The audio is about 10 minutes long but well worth the listen.



Do the new rules make it easier for a terrorist to sneak through a background check undetected?

Was the 90 day retention period an infringement of a person's rights?

It will be interesting to see where different people stand on this...

From my point of view, since the record of sale is still kept by the dealer I don't see a problem destroying the check record after 24 hours. What use is it to keep it 90 days?

The only reason I can see for keeping the records at all, realistically, is to validate that the system hasn't been tampered with and to make sure it is working properly. The check itself has little value after the buyer already has the gun...

Why do I feel MORE afraid knowing that this got passed?



So, in other words, to find out who sold a gun used during a crime, you have to find the dealer first? Is this right?? Why do we not have a centralized database of firearm firing signature (the stuff they use in ballistics to match the gun to the crime) and who bought the gun? Does this really infringe on a person's right to own a dangerous item?

I don't even see the point of keeping them for 24 hours after approval is given. I'd rather they be destroyed immediately. I do see a civil liberties issue with them being retained at all, and think the gun dealer's 90 day records should suffice for any legitimate law enforcement need. Nor do I think it likely that terrorists would purchase weapons legitimately, but would instead prefer black market sources.

Why don't we have DNA records or even fingerprints for the vast majority of Americans? Because it infringes on civil liberties and privacy. Would it help catch some people? Probably. Is it worth it? Not in my opinion.

Izdaari: Gun dealers must keep records of sale for SEVEN years, not 90 days. I don't necessarily disagree with that (heck, you need to keep your tax records that long, by law). This is about the results of the background check, which was obviously passed if the purchaser was allowed to acquire a gun. No need to keep records about innocent citizens lying around...

Here's why I have a problem with this "it infringes on civil liberties" argument:

If you drive, you have to submit to a test, get your picture taken (and, in some states, have to record a thumbprint), give the state info about where you live. When you purchase a car, you have to give the state info about the car (including a serial number that's etched into multiple places on the car) and where you live.

And that's for DRIVING.

We're talking about guns now. Why the different procedure? Can't claim it's in Amendment 2, because it's not (read the text; nothing that says we can't register guns or the people who own them, just that we can't infringe on people's rights to own them, which is not the same thing unless taken to a paranoid extent).

I think we ought to have gun testing before you can own one. Gun handles that have safety locks based on fingerprint for up to 5 people per gun. Gun registration, including ballistics recording, so that when a gun is used to commit a crime, we'll know whose gun it was. If it's not used in a crime, what difference would it make to the owner, other than ensuring some minor level of gun safety?

Really, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just not understanding the logic.

No, it's not an infringement upon their rights. The word "well-regulated" does not mean "leave alone and don't regulate whatsoever" I believe opposition to any kind of database is the product of a mindset(however far-fetched) that the government will one day ask for all weapons to be confiscated. Your rights have certain limitations upon them. You may not slander or libel another person. Likewise, there are deserved regulations on the right to own weapons.

Slander and libel require a victim. Likewise, shooting a person is against the law except for self defense purposes. Owning a gun in the interests of self-defense harms no one, and potentially protects that individual.

I believe the analogy to driving a car is closer. A car can kill and requires a license. However, no one should ever be prevented from defending themselves, or required a license to do so. A car is driven on the streets. A gun is kept in the home...Carrying is of course a different matter, and I agree that licensure should be required under those circumstances. I think it's noteworthy, nebraska29 , that you mention confiscation as a far-fetched scenario, and then describe suggested limitations on the right to bear arms. Clearly by your own admission that scenario is not far-fetched at all, and (IMO) the almost inevitable eventuality of such a database.

Per the topic...The new rules will certainly not effect terrorist activity. There are a million paper-trail-less routes to obtaining a weapon for that purpose. I agree with the decision to destroy the checks after 24 hours.

It's a right to privacy issue, it does not involve the second amendment.

Further than that Hugo it's a good idea to make sure and dispell that myth that arms be regulated. The Second Amendment clearly states that the "Militia" be "well regualted" and the people be have the right "to bear arms". Two different subjects.

A criminal background check may be conducted at any time by law enforcement investigating a suspect of a crime. The copy maintained by legitimate gun dealers is not essential to an investigation. I would speculate that it may protect the dealer from civil liability if a gun they sold were used in a crime. I don't see that the maintaining of a copy poses any constitutional infringment to a person who has voluntarily submitted to a background check.

Most handgun manufacturers in the U.S. test fire each weapon prior to being shipped for sale. For two reasons. To ensure the gun is in safe working order and to provide a spent shell casing to the purchaser for use in ballistic fingerprinting. If Federal law mandated that all handgun owners register their handguns (which seems a long way off in todays political climate) it could also require that this spent casing be turned over to authorities for entry in a national database. Money and resources could be a problem for smaller cities and municipalities but a bigger problem exists with the reliability of ballistic fingerprinting. When a gun is fired the firing pin makes a distinct indent on the primer of the fired cartridge. Also, gasses produced during firing pushes the casing rearward against the face of the bolt or other parts of the weapon. This produces marks on on the case which are unique even to different guns of the same model. These signatures may change as a gun ages or is damaged. The fingerprint a gun produces may also be altered by a person who intentionally scores surfaces of the gun which come into contact with the casing.

In my state, a private citizen may buy/sell a gun to any other person without a background check. Registration is voluntary and there is no requirement that police be notified of the sale. I am strongly in favor of making this a criminal offense. This type of transaction should be regulated and closely scrutinized even more so than sales by a dealer.

No good can come from the government keeping the names of those who passed the check. A list of people who obey the law and are good citizens would be one of the least helpful items in the task of finding and prosecuting criminals. It is a waste of resources and an endeavor focused on the wrong entity. The representative from the VPC talked about 400 guns being retrieved from those who passed the check, were transferred a gun but who were later found to be ineligible and how this would be impossible after the 24 hour rule went into effect. . . .

I would say that the majority of those people had tried previously to purchase a gun but failed the background check. They lied on the form and were denied. That is a federal felony but it is never prosecuted. Tens of thousands of times a year criminals lie and are denied and then just walk out. If they were prosecuted, if they were tracked, perhaps a bigger dent in the criminal misuse of firearms can be realized! That those criminals returned to a gun shop with clean, fake, or otherwise allowable info that went through and got them a gun, is not reason enough for the government to retain records on all those who pass. Government is not doing the duties they should be doing now, why give them more to not do? How about if the feds cut their teeth on listing and tracking and arresting those tens of thousands who lie on form 4473 before they try to list and track the 5 million who pass!

Some here have brought up ballistic fingerprinting.

That is even a worse proposition; at least if the intent is putting bad guys behind bars. That database will actually cause criminals to go free, it will increase the prosecutor's burden of proof. Even worse than that, a "ballistic fingerprinting" scheme will ruin the credibility of present day forensic ballistic testing.

These schemes have little to do with what the claimed intention is. Both of these ideas in particular would only add to law enforcement's burden in both manpower and recordkeeping and impact negatively the most important part, what their job actually is, the prosecution and punishment of criminals.

Personally, I'd have to see alot more information on how the destruction of these records will impact investigations before I'd have a strong opinion either way. Assuming the records would be useful or not is presumptuous absent comprehensive and impartial information on crime and investigations statistics. If I had to conjecture, I'd say it'd make useful evidence in the many cases where someone commits a crime of passion (spouse blows away spouse), but not help in the cases where it's actually hard to figure out who did it (gang shootings, hitmen, etc.). But to keep from being the type of posting only to say "I dunno", here's a question:

How many of you oppose the maintenance of records on gun purchases but support the Patriot Act? (If this is actually a fair number of people, maybe this should be another thread, to keep from derailing this one.)

The extent of our civil liberties are often weighed against "security interests", "fear", "yellow-bellied chicken-livered cowardice" or whatever you want to call it. I can imagine reconciling the two above on principled grounds if you oppose some provisions of the Patriot Act, but supporting all of the Patriot Act and opposing temporary records on the basis that the records may not be valuable to law enforcement seems insufficient. Under the Patriot Act, the government can seize library records and place the librarian under a de facto gag order. How is my two week possession of Horton Hears a Who more threatening than my arsenal of weapons?

In the interests of disclosure, let me add I'm a gun-owner and an ACLU member. I was an NRA member until my family got disgusted with Wayne LaPierre's tactics. I also hope to be a prosecutor, so please don't assume any stereotypes regarding politics about guns, investigations, and constitutional rights. I'm just curious about how someone can balance the threat of my magazine subscriptions or library loans against a Glock.

pennDerek,
Are you refereing to the maintainance of background checks or sales records? As a police officer I can testify that it is much less labor intensive to pull up a persons criminal record myself than to locate a specific gun store. It just doesn't happen. Being able to trace the gun back to the seller could be useful for identifying possible suspects. Yes, people who buy guns legally do commit crimes. However, there is no easy way to make the connection as no cental database exists. At least not in my state.

Reference the Patriot Act: Perhaps it doesn't bother me because my rights have never been effected. It's all about what the majority will support. If the majority are not effected and feel a little more secure because of this Act, a small Minority may suffer some indignities. I'm willing to accept that. As long as the rest of us accept it as well the Patriot Act isn't going anywhere.

That's an interesting interpretation John Locke. I've had people in the constitution section of this site argue with me that the average person WAS the militia. They cited things about who was in the militia, something about all males between certain ages. They mistook the criteria for being in the militia as an indication that everyone was in it.

When you read the second amendment, what part in your opinion, signifies to you that they are indeed addressing two different subjects?

Gentlemen,

Please don't derail the topic of this thread to an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Let's stay focused on the following:

Do the new rules make it easier for a terrorist to sneak through a background check undetected?

Was the 90 day retention period an infringement of a person's rights?

This question was an addition and is relevant to the discussion:

How many of you oppose the maintenance of records on gun purchases but support the Patriot Act?