For Universal Background Check Supporters Who Think The .Gov Won't Keep a Database

[anthonyca]

The government retains your fingerprints when you get a live scan for a job, school teacher position, contractors license, military service, etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/foia/privacy-impa...nts/firs-iafis

"Categories of fingerprints currently maintained by the FBI include: persons fingerprinted as a result of arrest, incarceration, or other authorized criminal justice purpose; persons fingerprinted for employment, licensing, security assessments, or other authorized noncriminal justice purpose, such as authorized Federal background check programs and military service; persons fingerprinted for visa, alien registration, immigration, naturalization, or related Department of State or Department of Homeland Security purposes; persons desiring to have their fingerprints placed on record with the FBI for personal identification purposes; individuals fingerprinted for authorized national security purposes; individuals with footprints, palm prints, photographs, or other biometric identifiers that have been taken for authorized purposes enumerated above; and individuals who leave latent fingerprints, palm prints, photographic images, or other biometric indicators at locations or on items associated with criminal activity or otherwise having a lawful investigative or national security interest."

http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Centr...nghouseFAQ.pdf

So, your government keeps a record of your fingerprints when you need a background check for a private employer and you think that they won't keep a record of your gun purchases?

In California we already have registration and all guns are bought with a background check. As everyone knows, we have no gun crime in this state.

I just wanted to let people know that they are in the same database as convicted felons. How long until latent prints at a crime sceen can be used to make you a person of interest in a crime? We see the IRS now claiming that they don't need a warrant to read an emal once you hit send. Does anyone really trust these people?

[p7m8jg]

The cat has been out of the bag for years. The cows left the barn long, long ago. At least in Kalifornia. Sacramento has kept a database on gun sales/purchases for decades.

You can file a request with the Department of Justice to see every "DROS" they have on file with your name on it (Dealer's Report of Sale). I did that. Mine goes back to 1978 when I turned 20 and bought a firearm. Every other gun I bought in Kalifornia is listed, too. Most of them anyway.

If that isn't a "database", then I don't know what is.

[Waffleobill]

No doubt, they prove time and time again that they are not trustworthy. There seems to be no right to privacy in the post Patriot Act USA. And all for the sake of the peception of "safety and security".

[anthonyca]

The cat has been out of the bag for years. The cows left the barn long, long ago. At least in Kalifornia. Sacramento has kept a database on gun sales/purchases for decades.

You can file a request with the Department of Justice to see every "DROS" they have on file with your name on it (Dealer's Report of Sale). I did that. Mine goes back to 1978 when I turned 20 and bought a firearm. Every other gun I bought in Kalifornia is listed, too. Most of them anyway.

If that isn't a "database", then I don't know what is.

I understand this but most people do not. People keep saying that they support UBC because there will be no records. We know there will be.

[VegasND]

But ... if you ask them why they can't use your past fingerprints to do the background check for a renewal they tell you they disposed of them.

Oh yeah ... the government lies ...

[thefitter]

The cat has been out of the bag for years. The cows left the barn long, long ago. At least in Kalifornia. Sacramento has kept a database on gun sales/purchases for decades.

You can file a request with the Department of Justice to see every "DROS" they have on file with your name on it (Dealer's Report of Sale). I did that. Mine goes back to 1978 when I turned 20 and bought a firearm. Every other gun I bought in Kalifornia is listed, too. Most of them anyway.

If that isn't a "database", then I don't know what is.

1978? Where did you purchase?

[Jida]

Keep one thing in mind. Having a bunch of data on hand is not a database by the strictest sense of the wording.

Any database needs to have a set of organized data that can be manipulated in fairly specific ways.

An Excel spreadsheet is a datastore or say a collection of data in tables. It is not a database by any definition that I have ever used.

So they could say that they are not going to have a database of our information and that answer could be correct BUT they still have our information in a searchable spreadsheet and get the same effect.

[SilverTauron]

Id make the point also that specifics aren't required in order for the Government to make life hard for gun owners.

Assume for a moment that all the FBI knows is that Person X has 6 background checks run in a recent period. Let us also assume firearms of a certain kind are banned at the Federal level. All an agent need do to convince a judge for a search warrant is show the record of checks and say " we need into this guys home, hes probably got illegal firearms plus Informant Y said she saw an illegal gun in his closet".

24 hours later Person X is eating carpet, their dead Boxer dog is carted out along with his gun collection, and the anti gun pols hold a press conference in front of Mr Xs gun collection.

[Jida]

And they count tins of pellets and blocks of .22lr as "1,000's of military style shelved rounds of ammunition seized."

[Wherryj]

But ... if you ask them why they can't use your past fingerprints to do the background check for a renewal they tell you they disposed of them.

Oh yeah ... the government lies ...

If they admitted that they kept the prints, they would seem to be building a database...and they couldn't charge you multiple times for the same fingerprints.

[Jack L]

Of course they will have a stealth data base.. Look at what they are doing with electronic mail and social media. They will try to find out everything they can without any warrants. The issuing of warrants to get information is a joke. They only do that after the fact when they will be taking you to court. The government will come up with some BS law that they think you are a terrorist or some other classification they will invent therefore they will be allowed to look up you’re a-hole. The anti-gunners are so fixated on banning firearms they will never stop until we are like England. That's not being paranoid, it's fact. Just look at how the urban politicians are handling the issue. The 2A will be whittled down until it isn’t a 2A at all if the fight does not become the main issue in every election.

[colossians323]

WHats sad is we keep saying okay. What can we do to push back. The propaganda machine(public schools) is owned by the gubbment and is for the gubbment. It seems like we keep relying on the courts but there is never a stay till it is proven or disproven to be constitutional.....

[Subotai]

Anytime a govie has his eyes or hands on paperwork, you must assume the info has been retained.

[anthonyca]

Id make the point also that specifics aren't required in order for the Government to make life hard for gun owners.

Assume for a moment that all the FBI knows is that Person X has 6 background checks run in a recent period. Let us also assume firearms of a certain kind are banned at the Federal level. All an agent need do to convince a judge for a search warrant is show the record of checks and say " we need into this guys home, hes probably got illegal firearms plus Informant Y said she saw an illegal gun in his closet".

24 hours later Person X is eating carpet, their dead Boxer dog is carted out along with his gun collection, and the anti gun pols hold a press conference in front of Mr Xs gun collection.

This one always gets me. We have a current case in litigation because a guy was arrested for an assault weapon. The court found out that it was not in fact an assault weapon and the case was dropped. The judge ruled that this was a fluke and the laws were not vague as the defendant claimed.

The same guy was arrested soon after for THE SAME gun and the cops again said it was an assault weapon. If the people paid to enforce these laws can't be held to understand the law, how can some cranked out kook who is trying to make a deal be trusted to say what is an illegal weapon? I know the real answer.

[donw]

The cat has been out of the bag for years. The cows left the barn long, long ago. At least in Kalifornia. Sacramento has kept a database on gun sales/purchases for decades.

You can file a request with the Department of Justice to see every "DROS" they have on file with your name on it (Dealer's Report of Sale). I did that. Mine goes back to 1978 when I turned 20 and bought a firearm. Every other gun I bought in Kalifornia is listed, too. Most of them anyway.

If that isn't a "database", then I don't know what is.

what's even as equally amazing is that to "Establish a registry of firearms is against federal law" as per a Dem senator on the news a few days ago.

but then California does have a history of sticking it's thumb in the eye of the federal government when it involves firearms issues.