ExRx.net

Limiting access to law enforcement could address some privacy issues. However, the information could still be misused. Meanwhile, criminals could get around registration by thefts and straw purchases. ... Anyone illegally buying a firearm for an ineligable person could simply report the gun stollen, and the police would have a very hard time proving otherwise.

Also, the ATF doesn't have the best track record when it comes to complying with existing laws. It's possible they might ignore some of the limits you're suggesting.

Saying "the information could be misused" can be applied to anything. So by that logic there should be no information about anything. If they report it stolen, the problem will sort itself out. They will also have a paper trail of police reports. What I am talking about would actually stop gun owner info from being released too. Publishing it would be a federal crime, and most people would rather not get a visit from the FBI.

The ATF has the track record it does because of it being hobbled and understaffed. That is one of the strategies. Undermine something, then point out how much it sucks.

I just think the lack or oversight, and the lack of respect for personal privacy and due process are really appalling. I also think solutions need to maximize liberty, namely the right to safety, and the right to property. We should not be looking at just one. The best solution leaves you with the most liberty between the two, while requiring the least government intervention. Then while you're at it you can address privacy and due process as well.

"If they report it stolen, the problem will sort itself out. They will also have a paper trail of police reports." - Ironman

A woman illegally purchases a pistol for her gang member boyfriend ... a straw purchase. She reports the weapon stollen soon after purchasing it. Even if the police later confiscate the pistol from the boyfriend, it would be very difficult to prove that the girlfriend bought it for him (if they even bothered look into it). After all, he wouldn't be the first lowlife to steal from a girlfriend, friend or relative.

It's also possible for a criminal to file off the serial number(s) on a firearm. Plus illegal/stollen guns can change hands any number of times illegally after the initial theft or straw purchase.

"The ATF has the track record it does because of it being hobbled and understaffed. That is one of the strategies. Undermine something, then point out how much it sucks." - Ironman

So if a federal agency violates federal law and/or abuses the power they already have, we should give them more power and a bigger budget?

Yes I'm aware of those difficulties, those are not caused by anything I am talking about though, and go on right now. So I don't think that helps your argument. Unless you are saying "it's too hard lets just give up", which is even more lame.

Well you haven't established that they did any of that. I also don't think you even give any of these ideas any consideration. You just make up some really lame, poorly thought out excuses, or just repeat the NRA's inane nonsense.

"Yes I'm aware of those difficulties, those are not caused by anything I am talking about though, and go on right now. So I don't think that helps your argument. Unless you are saying "it's too hard lets just give up", which is even more lame." - Ironman

If registration can be easily bypassed by criminals then it isn't a very effective method of gun control. Perhaps we're better off trying something else.

There's also the issue of cost. If gun owners are expected to pay for registration, then registration could make gun ownership prohibitively expensive for some gun owners. This is especially true for those with large collections, since they would have to pay to register each weapon they own and perhaps even re-register them every so many years. Meanwhile, if registration is paid for by taxpayers, it could divert funds that might be better used elsewhere ... for example, hiring more police officers.

"Well you haven't established that they did any of that. I also don't think you even give any of these ideas any consideration. You just make up some really lame, poorly thought out excuses, or just repeat the NRA's inane nonsense." - Ironman

This is from one of the wikipedia articles you posted.

"In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]

It concluded that seventy-five percent of ATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.[2]"

"The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (a) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Nevertheless, the ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases: "

From the same article.

As for the first part, that was more than 30 years ago. If there was an investigation then, I would think they did something about that. As for the 2nd part, that's just another example with what is wrong with that act.

This is also just a distraction from the fact that existing laws are not being properly enforced.

"As for the first part, that was more than 30 years ago. If there was an investigation then, I would think they did something about that." - Ironman

Yes they did. They passed a law that you seemingly want to repeal.

"This is also just a distraction from the fact that existing laws are not being properly enforced." - Ironman

Agreed. I think there's a lot more the ATF could be doing right now. ... I also think the agency has a lot to prove. Complying with existing federal laws and weeding out incompitence within the agency would be a good place to start.

Well there is no reason they can't make a different act that just keeps them from breaking the law rather than keeping them from enforcing it too. The top post in the department is open, so they could bring in new leadership. Plus a lack of oversight tends to go along with a lack of resources. With enough people to do the job there could be better documentation to ensure everyone is doing what they are supposed to.

A lot of times the initial reason for legislation is fine, but stuff gets tacked on later....usually for monetary gain.

I think if anyone in government really wants to broker a deal on gun regulation it's going to have to prevent law abiding citizens from being harassed and protect their privacy, while at the same time taking steps to prevent illegal gun sales, like universal background checks. That would give everyone something pretty big, probably big enough to get broad support. That would be so much better than letting radical interest groups run the national debate. That would require people to think and realize that we all want the rights to property, privacy, and not getting shot.

I don't really have a problem with universal background checks on firearms (provided the checks remain affordable and there's some provision for inheritance). However, I don't see how universal background checks are realistically going to prevent criminals from getting guns through thefts and straw purchases.

Background checks on ammunition (now required in NY) are another matter entirely. They serve no purpose other than to drive up the price of ammo.

Yea, background checks should be free. It doesn't stop straw purchases, but that is what law enforcement should be doing. That is no different than any other sort of fraud investigation.

As for inheritance, it should be made easy. If you can legally buy a gun, you can inherit how ever many guns there are. Any person to person situations should be easy. It should be at least as easy as selling a car.

I don't think background checks are needed for ammo. That's another reason why I like that certification idea of mine. Once you prove yourself, you don't have to deal with any of that anymore. No restrictions.

"I don't think background checks are needed for ammo. That's another reason why I like that certification idea of mine. Once you prove yourself, you don't have to deal with any of that anymore. No restrictions." - Ironman

The reason I mensioned background checks for ammunition is that New York now requires background checks for ammunition sales. This doesn't make much sense, since NY residents can still purchase ammo legally in neighboring states with no background check. Meanwhile, there are no serial numbers on ammo, so there's no way to trace it.

It does however greatly increase the cost of ammunition. Depending on the caliber and amount the background check may even cost more than the ammo. That's a major expense for people who go shooting often.