I think it is safe to say that all of us here are against gun registration. But, what about all that paper work we fill out whenever we buy a gun? Isn't that gun registration, or a form of it? Where does that paper work go and what do they do with it?
Gun Registration
- Thread starter Browns Fan
- Start date
- Status
The paperwork never leaves the gun dealer; they have to keep it for X number of years and they can then destroy it.
It's de facto registration. Gun shops keep BATFE form 4473s on file, both in paper files and digital format on hard drives. In theory, 4473s can be discarded after 20 years; in reality, I believe the vast majority are kept. If a dealer goes out of business, (a very frequent occurence during the past decade,) its accumulation of 4483s is sent to Washington, D.C., where they're supposedly warehoused.
The BATFE can—and does—visit FFL holders to look at 4473s. In theory, it's prevented by law from gathering them all and having the data entered in a national data base. Does that ever happen? Yep. Does it happen systematically? No, not yet, but it's very high on the list of demands being made by leftist extremists. Will it eventually happen? Probably.
Two of the reasons I live in Colorado are that private party sales without paper work are still legal, and the state has no formal firearms so-called "registration," which is nothing but confiscation on the installment plan. Those infringements will arrive here in due time, and will, I have no doubt, a requirement to "register" all previously purchased firearms.
It's much easier to steal people's guns when you know who has what.
Nice thing about Texas is that I don't legally have to keep records of private transfers between myself and another Texas resident.
IMO, 4473s are registration. Maybe not the whole ball of wax, but as far as I'm concerned they are an infringement on RKBA. Anything that hinders is an infringement, no matter how minor the hindrance. I should be able to walk into a hardware store and pay cash for what I want without so much as giving my name. I doubt the founders intended for it to be any other way. It matters not one bit to me that times have changed, technology is more advanced, and people are supposedly more civilized (this I question).
Unfortunately, the trend is clear. All RKBA advocates can do is slow the bleeding.
IMO, 4473s are registration. Maybe not the whole ball of wax, but as far as I'm concerned they are an infringement on RKBA. Anything that hinders is an infringement, no matter how minor the hindrance. I should be able to walk into a hardware store and pay cash for what I want without so much as giving my name. I doubt the founders intended for it to be any other way. It matters not one bit to me that times have changed, technology is more advanced, and people are supposedly more civilized (this I question).
Unfortunately, the trend is clear. All RKBA advocates can do is slow the bleeding.
I second standing wolf in any country who has implemented it be it the UK or Australia its been a premptive step for confiscation.
Yes the 4473 is gun registration and I end the paper trail every time I buy or sell to an individual.
Swap the money and gun and walk away.
I don't care who you are and I won't tell you who I am.
Why help the anti gun crowd with their quest for total gun registration by keeping seller/buyer records for them?
Swap the money and gun and walk away.
I don't care who you are and I won't tell you who I am.
Why help the anti gun crowd with their quest for total gun registration by keeping seller/buyer records for them?
Unless your dealer goes out of business before they reach the destruction age, then the records get sent to the ATF. Are you buying from dealers that you know will be in business for the next 20 years?
Bzzzzz.
I'll take some lumps for this, but for the following reasons I am in favor of the tracking of firearms sales via registration.
We all know that armed criminals are the real threat to our society, and we know that criminals are usually armed illegally. Either they cannot legally own a gun, have bought a stolen gun, etc, etc.
We also know that there is a certain class of people who would sell their mothers eyeteeth. Some of these people hold an FFL.
We know from the numbers provided by gun control nuts that far more guns are produced each year than are legally sold. While the aim of these people is not sound, the facts are not in question.
Those extra guns go somewhere. Usually, they go in straw / bulk purchases from the shady dealers mentioned above. Dealers who hold straw "auctions" in order to sell large lots of arms at one time to a fictitious purchaser. This is how illegal guns get on the street, far more than being stolen in burglaries.
If the manpower and dedication was present to properly track and enforce existing firearms laws, many illegitimate FFL's could be shut down and prosecuted. Fewer guns for the goblins, more public legitimacy for us, the lawful gun owner.
I won't make the tinfoil hat crack, I'll assume that those of you who oppose registration do so out of an unadulterated value for your own privacy, rather than out of fear that the gov't will miraculously muster the willing troops necessary to begin a wholesale confiscation of arms.
However in this case, privacy, while a valued human right, is actually antithetical to our cause. The more visible the lawful gun owner, the better, the less mysterious and threatening we are to john Q sheep.
Go ahead and write my name down, I'm proud to publicly state that I lawfully own weapons for both defense and sport, and frankly I'd be plenty happy to see people who would sell arms to street thugs sent on their way to Club Fed when the "oops I don't know where 500 pieces of my inventory went" line doesn't fly.
mljdeckard
Member
Does anyone know if there has ever been a legal precedent set where a 4473 has been used to track a gun used in a crime and it was challenged in court? Is BATFE deliberately avoiding using that information as evidence to prevent it being ruled inadmissable as it was obtained in violation of the law?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Mao Tse Tung allegedly said "Political power goes from the
muzzle of a gun" and "The ideas in a book are more dangerous
than the bullets in a gun." If guns should be registered, books
should be registered too.
muzzle of a gun" and "The ideas in a book are more dangerous
than the bullets in a gun." If guns should be registered, books
should be registered too.
registration
just for fun how did we ever get along before 1968?no regist. no records no checks.does any one have a clue to how many gun manufacturers there were.Mass was loaded with makers.I tried to research the no.of makers there were so many I lost track.you know what a RUBY is UNIQUE is I have run into them recently.their spanish made for french army in ww1.and there are many more.so much for tracing.
just for fun how did we ever get along before 1968?no regist. no records no checks.does any one have a clue to how many gun manufacturers there were.Mass was loaded with makers.I tried to research the no.of makers there were so many I lost track.you know what a RUBY is UNIQUE is I have run into them recently.their spanish made for french army in ww1.and there are many more.so much for tracing.
I'd love to see your documentation on this.
The classic ad hominem attack of gun control proponents "you must be crazy." No its not a danger with today's government but I don't know what the future will bring. I suspect there were alot of germans who would have found it unthinkable to imagine their government would be killing them by the millions in the coming years. There is no promise your goverment will always be benevolent, if there were we wouldn't need the 2nd amendment at all.
I fail to see the logic of why you think registration would be effective at keeping guns out of criminals hands. When a criminal steals my gun collection what good is it to know they were registered to me? Why can't criminals import their guns from other countries? They already do their drugs.
Then how does "registering" legal guns do anything to stop crime? Does not compute...
EXTERMINATE....
EXTERMINATE....
EXTERMINATE....
Random Dalek thought.
.
I didn't read the rest of your post , no need to, sad you feel that way I couldn't disagree more.
IMHO with fellow gun owners like this as friends we don't need many enemies.
NOthing personal I have no idea who you are but stand by what I just wrote.
The german jews started with registration then relocation, you know the rest. UK, Australia name any country registration is just a premptive step and a hassel for us law abiding citizens. I dont know any so called "shady FFL dealers" in fact i know many FFL dealers who are simply FFL so they can sell more things at a gun show. Its okay you were brain washed and raised with this propaganda some day you may understand why we see you as a bit of a judas. Why do we need the spot light? It just welcomes discrimination and further curtailing of freedoms!
If you weren't even going to attempt mature debate by merely reading his argument, why bother to write a reply at all?
That's just rude. I would hope that responsible gun owning adults don't behave that way in person.
Can't wait to see the documentation for this.
Whoops, post #13 already makes this comment!
I'd still like to know how gun registration will prevent illegal gun sales by crooked FFL holders.
Last edited:
I'm not intending to FLAME you, I just want to discuss why registratiopn is so bad.
First, registration does little to solve crimes. Once a gun is stolen, it is out of the loop. I just recently found out how the BATFE is able to tracj guns that are sold over and over again. The thing is, we already HAVE gun registration and have had it for years. For the most part, it is benign, and it would be very difficult for the BATFE or other government agency to abuse it and use it to confiscate firearms, but the public generally accepts it just as a machine gun ban is acceptable. From the standpoint of the anti-gun crowd, it is very important to have records of who has what gun and how many. Gun registration has already been abused in this country! That is why they want to end all priovate sales, keep balistic records on ALL firearms, share registration information with ALL law enforcement agencies regardless of whether it is connected to an investigation. Let me give you a scenario: Suppose the law to allow open sharing of registration records is passed, and they happen to have a serious crime occur in Los Angeles involving a multiple murder with a 9mm handgun. We all know how honest and upright the police chief in Los Angeles is, so he decides the only waty to solve the murders is to seize every 9mm handgun in California. What would stop him from doing so, other than jurisdiction?
So clearly, the only real purpose of gun registration is to enable confiscation at some future time. Otherwise, it's not the government's business.
Being a Russian Jew, I do know the rest. Let's not Godwin this thread already.
Gun registration doesn't do *anything* to solve crimes. It can however, be a one of the few viable tools to aid in enforcement of laws that many of us agree are "reasonable" about who may and may not purchase a gun.
Well that's up to you, certainly leaves you without anything to add however. Sorry.
The 4th amendment, and the legally armed citizens willing to stand up for it.
I'm working tonight, I'll try to provide some research in the morning. I know it's available, however if I'm wrong I don't have a problem with changing my argument.
Since certain people cannot seem to discuss concepts without getting personal, I'll attempt it.
The first problem with registration is historically it's been a precursor to confiscation.
It provides government with an easy list when they decide they want to confiscate. It's happened historically in Germany, Australia, California, New York City, Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia, etc.
Second problem is, it doesn't help crime in areas where it does exist.
Places like New Zealand, Austrailia, and Canada have said publically their gun registration law did little or nothing to deter gun crime.
Also, in places in America where their is registration, these registries have not helped solve a single crime, because criminals don't register their guns; they usually steal them or get them in other illegal ways.
I picked most of these facts out of the wonderful document at http://www.gunfacts.info You might want to take a look at it; it's got some wonderful info in it.
EDIT: Noxx, please explain how registration, in your eyes, can help enforce keeping people that "shouldn't" have guns from getting them?
The courts have ruled that prohibited posessors don't have to register their guns, or report them stolen under "mandatory stolen gun reporting periods" because that would violate their right to not incriminate themselves.
As is common knowledge, people that violate the law, err, violate the law. Criminals aren't going to register their guns, fill out a 4473 at a dealer, go through a background check, etc. They will get their weapons illegally off the street. Since it's hard to register a gun during an illegal transaction, I don't see how it can help.
I'll be the first person to say that I'd be for any form of gun control if I felt it would have a decent effect on crime. That's the problem; The war on drugs has done nothing to deter people from getting illegal drugs. Any restriction on guns will have teh same (zero) effect, just like it has on illegal drugs, as well as on Alcohol during prohibition.
The first problem with registration is historically it's been a precursor to confiscation.
It provides government with an easy list when they decide they want to confiscate. It's happened historically in Germany, Australia, California, New York City, Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia, etc.
Second problem is, it doesn't help crime in areas where it does exist.
Places like New Zealand, Austrailia, and Canada have said publically their gun registration law did little or nothing to deter gun crime.
Also, in places in America where their is registration, these registries have not helped solve a single crime, because criminals don't register their guns; they usually steal them or get them in other illegal ways.
I picked most of these facts out of the wonderful document at http://www.gunfacts.info You might want to take a look at it; it's got some wonderful info in it.
EDIT: Noxx, please explain how registration, in your eyes, can help enforce keeping people that "shouldn't" have guns from getting them?
The courts have ruled that prohibited posessors don't have to register their guns, or report them stolen under "mandatory stolen gun reporting periods" because that would violate their right to not incriminate themselves.
As is common knowledge, people that violate the law, err, violate the law. Criminals aren't going to register their guns, fill out a 4473 at a dealer, go through a background check, etc. They will get their weapons illegally off the street. Since it's hard to register a gun during an illegal transaction, I don't see how it can help.
I'll be the first person to say that I'd be for any form of gun control if I felt it would have a decent effect on crime. That's the problem; The war on drugs has done nothing to deter people from getting illegal drugs. Any restriction on guns will have teh same (zero) effect, just like it has on illegal drugs, as well as on Alcohol during prohibition.
Last edited:
I don't like all the paperwork for getting firearms either. One reason is that it is very ineffective. I remember watching a show on the history channel about this fancy firearm tracking system the feds have. They were talking about how many thousands of weapons were tracked and how, with the help of that system, dozens of crimes were solved. Dozens? How much money was spent, my tax money, to keep this system running?
The background check to buy a firearm is insulting. I'm assumed to be a criminal to even want to purchase a firearm. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Even the fact that felons are by default not allowed to buy a firearm is something I do not like. I think the ban on a firearm should be done on a case by case basis, as part of sentencing. If a felon, which is not supposed to have a firearm to begin with, is caught with a firearm they have already broken the law. Forcing them to buy it from a buddy, steal it, or use a false identity to buy new, is another ineffective deterrent to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Sure it keeps the honest people honest, but then it certainly doesn't seem to keep the criminals honest.
All of this firearm registration, background checks, and licensing is a big waste of time and money to deter crime. But then the anti-gun people talk about how they want to reduce gun crimes. I imagine automobile collision deaths, and automobile theft, would go down too if fewer people had automobiles. The fact that these people make that qualifier of "gun crime" and not simply "crime" should make people think twice about what is going on. I really don't see how being shot to death is all that much different than being stabbed to death, or beaten to death, the victim is just as dead. But we should all be concerned about what weapon a person used rather than allow honest citizens from properly arming themselves against criminals that are larger or more numerous.
If people are truly concerned about crime then they would be fighting to reduce the barriers to get a firearm. More firearms in the hands of honest people is the best way to reduce crime of all kinds. There is much evidence to back up my claim. Trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals with background checks is futile, they already have the guns.
The background check to buy a firearm is insulting. I'm assumed to be a criminal to even want to purchase a firearm. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Even the fact that felons are by default not allowed to buy a firearm is something I do not like. I think the ban on a firearm should be done on a case by case basis, as part of sentencing. If a felon, which is not supposed to have a firearm to begin with, is caught with a firearm they have already broken the law. Forcing them to buy it from a buddy, steal it, or use a false identity to buy new, is another ineffective deterrent to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Sure it keeps the honest people honest, but then it certainly doesn't seem to keep the criminals honest.
All of this firearm registration, background checks, and licensing is a big waste of time and money to deter crime. But then the anti-gun people talk about how they want to reduce gun crimes. I imagine automobile collision deaths, and automobile theft, would go down too if fewer people had automobiles. The fact that these people make that qualifier of "gun crime" and not simply "crime" should make people think twice about what is going on. I really don't see how being shot to death is all that much different than being stabbed to death, or beaten to death, the victim is just as dead. But we should all be concerned about what weapon a person used rather than allow honest citizens from properly arming themselves against criminals that are larger or more numerous.
If people are truly concerned about crime then they would be fighting to reduce the barriers to get a firearm. More firearms in the hands of honest people is the best way to reduce crime of all kinds. There is much evidence to back up my claim. Trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals with background checks is futile, they already have the guns.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Background Checks
The background check and the 4473 are solutions to a non-existent problem.
Lawmakers are legendary in their unrelenting pursuit of solutions to problems that exist primarily or entirely in their minds.
The 4473 is worse than useless.
It doesn't keep the bad guys from getting guns.
It creates a system that can be used at some future date to violate the rights of those who purchased the guns.
Nitrogen is right on the money.
Oh, and by the way, any time you see a "solution" for which there isn't and never was a problem, you can either a) invent a "good" reason for having the solution, or b) look for a bad reason for solving an imaginary problem.
The good reason doesn't exist. You have to fabricate it.
The bad reason . . . requires thinking along lines reserved for conspiracy nuts.
And we wouldn't want to be one of those crazy people, now would we.
The very mildest bad reason would be that the legislators responsible were simply stupid. Which is how they continue to fool voters into keeping them in office.
You really believe it's possible for that much stupidity to prevail for that long?
Nah. You'll need a different bad reason.
Just keep it wrapped in tin foil.
The background check and the 4473 are solutions to a non-existent problem.
Lawmakers are legendary in their unrelenting pursuit of solutions to problems that exist primarily or entirely in their minds.
The 4473 is worse than useless.
It doesn't keep the bad guys from getting guns.
It creates a system that can be used at some future date to violate the rights of those who purchased the guns.
Nitrogen is right on the money.
Oh, and by the way, any time you see a "solution" for which there isn't and never was a problem, you can either a) invent a "good" reason for having the solution, or b) look for a bad reason for solving an imaginary problem.
The good reason doesn't exist. You have to fabricate it.
The bad reason . . . requires thinking along lines reserved for conspiracy nuts.
And we wouldn't want to be one of those crazy people, now would we.
The very mildest bad reason would be that the legislators responsible were simply stupid. Which is how they continue to fool voters into keeping them in office.
You really believe it's possible for that much stupidity to prevail for that long?
Nah. You'll need a different bad reason.
Just keep it wrapped in tin foil.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
