Who owns a registered gun?

[Truenorthed]

This may not be the right thread location, but since most of us hunt with 'guns' at some time during the year, I thought I'd post it here for your information. This could set a precedent for the whole country.

Check out the article -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/


I love the part ... "Critics questioned what public interest it would serve to let neighbors look up each other's potential weapons cache -- further, they warned that publicizing the information could put both gun owners and those who don't own guns at risk." If I was a criminal, I'd love to have this list. I would know whose house to break into and vice versa. If I'm a criminal, I'm not going to risk my life by breaking into a house owned by someone that's armed and ready to shoot me.

The Obama administration is actually working to implement gun control outside of the legislature. He's working it as an executive order through the attorney general's office. So I'm not surprised the 'Illinois' attorney general is interested in who owns guns in that state.

What are your initial thoughts on the article? MAD? GLAD? INDIFFERENT?

 

[Alaskanmutt]

Doesn't apply in Alaska
We do not have to have Ownership cards to own guns. Other than the concealed carry permit system for those that wish to have them (not needed in Alaska) and the paper work filled out when buying a firearm from a dealer there is no database to be released.

On that note, do not be worried about the guns I have bought from dealers and have filled the paperwork out for the Feds.
Be worried of the ones not listed.

 

[Truenorthed]

What worries me is the FFL form you fill out 'at the federal level'. If the Feds decide to 'control gun ownership' or 'confiscate' firearms, they'll get the information from the FFL form which I think it maintained (monitored) by the FBI. What they say and what they do are really different. They're supposed to destroy those forms after so many months. It's been proven, they do not destroy those forms.

 

[strangerinastrangeland]

Class 3 , "Full auto" requires registration.
Class 2, "silencers, destructive devices, and short barreled rifles" require registration.

In Alaska, if you pass the required background checks, the Chief of Law enforcement 'CLO" MUST, by law , sign an approval for you to proceed to acquire the register'd weapon.

You cannot legally hunt with any of these weapons in Alaska.

You can carry concealed with no permit necessary, anywhere in the state.:topjob:

Guns you purchase from a deal have federal paperwork, from the point of sale. Private sales between individuals does not require any paperwork whatsoever.
After so many owners and so many years, finding who owns what will be too big to have the Feds get 'em all.
Besides, if it comes to that level, Boys, then its time to use those firearms and restore the Constitutional Republic that has its 2nd Amendment arming its citizens for just such a reason......The Teeth Of our Constitution for removing those who would oppress us, enemies domestic and foreign.

An armed Man is a Free Man.

Stay Armed, Stay Free, stay in Alaska !

 

[Amigo Will]

The BATF never had a copy of any 4473 for any gun I sold when I was a dealer. Now days with instacheck the BAFT OK's a dealer to sell you a gun but has no knowledge if you bought one or not and if you did what the gun was.

 

[kingfisherktn]

The BATF never had a copy of any 4473 for any gun I sold when I was a dealer. Now days with instacheck the BAFT OK's a dealer to sell you a gun but has no knowledge if you bought one or not and if you did what the gun was.

They will only know if you go out of business and have to send in all of 4473's.

 

[ruffle]

If you've been in business longer than 20 years, then anything older than 20 years, including 4473s, may be shredded, from what I've learned.

 

[strangerinastrangeland]

And if you give up collecting on a Curio & Relics License, you must send in your bound book.........

Another good reason to never give up your Guns, never stop collecting, never stop selling ~~LOL!!~~


The thing in the article that struck me was that if they made who owned what public, criminals will Know WHO is Unarmed.......Targets of sorts, eh?.........another reason to buy a gun and guard against such onslaught on our privacy.

Be the Shooter, not the Target.

 

[Marc Taylor]

A thief steals any of my bolt-guns and he's stolen himself a gun without a bolt...

He'd have to burn my house down and sift through the ashes to find the bolts. I DON'T store them together as a bolt gun is not a self-defense rifle.

Taylor

 

[skagdog]

I'm a conspiracy guy when it comes to buying a gun from a dealer. When they fill out that paperwork it's got make, model, ser #, etc...
There's no doubt in my mind that that sort of information is not lost. Who has it? Not the original, that is on the paper at whatever dealer you bought from, but the information they provide via phone.

All that being said, what's a gun? I've never heard of this so called "gun" you speak of. ;-)

 

[yukon254]

Long story and I wont bore all with the gory details...... but dont think for 2 seconds AK does not track guns... they do, pistols at least. My daughter got mixed up with the wrong guy in Fairbanks, and to make a very long story short, my wife went up and brought her home, and while there shipped a handgun my daughter owned to the state of MO. through an FFL dealer on each end. Before it ever got to MO the troopers knew who bought it and who was picking it up. A shotgun that she had purchased for protection and had in her closet was confiscated by the troopers and never returned. They came to her place looking for it..... how did they know she had it??? She had committed no crime whatsoever, yet they still took it, still have it and knew it was there. If they dont keep records tell me how they knew all this??? They know because of the checks they do when a gun is bought, (no different than Canada) and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themself.

 

[H20Dogg]

This may not be the right thread location, but since most of us hunt with 'guns' at some time during the year, I thought I'd post it here for your information. This could set a precedent for the whole country.

Check out the article -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/




I love the part ... "Critics questioned what public interest it would serve to let neighbors look up each other's potential weapons cache -- further, they warned that publicizing the information could put both gun owners and those who don't own guns at risk." If I was a criminal, I'd love to have this list. I would know whose house to break into and vice versa. If I'm a criminal, I'm not going to risk my life by breaking into a house owned by someone that's armed and ready to shoot me.

The Obama administration is actually working to implement gun control outside of the legislature. He's working it as an executive order through the attorney general's office. So I'm not surprised the 'Illinois' attorney general is interested in who owns guns in that state.

What are your initial thoughts on the article? MAD? GLAD? INDIFFERENT?

If you were a criminal you would want to break into peoples homes with guns, they are worth more than most other things that people own. Plus there's a large market for guns, both black and regular markets.

 

[Anjin]

If you were a criminal you would want to break into peoples homes with guns, they are worth more than most other things that people own. Plus there's a large market for guns, both black and regular markets.

Exactly right. As I work in Japan and my rifles, shotguns, pistols et al. are stored in a safe in the US, there is no way I would ever divulge where that is. Too much temptation for perps.

My take on Barack Obama is this. He went to school at my rather good Ivy college, then was Pres of the Harvard Law Review, so I am confident that he is smart as can be.

He does not like guns, but he knows full well the political power of ourselves and the NRA. He is above all a pol. I do not think he wants to take that on. Why would he? It is not him that I am worried about. It is the bureaucrats. I think that the idea of records in this day and age is dumb as hell. Better to focus on drug smugglers and our bordering countries.

Norm

 

[FamilyMan]

I sure don't own any guns

I sure don't own any guns

The gun dealership paperwork filled out that shows I have bought guns? Well, I sold those guns (legally) online.

Other guns people might have seen me with? I both bought and sold those guns online, legally.

No, I'm not so good at making or keeping receipts for a cash sale either, which is the only type of sale I've ever been involved in.

So, I don't own any guns. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[strangerinastrangeland]

Obama may be the first U.S. President ever that has not shot a gun................has he?

There is no way any cops can come to a private residence and take any form of weapon without a compliant or charges.
If you have ever lost a Gun to "the System", get it back.

 

[pike_palace]

Obama may be the first U.S. President ever that has not shot a gun................has he?

There is no way any cops can come to a private residence and take any form of weapon without a compliant or charges.
If you have ever lost a Gun to "the System", get it back.

Had a shotgun stolen out of a truck several years ago along with other stuff. Got everything back except the shotgun. Cops claimed they found everything but the gun. -_-.

"the System" is a screwjob anymore. On a state and Federal level.

 

[Amigo Will]

Again the dealer never tells the BATF what the gun is you want to buy so the BATF would have to visit the shop for that. The BATF can find where every gun built or sold by factories or distributors goes to buy gun shop and can then go to the shop and look at the bound book to see who purchased the gun

 

[Hunt&FishAK]

Had a shotgun stolen out of a truck several years ago along with other stuff. Got everything back except the shotgun. Cops claimed they found everything but the gun. -_-.

"the System" is a screwjob anymore. On a state and Federal level.

agreed....i have nothing further to say

 

[bushrat]

My initial thoughts on the article are that it is biased and overhypes things, and frankly I am really tired of the outright hypocrisy of the NRA and gunowners in general who stand against things like this (and I agree with their position on this) yet continue to support all manner of other infringements on privacy rights, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.

(Hey, this thread is political so what the hell! <grin>)

For starters, state of Illinois requires those who purchase or possess guns to have a Firearm Ownership ID card. Some cities, like New York City, and some other states, have similar requirements that require some gun owners (sometimes it relates to handguns) to have a special license.

While I don't personally believe that the names of the FOID cardholders in Illinois should be released, my personal beliefs may not match state or city laws regarding transparency of public records. That is the issue here really, that the courts or legislature in Illinois will have to delve into.

Doctors, lawyers, architects, barbers, guides...may all require licensing by states, and those licensees must be made public. In the case of these FOID cardholders, as mentioned it is only the names and licensing dates that would be released if this goes through.

So the legal question then is where is the line exactly on what public information should be, or must be, made public under whatever transparency laws individual cities or states must abide by?

One could make a good argument I think that the rationale for publicly releasing the names of professional licensees like doctors and guides is so the public can be assured that individual is legitimate, and that there is no similar rationale to release the names of licensed gun owners.

One could also make a rational argument that anyone who applies for a city or state license for anything should understand that such information must be made public. (Look at draw or Tier tag information for example in Alaska, many don't understand that information is made public, must be made public -- one could then argue that in itself is a partial list of gun owners in the state of Alaska, OMG! <grin>) One could also argue that this isn't about names on a list per se but rather the public getting to view the integrity of the gun licensing system.

There are imo some pretty far-fetched arguments in all this. First, it's only names that would be made public, not addresses. Granted, some names are unique enough that one could look up the address, but even so, certainly knowing someone owns a gun does not make that person more vulnerable to bad guys.

Actually, when the names of the handgun owners in NYC were released (many of course were prominent, wealthy individuals), many of those people thought it was a deterrent in people knowing they had a handgun license.

And the opposite argument that everyone (which is the vast majority of those in Illinois) not on the FOID cardholder list is somehow more vulnerable to burglaries or bad guys under the assumption they don't own a gun just doesn't add up either.

So I don't buy the argument from the police from the article that release of the FOID cardholder names and expiration dates is "information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person."

And an NRA spokesman elsewhere made the same argument: "You potentially make us targets," Vandermyde told the Tribune. "Or, on the inverse, you could say, 'These are the homes that don't have FOID cards so it's likely they don't have guns, so therefore they make better targets.'"

Seriously, does anyone here believe having those names endangers law enforcement or "any other person"? How so? Might as well argue that release of draw tag names does the same. Or release of doctor names makes them "better" targets cuz they are generally wealthier. Those arguments just don't hold up on their face.

Hey, I don't like or want the licensing laws that some cities and states have regarding gun ownership. Wouldn't live there because of that and other reasons. But as far as "privacy" goes, I guess I figure if I apply for a license to be a barber, guide, massage therapist, own a gun, I've then and there lost any notion of privacy.

So in effect, what the Illinois AG is doing here (keep in mind though this wasn't out of thin air, it happened because there was a FOIA request for this info and the AG had to make a decision) likely just discourages many from going the legal route in Illinois. No doubt thousands upon thousands of gun owners have not registered already, bought guns elsewhere with no records. This just amplifies that.

And hey gun owners and NRA: you can't pick and choose which privacy rights to fight for, you gotta fight for them all equally!

 

[mmusashi2k]

My initial thoughts on the article are that it is biased and overhypes things, and frankly I am really tired of the outright hypocrisy of the NRA and gunowners in general who stand against things like this (and I agree with their position on this) yet continue to support all manner of other infringements on privacy rights......And hey gun owners and NRA: you can't pick and choose which privacy rights to fight for, you gotta fight for them all equally!
[/U][/B]

Well, I guess first off it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the rights of barbers to keep and bear scissors shall not be infringed.