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

[Thomkat]

And yet they are pushing issuing drivers licensing for un documented domestic workers (illegal aliens) without fingerprints because most won't come foreword to get licensing because they don't want to be printed.



Humm? I wonder why that is???

[chainsaw]

Also, I believe that when a FFL fives up his license the saved paperwork is given top the ATF.

Yes, which keeps the records in paper form, in boxes, in a warehouse. They do NOT digitize them, or enter them into a database. If they have to perform a search on these old 4473 records, it's exactly as manual as if an ATF agent goes to visit the dealer.

[dustoff31]

I'm a C&R but have never used it because I never received the actual license. If the government really wanted to confiscate they can just get their hands on all gun related paperwork now. They can get my C&R application, any DROS info and work backwards by visiting me and seeing what guns I have now. What I'm saying is that for people who follow the law now and purchase guns legally are already registered.

Also, I believe that when a FFL fives up his license the saved paperwork is given top the ATF.

All of that is true, and of course CA folks are subject to a lot more record keeping than other states. But then, they have all the records they need to have done that already if they wanted to.

Mind you, I'm not saying they wouldn't like to do it. But on a national level, the logistics of it is just unmanageable as things stand. Remember we are dealing with people who couldn't keep track of only several hundred guns that they had eyes on. (F&F)

Personally, the idea that they could track down millions of guns and their owners by going through hundreds of millions of old forms stored in a warehouse, and then going door to door to every FFL in the country, and then finding everyone in the ensuing chain of custody, not to mention all those guns and owners with no records whatsoever, well... I just don't see that happening. Again, that's not to say they wouldn't like to do it.

[WnP]

Yes, which keeps the records in paper form, in boxes, in a warehouse. They do NOT digitize them, or enter them into a database. If they have to perform a search on these old 4473 records, it's exactly as manual as if an ATF agent goes to visit the dealer.

They don't digitize them now but what's to stop them in the future. The government has money and can hire a couple people to go to every FFL and just simply start taking names. It would be a tedious process but it can be done if it needed.

One of my first jobs was as a government student worker in college was to go through old files and get them ready to be scanned into digital archives.

Everyone thinks a census is a hard thing to do but the Government gets it done.

[chainsaw]

They don't digitize them now but what's to stop them in the future.

The law. Digitizing them is explicitly prohibited by federal law. As is keeping a record of NICS processing for gun buyers who are not prohibited. Which is why there is no federal database of gun owners or gun buyers that's derived from 4473/NICS information.

[WnP]

The law. Digitizing them is explicitly prohibited by federal law. As is keeping a record of NICS processing for gun buyers who are not prohibited. Which is why there is no federal database of gun owners or gun buyers that's derived from 4473/NICS information.

Sure, that's why I said the future. I'm not trying to freak everybody out but laws change and nothing is constant which is why the law is trying to be changed now.

[chainsaw]

Sure, that's why I said the future. I'm not trying to freak everybody out but laws change and nothing is constant which is why the law is trying to be changed now.

Sure, in the future, the law could be changed. That would probably be done together with laws that create a complete federal gun database, for example by going to a mandatory FFL transfer system with full record keeping, like we'll have in California starting in 2014.

But at this time, such a proposal is not politically viable, as the events of the last few weeks have clearly shown.

There is a russian proverb that goes something like this: If my grandmother had a XXX (<- insert slang term for male genitalia here), she wouldn't be my grandmother. She would be my grandfather.

Along these lines: if the political will for federal gun registration existed, I would think about federal gun registration. But it doesn't.

[mrdd]

The "data base" CA has only shows that you bought a gun on a certain date. It doesn't show what type of gun you bought or if you even still own it. A database in my opinion would be a list of gun owners, where they live, their SS, what types of weapons they currently own, what types of weapons they have sold, and so on. THAT'S a database and I understand CA does have one for hand guns but not for long guns.

CA keeps a database for handguns. Sure, there are holes based on people not reporting certain transfers and importations which do not require an FFL, but it is still a database. Every indication is that it goes in both directions, i.e. list of owners / possessors for each item and list of items for each owner / possessor.

For non-concealable firearms i.e. "long guns", there is no database currently. When you purchase or receive one today, only a background check is performed. No identification or specifications for the firearm are transmitted to the DOJ.

Beginning 1/1/2014, identification and specifications will be transmitted and retained similar to concealable firearms.