Ban On Semi-Auto Guns - Petition

[TFOGGuys]

I figure after the Patri(di)ot Act, we're more like here:

[TFOGGuys]

In fact, in 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft barred the FBI from reviewing any gun purchase records associated with a crime.

Incorrect.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7), 27 CFR 478.25a]
What is my responsibility to respond to a request to trace a firearm?

A licensee must provide the requested information immediately and in no event later than 24 hours after receipt of a request by ATF. Failure to respond to the request for trace information can result in monetary fines, imprisonment, and/or revocation of the licensee’s Federal firearms license.

[cu360r6]

18 USC Chapter 44, SS 922.

My opinion: Licenses are for acts that are privileges, not for guaranteed rights. If you had to register to avoid unreasonable searches and seizure of you belongings, or to practice free speech or religion, the whole country would be screaming bloody murder. But because it's a gun issue, and many people are not "gun people", some feel it is ok to abridge the rights of gun ownership and usage. This mentality leads only to the erosion of ALL of our guaranteed rights. No matter how "reasonable" the infringement sounds to you, it is an offense against the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free citizens of this country, and should NOT be tolerated, especially by those that avail themselves of certain other rights, like freedom of speech and expression. Remember, when a dam fails, it usually does so very slowly at first, a small leak that gradually increases, until it suddenly washes out.

That section of the US code is over 43 pages long. Do you have an actual cite to the part you're referring to? Also, what are you claiming is already illegal specifically? I didn't mention a particular requirement or piece of legislation before you said this, so what exactly is not being enforced in your opinion?

Once again, the right to real property is as fundamental as the right to bear arms and requiring registration of land sales has hardly infringed on anyone's ability to sell or buy land.

In 217 years since the adoption of our Constitution that hasn't been a single examples of the federal government taking away guns from law abiding citizens, so you're slippery slope argument doesn't seem to be backed up by much besides a constant fear in spite of the facts. Many gun owners seem to share a this constant fear, but without any history or attempts to restrict our right to bear arms this seems to be irrational at best.

[cu360r6]

[quote=TFOGGuys;276073]Incorrect.
[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7)]

Correct! You forgot the phrase "as the Attorney General may require." It allows the AG to have discretion which Ashcroft refused to exercise. In the ATF regulations the single word "may" changes the entire enforcement. It allows the turning over of information to be discretionary, not mandatory. The difference between may and shall is really large if you're talking about CC legislation as well.

[cu360r6]

I don't think the majority of people on here are opposed to regulations in general. You have to have your FFL to own anything automatic. You have to be licensed to concealed carry. You have to go through the background check and notify the government when you purchase a gun. Thats all fine, but there is a point where you draw the line. Microstamping bullets and over-bureaucracy etc. is what gets people ruffled.

So we don't need anymore legislation to prevent gun shops like this one from being prosecuted?: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ret...832226789.html
There are many other gun stores out there selling to criminals without fear of retribution because they don't have to register and record each sale under criminal and civil penalties. Restricting them won't infringe any individual gun owner's freedom.

[TFOGGuys]

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart C—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions
Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 478.25a Responses to requests for information.

Each licensee shall respond immediately to, and in no event later than 24 hours after the receipt of, a request by an ATF officer at the National Tracing Center for information contained in the records required to be kept by this part for determining the disposition of one or more firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. The requested information shall be provided orally to the ATF officer within the 24-hour period. Verification of the identity and employment of National Tracing Center personnel requesting information may be established at the time the requested information is provided by telephoning the toll-free number 1–800–788–7132 or using the toll-free facsimile (FAX) number 1–800–578–7223.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512–0387)[T.D. ATF–363, 60 FR 17451, Apr. 6, 1996, as amended by T.D. ATF–396, 63 FR 12646, Mar. 16, 1998]



PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart H—Records
Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 478.124 Firearms transaction record.

(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, unless the licensee records the transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473: Provided, That a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.
(b) A licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer shall retain in alphabetical (by name of purchaser), chronological (by date of disposition), or numerical (by transaction serial number) order, and as a part of the required records, each Form 4473 obtained in the course of transferring custody of the firearms.
(c)(1) Prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer so transferring the firearm shall obtain a Form 4473 from the transferee showing the transferee's name, sex, residence address (including county or similar political subdivision), date and place of birth; height, weight and race of the transferee; the transferee's country of citizenship; the transferee's INS-issued alien number or admission number; the transferee's State of residence; and certification by the transferee that the transferee is not prohibited by the Act from transporting or shipping a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce or receiving a firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce or possessing a firearm in or affecting commerce.
(2) In order to facilitate the transfer of a firearm and enable NICS to verify the identity of the person acquiring the firearm, ATF Form 4473 also requests certain optional information. This information includes the transferee's social security number. Such information may help avoid the possibility of the transferee being misidentified as a felon or other prohibited person.
(3) After the transferee has executed the Form 4473, the licensee:
(i) Shall verify the identity of the transferee by examining the identification document (as defined in §478.11) presented, and shall note on the Form 4473 the type of identification used;
(ii) Shall, in the case of a transferee who is an alien legally in the United States, cause the transferee to present documentation establishing that the transferee is a resident of the State (as defined in §478.11) in which the licensee's business premises is located, and shall note on the form the documentation used. Examples of acceptable documentation include utility bills or a lease agreement which show that the transferee has resided in the State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the transfer of the firearm; and
(iii) Must, in the case of a transferee who is a nonimmigrant alien who states that he or she falls within an exception to, or has a waiver from, the nonimmigrant alien prohibition, have the transferee present applicable documentation establishing the exception or waiver, note on the Form 4473 the type of documentation provided, and attach a copy of the documentation to the Form 4473.
(iv) Shall comply with the requirements of §478.102 and record on the form the date on which the licensee contacted the NICS, as well as any response provided by the system, including any identification number provided by the system.
(4) The licensee shall identify the firearm to be transferred by listing on the Form 4473 the name of the manufacturer, the name of the importer (if any), the type, model, caliber or gauge, and the serial number of the firearm.
(5) The licensee shall sign and date the form if the licensee does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is disqualified by law from receiving the firearm and transfer the firearm described on the Form 4473.
(d) Prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a shotgun or rifle under the provisions contained in §478.96(c) to a nonlicensee who is not a resident of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, the licensee so transferring the shotgun or rifle, and such transferee, shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section: Provided, That in the case of a transferee who is an alien legally in the United States, the documentation required by paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section need only establish that the transferee is a resident of any State and has resided in such State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the transfer of the firearm. Examples of acceptable documentation include utility bills or a lease agreement. The licensee shall note on the form the documentation used.
...
(g) A licensee who sells or otherwise disposes of a firearm to a nonlicensee who is other than an individual, shall obtain from the transferee the information required by this section from an individual authorized to act on behalf of the transferee. In addition, the licensee shall obtain from the individual acting on behalf of the transferee a written statement, executed under the penalties of perjury, that the firearm is being acquired for the use of and will be the property of the transferee, and showing the name and address of that transferee.
(h) The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other recordkeeping requirement contained in this part.
(i) A licensee may obtain, upon request, an emergency supply of Forms 4473 from any Director of Industry Operations. For normal usage, a licensee should request a year's supply from the ATF Distribution Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.



PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart H—Records
Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 478.128 False statement or representation.

(a) Any person who knowingly makes any false statement or representation in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability, under the provisions of the Act, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Any person other than a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to any information required by the provisions of the Act or this part to be kept in the records of a person licensed under the Act or this part shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) Any licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to any information required by the provisions of the Act or this part to be kept in the records of a person licensed under the Act or this part shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

[cu360r6]

Could you tell me what exactly I've claimed is legal is already illegal? I don't understand what specifically you're disagreeing with me over.

First, If it's straw man sales or sales by non licensed gun dealers is what you're referring to then I would say reread the last subsection a you cited. It only places penalties on those trying to buy illegal guns. It does nothing to stop those sellnig illegal guns. In the final subsection c that you cited it requires a mens rea element of 'knowingly' which is the highest and hardest to prove. It basically means you have to intentionally market and sell to criminals in order to be found in violation. Lowering that to recklessly or negligently would make this part of the statute actually have an effect. If you read that last section it may seem like this is already illegal, but practically when talking about prosecuting it's not nearly that clear.

Second, no statute you've cited has anything to do with home, person to person, or unlicensed dealer sales. The article I cited said this is the second biggest way legal guns fall into illegal hands, so requiring registration or reporting of these sales more like those in a regular gun store would go much farther in stopping criminals from getting guns.

[Centrios]

In 217 years since the adoption of our Constitution that hasn't been a single examples of the federal government taking away guns from law abiding citizens, so you're slippery slope argument doesn't seem to be backed up by much besides a constant fear in spite of the facts. Many gun owners seem to share a this constant fear, but without any history or attempts to restrict our right to bear arms this seems to be irrational at best.

This isn’t entirely true.
There have been examples of State/local governments confiscating law abiding citizens firearms.

The NRA had a big campaign going called "give them back" or something like that. I would search for the information but if I search for “firearms” on my work computer the firewall blacks the search and alerts Human Resources. So search for it yourself if you don’t like my short explanation.

In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina the Mayor/Governor (I can’t remember which) responding to an increase in violence and crime ordered the police to go door to door and confiscate all firearms. If you weren't home they just went in, confiscated them and left a note saying the police toke them. When homeowners got home and found their firearms missing they would go down to the police department. The police refused to return them. The NRA sued and won. The police were ordered to return all confiscated firearms. The police and Mayor/Governor still refused to return the firearms in spite of the court order. Then they “lost” a bunch of them. Since then I haven’t heard anything more about it.

So don’t tell me in 217 years government has tried to take firearms from law abiding citizens. This is also a good example of what could happen if there was a national firearms registry.

Not all gun owners are against all firearms regulations. I myself am open to reasonable regulation. The problem is if we start letting all these regulations pass then where do you draw the line? Its better to fight for every right we have right now as opposed to waiting until they ban every thing but pea shooters, then decide to start fighting for our (as Jim said) CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

[TFOGGuys]

Could you tell me what exactly I've claimed is legal is already illegal? I don't understand what specifically you're disagreeing with me over.

First, If it's straw man sales or sales by non licensed gun dealers is what you're referring to then I would say reread the last subsection a you cited. It only places penalties on those trying to buy illegal guns. It does nothing to stop those sellnig illegal guns. In the final subsection c that you cited it requires a mens rea element of 'knowingly' which is the highest and hardest to prove. It basically means you have to intentionally market and sell to criminals in order to be found in violation. Lowering that to recklessly or negligently would make this part of the statute actually have an effect. If you read that last section it may seem like this is already illegal, but practically when talking about prosecuting it's not nearly that clear.

Second, no statute you've cited has anything to do with home, person to person, or unlicensed dealer sales. The article I cited said this is the second biggest way legal guns fall into illegal hands, so requiring registration or reporting of these sales more like those in a regular gun store would go much farther in stopping criminals from getting guns.

I haven't cited sections on unlicensed sales, as they aren't relevant. Such sales are legal, provided that the seller reasonably believes that the buyer is legally permitted to own the firearm. The act of attempting to purchase or possess a gun one may not legally own is in and of itself a crime. Did the state of California go out and arrest every one of the people that made a false statement in conjunction with the sales at Walmart? Or did they go after Walmart, because they had deeper pockets when it came to fines? The individuals that made materially false statements on their 4473s should be in prison on federal charges. The clerks that made sales that they knew were not above board should be charged.

[cu360r6]

This isn’t entirely true.

In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina the Mayor/Governor (I can’t remember which) responding to an increase in violence and crime ordered the police to go door to door and confiscate all firearms. If you weren't home they just went in, confiscated them and left a note saying the police toke them. When homeowners got home and found their firearms missing they would go down to the police department. The police refused to return them. The NRA sued and won. The police were ordered to return all confiscated firearms. The police and Mayor/Governor still refused to return the firearms in spite of the court order. Then they “lost” a bunch of them. Since then I haven’t heard anything more about it.

First, from August 28th to Sept 17th 2005 there was a mandatory evacuation order in New Orleans and the city was declared a Federal City which is akin to martial law. Those that remained behind where in violation of this, and as criminals didn't retain the right to bear arms. The city could confiscate their weapons in order to evacuate them forcefully, so this isn't an example of this right being stripped from lawful citizens.

Second, despite what the NRA claims they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence showing that either the state, the federal, or even the official city government ordered guns to be confiscated as an official policy. All they could show is one rogue sheriff out on his own accord.

Third, Hurricane Katrina was a once in a century storm, and the aftermath was chaos not likely to be repeated again. Your chances of being bitten by a shark or struck by lightening is far greater, so using it as an example for anything is hardly relevant to the rest of the country during our normal lives.

[clustermagnet]

[TFOGGuys]

Is that yours? If so, I'm curious how you managed to get a permit in NYC...

[cu360r6]

I haven't cited sections on unlicensed sales, as they aren't relevant. Such sales are legal, provided that the seller reasonably believes that the buyer is legally permitted to own the firearm. The act of attempting to purchase or possess a gun one may not legally own is in and of itself a crime. Did the state of California go out and arrest every one of the people that made a false statement in conjunction with the sales at Walmart? Or did they go after Walmart, because they had deeper pockets when it came to fines? The individuals that made materially false statements on their 4473s should be in prison on federal charges. The clerks that made sales that they knew were not above board should be charged.

Walmart wasn't prosecuted under the statute you cited. They were prosecuted by the CA state Attorney General under CA state law which is more restrictive in some areas than Federal law. I used that as an example of the illegal sales that are happening, not law enforcement cracking down on gun dealers because one example certainly isn't good evidence of that.

The ATF estimates that only 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. As I stated above the statute you cited is weak on the penalty/enforcement side with the "may" language. What is the problem you have with legislation making penalties stronger and prosecution easier against gun dealers selling illegally? Why should individual sales be exempt from the same requirements?

[TFOGGuys]

So why are the buyers not being referred to the federal courts for charges?

I see no problem with reasonable regulation, but the initial post in this thread was in opposition to an outright ban on firearms based on function and capacity. This segues into "safe storage" requirements, which in England resulted in handgun owners being forced to store their weapons in armories at their shooting club, which made it quite convenient to confiscate them when the Crown decided to ban private ownership of handguns (even for sporting purposes). Unsurprisingly, the criminals in the UK still have guns, still use them to commit crimes, and are safer in their chosen profession as a result of "reasonable regulation".

Possession of firearms by prohibited persons is a felony, it's time we enforced the law. Registration of firearms and firearms owners has inevitably led to confiscation, affecting only the law abiding.

[Centrios]

First, from August 28th to Sept 17th 2005 there was a mandatory evacuation order in New Orleans and the city was declared a Federal City which is akin to martial law. Those that remained behind where in violation of this, and as criminals didn't retain the right to bear arms. The city could confiscate their weapons in order to evacuate them forcefully, so this isn't an example of this right being stripped from lawful citizens.

In New Orleans the citizens were ordered to leave, yes and most did. There was a small percent of people that didn’t want to leave and didn’t. There was even a larger percent of people that wanted to leave but had absolutely no means to do so. I wasn’t aware of the fact that they were all convicted of a crime and therefore deemed “criminals”. I also wasn’t aware of the fact “criminals” couldn’t posse’s firearms. That also doesn’t account for the fact they confiscated them out of the empty homes of citizens who did comply with the evacuation order.

I can see the confiscation of firearms from unoccupied homes. They could be stolen by the criminals. The problem is when they refuse to return them to the possession of their law abiding and rightful owner.

Your mention of declaring martial law and there fore making it legal to confiscate firearms is ridicules. No offence. The entire reason for the Second Amendment lies in that statement.

Second, despite what the NRA claims they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence showing that either the state, the federal, or even the official city government ordered guns to be confiscated as an official policy.

Does the NRA need to prove the State Government ordered the confiscation of all firearms? No. They just need to prove that police unconstitutionally confiscated the firearms. The NRA proved that and hence the police were court ordered to return them but did not.

Third, Hurricane Katrina was a once in a century storm. Your chances of being bitten by a shark or struck by lightening is far greater, so using it as an example for anything is hardly relevant to the rest of the country during our normal lives.

Tell that to the gunless law abiding citizens of Louisiana who now don’t have a firearm to protect their home from they very people the police didn’t want the guns to fall into the hands of.

[Centrios]

Is that yours? If so, I'm curious how you managed to get a permit in NYC...

Id be more concerned why he owns a pink gun.

[cu360r6]

I lived in NOLA for 8 months after Hurricane Katrina, so this is something that I have a bit of expeirence with.

First, while gutting homes I "confiscated" dozens of firearms and turned them over to the EPA for disposal. Of course they'd been rotting in chemical laced flood waters and were hardly usable anymore, but the NRA said this was a government action and wanted these weapons returned. It's ridiculous for the NRA to claim that I was a government actor and that taking weapons that could never be used again was unconstitutional.

Second, the ruling in the case you're talking about specifically said it wasn't the government taking weapons. The second amendment doesn't preserve your right to bear arms against anyone but the government. "2. P. Edwin Compass, III acknowledges that no authority has been delegated to him by C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the powers granted unto the said Mayor by the provisions of LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to order the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens and that any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him in such regard do not represent any policy, statement, ordinance, regulation, decision, custom or practice of either C. Ray Nagin or the City of New Orleans, its agencies and/or departments;"

Fourth, it's not a crime to remain when there's a mandatory evacuation order, but it's a violation. Government entities were empowered to use force to remove citizens that refused to leave, and if they suspected weapons would be used to resist they had the power to remove the weapons. Show me one instance of a gun being confiscated before the mandatory evacuation order on 8/28 or after it on 9/17, and I'll concede the government unlawfully took weapons, but not even the NRA could prove one single instance.

Finally, using Hurricane Katrina as an example is pretty misleading for the reasons I've already cited. You're more likely to be involved in a shark attack or lightening strike than in something like this, so fearing this is completely irrational. Can you give show one reasonable example of an unconstitutional confiscation by the government that wasn't remedied by the courts?

[DavidofColorado]

I don't think the NRA was talking about you the days after the flood proactive months later. They were talking about the guns grabbed from owners during the crisis.

[DavidofColorado]

We never hear from you unless you are mis informing us will liberal bias. What's up with that? You made one post about AMA racing and the rest was just crazy talk.

[TFOGGuys]

Id be more concerned why he owns a pink gun.

It's actually more of a lavender....... but that still doesn't explain how he managed to get a permit in NYC, one of the most restrictive environments for gun ownership, and not coincidentally, one of the highest violent crime areas in the US.

[clustermagnet]

We never hear from you unless you are mis informing us will liberal bias. What's up with that? You made one post about AMA racing and the rest was just crazy talk.

Maybe he is implying that gun owners have a small peepee syndrome, in general

[DavidofColorado]

But it doesn't infringe on his rights according to CU360R6. It s a common sense step for keeping guns out of the wrong hands. To bad it looks like suffocation by regulation to me.

[TFOGGuys]

I lived in NOLA for 8 months after Hurricane Katrina, so this is something that I have a bit of expeirence with.

First, while gutting homes I "confiscated" dozens of firearms and turned them over to the EPA for disposal. Of course they'd been rotting in chemical laced flood waters and were hardly usable anymore, but the NRA said this was a government action and wanted these weapons returned.

How were these accounted for? Not to be rude, but were serial numbers recorded, pictures taken, and affidavits of destruction issued? How are the homeowners to know if they were stolen prior to the gutting of the house, or removed by the government? Was any compensation issued for the destroyrf arms?

[DavidofColorado]

Maybe he is implying that gun owners have a small peepee syndrome, in general

Maybe but you might be surprised that I'm not over compensating for anything. You mom can vouch for me.
Where did you get your pinko gun. My niece wants one. She is such a good republican.