[capvan]

I was at a gun show this past weekend and purchased a new rifle. Filled out the form and the check was done. No problem.

How is this NOT gun registration? I have no idea what information that was on the form was passed along on the phone. Seems now the "powers" have gun information tagged to my personal information, depending on what the dealer passed along.

And what is the "gun show loophole" that I keep hearing about? I had to do everything I would have done at a gun shop. Same for the handgun purchasers I observed. Vermont, only Fed laws had to be followed. No state handgun laws.

Bruce

 

[Voolfie]

Well, the authorities are *supposed* to destroy the information after 24 hours I believe. Whether they do or not, is of course debatable. But you're right that these background checks will be (if it hasn't already) where registration begins. Get politically active and know what your representatives are up to.

 

[capvan]

OK, I get it now. I don't have an FFL. If I rent a table, lay a gun on it and sell it to the first person that wants it, off he goes. No information, no paperwork. I see this happening at ranges all the time. No difference. Like I said, no state laws here, just Fed.

 

[ivanhoe]

capvan

"OK, I get it now. I don't have an FFL. If I rent a table, lay a gun on it and sell it to the first person that wants it, off he goes."

If I am not mistaken even a FFL holder can not sell a handgun to an out of state buyer with out another FFL holder from the buyers state to transfer the handgun.

At a gun show in Vermont a NY resident can walk in and buy a gun from a FFL holder and leave with the gun and I believe that this is the the Gun Show loophole they are talking about.

Bob Lawless

 

[TEXASZEPHYR]

Bob I stand to be corrected, but I think that a ffl holder has to get a check
any time he sells a firearm period. What the big to-do that the gun show loop-hole is about is the non ffl holder selling a fire arm to another individual without having to get a check thru the govt. What this means is that I could have a booth with 10 long guns and 10 pistols at a gun show, and could sell to anyone (within state restraints, over 21 yr etc.) without having to determine whether they were mentally competent, or had a previous felony conviction.

Bob W

 

[capvan]

So at gun shows, at least here in Vermont, it is advantageous to NOT be an FFL dealer. You can sell to anyone without any paperwork at all. Just like you could at a Vermont shooting range.

 

[Chango2]

In California, private party transfer sales must include a DROS, dealer record of sale, and be handled through a dealer. As late as the early 90's, in California, a person could buy a long gun, fill out a short form, and walk with the gun. The records were then tossed out after a while...I saw a whole bunch of those records tossed in the trash at a gunclub I frequent!! Kinda shoulda been shredded...but things were much more casual even then. Oh those were the days; I remember buying a trap 303 and a field 303 in one day and go home with them. Spent all of about $650.00 for BOTH guns! Both NIB guns!

Wonder if the crime rate has changed via the use of long guns!

...with handguns, in California, it has always been about a two week wait before one can take home the gun after a background check etc.

 

[dmarbell]

As 2nd Amendment advocates, we all resist any new and further regulation of firearms. However, I don't think we weaken our position by agreeing that guns should not be easily accessible by those who are mentally ill or by violent felons.

How should I feel if I had sold an AR-15, say, to a private citizen, with no license needed and no background check, if it turns out he or she were mentally ill with a tendency toward homicide, and he or she used my former gun to kill a few innocent folks, ala Va Tech?

There is another thread on the site about Obama signing an order allowing Palestinians to immigrate to the US. How would you feel about them being able to purchase high powered rifles, at will and legally, once they get here?

I realize the crime rate for long guns is not high, and that most of the guns used in crimes are handguns, which are highly regulated in almost all states.

Danny

 

[snapthecat]

The dealer I do business with, when the transaction is complete, purposely holds his copy of the form (his file copy) out at arms length, takes a cigarette lighter, sets fire to it, and drops it into a metal trash can.
I won't buy a gun anywhere else.

 

[halfmile]

Well, Danny, since handguns are highly regulated, it must work great, huh? Ask anyone in Great Britain or Australia how it works.


The 4473 is registration pro se. FFL holders are required to keep EVERY single one, and all their transactions are recorded in a bound book.

And let me tell you, if there is one single discrepancy (I mean like a mispelled letter in a name, or a box checked wrong, etc) they will find it when they come to look over the dealer's paperwork. And there will be a lot of touble over those simple things.


They call it "inspection" of the records. In reality it is an in depth audit.
The ATF people are experts, this is all they do.

We had a major spots store in our town lose their license because they had emplyee theft of some firearms, and could not produce them or a sale when the ATF came to "inspect".

A couple of others have ceased firearm sales, rumored to be paperwork problems. One store had trouble because the gun counter guy and the cashier did not have their records EXACTLY the same, that business passed to the sons of the original owner, and they moved. Firearm sales did not come along with them.

So now, the original subject. Since there is a copy of the form 4473 in existence forever, yes, your firearm purchases have been registered.

FFL holders, fell free to chime in. There are a number of things I don't know that everyone should.

HM

 

[obfd13]

why does your dealer make a file copy anyway? just to burn it?

 

[halfmile]

They have to keep them. There was a case here some years ago where a person was charged with buying a firearm illegally. The gun had been used in a crime. He claimed he never signed the paper, and someone else must have used his name.

They took the dealer's copy and got his finger prints off the paper.

GUILTY AS CHARGED!!

So you see, we DO have gun registration. Just sort of indirectly is all.

HM

 

[Shooting Jack]

If you deem someone to be mentally unbalanced or just outright crazy you have the responsiblility to not sell the gun to them. As a dealer you have the right and responsibility to choose who you sell a gun. If you sell the person a gun and they go out and kill someone you will be questioned and possibly charged. I refused to sell a gun to a guy the other day because I knew he had threatened to kill someone a few days earlier. He was delayed but they never responded back so I could legally have sold him the gun. Fortunately I had heard about this on the news. Jackie B.

 

[dmarbell]

HM,

So does that mean you are OK with the right to keep and bear arms, even for the mentally ill and violent felons?

Also, the laws in Britain and Australia are not comparable, as they involve outright bans. Unless you think that's where we are headed.

Danny

 

[halfmile]

I think that's where we are headed. Our nice new President has a history of being anti gun. So does the rest of the liberal power structure which is in control now.

The real answer here, and it's not just my idea, is to have laws that have teeth for punishing gun crimes.

An 18 year old lad who has had a 16 year old girl friend and gotten caught doing the nasty is a felon. I don't believe that's right.

A wife gets in an argument with her husband and the neighbors call the cops. Well guess what. Someone goes to jail. Even without any type of violence. The husband goes, because the kids need their mother. He gets a DVO Citation and pays a fine rather than going to court, because he needs to work to support his family. Loses his gun rights. I don't believe that's right either.

Of course, somehow all the police officers with DVO's in their past have gotten a pass on that one.

Of course, if you have never seen these things in your friends or family it's easy to look down your nose and play God, "NO FIREARMS FOR YOU".

I think denial of firearm rights should be done on an idividual basis, by the judge when sentencing. This could be as easily recorded as any other things on the record. The criteria should be if the crime was violent, or if firearms were involved. Just my opinion.

I never said the mentally unbalanced or violent felons should have firearms, so don't put words in my mouth.

The whole point is we are getting more and more regulated. Look at California.

You can't have a 50 BMG, but a .416 Barret is legal even though it's ballistically superior to the 50.

"Oh, but I don't want to go about among mad people", said Alice.

"That's ok", said the Cheshire Cat, "we are all quite mad here".

HM

 

[slide action]

Dany boy,- In Britian and Austrailia the gun owners were promised by the government that all they were going to do was REGISTER the guns, not confiscate them. THEY LIED! Guns BANS have ALWAYS followed Registration and restrictive gun laws. Anybody who trust Obama and his ilk are FOOLS! Like my Grand Daddy always said "You can't reason with a Rattle Snake or make a deal with the Devil" Anybody who trust the liberal, socialist, anti gunners is trying to do BOTH!