Gossamer,
I can buy a car in your state, without registering. I can buy a boat in your state without registering, I can buy a motorcycle without registering, etc.
This^^
J Edgar Hoover proved decades ago that nothing is free from somebody collecting and using it when the need arises. All it would take is one rogue agent with extraordinary computer skills on direct orders from the man himself to store whatever he deemed fit for future use. The technology is already there. I'd be willing to bet that there are master databases with a lot more information in it than we know or are comfortable about.
What you really want is a test of your "theory" right? Under current conditions, 4473's are all held for at least 20 years in a commercial dealers book, right?
I suppose you could keep those forms with all of your other important documents, mortgage, will, etc. but how many people are going to go out and buy a $1500 safe (you should do it for your firearms anyway) let alone even simply getting a safety deposit box. On top of that, now I'm responsible for someone else's identity AND, more importantly, MY information is now out there is someone else's hands.
Private Abortion Records Found In Dumpster
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) – An Overland Park woman says she found more than 1,000 private abortion records dumped in a recycling bin
outside an elementary school.
The patient records are from a defunct clinic, Affordable Medical and Surgical Services in Kansas City, Kan. They show personal information such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and health history, including if the women had abortions.
The clinic was run by Krishna Rajanna, who lost his medical license in 2005.
Rajanna told the Kansas City Star he thought the records would be recycled before anyone saw them.
Local and state authorities are investigating.
Kansas law requires that all medical records be kept a minimum of 10 years. But hundreds of the discarded records were less than 10 years old.
(Mods, if this isn't going to get better you can just close it.)
or for that matter buying ftf when I am already a law abiding citizen in good standing and fully capable of legally owning and possesing a firearm.
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?
We know that this is the INTENT of the current 4473 system, but the retention of the record leaves open back doors and gives us the willies. If the language protecting the buyer was made more solid, would we be able to accept this? Even to include, say, a 90-day destruction timeframe?
I do not accept any new gun laws, nor do I think we are in a position where we will have to compromise, but if we WERE, is there a way to write this so that it is ONLY used for the background check?
If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.
I too see purpose in seeing this through. If we can just get beyond the flag waving and finish dissecting the idea, we might actually come out of it with a solution that would essentially cover my heinie and stop enabling putting firearms into the hands of bad guys.Some people have gone off topic for the thread (but on topic of registration > confiscation), and you've argued those. However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean the thread is bad.
Would it be acceptable to give the Sudetenland to Germany, as long as the language of the agreement states in black and white, that the rest of Czechoslovakia will remain sovereign and inviolate?Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?
Why buy it Larry1108?
If I was a felon I would just break into a house and steal one along with whatever other "free" stuff was lying around for me to take.