Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[esmith]

There goes your claim of having open and honest discussion. Let me put it to you this way, if a governor or a political party campaigns on the basis of the above reforms, would you vote for them. Yes or No? If a citizen group campaigns to have these reforms in gun law for your state, would you send donations them? You are responsible for whom or what you support, not what others do.

I gave you my honest opinion and those of many members of Congress.
You asked me if I would support the ideas that you put forward and my answer is no. And I am responsible for whom and what I support and your agenda and the agenda of many as reflected in this forum and on the media is not what I will support. So, I suppose you want a reason I say this. New gun control laws will not stop these school shootings. After 9-11 our airports implemented increased security, why is there no support from many of the anit-gun group in doing so with our schools? Answer that and you will probably come to the conclusion that they are either ignorant about the issue, have an agenda that securing our schools with security does not support their agenda, or are blinded by the rhetoric of those that want extreme laws put into place.
If citizens of a State want to pass new firearm regulations that is up to them; however I suspect that they would be challenged in court.
Will give you an example of the feeling being expressed in States. Idaho Is my State
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/gun-law-nullification-republican-legislators/

 

[Nous]

I'd like to see a background check for all gun sales, private or otherwise, as long as NICS is opened up so that you don't need to be an FFL to run a check.

Presumably the FFL requirement is for identification purposes. Otherwise an anonymous individual could illegally sell a gun to someone (who then, e.g., uses it to commit a crime), and the seller might never be identified.

 

[esmith]

Presumably the FFL requirement is for identification purposes. Otherwise an anonymous individual could illegally sell a gun to someone (who then, e.g., uses it to commit a crime), and the seller might never be identified.

Not sure what you mean here. The background check done by a holder a a FFL is to insure that the person who is purchasing the firearm does not have any incidents that would prevent them from purchasing a firearm. There is no record of the sale kept beyond the record that the dealer maintains.

 

[sayak83]

I gave you my honest opinion and those of many members of Congress.
You asked me if I would support the ideas that you put forward and my answer is no. And I am responsible for whom and what I support and your agenda and the agenda of many as reflected in this forum and on the media is not what I will support. So, I suppose you want a reason I say this. New gun control laws will not stop these school shootings. After 9-11 our airports implemented increased security, why is there no support from many of the anit-gun group in doing so with our schools? Answer that and you will probably come to the conclusion that they are either ignorant about the issue, have an agenda that securing our schools with security does not support their agenda, or are blinded by the rhetoric of those that want extreme laws put into place.
If citizens of a State want to pass new firearm regulations that is up to them; however I suspect that they would be challenged in court.
Will give you an example of the feeling being expressed in States. Idaho Is my State
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/gun-law-nullification-republican-legislators/

The reason is guns is a very profitable industry with a strong lobby. They actively resist ANY laws that may depress sales. Just like tobacco lobby. It is unfortunate you are taken in by their propaganda. Your assertion that stricter restrictions and oversight do not result is less gun deaths is contradicted by evidence.

And unlike usual homicides, these mass shootings are primarily caused by legally purchased guns. Hence your stance seems to have no justification.

 

[esmith]

The reason is guns is a very profitable industry with a strong lobby. They actively resist ANY laws that may depress sales. Just like tobacco lobby. It is unfortunate you are taken in by their propaganda. Your assertion that stricter restrictions and oversight do not result is less gun deaths is contradicted by evidence.
And unlike usual homicides, these mass shootings are primarily caused by legally purchased guns. Hence your stance seems to have no justification.

It is your right to believe what you believe and it is my right to disagree with you. And unfortunately you seem to think that I am swayed in my opinion by what you call propaganda, would it not be acceptable for me to say that your opinions are based on the propaganda of those apposed to firearms. Mine aren't are yours?

 

[Nous]

Presumably the FFL requirement is for identification purposes. Otherwise an anonymous individual could illegally sell a gun to someone (who then, e.g., uses it to commit a crime), and the seller might never be identified.

Not sure what you mean here. The background check done by a holder a a FFL is to insure that the person who is purchasing the firearm does not have any incidents that would prevent them from purchasing a firearm. There is no record of the sale kept beyond the record that the dealer maintains.

If an FFL does a check, and the response is "No, he's a felon," then the FFL sells the gun to the man anyway (notice I specified an illegal sale by an individual), there is definitely a record of which FFL made that illegal sale.

 

[sayak83]

It is your right to believe what you believe and it is my right to disagree with you. And unfortunately you seem to think that I am swayed in my opinion by what you call propaganda, would it not be acceptable for me to say that your opinions are based on the propaganda of those apposed to firearms. Mine aren't are yours?

Yes. I provided constructive suggestions and referred to worldwide data showing correlation with stricter gun ownership regulations with lower gun deaths. You have, so far, just said that you disagree with all my suggestions claiming they won't decrease mass shootings and other gun deaths without providing any justification. Is this an example of open and honest discussion? If you are set in your opinion, why start this thread?

 

[esmith]

If an FFL does a check, and the response is "No, he's a felon," then the FFL sells the gun to the man anyway (notice I specified an illegal sale by an individual), there is definitely a record of which FFL made that illegal sale.

Not exactly, the only way it can be traced is for the firearm to be found, the serial number sent back to the manufacture who has a record of who they shipped it to and continue tracing it back from the manufacture, to a supplier and eventually to a dealer who has to keep a record of his sales. Then it can be determined if the dealer broke the law.
Reference: Fact Sheet - National Tracing Center | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[Nous]

Not exactly, the only way it can be traced is for the firearm to be found, the serial number sent back to the manufacture who has a record of who they shipped it to and continue tracing it back from the manufacture, to a supplier and eventually to a dealer who has to keep a record of his sales. Then it can be determined if the dealer broke the law.
Reference: Fact Sheet - National Tracing Center | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

There is nothing in the statute or the CFR that requires NICS or the FBI to destroy information on which FFL performed a background check on a person who was denied: About NICS — FBI Indeed, in the case of a delayed response, the NICS contacts (or is able to contact) the local law enforcement agencies and courts--that includes the authorities “local” to where the FFL sought approval of a sale.

It would be ridiculous to destroy the information of an FFL that is routinely selling guns to persons who cannot legally purchase guns. Congress didn't tie the FBI's hands that way. The FBI didn't tie its own hands that way. Get real.

 

[esmith]

Yes. I provided constructive suggestions and referred to worldwide data showing correlation with stricter gun ownership regulations with lower gun deaths. You have, so far, just said that you disagree with all my suggestions claiming they won't decrease mass shootings and other gun deaths without providing any justification. Is this an example of open and honest discussion? If you are set in your opinion, why start this thread?

To examine the current laws, to educate persons who are unfamiliar with Federal law on firearms; to discuss what Federal laws should be changed also to supply supporting factual information to support their ideas.
I answered the ideas(Post#12) you expressed in Post #5. You responded to my reply in Post #57. Now I will answer:

Suppose the guy works in personal security firm, private investigator, professional Hunter etc. Victims of domestic abuse, stalking etc. will also get permits under "profession and security" exemption.

What says that a person who works in any of the above professions has not done something that would restrict them from buying a firearm? You have just abolished background checks for some people. You do realize this don't you?

Having a job or being gainfully self employed are good credentials that show a person is independent, disciplined and responsible for their own lives and capable of making good decisions. Having, owning, looking after and using a gun should require a criteria of discipline and competency. This is a good one.

No, nothing says that a person working has met the legal criteria for owning a firearm, nor does it say that a person who is not working has not met the criteria for owning a firearm. This is judgement not based on fact but on opinions.

I don't know about US, but in India every locality has an official citizen's council that works with the local police station, helps the locally elected leaders in developmental proposals for the zone etc. Whatever it is that does the same thing in US should be given the responsibility of recommending or not recommending a person for gun ownership, if he/she fails to meet employment criteria.

There is something called the Constitution here in the United States that says that we have the right to own a firearm unless we have been found guilty before a court-of-law for an act that precludes us from owing a firearm. You can not remove a right without judicial action. Do you understand?

The law needs to be promulgated in every state. If the states are instruments of enacting these laws, the people should lobby their respective state legislators.

I have no problem with citizen's of a State to pass laws that affect the citizens of their State, but not the citizens on another state. In addition, it should be noted that a law must pass a Constitutional test if so brought forward.

5) Yes a refresher driving lesson every two years is a great idea, especially for people under 30 who are most responsible to avoidable car crashes. Written and eye test for all every two years and live driving test for folks under 30 every two years is a great idea.
I will note however that your fatality data is wrong. Every scientist knows that data needs to be appropriately normalized before comparison. Here the normalization metric is fatality per unit of use. So, for a correct comparison, the fatality rate by cars per unit of gasoline consumption needs to be compared with that of guns per unit of discharged bullet. I would bet the fatality rate would be orders of magnitude smaller than that of guns.

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about in connection with "fatality rate". Therefore I have no response. If a State wants to have driving test every X number of years to renew their license then they can do so; but it shall not affect the citizen of another state.

Explained in 2 above + mental competency assessment.

Countered in my answer.

How the Constitution needs to be interpreted (by the SC) or amended to make the above happen is the concern for US citizens. You asked for recommendations, I have provided them. These things can certainly be done if people actively march out for them.

I agree, if the citizens of the United States wants to amended the Constitution then they can follow the procedures set forth in the Constitution. Yes the SCOTUS can interpret laws and they do so, I see no legal issue with that point.

 

[esmith]

There is nothing in the statute or the CFR that requires NICS or the FBI to destroy information on which FFL performed a background check on a person who was denied: About NICS — FBI Indeed, in the case of a delayed response, the NICS contacts (or is able to contact) the local law enforcement agencies and courts--that includes the authorities “local” to where the FFL sought approval of a sale.

It would be ridiculous to destroy the information of an FFL that is routinely selling guns to persons who cannot legally purchase guns. Congress didn't tie the FBI's hands that way. The FBI didn't tie its own hands that way. Get real.

Do you see anywhere in your link that the FFL query is saved by the FBI? I sure couldn't find it.

 

[Nous]

Do you see anywhere in your link that the FFL query is saved by the FBI? I sure couldn't find it.

No, Congress does not need to give the FBI approval to retain information that would be helpful in determining whether or not an FFL is routinely selling guns illegally, and the FBI does not need to give itself such approval.

 

[esmith]

No, Congress does not need to give the FBI approval to retain information that would be helpful in determining whether or not an FFL is routinely selling guns illegally, and the FBI does not need to give itself such approval.

However, do you have positive proof that the query is retained after the request has been terminated? Would like to see it in writing if it so exist.

 

[Nous]

However, do you have positive proof that the query is retained after the request has been terminated? Would like to see it in writing if it so exist.

Yes, the FBI has to retain information on denials in case the person appeals. The FBI is an investigative body that doesn't destroy information that is necessary to have in order to determine whether an FFL is routinely selling guns to people prohibited to purchase guns. Try to be less ridiculous.

 

[esmith]

Yes, the FBI has to retain information on denials in case the person appeals. The FBI is an investigative body that doesn't destroy information that is necessary to have in order to determine whether an FFL is routinely selling guns to people prohibited to purchase guns. Try to be less ridiculous.

Where is that written. It is not necessary for the query to be retained if the result is a down-check. All the person that received the down-check is to appeal.
NICS Appeals — FBI

The NICS is a name check system that queries available records in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Indices to determine if prospective firearm purchasers are disqualified from receiving or possessing firearms.

If you believe you have been wrongfully denied a firearm transfer or pawn redemption, you may request an appeal. Some individuals may find they are continuously delayed when purchasing or redeeming firearms. Others may successfully appeal a NICS denial but still experience extended delays or erroneous denials on subsequent transactions. The Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) was established to assist in these types of situations by providing a way for an individual to request that NICS maintain information to clarify their identity or past events to prevent future extended delays or erroneous denials on firearm transfers.

A delayed transaction will be purged from the NICS within 88 days from creation. The NICS Section recommends that you wait 30 days from the date initiating the check prior to filing an appeal on a delay to give the NICS Section’s staff time to complete the initial transaction. If your original background check is completed, the Federal Firearm Licensee will be notified with a final status.

 

[Nous]

Where is that written. It is not necessary for the query to be retained if the result is a down-check. All the person that received the down-check is to appeal.
NICS Appeals — FBI

The webpage you linked to clearly states:

What is a NICS NTN or STN?
An NICS Transaction Number (NTN) is a unique number assigned to each valid background check inquiry received by the NICS. A State Transaction Number (STN) is a unique number assigned by a State Point of Contact to a valid background check inquiry. The primary purpose of an NTN or STN is to provide a means of associating inquiries to the NICS with the responses provided by the NICS Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL).​

How can it possibly make sense for the FBI to destroy information by which to determine whether an FFL is routinely selling guns to people who are prohibited to buy guns?

 

[esmith]

The webpage you linked to clearly states:

What is a NICS NTN or STN?
An NICS Transaction Number (NTN) is a unique number assigned to each valid background check inquiry received by the NICS. A State Transaction Number (STN) is a unique number assigned by a State Point of Contact to a valid background check inquiry. The primary purpose of an NTN or STN is to provide a means of associating inquiries to the NICS with the responses provided by the NICS Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL).​

How can it possibly make sense for the FBI to destroy information by which to determine whether an FFL is routinely selling guns to people who are prohibited to buy guns?

You do realize that not every gun purchase from a FFL dealer by a private person goes though a background check don't you.

 

[Nous]

You do realize that not every gun purchase from a FFL dealer by a private person goes though a background check don't you.

That has nothing to do with the FBI's retention of records of which FFL sought a background check for a person who was denied.

 

[esmith]

That has nothing to do with the FBI's retention of records of which FFL sought a background check for a person who was denied.

I disagree with your premise and until you provide written documentation that the query by a FFL dealer that is rejected is maintained it will so stand until that time.

 

[sayak83]

To examine the current laws, to educate persons who are unfamiliar with Federal law on firearms; to discuss what Federal laws should be changed also to supply supporting factual information to support their ideas.
I answered the ideas(Post#12) you expressed in Post #5. You responded to my reply in Post #57. Now I will answer:

What says that a person who works in any of the above professions has not done something that would restrict them from buying a firearm? You have just abolished background checks for some people. You do realize this don't you?


No, nothing says that a person working has met the legal criteria for owning a firearm, nor does it say that a person who is not working has not met the criteria for owning a firearm. This is judgement not based on fact but on opinions.

There is something called the Constitution here in the United States that says that we have the right to own a firearm unless we have been found guilty before a court-of-law for an act that precludes us from owing a firearm. You can not remove a right without judicial action. Do you understand?


I have no problem with citizen's of a State to pass laws that affect the citizens of their State, but not the citizens on another state. In addition, it should be noted that a law must pass a Constitutional test if so brought forward.

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about in connection with "fatality rate". Therefore I have no response. If a State wants to have driving test every X number of years to renew their license then they can do so; but it shall not affect the citizen of another state.

Countered in my answer.


I agree, if the citizens of the United States wants to amended the Constitution then they can follow the procedures set forth in the Constitution. Yes the SCOTUS can interpret laws and they do so, I see no legal issue with that point.

No. I did not elimnate background checks. I granted an exemption for 1 year continuous holding of job for those who are professionals in hunting or security. Crime and psychiatric tests remain.

Every citizen who could qualify as to be part of a well regulated militia can own a gun. Psychiatric test, crime checks, job holding, refresher training every two years are reasonable qualification criteria. I believe that if a law of that form is brought in by the states, it would pass through the Supreme Court.