Obama administration seeking tighter gun control in four border states.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
And they continue to skirt this, as long as they can whip out some tired paranoid conservative drivel when they would be crying their little eyes out if you went into a databadse if you had to apply for a permit for a Free SPeech zone, or if you made a comment against the government.

Heh. And you still haven't answered JSt0rm's question, above.

What the Feds want wrt long gun autoloaders in the 4 border states already applies to handguns nationwide, anyway, and places zero new burdens on gun buyers. It just invokes the usual paranoid fantasies about teh ebil gun grabbers comin' to take yer shit.

Guess what? It's not gonna happen. Firearms ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and no database will ever change that. The SCOTUS avoided the whole issue for decades, but recent rulings have clearly come down on the side of gun owners, which I see as a good thing.

If American firearms aren't a big part of the problem in Mexico, I'd think gun owners would be entirely amenable to denouncing the accusations with facts and figures, but seem to prefer denial, instead, and seem to oppose any efforts to establish facts. Or do they just contend that it's every American's right to resell guns at a profit to murderous scum?
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
even better...how about a database for every person born!

But those tyrants wouldn't dream of doing that...

Taxation isn't the issue we are addressing here are we?

The discussion is about extra regulation being imposed on the exercising of a constitutional right and a database being created for bullshit reasons of which you cannot even defend or wholly outline for us as being urgent enough to warrant such measures taken by the feds.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
so you are already in an ATF database.

Live with it and move on.

I only have one firearm in their database, and that's my AK74U because it's a class III, and it was my choice to get it knowing it would be registered, but none of my other guns are registered.

Live with it and move on.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
even better...how about a database for every person born!

But those tyrants wouldn't dream of doing that...

Sure they would, but for now they'll settle with just the ones that will willingly go along because it's "common sense", or for the "greater good".
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Taxation isn't the issue we are addressing here are we?

The discussion is about extra regulation being imposed on the exercising of a constitutional right and database being created for bullshit reasons of which you cannot even defend or wholly outline for us as being urgent enough to warrant such measures taken by the feds.

obviously we are discussing pudding
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yes, I did. The rest of your post seems to ignore it.

So, uhh, firearms confiscation in Canada and Great Britain occurred in the face of Constitutional protections?

Oh, wait,- they didn't have Constitutional protection wrt firearms ownership, did they?

Neither does Mexico or most of the ROTW, to my knowledge.

You're trying to compare apples and aardvarks, conjure up the boogeyman from the usual lore of paranoia shared by extreme gun advocates. The vast, vast majority of Americans can still buy all the guns they want in extreme variety anytime the whim hits them, and the proposed measure won't change that one little bit.

Seems to me that you've done screwed your fantasy pooch of anonymous gun ownership by engaging in the purchase of a class III firearm, anyway. Now they know, so watch out for the black helicopters.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
We should make straw purchases illegal. That would prevent what you're saying.

They are illegal, in a joke sort of way. Anybody can walk into a gunstore, fill out the necessary paperwork, pass the background check, wait the required period for a handgun if necessary, then "sell" it to somebody else, who doesn't need to do any of that stuff, and nobody's the wiser. If the firearm shows up in Mexico or at a crime scene, the original purchaser can simply claim he sold it to "some guy", and that's entirely legal, provided he sticks to his story.

The lack of charges against dealers is not unusual, in part because it's difficult to prove a straw purchase took place.

"If you're a gun dealer and you see a 21- or 22-year-old young lady walk in and plop down $15,000 in cash to buy 20 AK-47s, you might want to ask yourself what she needs them for," said Newell, the ATF special agent in charge in Phoenix. "If she says, 'Christmas presents,' technically the dealer doesn't have to ask for more."

Under federal law, a gun dealer who sells two or more handguns to the same person within five business days must report the sales to ATF. The agency has identified such sales as a red flag, or "significant indicator," of trafficking. But multiple sales of "long guns," which include shotguns and rifles such as AK-47s, do not have to be reported to ATF.

The Justice Department inspector general said in a report last month that "the lack of a reporting requirement of multiple sales of long guns - which have become the cartels' weapons of choice - hinders ATF's ability to disrupt the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico."

Over the years, the gun lobby has successfully opposed such a requirement, arguing it is not needed, because long guns are far less likely to be used in crimes. But the percentage of long guns recovered in Mexican crimes has been steadily increasing, from 20 percent in 2004 to 48 percent in 2009, reports show.

"The reasons that the deaths are so high in Mexico are the long guns," said James Cavanaugh, a former high-ranking official with ATF. "The velocity of the round and the amount they can put out quickly is what makes it so deadly."

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/12/arming-mexicos-drug-cartels.html
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
So, uhh, firearms confiscation in Canada and Great Britain occurred in the face of Constitutional protections?

Oh, wait,- they didn't have Constitutional protection wrt firearms ownership, did they?

You're a fool. Those Constitutional protections are only as good as the people are willing to uphold them. The more they get eroded the closer they are to irrelevance, and that's the point, to not let them get eroded in the first place.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You're a fool. Those Constitutional protections are only as good as the people are willing to uphold them. The more they get eroded the closer they are to irrelevance, and that's the point, to not let them get eroded in the first place.

And you've failed to show how the proposed requirements erode those rights in any way. You've also dodged the fact that gun rights never were constitutionally protected in Canada or Great Britain, unlike this country. The recent SCOTUS ruling in Heller has confirmed that as never before.

You can still go to any gunshop in Texas, fill out the paperwork, pass the background check, take home as many long guns as they'll sell you. You'll still have to wait 5 days for a handgun. Your rights have been infringed in what way, exactly, other than in paranoid fantasy?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
They are illegal, in a joke sort of way. Anybody can walk into a gunstore, fill out the necessary paperwork, pass the background check, wait the required period for a handgun if necessary, then "sell" it to somebody else, who doesn't need to do any of that stuff, and nobody's the wiser. If the firearm shows up in Mexico or at a crime scene, the original purchaser can simply claim he sold it to "some guy", and that's entirely legal, provided he sticks to his story.



http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/12/arming-mexicos-drug-cartels.html

Hook. Line. Sinker.

And you ate it up without understanding the laws. If I sell privately I'm still responsible for that firearm and who bought it. Let alone a dealer. Do you have friends that are dealers? I do. I also sell privately. Dealers have to keep extremely rigorous logs and books, by law, at the ready to be reviewed at any time. No warrant.

But do go on with your gun show "loophole" dribble.

Tell you what. You go out, buy a gun and then sell it. Have that gun be used in a crime. That gun is going to come back to you. What do you have to prove it wasn't you? "I sold it" isn't good enough"

Next time you use your 1st amendment, make sure you keep rigorous logs of it and everything you say. Fucking gun grabber.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Hook. Line. Sinker.

And you ate it up without understanding the laws. If I sell privately I'm still responsible for that firearm and who bought it. Let alone a dealer. Do you have friends that are dealers? I do. I also sell privately. Dealers have to keep extremely rigorous logs and books, by law, at the ready to be reviewed at any time. No warrant.

But do go on with your gun show "loophole" dribble.

Tell you what. You go out, buy a gun and then sell it. Have that gun be used in a crime. That gun is going to come back to you. What do you have to prove it wasn't you? "I sold it" isn't good enough"

Next time you use your 1st amendment, make sure you keep rigorous logs of it and everything you say. Fucking gun grabber.

Just when I thought you might have a brain with functioning thought processes...

Did I mention the "gunshow loophole" (apparently some sort of dog whistle phrase for pro-gun whackjobs) anywhere in this thread? No? Then why drag it out, use it as false attribution? Because you were dropped on your head as a baby?

I never claimed that dealers didn't have to keep rigorous records, either, did I? I've acknowledged that they do.

Private sales are another matter entirely. The burden of proof still lies with the authorities when it comes to guns used in crimes. "I sold it" is entirely good enough when the police have no other connection between the registered owner and the crime. I dealt with this personally. Some years ago, a handgun was stolen from my apartment, and I didn't even realize it was gone until the police arrived at my door to ask me about it. When I went to show them the gun, it was gone. They explained that it had been used in a shooting in a nearby community, and that they'd like me to fill out a report. I did, and that was the end of it. They left, and I never heard another word about it. I'm sure that many innocent private sellers can tell similar tales. "I sold it for cash to a guy at the range, or the meet, or wherever, who told me his name was so-and-so" is entirely good enough, and we both know it. If they established a pattern of me buying guns at shops and reselling them, they'd probably see it differently, like if several guns I bought turned up in a cache of weapons confiscated from the Zetas... or some militia whackjobs.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Tell you what. You go out, buy a gun and then sell it. Have that gun be used in a crime. That gun is going to come back to you. What do you have to prove it wasn't you? "I sold it" isn't good enough"

lol and why isnt it?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Why is there a need for more reporting? Where has the case been laid out that the current regulations on sales are not enough?
-snip-
Why is the issue being made out to be a "lack of regulation" in the sales of firearms in these states when it is not?

You make good point.

After further consideration I believe this issue is both overblown and mischaracterized.

1) People purchasing rifles already fill out the Form 4473 (IIRC) and the FFL dealer must keep these records/form indefinately.

2) The BATF has the right to examine these forms at any time.

Given numbers 1 & 2 above the obvious solution is to just have the BATF go check the records and figure out for themselves who is buying multiple rifles. The information they seek already exists and is waiting for them.

All this new law seems to do is save the BATF time and make the FFL do their work for them.

Otherwise, I'm still curious to know what they think they will accomplish once the get the info. What are they going to do with it? Also curious why it's not Mexico's problem to stop (illegal) firearms from entering THEIR country.

Fern
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
bin Laden is just a distraction so that Obama can move in and take all of er gunz during the euphoria.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
All this new law seems to do is save the BATF time and make the FFL do their work for them.

Well, yeh, of course. How many gun stores would you suppose there are in those 4 states? Thousands? Are you really opposed to the idea that legitimate businessmen should support law enforcement with a little bit of paperwork?

It's an enormous task when put off onto the ATF, and minor indeed when spread out among that many dealers... many of whom will likely never need to make such a filing, anyway.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well, yeh, of course. How many gun stores would you suppose there are in those 4 states? Thousands? Are you really opposed to the idea that legitimate businessmen should support law enforcement with a little bit of paperwork?

It's an enormous task when put off onto the ATF, and minor indeed when spread out among that many dealers... many of whom will likely never need to make such a filing, anyway.

The top 12 gun dealers whose guns have shown up in Mexico have already been identified by tracing the guns #'s.

They can just use the data they already have (guns traced to dealers) to focus on a manageable number of dealers.

Fern