Anti-gun movement comes to Kentucky

[CitizenBBN]

Well, the anti-gun nut movement has finally made it to this state. today, state Representatives Mary Lou Marzian (D-34) and Jim Wayne (D-35) introduced a bill that makes Feinstein look mainstream.

-- "high capacity" magazine means anything more than SEVEN rounds. That would include almost every semi-auto. Even Feinstein is only calling for a 10 round limit.

-- "Assault weapon" means any rifle w/ detachable magazine and a pistol grip or telescoping stock, muzzle break, compensator. semiauto shotguns don't have to have detachable mags, just a folding or telescoping stock will do it. Pistols qualify if the mag is outside the grip or it weighs more than 50 ounces (to get the Tec-9s and such).

To be clear that means a standard Ruger 10/22 magazine is now a "high capacity" b/c it's 10 rounds. Put the wrong stock on it or a flash suppressor and it's an assault weapon.

-- Background check required for every transfer, a form to be kept by the dealers indefinitely and open to "inspection by any peace officer acting pursuant to his duties". Dealers can't charge more than $10 to do it, I guess to cut out the "expense" argument.

-- Licensing and registration of ALL handguns, "assault weapons" and all magazines over 7 rounds by the KSP. They can charge a fee, license is good for no more than 5 years. Class A Misdemeanor to not register them all. You have to get a license from KSP to own them, they are to decide the criteria, and if you get one you have to register everything.

-- Logging of all AMMUNITION sales and gun sales by dealers or anyone selling ammo as a business. The logs get sent to KSP as they see fit.

-- KSP may require photo ID for all ammunition purchases, to be logged by the seller, the log of course going to the KSP.

-- By 2014 the system must allow query to make sure the buyer has the license for the gun but also has a license for a gun that would use the kind of ammo being bought. So if you don't have a license for a 9mm handgun you can't buy 9mm ammo.

-- Records all open to inspection by the police as they see fit.

-- Allow all local governments to regulate firearms as they choose, no state level preemption.

-- Any stolen or lost ammo or guns must be reported within 24 hours. Report must include make, model, caliber and serial number if known. KSP gets a record of it. Failure to report is a Class A misdemeanor.

-- All firearms not "in immediate possession or control" must be locked in a storage device or with a trigger lock. Class A misdemeanor.

-- When someone dies, the estate must submit a list of every firearm in the estate and the list submitted to the KSP.

-- Makes schools "gun free zones" AGAIN. They already are under Ky law fwiw. The schools have to put up big "no guns allowed" signs. that's bound to help.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10873958...earms_bill.pdf


Now how's that for wacked? Licensing and registration of vast numbers of guns, tracking of ammo purchases and all gun transfers all available to any level of law enforcement as they see fit. Mandatory gun storage in homes to make sure they can't be used to defend yourself.


Please, if these nuts are your reps try to vote them out of office, and if you get a minute and you live in Kentucky please tell your reps to ignore these lunatics.

[KeithKSR]

The legislature cannot legally even take that bill up this year. We are in an off year legislative session, only budgetary bills are considered in this special session and it would require a special session to act on this legislation.

The bill's sponsor are pandering to the far left, they are both likely from the Louisville area.

[CitizenBBN]

The legislature cannot legally even take that bill up this year. We are in an off year legislative session, only budgetary bills are considered in this special session and it would require a special session to act on this legislation.

The bill's sponsor are pandering to the far left, they are both likely from the Louisville area.

Yep, both from Louisville.

I know it has no chance of passing, didn't know about it being a budgetary year only, but had to post it b/c of its extreme proposals. It's pretty comical.

[dan_bgblue]

Proposed legislation in other states

[KeithKSR]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

[CitizenBBN]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

Exactly. Ask for the moon and settle for something that's "a reasonable compromise". A pitiful strategy first b/c it's so obvious and second b/c so few will see it b/c they're so gullible and non-reflective.

I've had this conversation re universal background checks. I'm not up in arms opposed to them on their own, but we all know they will do nothing to stop the next tragedy, at which point they will then want the next step b/c this one "didn't go far enough". It becomes accepted and what becomes "common sense" moves to the next hurdle to confiscation.

I'm disturbed at least a couple of reasonable people I know are not as opposed to registration as they should be. They just don't see there being any chance of the government coming for those guns or gun owners being persecuted for it. I pointed to the UK and Australia examples and she agreed with me, but the "it can't happen here" mindset is dangerous and is a problem for us in this issue.

No it can't happen here, IF we stick to the principles of the Constitution. As we chip away at it we make it very possible for it to happen here. This is a big pillar being chipped at, the final guarantor of it not happening here.

[KeithKSR]

Exactly. Ask for the moon and settle for something that's "a reasonable compromise". A pitiful strategy first b/c it's so obvious and second b/c so few will see it b/c they're so gullible and non-reflective.

I've had this conversation re universal background checks. I'm not up in arms opposed to them on their own, but we all know they will do nothing to stop the next tragedy, at which point they will then want the next step b/c this one "didn't go far enough". It becomes accepted and what becomes "common sense" moves to the next hurdle to confiscation.

I'm disturbed at least a couple of reasonable people I know are not as opposed to registration as they should be. They just don't see there being any chance of the government coming for those guns or gun owners being persecuted for it. I pointed to the UK and Australia examples and she agreed with me, but the "it can't happen here" mindset is dangerous and is a problem for us in this issue.

No it can't happen here, IF we stick to the principles of the Constitution. As we chip away at it we make it very possible for it to happen here. This is a big pillar being chipped at, the final guarantor of it not happening here.

A whole lot of people are overly trusting of our government, I'm not one of them. I don't trust our government at all, they are capable of anything.

[CitizenBBN]

A whole lot of people are overly trusting of our government, I'm not one of them. I don't trust our government at all, they are capable of anything.

Power corrupts. Our system has made it very tough for the worst to happen here b/c it diffuses power at every turn. Clearly being armed is a powerful thing, and it being diffused so it is not concentrated in the hands of the government is a powerful diffusion of power. Every structure of our system is designed to spread power and have checks and balances. This is one among many.

"It can't happen here" b/c of those checks and balances to power. Take them away one by one and you very much increase the chance of it happening here. I don't think a government action is imminent and I sure won't spend my days prepping like the TV show people, but I won't condone eliminating any check on power in this country be it the People versus the government or government versus government.

I am concerned about temporary situations like Sandy or Katrina where people will need to be able to defend themselves beyond the common daily crime. That's just good insurance like covering for your house catching fire. Very unlikely but we still pay the insurance.

I'm far more concerned that we will slowly go to confiscation, and that worries me on so many levels I don't have time to type them all. People are already calling for bans that would debilitate people's ability to defend themselves from even common daily crime much less extreme situations and totally forget about standing against tyranny.

I don't think the Founders thought governments would be imminently attacking the people either, but they knew to put in lots of insurance. That's all this is, an insurance policy for the nation like insurance for your home. You'll probably never need it, but if you do you'd better have it.

[jazyd]

The dems would like nothing better than to get rid of the constitution, it is the only thing keeping them in check as we have so many idiots who are allowed to vote.

They want the guns and every name of who owns them

[BigBlueBrock]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

That's exactly what it is. It's an ad for "$5,000 obo" when you'd settle for $3,500.

[CitizenBBN]

That's exactly what it is. It's an ad for "$5,000 obo" when you'd settle for $3,500.

See? we agree on lots of stuff. We also no doubt agree this isn't party specific, just the nature of negotiations. The haggle is older than government.

[BigBlueBrock]

See? we agree on lots of stuff. We also no doubt agree this isn't party specific, just the nature of negotiations. The haggle is older than government.

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

[CitizenBBN]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

Which laws are you describing that ATF is prevented from enforcing?

Why should handguns and "assault rifle" sales be so regulated? I'm curious to hear the reasoning and justification.

[suncat05]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

And I could not disagree more. I haven't done anything wrong, committed no crimes, have no intention of doing so, and I am solidly against the idea that I or any other law-abiding citizen should have to register any firearm that we may own. Guns are not like cars. Cars & other vehicles are driven on mostly publically maintained roads, and for those roads to be maintained taxes must be levied against the users of those roads. But a gun's purpose is to protect me from people who intend to do me or my family harm. And I am guaranteed the right to own a gun for that purpose by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It doesn't need to be licensed or registered to sit in my safe or on my hip, and that's no matter where I bought it either. So there you have it. It's none of the government's business what kind of firearms I may own because I have a reasonable expectation to privacy due to the fact that I am not a criminal(also another right under the 4th Amendment guaranteed under our Constitution!). I am sure you do not and will not agree with me but this is what I believe.

[BigBlueBrock]

Which laws are you describing that ATF is prevented from enforcing?

Why should handguns and "assault rifle" sales be so regulated? I'm curious to hear the reasoning and justification.

See the Tiahrt Amendment, which requires the DoJ to destroy background checks that were approved within 24 hours, prevents the ATF from requiring dealer inventory checks (to, you know, check for missing guns that may have been stolen or illegally sold - guns that account for the majority of gun crime in the US), and prevents state and local authorities from using available dealer trace data to prosecute gun dealers caught breaking the law.

And handguns/assault rifles should be so heavily regulated because they are responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the US (handguns mostly). Unlike long rifles and shotguns, handguns/AR's serve no purpose other than to kill/maim other people. So access to those weapons should be more restricted, as a matter of course.

[CitizenBBN]

See the Tiahrt Amendment, which requires the DoJ to destroy background checks that were approved within 24 hours,

So where are the laws NRA is preventing from being enforced? The law says they can't do those things, which is a far cry from saying those things are laws being prevented from happening.

What you're really saying is you think this set of policies should be changed, laws written to do something different, and the NRA is opposed to those changes. The LAW says there is no national registry of gun transactions. NRA isn't preventing ATF from enforcing any law, they're making sure ATF adheres to the law.

So again, which laws, on the books laws duly passed by Congress, charged to ATF to enforce, is the NRA preventing enforcement?

prevents the ATF from requiring dealer inventory checks (to, you know, check for missing guns that may have been stolen or illegally sold - guns that account for the majority of gun crime in the US),

As for dealer inventory checks, what on Earth are you talking about? ATF audits thousands of dealers a year and requires strict record keeping. Usually missing more than 1-2 guns for a normal sized dealer means you lose your license forever.

NSSF has entire programs where dealers pay former ATF people just to come to help them with record keeping for audits. The NRA hasn't done anything to prevent those audits. They have called for ATF to prosecute some freakin' felons rather than have so much staff dedicated to audits, but they do 1,000s of them a year.

Your point is completely without factual basis. I don't know who sold that nonsense, but it's a lie. Period.

FWIW your assertion most of the gun crime in the US comes from guns stolen or illegally sold, that is partly correct but it is not by dealers that these things happen. In fact fewer than 8% of all guns used in crimes came from dealers in any way and the vast majority of those was by fraudulent means in which the dealer was fooled and not complicit, specifically straw purchases. I have a thread on here citing a DOJ study of felons in state and federal prisons and how guns were obtained for their crimes.

The Dealers are the most secure, most regulated, least problematic part of the industry. This idea they're running around breaking the law for a quick buck is nonsense. I'm sure there are some, but it's very few. Almost no guns that find their way into the criminal system are coming from "lost" guns in dealer inventory or guns dealers knowingly sold into that system. Those guns are stolen from private owners and friends/family.

and prevents state and local authorities from using available dealer trace data to prosecute gun dealers caught breaking the law.

Again, utter nonsense. First off, dealers breaking the law is a federal crime of the GCA, and a serious felony. You act as if b/c the city of Lexington may not prosecute a dealer they are getting off Scott free. Not hardly. Dealers are strictly monitored, audited, even covertly "tested" by ATF, and if they are guilty of something serious like knowingly providing guns to criminals they are guilty of a mountain of felonies.

Local and state law enforcement most certainly has access to trace data, it's in the GCA, and can and are most certainly prosecuted for breaking local and state laws. Again, your information is just wrong. Dealers are prosecuted for violating state and local laws.

And handguns/assault rifles should be so heavily regulated because they are responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the US (handguns mostly). Unlike long rifles and shotguns, handguns/AR's serve no purpose other than to kill/maim other people. So access to those weapons should be more restricted, as a matter of course.

As for "responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths", is that your basis of justification? If that's your litmus test we have to scratch "assault weapons" from your list. All long guns combined (rifles and shotguns of all types) account for less than 2% of gun related deaths. 8 times less than deaths by knives and hands.

So all long guns are fine if we measure by their contribution to real gun violence. It's tiny. Turns out criminals don't carry around $1,000 AR rifles. they're expensive and really hard to hide in your pocket. They're a miniscule part of the problem.

Now handguns is another story, but here's an interesting contradiction in your position. You agree most guns used in gun violence are stolen, yet your solution is to license and register law abiding gun owners. So you are agreeing a priori that your suggested approach will do nothing at all to lower or prevent gun crimes or gun deaths b/c we already know the law abiding owners, registered or not, aren't the ones using them in crimes. So we register them, the guns are stolen and what good does that registration do again?

so why do you want them registered if you already know it won't impact gun violence? An odd position to say the least.


As for your "no purpose", "justification" for lack of a better word (though "you have no rights unless I say so" may be a more apt description), b/c they serve "no purpose" in your view, it's fine to severely restrict them "as a matter of course". I see. So anything potentially dangerous that serves no purpose in the view of enough people we can restrict? Interesting view of liberty you have there. People who have done nothing wrong (by your own admission and all the data it's stolen guns that are the problem), who are no risk to others, can have their choices curtailed, their activities tracked by the State, simply b/c what they choose to engage in in their pursuit of liberty and happiness and property serves "no purpose" in your view?

The country was founded on the idea that what may serve no purpose in your view may in fact serve one for others, and that's their business not yours. If they are not a threat to you or society (and we've established "assault weapons" owners nor their guns are a threat of any national significance) who are you to say they have no purpose?

See I do see purpose in them. First, they're fun to shoot. You know fun? Pursuit of happiness? Second, they most certainly have defense and hunting use. AR-15s are being used for quite a bit of hunting, and are used a lot in killing vermin like coyotes. So if enough people use them for that it's OK? Where's the logic in that thinking?

Next, they are important for self defense in a SHTF situation. You don't believe in a disaster planning scenario? Fine, your business. My business is to protect me and my family and do so as I see fit, and I see fit to do it that way. Who are you to tell me how I can defend my family, or that I have to submit to regulation from the State to do so when what I'm doing comprises no risk of any significance to others?

Last, they are important to many for preventing tyranny. I know you again dismiss this, and that's fine, but those of us who don't have liberties as well, and we choose to exercise them and have no obligation to exercise them with only the approval of government, the very thing we hope to prevent becoming tyrannical.

Your justification that assault weapons are involved in gun violence in any significant way is untrue. Your argument that anything without "purpose" as you see it is OK to regulate and license and restrict flies in the face of basic American liberties. I see no position here other than one based on false facts (they are dangerous) and faulty views of liberty (only things that "have a purpose as I see" it are protected from government intrusion).

[CitizenBBN]

Forgot to mention but we also know your proposal will be ineffective in dealing with the one place where "assault weapons" are used to kill, in these lunatic attacks.

How do we know? B/c in Aurora the guy had no history that prevented him from getting said guns, and no background check proposed by anyone woudl have "caught" him, and in Newtown those guns were stolen and had been obtained in a state with even tougher licensing than the NICS and even required registration.

That bears repeating. the Newtown tragedy was carried out with guns that had been bought with a background check, the owner separately licensed by the state, and the guns registered with the state. Everything you proposed, and it meant nothing.

Why? B/c you were right in the first place: most gun crimes are from stolen guns, and licensing and registration is useless in stopping stolen guns.

[BigBlueBrock]

So where are the laws NRA is preventing from being enforced? The law says they can't do those things, which is a far cry from saying those things are laws being prevented from happening.

What you're really saying is you think this set of policies should be changed, laws written to do something different, and the NRA is opposed to those changes. The LAW says there is no national registry of gun transactions. NRA isn't preventing ATF from enforcing any law, they're making sure ATF adheres to the law.

So again, which laws, on the books laws duly passed by Congress, charged to ATF to enforce, is the NRA preventing enforcement?

I just told you. The ATF had the ability to do the things I listed until the NRA had Tiahrt insert that amendment into a bill back in 2003. I'm not explaining the same thing again.

As for dealer inventory checks, what on Earth are you talking about? ATF audits thousands of dealers a year and requires strict record keeping. Usually missing more than 1-2 guns for a normal sized dealer means you lose your license forever.

NSSF has entire programs where dealers pay former ATF people just to come to help them with record keeping for audits. The NRA hasn't done anything to prevent those audits. They have called for ATF to prosecute some freakin' felons rather than have so much staff dedicated to audits, but they do 1,000s of them a year.

Your point is completely without factual basis. I don't know who sold that nonsense, but it's a lie. Period.

FWIW your assertion most of the gun crime in the US comes from guns stolen or illegally sold, that is partly correct but it is not by dealers that these things happen. In fact fewer than 8% of all guns used in crimes came from dealers in any way and the vast majority of those was by fraudulent means in which the dealer was fooled and not complicit, specifically straw purchases. I have a thread on here citing a DOJ study of felons in state and federal prisons and how guns were obtained for their crimes.

The Dealers are the most secure, most regulated, least problematic part of the industry. This idea they're running around breaking the law for a quick buck is nonsense. I'm sure there are some, but it's very few. Almost no guns that find their way into the criminal system are coming from "lost" guns in dealer inventory or guns dealers knowingly sold into that system. Those guns are stolen from private owners and friends/family.

Again, utter nonsense. First off, dealers breaking the law is a federal crime of the GCA, and a serious felony. You act as if b/c the city of Lexington may not prosecute a dealer they are getting off Scott free. Not hardly. Dealers are strictly monitored, audited, even covertly "tested" by ATF, and if they are guilty of something serious like knowingly providing guns to criminals they are guilty of a mountain of felonies.

Local and state law enforcement most certainly has access to trace data, it's in the GCA, and can and are most certainly prosecuted for breaking local and state laws. Again, your information is just wrong. Dealers are prosecuted for violating state and local laws.

It isn't a lie, it's a fact stated by the ATF. They can only legally inspect dealer inventories once a year and in reality, because of manpower issues, only rarely get around to doing so (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...investigations). They mostly rely on dealers self-reporting inventory issues, which most don't do because the ATF isn't allowed to require self-reporting (i.e., failing to self-report isn't a legally actionable offense).

Not enough dealers are strictly monitored or audited or covertly tested. Only a fraction of 'bad' dealers are ever caught and punished. State and local authorities can prosecute dealers, but they can't use trace data to do so, so prosecuting them for breaking the law is extremely difficult. It's a fact that the NRA intentionally makes it that way.

As for "responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths", is that your basis of justification? If that's your litmus test we have to scratch "assault weapons" from your list. All long guns combined (rifles and shotguns of all types) account for less than 2% of gun related deaths. 8 times less than deaths by knives and hands.

So all long guns are fine if we measure by their contribution to real gun violence. It's tiny. Turns out criminals don't carry around $1,000 AR rifles. they're expensive and really hard to hide in your pocket. They're a miniscule part of the problem.

Now handguns is another story, but here's an interesting contradiction in your position. You agree most guns used in gun violence are stolen, yet your solution is to license and register law abiding gun owners. So you are agreeing a priori that your suggested approach will do nothing at all to lower or prevent gun crimes or gun deaths b/c we already know the law abiding owners, registered or not, aren't the ones using them in crimes. So we register them, the guns are stolen and what good does that registration do again?

so why do you want them registered if you already know it won't impact gun violence? An odd position to say the least.

Most guns, not all, are gotten illegally from dealers (either stolen or improperly sold). So it's a two-pronged attempt to curb gun violence. You prevent them from being acquired illegally and you make it harder to purchase legally.

As for your "no purpose", "justification" for lack of a better word (though "you have no rights unless I say so" may be a more apt description), b/c they serve "no purpose" in your view, it's fine to severely restrict them "as a matter of course". I see. So anything potentially dangerous that serves no purpose in the view of enough people we can restrict? Interesting view of liberty you have there. People who have done nothing wrong (by your own admission and all the data it's stolen guns that are the problem), who are no risk to others, can have their choices curtailed, their activities tracked by the State, simply b/c what they choose to engage in in their pursuit of liberty and happiness and property serves "no purpose" in your view?

Spare me "pursuit of liberty and happiness." Owning a handgun has nothing to do with the pursuit of anything other than violence and mayhem. The second amendment can be upheld AND we can regulate the proliferation of weapons whose purpose is solely to kill other human beings - not for food or sport, but killing another person. The second amendment isn't a carte blanche to own any and all kinds of destructive weaponry. It says "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

[CitizenBBN]

I'd be grateful if you'd just explain it once. So you're saying the Tiahrt Amendment, a LAW, is in fact the NRA preventing enforcement of laws.

let's look at Tiahrt. First, for those unfamiliar who may be reading, the Tiahrt Amendment was introduced in 2003 but by 2007 was made a permanent part of the DOJ budget bill. What it does is simple: restrict release of ATF trace data on guns. ATF compiles data as it does gun traces, and anti-gun groups and others wanted access to it.

It actually started with the last push against guns when they were suing the manufacturers. They also wanted to cite the data as statistics on gun violence. The problem is that ATF traces a lot of guns that weren't involved in crimes, so the data is misleading.

What it does is prevent PUBLIC use of that information. Just like the release of registrations by that newspaper, the information is considered confidential.

Now here are the things you leave out and/or misrepresent about it:

-- Tiahrt explicitly allows use of the data by federal, state and local law enforcement ""in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE. The GCA makes it quite clear this information was for law enforcement use, and this is consistent with that mandate. There is no restriction against its use by law enforcement investigating a dealer per se. It would have to be a bone fide investigation and like any other obtaining of evidence follow proper procedure, but Tiahrt doesn't exclude it at all. It can be used in investigations, just not accessed on fishing expeditions or to compile bogus statistics.

-- BATFE has fought for years to keep trace data confidential, and supports Tiahrt. Tough to be restricting their ability to "enforce the laws" when they support the law isn't it? Even the Fraternal Order of Police have lobbied to keep it confidential. Its release can compromise investigations and endanger investigators and those cooperating with them.

Tough for a law to tie an agency's hands when the agency has defended the law as necessary to doing its job in federal courts. Tough too for it to be tying the hands of local law enforcement when that law enforcement also supports Tiahrt.

[BigBlueBrock]

What's a "bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution"? What if you need the trace data to CHARGE a dealer with illegally selling guns or improperly keeping inventory? You can't get it. That's the rub. Local law enforcement or a prosecutor are prevented from acquiring the data unless its for a criminal investigation, but they can't start a criminal investigation without the data. Understand?

Tiahrt also prevents the ATF from legally requiring dealers to self-report inventory. (see above link)

Tiahrt requires certain NICS background checks be destroyed after 24 hours. The Virginia Tech shooter? Even if the FBI had been tipped off to suspicious activity, they wouldn't have been able to prove he'd purchased weapons because the background checks were gone.

By the way, the controversial "Operation Fast and Furious" fiasco, which I know has been a popular topic of discussion here? The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATF from releasing trace data to the Congressional oversight committee.

[CitizenBBN]

What's a "bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution"? What if you need the trace data to CHARGE a dealer with illegally selling guns or improperly keeping inventory? You can't get it. That's the rub. Local law enforcement or a prosecutor are prevented from acquiring the data unless its for a criminal investigation, but they can't start a criminal investigation without the data. Understand?

Yes, you need a search warrant to search the home, but you can't get the evidence to get the warrant unless you search the home first. Yep, annoying those laws about privacy and probable cause. How is this different from every other burden of cause in any other investigation?

I'll tell you what, you let me lift the protections against searching a known drug dealer's home for drugs without having enough evidence to get a warrant and I'll let you fish for dealers gone bad without one. Of course we have to through a lot of basic liberties out the window.

Tiahrt also prevents the ATF from legally requiring dealers to self-report inventory. (see above link)

Yes, it and other laws prevent ATF from building any kind of database of gun ownership, even by the dealers. It is to prevent a national gun registry. You're right, many of us don't want the government to know where the guns are going, as long as they are going there legally. The background checks are being done, and despite your untrue claim most of these illegal guns come from dealers the truth is they don't. I have the studies to back it up.

Regardless, that is a law, not the prevention of enforcement of a law as you claimed.

Tiahrt requires certain NICS background checks be destroyed after 24 hours. The Virginia Tech shooter? Even if the FBI had been tipped off to suspicious activity, they wouldn't have been able to prove he'd purchased weapons because the background checks were gone.

By the way, the controversial "Operation Fast and Furious" fiasco, which I know has been a popular topic of discussion here? The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATF from releasing trace data to the Congressional oversight committee.

Yes it prevents NICS data from being kept, though that predates Tiahrht. It's to prevent a national gun registry and most definitely was supported by the NRA and others. that's the law. You want to say it's preventing enforcement of laws, in this case a law to maintain a registry that doesn't exist, has never existed, and you only wish would exist. that's not preventing enforcement of laws as you claimed initially. That's preventing agencies from doing things you want done which are illegal and have been illegal since NICS' inception.

Re the Virginia shooter, I'm not 100% clear on your point b/c it seems to have nothing to do with having prevented the shooting itself, but you could most certainly prove he bought the guns. All dealers are required to keep all 4473 documents in perpetuity. That's how traces work. No there isn't a central database where you can see what a person bought going back 10 years. That' exactly the point, and it's a great law. You can however trace the weapons or in course of a criminal investigation have a dealer report any information required.

Again, no our system doesn't allow you to easily keep tabs on people who have to that point committed no crime. That's not just guns, it's everything. It's called privacy, and yes there is a standard of justification to be met before it is breeched, and yes that even applies to nasty gun dealers and gun buyers.

We don't track the activities of our citizens because there is a small chance one in 100,000s of citizens may commit a crime. Given your agreement that the vast majority of crimes come from stolen guns, we most certainly don't track the activities of our law abiding citizens b/c people that won't ever get tracked commit a crime. We're to sacrifice privacy, the 2nd Amendment, grant federal authorities broad discretion in recording our activities when we know it will do nothing to improve public safety? Huh?

So in conclusion the NRA isn't preventing ANY laws from being enforced. It's lobbying to have laws you don't like that you perceive as limiting enforcement of laws that don't exist, in some cases laws supported by the agency you claim is being prevented from action.

Further, what you want for law enforcement is to have a lower burden of proof to investigate gun dealers (and I'd imagine gun owners) than for normal criminal investigations. Interesting that people proven again and again to be among the most law abiding, and federally regulated, in any industry are so deserving of this extra punishment.

[CitizenBBN]

Spare me "pursuit of liberty and happiness." Owning a handgun has nothing to do with the pursuit of anything other than violence and mayhem. The second amendment can be upheld AND we can regulate the proliferation of weapons whose purpose is solely to kill other human beings - not for food or sport, but killing another person. The second amendment isn't a carte blanche to own any and all kinds of destructive weaponry. It says "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

And you're the one calling anyone who doesn't agree with you unreasonable? You dismiss out of hand every reason someone might feel differently than you about owning a gun and you're the reasonable one at the table? Oh please.

I won't "spare you" the basic tenets of the nation's existence. Sorry. I own guns, including handguns, and have never used them in pursuit of violence or mayhem. With 300 million guns in the US it's clear less than 1% are used in pursuit of such things.

You don't enjoy the shooting sports (which includes handguns and modern sporting rifles) so by Gawd that's not a reason for others to have guns. You see handguns as spreading violence and not preventing violence through self defense, so by Gawd everyone else who uses them for self defense must be wrong.

You dismiss the pursuit of happiness of others b/c you don't believe their motives and cannot share their beliefs, dismiss their choices in how to defend themselves or their families or what constitutes proper "use" of a rifle (ARs like I said are used quite a bit for hunting and farm work), and then claim you're the reasonable open minded person in the discussion?

No, it's gun owners like myself who are at the reasonable table. I don't know where your views are sitting. I respect those who disagree with gun ownership. i don't require them to own a gun or be around guns. I support making sure those who buy guns and carry guns for self defense are responsible citizens. I support restrictions that are supported by the evidence to balance individual liberty with public safety.

You want to restrict guns that the evidence shows are not a threat to public safety. You want to regulate law abiding citizens when the evidence shows they are not a threat and deserve no less a right to privacy than anyone else and you know in advance will do nothing to improve public safety. You dismiss any reasons for owning guns with which you don't personally agree and use that dismissal to justify any action you see fit.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later, but I do have to ask this question:

Why are the shooting sports (hunting) protected in your mind? Let's face it, no one really needs to hunt much to feed themselves in the modern era. It's for entertainment, enjoyment. Why do you think that's a justification for them to keep those weapons, or is it just that you dont' see them as being dangerous enough to regulate?

[BigBlueBrock]

Yes, you need a search warrant to search the home, but you can't get the evidence to get the warrant unless you search the home first. Yep, annoying those laws about privacy and probable cause. How is this different from every other burden of cause in any other investigation?

I'll tell you what, you let me lift the protections against searching a known drug dealer's home for drugs without having enough evidence to get a warrant and I'll let you fish for dealers gone bad without one. Of course we have to through a lot of basic liberties out the window.

The ATF can initiate an in-person inspection of inventory, and that's OK, but self-reporting inventory is a violation of a right to privacy? Disregarding the fact that businesses aren't people. People have liberties and freedoms, businesses do not. A gun dealer is licensed by the government to sell weapons, they should be required to provide thorough inventory records.

Yes, it and other laws prevent ATF from building any kind of database of gun ownership, even by the dealers. It is to prevent a national gun registry. You're right, many of us don't want the government to know where the guns are going, as long as they are going there legally. The background checks are being done, and despite your untrue claim most of these illegal guns come from dealers the truth is they don't. I have the studies to back it up.

Regardless, that is a law, not the prevention of enforcement of a law as you claimed.

BS on "prevention of a national gun registry." Even if it isn't publicly available, trace data IS a national registry for gun ownership - by dealers and to whom they initially sold the weapons. Red herring.

It's semantics. The ATF is supposed to have the ability to police gun dealers. They are LAW enforcement for guns dealers (as well as tobacco and alcohol sales). They are hindered, by the Tiahrt amendment, from doing that job. They only have the manpower to physically inspect a small fraction of the dealers every year (probably because their funding for that is squelched by Congress), they can't legally require inventory self-reporting, and they can't release trace data to prosecutors.

Re the Virginia shooter, I'm not 100% clear on your point b/c it seems to have nothing to do with having prevented the shooting itself, but you could most certainly prove he bought the guns. All dealers are required to keep all 4473 documents in perpetuity. That's how traces work. No there isn't a central database where you can see what a person bought going back 10 years. That' exactly the point, and it's a great law. You can however trace the weapons or in course of a criminal investigation have a dealer report any information required.

I'm not saying that records of background checks should be kept perpetually, but they should be kept for more than 24 hours. I think that's reasonable.

Further, what you want for law enforcement is to have a lower burden of proof than for normal criminal investigations. Juvenile criminal records are sealed from investigators without showing enough cause before a judge, i.e. evidence gathered through other means, but criminals who happened to be 17 deserve more protections than gun dealers in your view.

Individuals deserve more protections than businesses, yes.

[CitizenBBN]

Most guns, not all, are gotten illegally from dealers (either stolen or improperly sold).

Please support this supposition. I know it to be false, through both DOJ and FBI records, but I'm curious what study if any you are citing for this conclusion.

Few guns are stolen from dealers compared to private theft. not in the same galaxy in numbers. So that's a non starter. I'll pull my links on that later tonight.

Your second point is a fascinating contradiction: We know most guns come illegally from dealers, but we don't know their inventories or where the guns go b/c we don't have adequate reporting. Do you see the flaw in that position?

In fact the DOJ study I'll find shows only 8% of guns used in gun related crimes of all kinds came from dealers, and most of those come from straw purchases which are tough for dealers to prevent. Like a girlfriend going in to buy a gun for the boyfriend who can't qualify. You try to spot such things, but she has no record, she passed the NICS check and if she's not obvious about what she's doing the dealer won't know. Even that loophole was only 8% of the guns used in crimes.

Again, this statement is just wrong. I invite you to prove otherwise.

[BigBlueBrock]

And you're the one calling anyone who doesn't agree with you unreasonable? You dismiss out of hand every reason someone might feel differently than you about owning a gun and you're the reasonable one at the table? Oh please.

I won't "spare you" the basic tenets of the nation's existence. Sorry. I own guns, including handguns, and have never used them in pursuit of violence or mayhem. With 300 million guns in the US it's clear less than 1% are used in pursuit of such things.

You don't enjoy the shooting sports (which includes handguns and modern sporting rifles) so by Gawd that's not a reason for others to have guns. You see handguns as spreading violence and not preventing violence through self defense, so by Gawd everyone else who uses them for self defense must be wrong.

You dismiss the pursuit of happiness of others b/c you don't believe their motives and cannot share their beliefs, dismiss their choices in how to defend themselves or their families or what constitutes proper "use" of a rifle (ARs like I said are used quite a bit for hunting and farm work), and then claim you're the reasonable open minded person in the discussion?

No, it's gun owners like myself who are at the reasonable table. I don't know where your views are sitting. I respect those who disagree with gun ownership. i don't require them to own a gun or be around guns. I support making sure those who buy guns and carry guns for self defense are responsible citizens. I support restrictions that are supported by the evidence to balance individual liberty with public safety.

You want to restrict guns that the evidence shows are not a threat to public safety. You want to regulate law abiding citizens when the evidence shows they are not a threat and deserve no less a right to privacy than anyone else and you know in advance will do nothing to improve public safety. You dismiss any reasons for owning guns with which you don't personally agree and use that dismissal to justify any action you see fit.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later, but I do have to ask this question:

Why are the shooting sports (hunting) protected in your mind? Let's face it, no one really needs to hunt much to feed themselves in the modern era. It's for entertainment, enjoyment. Why do you think that's a justification for them to keep those weapons, or is it just that you dont' see them as being dangerous enough to regulate?

I dismiss the 'pursuit of happiness' because 1) It isn't a law unto itself and 2) It has nothing to do with the discussion about handguns or AR's. They serve NO PURPOSE outside of killing another person, which flies in the face of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So they should be more regulated - both at the point of sale and in ownership. I argue that the second amendment doesn't grant carte blanche ownership of any and all violent weaponry. I argue that the statement "well-regulated militia" grants the government the ability to REGULATE firearm ownership. Not to prevent it, but to REGULATE it. It's an amazing thing where I read it one way and you read it another. I also dismiss it because half of every post you make is a diatribe about found principles that I don't feel like reading for the umpteenth time.

Long rifles and shotguns get more leeway because it can be shown that they serve a purpose OTHER than killing another person. People hunt with them and use them in sporting events. I want to mention that at no point have I advocated an across the board ban on handguns or assault rifles - I just think the sale and ownership of those weapons should be more regulated.

[BigBlueBrock]

Please support this supposition. I know it to be false, through both DOJ and FBI records, but I'm curious what study if any you are citing for this conclusion.

Few guns are stolen from dealers compared to private theft. not in the same galaxy in numbers. So that's a non starter. I'll pull my links on that later tonight.

Your second point is a fascinating contradiction: We know most guns come illegally from dealers, but we don't know their inventories or where the guns go b/c we don't have adequate reporting. Do you see the flaw in that position?

In fact the DOJ study I'll find shows only 8% of guns used in gun related crimes of all kinds came from dealers, and most of those come from straw purchases which are tough for dealers to prevent. Like a girlfriend going in to buy a gun for the boyfriend who can't qualify. You try to spot such things, but she has no record, she passed the NICS check and if she's not obvious about what she's doing the dealer won't know. Even that loophole was only 8% of the guns used in crimes.

Again, this statement is just wrong. I invite you to prove otherwise.

That's poor wording on my part, and I apologize for the confusion as its caused a tangent. 57% of guns used in crime come from 1% of dealers - this was in the 2002 ATF aggregate report on trace data, the last of such reports as the Tiahrt amendment prevented the ATF from releasing those reports after 2003.

[CitizenBBN]

The ATF can initiate an in-person inspection of inventory, and that's OK, but self-reporting inventory is a violation of a right to privacy? Disregarding the fact that businesses aren't people. People have liberties and freedoms, businesses do not. A gun dealer is licensed by the government to sell weapons, they should be required to provide thorough inventory records.

-- SCOTUS will disagree with you that businesses (corporations) don't have rights. They are for many purposes legal people.

-- Most dealers aren't businesses, they're licensed private individuals. it is a trade or business, but they are still individuals. Local law enforcement would be investigating them for a crime, and that means the same protections as any individual. In fact in criminal investigations of businesses you have to obtain warrants. You can't just confiscate all business email without cause or justification. You certainly cannot confiscate a person's private emails to prosecute him criminally without proper warrants.

BS on "prevention of a national gun registry." Even if it isn't publicly available, trace data IS a national registry for gun ownership - by dealers and to whom they initially sold the weapons. Red herring.

Even NRA, which fears a registry more than anyone, doesn't see it as a registry. Trace data is a tiny percentage of gun transactions, and are for law enforcement purposes only and thus have a causitive reason to have been performed. It is not a priori keeping tabs on law abiding citizens, the definition of a registry. It is post facto investigation, as is all law enforcement, as it should be in a nation where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and given broad rights to privacy. Call BS if you want, but post facto investigation is not the same as a watch list on citizens who have done nothing wrong.

It's semantics. The ATF is supposed to have the ability to police gun dealers. They are LAW enforcement for guns dealers (as well as tobacco and alcohol sales). They are hindered, by the Tiahrt amendment, from doing that job.

their "job" is to follow the law, and that is the law and they follow it. Again, you said they were being prevented from enforcing "the law". They are not. They are being prevented from enforcing laws you wish existed using methods you wish were legal. Huge difference, not semantics. We can debate if it's a good law, but let's not pretend the NRA is obstructing justice. They're shaping law, not obstructing it.

They only have the manpower to physically inspect a small fraction of the dealers every year (probably because their funding for that is squelched by Congress), they can't legally require inventory self-reporting, and they can't release trace data to prosecutors.

Of their manpower, the vast majority is tasked with dealer oversight. Almost none to prosecuting the thousands of felons who try to buy guns illegally through dealers and are caught by the NICS system.

Again, they CAN release trace data to prosecutors. Your statement is a complete falsehood. They cannot do it without there being a proper legal investigation, which is the same standard afforded most any such information held by any federal agency.

As to self-reporting, you've got this very mixed up. True dealers aren't required to report their boundbook data (to whom guns were bought and sold). Again this goes to the registry. The system was set up to be positive only. The ATF gets a gun at a crime scene, they can do the trace through the dealer data, or if they have cause to investigate a specific person they can get that data. What they don't have is a giant database of every gun transaction that records vast numbers of Americans who are law abiding citizens.

So yes it prevents that reporting of the bound book data. It must be kept by dealers, and turned over to ATF if they close their operations, but yes it was designed as a check on the system.

Again, not a prevention of enforcing a law, but a law on the books to govern what is to be enforced. Specifically the data is to be used to prosecute people post facto as with any criminal investigation, not used proactively to track people who have done no wrong.

I'm not saying that records of background checks should be kept perpetually, but they should be kept for more than 24 hours. I think that's reasonable.

Pick a number. 3 days? a month? What would we do with that data? How would it have prevented the VaTech shooting? We know most crimes are done with guns that never go through NICS b/c they are stolen, and these lunatics pass with flying colors b/c they dont' have criminal records, so what is the point of this expansion? How does it improve public safety?

Individuals deserve more protections than businesses, yes.

I agree. You know who these laws protect? The individuals who buy and own guns.

[CitizenBBN]

That's poor wording on my part, and I apologize for the confusion as its caused a tangent. 57% of guns used in crime come from 1% of dealers - this was in the 2002 ATF aggregate report on trace data, the last of such reports as the Tiahrt amendment prevented the ATF from releasing those reports after 2003.

Because that data is very faulty. Even the Congressional Research Service said it was unreliable and supported having it made unavaialble b/c it was misleading. The CRS is non-partisan. They have said: "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public." These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

it's faulty b/c of the sampling. For example, Chicago has lots of gun crimes. those guns are mostly stolen. they were stolen from law abiding people in a given geography for the most part, who bought them at stores in that same geography. So those traces show most of those crime guns came from those dealers, implying they were doing something wrong as opposed to the guy in some small town. It's very misleading on many levels.

Yes part of Tiahrt was to prevent it from being used in that way, and rightfully so b/c it was being misused.

Far better data is from the DOJ and FBI statistics, done to gather this kind of data explicitly, and they show these guns are stolen from private owners, primarily obtained from friends and family of those who used them in the crime. I'll find the cite later, it's on the other laptop.

[BigBlueBrock]

-- SCOTUS will disagree with you that businesses (corporations) don't have rights. They are for many purposes legal people.

-- Most dealers aren't businesses, they're licensed private individuals. it is a trade or business, but they are still individuals. Local law enforcement would be investigating them for a crime, and that means the same protections as any individual. In fact in criminal investigations of businesses you have to obtain warrants. You can't just confiscate all business email without cause or justification. You certainly cannot confiscate a person's private emails to prosecute him criminally without proper warrants.

Yeah, I'm aware that the SCOTUS determined that corporations are people - I vehemently disagree with that opinion. The 18th-century didn't have corporations as they exist today. Up until the early 20th century, corporations were temporary charters of the federal government, not permanent entities. I don't think the Framers would have intended the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations as many do today. But that's just me.

Like I said, the ATF can legally inspect dealer inventories and records on a whim, so why can't they legally require self-reporting? Seems like an odd distinguishment.

their "job" is to follow the law, and that is the law and they follow it. Again, you said they were being prevented from enforcing "the law". They are not. They are being prevented from enforcing laws you wish existed using methods you wish were legal. Huge difference, not semantics. We can debate if it's a good law, but let's not pretend the NRA is obstructing justice. They're shaping law, not obstructing it.

Well, it's a **** law.

I think our argument about the ATF boils down to that statement for me.

Pick a number. 3 days? a month? What would we do with that data? How would it have prevented the VaTech shooting? We know most crimes are done with guns that never go through NICS b/c they are stolen, and these lunatics pass with flying colors b/c they dont' have criminal records, so what is the point of this expansion? How does it improve public safety?

I think the statistic is that many gun crimes are committed within a few days of purchasing a firearm. I think 90 days is a reasonable standard. The point isn't that we could have prevented the VT shooting, but that we could have looked at the background check to see if maybe something was missed. Maybe there was some kind of tell that wasn't picked up by the process? I'm going to admit that I'm not entirely sure what goes into a background check - I've never purchased a gun, so I don't know how it works. But being able to go back and look at what information a perpetrator gave on a legally-passed background check might allow for changes to the process that can more easily prevent such things in the future.

I agree. You know who these laws protect? The individuals who buy and own guns.

I actually disagree with that. I think NRA lobbyists bill these laws as a protection of individuals, but they're really a protection of gun manufacturers. That's just my opinion, however. I think the great fear over a national registry is incredibly overblown and it's used as a bludgeon against any and all gun control legislation, even if it's reasonable.

[KeithKSR]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

Are we also going to regulate hammers and baseball bats? More people are killed by being bludgeoned with hammers, bats, etc each year than are killed using a rifle of any kind, including the assault rifle, which is a misnomer as actual assault rifles are not legal to possess without a tax stamp and a whole lot of paperwork. Why license and register handguns? The criminals aren't going to register them, criminals by their very nature do not worry about obeying laws they dislike.