Firearms - The US Discussion Thread

[KevinB]

NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
  It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.

It is effectively cash and carry, as long as your not a criminal.
  Some states have waiting time frames for certain firearms, and usually a Concealed Permit Holder (what VA calls the CCW permit in the state) is exempt from the waiting laws.

The Government does not retain information of the firearm, the dealer does.  The Government can get the information if they subpoena the FFL records however. 



 

 

[Bzzliteyr]

NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
  It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.

It is effectively cash and carry, as long as your not a criminal.
  Some states have waiting time frames for certain firearms, and usually a Concealed Permit Holder (what VA calls the CCW permit in the state) is exempt from the waiting laws.

The Government does not retain information of the firearm, the dealer does.  The Government can get the information if they subpoena the FFL records however. 



 

Ah, it's the "criminal" side of the deal, no background or interviews for mental health that is the issue.

So criminals can't buy guns legally but crazy people can?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Define "crazy".

I am not being sarcastic. Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?

 

[The Bread Guy]

NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
  It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.

It is effectively cash and carry, as long as your not a criminal.
  Some states have waiting time frames for certain firearms, and usually a Concealed Permit Holder (what VA calls the CCW permit in the state) is exempt from the waiting laws.

The Government does not retain information of the firearm, the dealer does.  The Government can get the information if they subpoena the FFL records however. 

You know how the U.S. rules work - is this correct (highlights mine), or are we missing a big part of the REST of the story?

Alaska Congressman Don Young doesn’t think much of the proposal to bar people on the no-fly list from buying guns.

“Those that are talking about – what they’re doing is against the Constitution,” he said on the House floor Thursday. “And I will fight until my dying breath to make sure that we have the ability to retain the Second Amendment.”

President Obama pitched the idea last week from the Oval Office as a matter of common sense.

“Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane,” Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous by definition to buy a gun.”

But Young says the no-fly list includes people who aren’t dangerous.

“I, personally, myself, have been on the (no) fly list,” he said. “It took me six months to get off of it. They didn’t tell me who put me on it, why I was put on it and what was the result from. Six months!”

The incident dates back to 2004, when Young said he was questioned before boarding a flight because his name was similar to a suspected bad guy.

The no-fly list is classified, but by some accounts more than 40,000 people are on it, and a few hundred are U.S. citizens. Young says the FBI is already notified when someone on the list tries to buy a gun ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?

Isn't it called the Voters List ?  ;D

 

[Lumber]

I believe the "rule of thumb" for what to do with tyrannical regimes has been established:

" ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I don't disagree with this at all. But does banning certain or all weapons make a government a "tyrannical" regime? Was the US government considered "tyrannical" when it outlawed alcohol in 1920?

Lets say the government, for example, banned all guns that didn't have a wooden stock because plastic stocks/hand guards look more "assault like" (their words, not mine). Then lets say as a result, a bunch of gun owners burry their guns in the back yard in protest. I'd roll my eyes, but I'd say "whatever, that is a really stupid law that makes no sense. If you want to keep your gun THAT bad, go ahead and burry it in the dirt." But to advocate using those guns against the government for banning those same guns? I guess me and the hardcore gun supporters have a different idea of what a tyrannical regime is.

Isn't it called the Voters List ?  ;D

No no, just the list of registered Republican party members.  :subbies:

 

[KevinB]

*caveat I do not have personal experience with the No-Fly list, my LE job has no interaction with that.

I understand a problem with the no-fly list, in this respect is that folks are put on it for suspicions, and until your denied boarding, you cannot find out who is on, as there is no judicial process.
I would also like to see the no-fly list process turned into a legitimate judicial process, like a criminal proceeding, however we do not have a constitutionally enshrined right to fly on an airline. With gun buying, we (in the USA) have a protected right in the second amendment, and until they are charged or convicted of a crime, that right may not be infringed.
For further interest.
NCIS will delay if a hit occurs (similar name, etc. until sorted), and this data is available to Law Enforcement (NICS applications).
  Make, Model etc. is not without due process (subpoena, or seizure in a warrant) as that is on the 4473, however it is not a hard item to get as the NCIS does log the store/FFL who submitted the check for the individual purchase (or purchase attempt), and if there are NICS hits for a suspect, very few judges will deny a warrant for the records of what was acquired.
LE can pull up recent NCIS [personally seen a 90 day one] checks, to me personally irrelevant, as I expect all suspects are armed, but can be used to persuade a reluctant judge to approve a no knock, or your chain to approve certain entry methods.

 

[Jarnhamar]

“Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane,” Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous by definition to buy a gun.”

Shit like this is why people bury guns.

 

[KevinB]

crap like this is why people bury guns.

It's actually why many of my friends in the USSS have ulcers..

 

[Halifax Tar]

Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?

 

[c_canuk]

Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?

Because it's well known the no fly list is full of people within 6 degrees of separation of suspicious people just in case, doesn't accurately target individuals, so anyone with the same name is impacted, there is no way to be taken off of it if a mistake happens, and is just really an unconstitutional limit to freedom with now due process that gets a pass because you could walk, swim, boat instead.

Applying that mess to a constitutional right is a non-starter really.

What is so cringe worthy is the prez is well aware of that and doesn't care. If he's willing to be that sloppy about removing the rights of his people for one thing, how willing is he to take others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?

Given the ambiguity of what can land someone on that list yes.

 

[Lumber]

What is so cringe worthy is the prez is well aware of that and doesn't care. If he's willing to be that sloppy about removing the rights of his people for one thing, how willing is he to take others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology?

I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they believe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things I believe are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The right to own a gun? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something everyone should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."

 

[The Bread Guy]

*caveat I do not have personal experience with the No-Fly list, my LE job has no interaction with that.

I understand a problem with the no-fly list, in this respect is that folks are put on it for suspicions, and until your denied boarding, you cannot find out who is on, as there is no judicial process.
I would also like to see the no-fly list process turned into a legitimate judicial process, like a criminal proceeding, however we do not have a constitutionally enshrined right to fly on an airline. With gun buying, we (in the USA) have a protected right in the second amendment, and until they are charged or convicted of a crime, that right may not be infringed.
For further interest.
NCIS will delay if a hit occurs (similar name, etc. until sorted), and this data is available to Law Enforcement (NICS applications).
  Make, Model etc. is not without due process (subpoena, or seizure in a warrant) as that is on the 4473, however it is not a hard item to get as the NCIS does log the store/FFL who submitted the check for the individual purchase (or purchase attempt), and if there are NICS hits for a suspect, very few judges will deny a warrant for the records of what was acquired.
LE can pull up recent NCIS [personally seen a 90 day one] checks, to me personally irrelevant, as I expect all suspects are armed, but can be used to persuade a reluctant judge to approve a no knock, or your chain to approve certain entry methods.

Thanks for that - much appreciated.

It's actually why many of my friends in the USSS have ulcers..

I can only imagine ...

 

[Jed]

I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things I believe are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The right to own a gun? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something everyone should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."

In the US I believe the 2nd ammendment gives people that right. Any word twisting is just being obtuse or a barracks room lawyer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun.

Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?

 

[c_canuk]

I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc.

I'm not sure I follow. He IS that sloppy, he said he thinks if you're on the no fly list, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. There is no wiggle room there for you to say "I don't think he'd be that sloppy"

If you read the second ammendment with the same framework that is applied to all the other ammendments, and you read the background framing comments on why the second ammendment was made, you are completely wrong. The intent was to prevent the state from controlling a monopoly on the tools of violence, therefore no law shall infringe the right to own firearms.

These things I believe are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The right to own a gun? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something everyone should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."

Intrinsic rights are only those you can keep. Laws don't give you rights, they either defend existing rights and give you more tools to defend your rights, or they take them away. Governments never stop making laws. Never. Once a set of rights is enshrined, they start making laws to diminish those laws.

Once normalization of removing gun rights is set to the low bar of someone was on a list with no due process, it becomes much more easy to justify taking all gun owner's rights away. Then his next limit to freedom will be compared to how guns were taken away and done in a similar fashion.

Maybe next time it will be something that you like, like the right to own a vehicle that goes over 30 km/h, the justification here would be that vehicles kill more people that guns on orders of magnitude. This is not so far fetched as we already have govenments willfully establishing speedlimits that have been proven to kill more than higher engineered limits.

Or how about the right to travel across provincial/state lines, for example NB is getting stroppy about the revenue it looses to alcohol sales in Quebec and is looking for solutions to it's declining population due to people fleeing to find other work.

How about the right to not have your savings account drained whn the government has a shortfall? What intrinsic right do you have to keep what you save? The surpluses in CPP and EI have already been tapped. Your responsibility as a citizen is to keep the economy flowing, so if you save too much money, perhaps it should be taxed from you to help someone else. What intrinsic right do you have to stagnate the economy?

How about the freedom to choose your own career, afterall if your career choice fails, the government has to help you up don't they? why shouldn't they be able to tell you what job you will do from now on? What intrinsic right to you have to choose your employment?

The freedom to purchase snacks? Healthcare costs from improper eating habits cost billions, so for your own good, no one can have any. What intrinsic right do you have to fritos?

 

[Loachman]

Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?

I'd prepared a response to Lumber's earlier post, but c_canuk beat be to posting and there is no need to repeat what he said.

"Bearing arms" means to carry them. "Keeping arms" means to own them. The Second Amendment affirms the right to do both.

See c_canuk's second paragraph. Those who wrote that amendment stated, quite clearly, in other writings exactly what they meant by it. Some people, however, refuse to comprehend or accept those writings.

The US Supreme Court's Heller decision (Mr Heller challenged the constitutionality of some of Washington DC's ridiculous firearms restrictions) affirmed this a few years ago.

There is no Right to Life, in real terms, unless one can freely exercise that right. Doing so requires the means to successfully defend oneself, ie effective weaponry.

 

[KevinB]

I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things I believe are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The right to own a gun? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something everyone should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."

While others have very eloquently dissected and dismantled your post (and not just the spelling), I would like to point out that down here in the US of A, the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed by the USSC that it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not a collective, and thus can only be removed by due process.
There is NOT a shred of Due Process in the No-Fly list creation - it's a Star Chamber, and I refuse to believe than anyone in a democratic society thinks that those are a good idea.
Do I think there should be a No-Fly list, absolutely, however I disagree with the way the current one is implemented.

 

[cupper]

Define "crazy".

I am not being sarcastic. Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?

The Republican Presidential Candidates?