make sure I have all my receipts for firearms purchased in a secure place so that I can prove that I did everything legally, since knowing it, is apparently not good enough.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

Well, this all serves to encourage me to make sure I have all my receipts for firearms purchased in a secure place so that I can prove that I did everything legally, since knowing it, is apparently not good enough.

It's sad that you wrote that, but not because I can say you are wrong.

When people tell me about their experiences as jurors, I listen.

A couple of decades ago a fellow at my range sat on a common pleas jury for a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with having received a stolen firearm. The prosecutor told the jury that all an honest person had to do was call the local police to ask whether that firearm had been reported as stolen. Through quite a bit of discussion, this fellow refused to vote guilty. The judge wanted to know the fellow's problem, and the fellow explained that he knew the prosecutor was lying. That juror had tried to determine an arm had been reported stolen by calling the PD and had been told that they maintained no such list.

The important facet of this story for us is that the other seven people hadn't the first idea about how guns are bought or sold and accepted the prosecutor's assurance.

[MTT TL]

The judge wanted to know the fellow's problem, and the fellow explained that he knew the prosecutor was lying. That juror had tried to determine an arm had been reported stolen by calling the PD and had been told that they maintained no such list.

He may have been right. "The police" (really a terrible generalization, almost like saying "people") may not keep a record of it organized in to a searchable database. However most agencies enter it in to the Federal registry. Most departments should be able to access this. If this were some years ago it may have not been possible at all.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

He may have been right. "The police" (really a terrible generalization, almost like saying "people") may not keep a record of it organized in to a searchable database. However most agencies enter it in to the Federal registry. Most departments should be able to access this. If this were some years ago it may have not been possible at all.

Yes, there is a national database of stolen firearms, but it is by no means complete or up to date. More to the point, though -- from what I've read, in most police departments the officers and staff are only allowed to use the police computers to access information in connection with police cases. If a private party calls up and asks if a gun he/she is looking to buy is stolen,, many jurisdictions will refuse to offer any assistance because it's not a request that's connected to a police case.

[44 AMP]

The prosecutor told the jury that all an honest person had to do was call the local police to ask whether that firearm had been reported as stolen.

Well, if the prosecutor is right, all an honest person has to do is call the police and ask if the gun is reported stolen, could anyone cite the law requiring an honest citizen to do this?

Sounds like the prosecutor was implying that the accused didn't make such a call, because he knew or suspected the firearm was stolen. IF there is no law, requiring such a call, then not making it is not a crime or an omission of any sort and the prosecutor is posturing, and yes, essentially lying.

THis reminds me of something Mas Ayoob said a long time back (and I'm sure he's not the only one who ever said it)

In court, those people giving testimony (on the stand) are under oath to tell the truth....the prosecutor is not!

[MTT TL]

Well, if the prosecutor is right, all an honest person has to do is call the police and ask if the gun is reported stolen, could anyone cite the law requiring an honest citizen to do this?

Which state? It would have to be one that has barred private party sales.

More to the point, though -- from what I've read, in most police departments the officers and staff are only allowed to use the police computers to access information in connection with police cases. If a private party calls up and asks if a gun he/she is looking to buy is stolen,, many jurisdictions will refuse to offer any assistance because it's not a request that's connected to a police case.

Maybe. There are good reasons for doing that as well. It could well be the person who stole the gun is trying to figure out if it was reported stolen. If I were a criminal and that were an option that is what I would do. If it were never reported stolen or reported improperly, (often because people keep no record of their firearm serial number) than he can take it to any pawn shop in another city and sell it.

If he shows up at the pawn shop with ID and there being cameras there he will be up the creek.

The only thing consistent about police agencies is that they are inconsistent.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Which state? It would have to be one that has barred private party sales.

This was Ohio, which does not bar private sales.

My point in response to Pathfinder45 is that some hypervigilance may be useful if your problem gets to a jury.