Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected

[bobcat]

How many people don't even know about the law or requirements?

I would bet plenty.

[wooltie]

Traceability only exists between a FFL holder and the person to whom they sold the firearm.  Afterwards, that person can sell/transfer a firearm to another person without traceability.  ATF requires FFL licence holders to maintain acquisition and disposition records of all firearms received and either transferred or sold.  But that record is the only record.

594 attempts to implement traceability by requiring people to perform background checks.  The background check form is actually the record of sale/transfer.  ATF requires FFL holders to submit A&D records, so I think AFT uses those records to determine to whom a firearm was first sold.

There is no 'registration', only a record of who 'drove the new car off the lot'.

Real question is: if you sell a mean black rifle to another person who unbeknownst to you is prohibiting from possessing firearms, who then uses the weapon to commit a crime, can the .gov charge you as being an accessory to that crime?

Think about it.  The law requiring background checks was implemented to prevent certain people from possessing firearms because .gov decided that those people will likely use those weapons to commit crimes, e.g. felons, wife beaters.  A person actually circumvents a valid State interest (keeping guns out of wrong people's hands) by not ensuring that the buyer is allowed to possess firearms.  I can see .gov charging someone with a crime based upon that rationale. 

Just look at how the .gov has charged that friend of those idiots in San Bernadino.

FWIW 594 was poorly written but I do think keeping guns out of felon's hands is a valid State interest.

[Fl0und3rz]

There is no 'registration', only a record of who 'drove the new car off the lot'.

True, but you are required to return to the lot to resale or transfer the "car" each subsequent transaction.   Plus I-594 had the DOR reporting requirement as well, IIRC.


If you sell to a prohibited possessor, you are guilty of that crime, if you knew or had reason to know the purchaser was a prohibited possessor.  If you avoided I-594 checks to sell to the prohibited possessor, whether you knew or not, I think, is circumstantial evidence that you knew, suspected, or had reason to know. 

The subsequent criminal acts are merely reasons for LE to investigate that person/act/firearm, and may not in itself be enough for an accessory or conspiracy charge.  That doesn't mean you cannot be charged with it. 

Why even take the risk?

[wooltie]

Why even take the risk?

That's what I'm saying.  I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years.  We know each other very well.  We both have CPLs.

I still plan to do the transfer.  In the event that I have to use the pistol, I don't want that additional charge of 'no background check' to be used as leverage against my character for defending myself.

I mean, as sad as these mass shootings are, I think the overall volume of guns in delinquent hands is a bigger problem.  How many guns per day do cops pull off the street in places like Chicago or Detroit?

Laws like 594 will not touch the people who sell guns to delinquent hands. 

So while I can accept background checks, I think gun control hype and rhetorical fails to address other causes of greater gun violence.

Why?

Because the libs do not want to acknowledge the who and the where around which this greater gun violence occurs.

[wooltie]

I also ask them when we're done if they now feel inclined to go out and murder people.

 

[huntnphool]

"I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.

 Oh, you mean like the transactions between felons/criminals that don't follow the laws anyway?

 What's funny is these college geniuses actually believed their "study" would represent real world statistics.

 I wonder how much tax payers got soaked for that "study"?

[pianoman9701]

"I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.

 Oh, you mean like the transactions between felons/criminals that don't follow the laws anyway?

 What's funny is these college geniuses actually believed their "study" would represent real world statistics.

 I wonder how much tax payers got soaked for that "study"?

Our taxpayers get soaked for a $30-50 fee every time they follow the law because of idiots like these guys not being able to understand how criminals don't follow laws.

[huntnphool]

Why even take the risk?

I still plan to do the transfer.  In the event that I have to use the pistol, I don't want that additional charge of 'no background check' to be used as leverage against my character for defending myself.

 Without any paperwork, how would they ever know that you didn't do the transfer "pre 594"?

[Fl0und3rz]

Why even take the risk?

That's what I'm saying.  I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years.  We know each other very well.  We both have CPLs.

In that instance, where the firearm was pre-I-594 purchased, I might be tempted to avoid the FFL checks.  The burden to prove that you ran afoul of I-594 for an additional misdemeanor charge is probably not worth the time or potential additional punishment to a prosecutor.  Doesn't mean you cannot be charged.


Shorter: What huntnphool said.

[Hi-Liter]

Why even take the risk?

That's what I'm saying.  I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years.  We know each other very well.  We both have CPLs.

In that instance, where the firearm was pre-I-594 purchased, I might be tempted to avoid the FFL checks.  The burden to prove that you ran afoul of I-594 for an additional misdemeanor charge is probably not worth the time or potential additional punishment to a prosecutor.  Doesn't mean you cannot be charged.


Shorter: What huntnphool said.

on the topic of obeying 594, The main reason why the 594 lawsuit was thrown out of court,  the Plaintiffs had no standing, no case against the state for harm. There needs to be a "lamb"

I am surprised no one has been thrown out there to be charged for a 594 violation yet. Once someone is charged and/or convicted they will have standing to bring the claim thru federal court. It would be really nice if a claim stayed in state court our right to bear arms in this state is must stronger than the federal floor.

[Shank]

So I've tried to follow this law, and honestly the stupidity of it causes me to check out the squirrel in the corner, repeatedly...
So when I sell or purchase a firearm it needs to go through FFL, but dad/grandpa's old 30/30 that's been handed down through the years doesn't because those hand- me-downs took place before 594?....so confused

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bobcat]

It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.

However there is an exception if you're related:

    (4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

[Magnum_Willys]

When you buy a new gun is there a record kept of what you bought ?   Or is it just background check?  Does the FFL info include the guns serial #?   

[Ridgeratt]

It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.

However there is an exception if you're related:

    (4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.

[Lucky1]

When you buy a new gun is there a record kept of what you bought ?   Or is it just background check?  Does the FFL info include the guns serial #?

The FFL does keep a record of the weapon that you bought. That information is supposedly not sent to the federal gov.