Search found 3 matches

by mrvmax
Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:29 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks
Replies: 31
Views: 8532

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Jusme wrote:
mrvmax wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
ninjabread wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Unless they can prove that the buyer KNEW he was ineligible, the system might have failed, but he committed no crime that I’m aware of. The upshot is that, in my opinion, you can’t just seize something without compensation, when that thing was purchased in good faith. If gov’t is going to seize a gun that I bought in good faith, not knowing I was ineligible, then I expect the gov’t to refund the entire cost to me of buying that gun, including sales tax paid. Otherwise, it’s a taking, which is unconstitutional.....not to mention ain’t right.
What if the gun you bought was stolen? Does the government have to refund your money when they take it?

What if somebody in Colorado buys weed and the DEA comes along and seizes it? Should the DEA have to reimburse them? What if they say, "Bruh, I thought it was legal in Colorado." Does that mean they can't be prosecuted unless the DEA can prove that the buyer KNEW it was illegal?
But when you do to a gun store, pick out a gun (new or used, it doesn’t matter) that is in that store’s inventory, the gun has presumably been properly vetted before it is ever put on the shelf. It is a safe and reasonable assumption that it isn’t stolen property.
What "vetting" is there that a gun store or pawn shop can do on a used firearm? With no access to any type of stolen firearm database the FFL has no way of really verifying whether a used firearm is stolen or not, it is really a guess. There may be some visual signs that the person may not be legit but besides that it is really a gamble. I can see where the consumer assumes it is not stolen if it is for sale but that is not always the case since there are no sure ways to ensure it is not stolen.
The "vetting" is done, by a gun store or pawn shop by submitting the serial number, to the local law enforcement agency. The number is entered into the national data base to see if it is stolen. The gun store or pawn shop must hold the gun for 30 days before reselling it, so that there is time for a report to be submitted, if it was recently stolen. If the gun is stolen, the gun store/pawn shop loses possession of the gun. They of course, provide the LEO the information on the person they bought from. However, being reimbursed is a civil matter.
There may be some way pawn shops can check that I am not aware of but “gun stores” cannot.
by mrvmax
Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:58 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks
Replies: 31
Views: 8532

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

The Annoyed Man wrote:
ninjabread wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Unless they can prove that the buyer KNEW he was ineligible, the system might have failed, but he committed no crime that I’m aware of. The upshot is that, in my opinion, you can’t just seize something without compensation, when that thing was purchased in good faith. If gov’t is going to seize a gun that I bought in good faith, not knowing I was ineligible, then I expect the gov’t to refund the entire cost to me of buying that gun, including sales tax paid. Otherwise, it’s a taking, which is unconstitutional.....not to mention ain’t right.
What if the gun you bought was stolen? Does the government have to refund your money when they take it?

What if somebody in Colorado buys weed and the DEA comes along and seizes it? Should the DEA have to reimburse them? What if they say, "Bruh, I thought it was legal in Colorado." Does that mean they can't be prosecuted unless the DEA can prove that the buyer KNEW it was illegal?
But when you do to a gun store, pick out a gun (new or used, it doesn’t matter) that is in that store’s inventory, the gun has presumably been properly vetted before it is ever put on the shelf. It is a safe and reasonable assumption that it isn’t stolen property.
What "vetting" is there that a gun store or pawn shop can do on a used firearm? With no access to any type of stolen firearm database the FFL has no way of really verifying whether a used firearm is stolen or not, it is really a guess. There may be some visual signs that the person may not be legit but besides that it is really a gamble. I can see where the consumer assumes it is not stolen if it is for sale but that is not always the case since there are no sure ways to ensure it is not stolen.
by mrvmax
Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:34 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks
Replies: 31
Views: 8532

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

This is really nothing new but it is getting a lot of attention. Let me explain, customer comes in to purchase a firearm and fills out the 4473. The NICS background check is run and comes back as delay. There is a 3 business day waiting period (which is actually 5 days since the first and last day do not count. It ends up being more during holidays but I digress). So let's suppose they came in on a Monday and it got delayed, legally I can transfer the firearm on Friday if there are no updates and it still shows delay.
The way NICS works is that the initial background check info goes to an employee at the FBI that has no access to look into someone's criminal records. They simply look for flags on the 4473 with their database and if anything pops up they give up to employees that have proper access to look into the individual (this was explained in a training class by the lady that runs NICS). So let's suppose that the customer filled out the 4473, I submit it to the FBI through E-Check and it goes to the FBI employee (or computer) looking over the 4473 and something shows up. Perhaps a person with the same name has a felony - so it goes to delay while they forward to another person who has the clearance to look into the background and see if that is this person. So they have until Friday morning to find out if this person who filled out the 4473 is a prohibited person that the have in their database, program, NCIC or whatever they use at the FBI. They then have to look into records or contact local law enforcement to verify whether or not they are prohibited. They do not always get answers back in three days for their requests. I have had some NICS checks stay open for a month.
So now we are at Friday and I tell Joe Blow to pick up his handgun, legally I can transfer it. Joe Blow picks it up and I never see him again. Two days later NICS gets a response to their request and find out Joe Blow had a stalking complaint (or arrest or dishonorable military discharge or anything else disqualifying). So NICS changes the status (which was "open") to "deny" and call me and ask if I transferred the firearm to Joe Blow. I tell them I transferred after 3 days like I legally can and that Jow Blow now has the firearm. NICS contacts ATF to retrieve the firearm since Joe Blow was a prohibited person. Keep in mind that although an FFL can transfer after three days if they do and the person ends up being prohibited and ends up committing a crime the media will try to ruin that FFL with all the negative attention. I think this is why places like Academy will not transfer until they get a "proceed".
So now let's talk about those that are prohibited. I have had a handful of deny status since I have been selling firearms and not one of those people did not know they were prohibited. One guy asked me after getting denied if I think that the felony he had as a teenager was still on his record. Yes, he really asked that. Another guy had a family related charge for assault that he "thought wouldn't have shown up". Those that are prohibited know it when they fill out the 4473. From what I see this is not the case of the government trying to seize guns. If someone were committed to a mental institution they know they were and they are responsible for reading the 4473 and knowing what they are signing. I have had people who were not sure if they qualified ask me and I refer them to an attorney (it is normally people who have had problems as a teenager and think the charges can no longer be seen or should have been dropped). I do not see this as a gun grab but normal business as usual.

Return to “Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks”