Obama administration seeking tighter gun control in four border states.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
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

ok. but how would they "focus" on them ? Are those 12 doing anything illegal under current law ?

If not, isn't this an area to consider some legislation ?
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
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

What do you mean by gun dealers?

Are you talking about gun traffickers in Mexico or gun shop dealers in the states.

If gun shop dealers how did those firearms arrive in Mexico. Was it through legal means or illegal, was it a part of the fuck up event of the ATF allowing guns through, etc.. If it's only 12 then they can be easily dealt with legally without punishing everyone else.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
ok. but how would they "focus" on them ? Are those 12 doing anything illegal under current law ?

If not, isn't this an area to consider some legislation ?

If they aren't breaking the law then it's an issue that does not involve the initial sales of firearms by these dealers and thus removes them from the equation of culpability from them and further removes it from other dealers who have zero role in this issue.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
ok. but how would they "focus" on them ? Are those 12 doing anything illegal under current law ?

If not, isn't this an area to consider some legislation ?

Straw purchases are already illegal and a federal crime. What more legislation do you want? To legally purchase a firearm you have to do the NCIS check for each and every gun, it's all recorded with the fed. Seems to me you are supporting the fact that BATF/FED isn't doing it's job with all this information. Or could it be criminals or trafficers don't follow the law or use real identification and social security numbers?

It is the responsibility and law of the dealer to do this check. If the dealer isn't adhering to law then go after them. But what more legislation do you want?

It's quite clear you aren't familiar with current federal laws.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
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

You're not thinking this through. Gunrunners have the option of buying from any dealer, not just ones they've done business with in the past. They have, literally, thousands of choices. this really is a rather modest effort on the part of the BATF, because the proposed rule will only lead them to the greedy and the careless. But it's all they can do in the face of opposition from gun owning alarmists and the constraints of the constitution and the law, not to mention their budget.

I don't disagree with those constraints in the general sense, at all, but it's foolish to think that the violence won't spill over the border, threaten our own relative tranquility. It's also foolish to think that the current violence in Mexico doesn't promote illegal entry into this country. It does- fearing for your life is a much greater incentive than the economic ones now in effect.

Even from a very selfish perspective, we owe it to ourselves to take reasonable steps to prevent the illegal export of guns to Mexico, particularly when those steps impose no burden whatsoever on honest gun owners and purchasers in this country.

Think it through- don't let the paranoid ravings of anarchical gun advocates cloud your judgment.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
What do you mean by gun dealers?

Are you talking about gun traffickers in Mexico or gun shop dealers in the states.

If gun shop dealers how did those firearms arrive in Mexico. Was it through legal means or illegal, was it a part of the fuck up event of the ATF allowing guns through, etc.. If it's only 12 then they can be easily dealt with legally without punishing everyone else.
We can't have 12 people going around doing things! We're a nation of 300+ million ffs! oh wait... 12 is so fucking insignificant compared to 300 million. Any law written to put more guidelines on the lives of 300m+ because of 12 idiots is a dumb law. Anyone pimping said law is a dumb person. So I'm with you.
If they aren't breaking the law then its an issue that does not involve the initial sales of firearms by dealers and thus removes them from the equation of culpability.
Which is obviously the case, but people are scared pussies who don't understand that they are more likely to slit their own wrists than get shot in the face by someone else.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
You're not thinking this through. Gunrunners have the option of buying from any dealer, not just ones they've done business with in the past. They have, literally, thousands of choices. this really is a rather modest effort on the part of the BATF, because the proposed rule will only lead them to the greedy and the careless. But it's all they can do in the face of opposition from gun owning alarmists and the constraints of the constitution and the law, not to mention their budget.

Straw purchases are already illegal and gun sales are already tracked. You have yet to prove how this further action by the feeds would have any meaningful results worth measuring.

I don't disagree with those constraints in the general sense, at all, but it's foolish to think that the violence won't spill over the border, threaten our own relative tranquility. It's also foolish to think that the current violence in Mexico doesn't promote illegal entry into this country. It does- fearing for your life is a much greater incentive than the economic ones now in effect.

Do you have any evidence supporting your premise that stricter regulation beyond that which is currently enforced by the feds would even stem the tied of violence in Mexico?

No you don't and thus this is why further regulation is nothing more then a pandering knee jerk reaction without actually addressing the real causes and issues (of which there a many) that has created this situation in Mexico.


Even from a very selfish perspective, we owe it to ourselves to take reasonable steps to prevent the illegal export of guns to Mexico, particularly when those steps impose no burden whatsoever on honest gun owners and purchasers in this country.

We already have the measure in place to do this if the Obama administration would actually enforce our laws instead of looking for a convienant scapegoat.

Think it through- don't let the paranoid ravings of anarchical gun advocates cloud your judgment.

Your entire argument is based on pleading and the belief that higher authority "knows best" and thus their action should automatically be agreed to without any debate.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Straw purchases are already illegal and gun sales are already tracked. You have yet to prove how this further action by the feeds would have any meaningful results worth measuring.

Only half true. Current long gun purchases are not tracked at all, other than the keeping of records by individual gun sellers. Handgun purchases, with few exceptions, are treated the same way.

And I'm not claiming that the BATF knows best, at all, but that raving about this is just anti-gubmint paranoia and fearmongering.

If gun purchases were tracked as you claim, then the BATF wouldn't want or need to request this change- they'd already have the information they want, and much more, right at their fingertips.

Blaming the Obama Admin for everything gets old, and tedious- If you really want them to enforce existing law with the means currently provided by the law, then you'd support an enormous increase in the BATF budget to accomplish it. Obviously, you don't- you just want to spread the usual FUD.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Only half true. Current long gun purchases are not tracked at all, other than the keeping of records by individual gun sellers. Handgun purchases, with few exceptions, are treated the same way.

And I'm not claiming that the BATF knows best, at all, but that raving about this is just anti-gubmint paranoia and fearmongering.

If gun purchases were tracked as you claim, then the BATF wouldn't want or need to request this change- they'd already have the information they want, and much more, right at their fingertips.

Blaming the Obama Admin for everything gets old, and tedious- If you really want them to enforce existing law with the means currently provided by the law, then you'd support an enormous increase in the BATF budget to accomplish it. Obviously, you don't- you just want to spread the usual FUD.

It is VERY CLEAR you have zero idea about purchasing a weapon and the tracking and what you need to do to purchase. Your posts are worthless in this thread. You have zero clue what you are talking about. No clue.

Very clear you have zero experience or knowledge about this subject. Now off to google you go to try and make your point.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
It is VERY CLEAR you have zero idea about purchasing a weapon and the tracking and what you need to do to purchase. Your posts are worthless in this thread. You have zero clue what you are talking about. No clue.

Very clear you have zero experience or knowledge about this subject. Now off to google you go to try and make your point.


Do you think people who have taken hallucinogens in the past should be allowed to purchase firearms?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It is VERY CLEAR you have zero idea about purchasing a weapon and the tracking and what you need to do to purchase. Your posts are worthless in this thread. You have zero clue what you are talking about. No clue.

Very clear you have zero experience or knowledge about this subject. Now off to google you go to try and make your point.

I will admit that I was ignorant to the fact that the waiting period for handguns no longer exists- if any of the self proclaimed experts in this thread knew nearly as much as they claim, I'd have been called on that, rightfully so.

Specifically, what part of my most recent post, or any of them, is in error?

You've already failed at false attribution, and I doubt that your assertion of opinion as fact will be any different.

In an effort to be fair, allow me to review. In order to purchase a firearm from a FFL holder in their home state, a basic buyer must-

1. Make a selection
2. Present proper ID
3. Fill out the buyer portion of BATF form 4473.
4. Pass a NICS check, which might take up to 3 days
5. Pay and leave

For private sales, only 1 & 5 apply. Smart private sellers protect themselves by obtaining proper ID from the buyer. Some states and munis may have additional requirements.

The FFL must retain a copy of form 4473 for 20 years, (5 years for any rejected on the basis of NICS) and observe other record keeping requirements, none of which involve actually notifying the govt of anything pertaining to the sale itself unless specific requests are made, or unless a buyer makes multiple handgun purchases within a 5 business day period. In that case, the FFL must observe the requirements of form 3310.4.

What the BATF wants is to extend the requirements of form 3310.4 to cover multiple long gun purchases in 4 border states.

Again, States and Munis may have additional requirements.

Notice that 4473 forms are not collected into a database other than the records of the FFL, and that the NICS request doesn't mean the potential buyer actually purchased a gun. The BATF may examine the records of any FFL on demand.

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-4.pdf

If you find any of that to be in error, point it out, specifically, and provide documentation in support.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
You're not thinking this through. Gunrunners have the option of buying from any dealer, not just ones they've done business with in the past. They have, literally, thousands of choices. this really is a rather modest effort on the part of the BATF, because the proposed rule will only lead them to the greedy and the careless. But it's all they can do in the face of opposition from gun owning alarmists and the constraints of the constitution and the law, not to mention their budget.

I don't disagree with those constraints in the general sense, at all, but it's foolish to think that the violence won't spill over the border, threaten our own relative tranquility. It's also foolish to think that the current violence in Mexico doesn't promote illegal entry into this country. It does- fearing for your life is a much greater incentive than the economic ones now in effect.

Even from a very selfish perspective, we owe it to ourselves to take reasonable steps to prevent the illegal export of guns to Mexico, particularly when those steps impose no burden whatsoever on honest gun owners and purchasers in this country.

Think it through- don't let the paranoid ravings of anarchical gun advocates cloud your judgment.

If they didn't have paranoid ravings, then they wouldn't talk at all. There's a reason we use the term "gun nuts".

I'm sure the number of reasonible and responsible gun owners far outnumbers gun nuts in this country ... they just don't post near as much on ATPN.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I will admit that I was ignorant to the fact that the waiting period for handguns no longer exists- if any of the self proclaimed experts in this thread knew nearly as much as they claim, I'd have been called on that, rightfully so.

Specifically, what part of my most recent post, or any of them, is in error?

You've already failed at false attribution, and I doubt that your assertion of opinion as fact will be any different.

In an effort to be fair, allow me to review. In order to purchase a firearm from a FFL holder in their home state, a basic buyer must-

1. Make a selection
2. Present proper ID
3. Fill out the buyer portion of BATF form 4473.
4. Pass a NICS check, which might take up to 3 days
5. Pay and leave

For private sales, only 1 & 5 apply. Smart private sellers protect themselves by obtaining proper ID from the buyer. Some states and munis may have additional requirements.

The FFL must retain a copy of form 4473 for 20 years, (5 years for any rejected on the basis of NICS) and observe other record keeping requirements, none of which involve actually notifying the govt of anything pertaining to the sale itself unless specific requests are made, or unless a buyer makes multiple handgun purchases within a 5 business day period. In that case, the FFL must observe the requirements of form 3310.4.

What the BATF wants is to extend the requirements of form 3310.4 to cover multiple long gun purchases in 4 border states.

Again, States and Munis may have additional requirements.

Notice that 4473 forms are not collected into a database other than the records of the FFL, and that the NICS request doesn't mean the potential buyer actually purchased a gun. The BATF may examine the records of any FFL on demand.

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-4.pdf

If you find any of that to be in error, point it out, specifically, and provide documentation in support.

2 forms of ID are required when purchasing a firearm.

And a private seller is liable for whom he/she sells to, background check or no. If a gun owner sells to a guy who later commits murder with said gun, and the gun is traced back to the seller, the seller is liable if the guy wouldn't have otherwise passed a NICS check at the time of purchase.

And the NICS check usually takes minutes, not days. Maybe if you had some weird situation it could take days. That and some states have mandatory waiting periods.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
In any case, the reason this is getting so much heat from a lot of gun owners is that, quite simply, we believe the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is to take away our right to keep and bear arms, or make it so restrictive as to effectively take it away. By that logic, any step towards further gun regulation is a step towards losing said rights.

And there is basis for this. Every nation in the Western world that has banned guns has done so after a number of seemingly "mild and reasonable" restrictions. For American examples, look at most any major city in a blue state. Also, the supreme court cases upholding said rights are not widely enforced, with many localities (the District of Columbia, Chicago, etc) making a person jump through hoops to legally own a gun. I think DC still requires you to keep it locked and disassembled until use. (lol) which makes it useless for any sort of defense, but technically complies with SCOTUS rulings. In DC I know for a fact it would be easier for me to buy illegally than legally, by a long shot, with less risk due to the legal bullshit they've piled onto it.

So while your personal intentions may be fine, we look at every gun regulation attempt in the context of an ultimate goal of taking away our rights. Even an inch is an inch in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
And a private seller is liable for whom he/she sells to, background check or no. If a gun owner sells to a guy who later commits murder with said gun, and the gun is traced back to the seller, the seller is liable if the guy wouldn't have otherwise passed a NICS check at the time of purchase.

Mere assertion not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

From the BATF site-

Please note:

1. An individual may only sell/transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her state.
2. You cannot transfer/sell a weapon to someone if you believe or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearm under Federal law.
3. If the above requirements are met, ATF recommends the buyer and seller both keep a bill of sale (a document who sold the firearm, a description of the firearm, and who bought the firearm) so that if the firearm is ever traced, the buyer/seller can provide the information.

http://www.atf.gov/contact/faq/
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In any case, the reason this is getting so much heat from a lot of gun owners is that, quite simply, we believe the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is to take away our right to keep and bear arms, or make it so restrictive as to effectively take it away. By that logic, any step towards further gun regulation is a step towards losing said rights.

And there is basis for this. Every nation in the Western world that has banned guns has done so after a number of seemingly "mild and reasonable" restrictions. For American examples, look at most any major city in a blue state. Also, the supreme court cases upholding said rights are not widely enforced, with many localities (the District of Columbia, Chicago, etc) making a person jump through hoops to legally own a gun. I think DC still requires you to keep it locked disassembled until use. (lol) which makes it useless for any sort of defense, but technically complies with SCOTUS rulings. In DC I know for a fact it would be easier for me to buy illegally than legally, by a long shot, with less risk due to the legal bullshit they've piled onto it.

So while your personal intentions may be fine, we look at every gun regulation attempt in the context of an ultimate goal of taking away our rights. Even an inch is an inch in the wrong direction.

I'll agree that some state and local rules are too restrictive, but conflation of that with the issue at hand is not warranted. It's remarkable that while many gun owners are States' Rights advocates, they don't seem to like it when States & Munis exercise those rights wrt gun ownership. Can't have it both ways.

As I've offered, and nobody coherent has denied, the proposal from the BATF in no way hinders lawful citizens from obtaining any number of the wide selection of firearms currently available in this country. Zero, zip, nothing, nada. And that's the true test of it all, despite the usual paranoia about gun confiscation, which flies in the face of recent SCOTUS rulings and the Constitution itself.

Edit- Your examples are absurd. In all those instances, guns were sold to persons that the seller knew full well were not eligible to legally own firearms.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I'll agree that some state and local rules are too restrictive, but conflation of that with the issue at hand is not warranted. It's remarkable that while many gun owners are States' Rights advocates, they don't seem to like it when States & Munis exercise those rights wrt gun ownership. Can't have it both ways.

As I've offered, and nobody coherent has denied, the proposal from the BATF in no way hinders lawful citizens from obtaining any number of the wide selection of firearms currently available in this country. Zero, zip, nothing, nada. And that's the true test of it all, despite the usual paranoia about gun confiscation, which flies in the face of recent SCOTUS rulings and the Constitution itself.

Edit- Your examples are absurd. In all those instances, guns were sold to persons that the seller knew full well were not eligible to legally own firearms.

By strict interpretation the 2nd amendment is already infringed upon in many other places.

And no the multiple long gun sales reporting does not directly impact a person's ability to keep or bear arms, but it's one more tool that could be corrupted towards that use down the line. And, as has been repeatably pointed out, is next to worthless. It's not like there's one gun store in the entire south west. You want 12 guns without getting flagged by the ATF? Go to 12 different gun stores and charge your cartel clients that much more for your services.

Note the third example where the man plead guilty to someone he "should have known" was a felon. How "should he have known" this without a background check? He plead guilty to separate charges of knowingly selling to felons, yet this final one was singled out as a case of "should have known". It fits.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
ok. but how would they "focus" on them ? Are those 12 doing anything illegal under current law ?

If not, isn't this an area to consider some legislation ?

My reply you quoted was directed at the question of how would the BATF review the already existing forms with so many FFL/gun dealers in those states.

What I mean by "focus" is that they (BATF) can narrow which FFL/gun dealers they should visit by focusing on those whose guns often show up in Mexico.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
What do you mean by gun dealers?

Are you talking about gun traffickers in Mexico or gun shop dealers in the states.

FFL/gun stores in the US. That's who this legislation is aimed at.


If gun shop dealers how did those firearms arrive in Mexico. Was it through legal means or illegal, was it a part of the fuck up event of the ATF allowing guns through, etc.. If it's only 12 then they can be easily dealt with legally without punishing everyone else.

How did they arrive in Mexico? I guess that's the purpose of the law. Find out who is buying multiple weapons and then the BATF can follow up with them. (Again, as I've said I don't claim to understand the purpose of the proposed law or what they think they'll do with the info.)

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
You're not thinking this through. Gunrunners have the option of buying from any dealer, not just ones they've done business with in the past.
-snip-
Think it through- don't let the paranoid ravings of anarchical gun advocates cloud your judgment.

Pardon me, but I think YOU are not thinking this through.

I've identified how the BATF already has this data, and pointed out how they can go get it. It is available to them.

Whether or not the law passes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "option of buying from any dealer".

I don't see how you any point in relation to mine.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Only half true. Current long gun purchases are not tracked at all, other than the keeping of records by individual gun sellers. Handgun purchases, with few exceptions, are treated the same way.-snip-

No, hand gun purchases are treated differently.

In order for a FFL/dealer to sell a handgun they must clear it through the feds. That info IS in a federal database (unlike long gun info).

Fern