Return to “Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks”
No you don't. A stolen gun should be returned to the lawful owner.treadlightly wrote:If I have a stolen gun - very unlikely scenario - do I have the right to keep it from the lawful owner?
But the problem is that, without raids, how are they supposed to show off all of their tacticool military surplus gear?MechAg94 wrote:And how much would it take to simply notify the people affected that they bought those guns illegally and they need to turn them. Offer them buy-back compensation for the gun's value. They would probably get a higher percentage of the guns back that way and spend less overall. I guess they assume raids would uncover other illegal material.K.Mooneyham wrote:Yeah, I agree, I'm sure they had other priorities. Things like "Fast and Furious" gun-walking and the botched "sting" operation in Milwaukee. How much money/resources were wasted during those debacles? How much other stuff just like those two that never came to light? How much money does the ATF waste instead of using it to take violent felons off the streets?Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.
ELB wrote:Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.
