the bound book information. http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf note that about anywhere a transaction takes place an entry needs to be made in the bound book with the recipients name and the firearm serial number's included.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Carry Permits are de Facto Gun Registration
- Thread starter SlowPoke
- Start date
the bound book information. http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf note that about anywhere a transaction takes place an entry needs to be made in the bound book with the recipients name and the firearm serial number's included.
cscitney87
Regular Member
"note that about anywhere a transaction takes place an entry needs to be made in the bound book with the recipients name and the firearm serial number's included. "
Again nobody is denying this. This is common practice for an FFL. What you have failed to understand is that the bound book is only turned into the ATF when the FFL closes business. There is NO legal requirement to regularly send the ATF the bound book.
No federal registration. No federal list.
No scare tactics here fellows. Besides- if there was a federal registration for firearms- we would all know about it. It would be an issue. The Firearms Owners Protection Act has secured our privacy.
Again nobody is denying this. This is common practice for an FFL. What you have failed to understand is that the bound book is only turned into the ATF when the FFL closes business. There is NO legal requirement to regularly send the ATF the bound book.
No federal registration. No federal list.
No scare tactics here fellows. Besides- if there was a federal registration for firearms- we would all know about it. It would be an issue. The Firearms Owners Protection Act has secured our privacy.
1. you seemed to be denying it with:
in response to me simply saying that ATF had bound book information which contains the name of the purchaser and serial number for FFL transfers. perhaps I should not have used the word "list" since it seems to drive you nuts even though I thought it clear I was referring to the bound book information which is really a list of transactions. However I'll try to use information, bound book data or trace info.
2. you seem to have a short memory or are simply ignoring what anyone says and attacking a straw man instead. I seem to have said:
just a legal requirement to send the ATF information from the bound book for use in tracing a firearm that the ATF or some other govt entity claims was used in a crime. and
Jack House
Regular Member
I guess the ATF could never just demand that all dealers turn in their records immediately. Nope, not at all.
cscitney87
Regular Member
I heard from a friend of a friend of an uncle of a guy who's friend knows some guy at the ATF says they are calling in all their bound books on Tuesday!!! Better get your bottled water and canned food! Shits hitting the fan! y2K!
Jack House
Regular Member
You realize that the exact same argument applies to registration, right? So, I guess by your logic registration would be fine as well?
cscitney87
Regular Member
What is left to "make" Daylen? And carry permits are not de facto gun registration.
Every single person is on some government data base. I find it extremely funny that people believe the crooked government does the right thing after 24 hours with All that NICS data of approved transactions,that they say are being destroyed. Anyone in their right mind, damn well knows that they will keeping every character that is logged into their systems. The books that the ATF has collected due to the economy collapsing and the ones they have shut down, you would be a foolish to think the ATF/FBI don't take that info and place it into a database. When I bought my class 3 device they listed off every single weapon I have every bought and when and what store it was purchased from. This was over a 8 year period of weapons from all over the country. You better wake up to the reality of how screwed we are if they ever had to collect our firearms beside in Katrina. No need for tin foil they have gun owners by the balls, you trust them on their word, let me know how that works out for you with all the million of jobs created by that stimulus packaged and no ones taxes will rise for those making less then 250 grand.
cscitney87
Regular Member
"let me know how that works out for you with all the million of jobs created by that stimulus packaged"
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
I can see why you'd get defensive. You're whole argument rests on the idea of "We can trust them. They said so on their website."
I'm not normally a conspiracy guy, but please take another look at what you've posted as 'evidence' and try to realize how naive that sounds. By the way, you can trust that I'm telling the truth right now. I just said so.
Jack House
Regular Member
I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy to claim that registration already exists to an extent, or that another Katrina style gun grab is a possibility. Those that say that a law was passed to prevent that need to stop being so naive. They seem to fail to realize that it was illegal in the first place. Unless you're going to tell me that the constitution doesn't apply during emergencies.
There are way to many people in power who think this is legal and a good thing to boot. Yet idiots in the media like bill o'reilly seem to think it is ok to violate people freedoms. He fully supports politicians who share his viewpoint and gives them air time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4e_M8dcy0
Last edited:
cscitney87
Regular Member
"take another look at what you've posted as 'evidence' and try to realize how naive that sounds"
Sorry McD but FBI and NICS websites are clearly supporting factual evidence. My "evidence" is the LAW ITSELF. Again;Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
If you're traveling down the path of "those government websites are wrong" then suit yourself but I'd rather not be labeled a crazy.
And Again: Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Is that not evidence enough McD?
5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
Sorry McD but FBI and NICS websites are clearly supporting factual evidence. My "evidence" is the LAW ITSELF. Again;Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
If you're traveling down the path of "those government websites are wrong" then suit yourself but I'd rather not be labeled a crazy.
And Again: Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)
Is that not evidence enough McD?
5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
I think the concern is that the information exists at one point in time and, regardless of what the law requires, what do we have besides trust to ensure the law is being followed?
I'd love to see the results of an independent audit of actual practices.
I'd love to see the results of an independent audit of actual practices.
Last edited:
Um maybe I missed something, but I thought we'd all gone a bit off topic (the NICS check) and were onto bound book discussions and the like. I think the closest I got to the NICS was:
After that I thought I was clear that I was talking about the bound books, which are completely separate from NICS. I have yet to see you post anything real against my bound book arguments. And I certainly did post a link to the relevant ATF website for bound books.
Last edited:
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
All of this is completely irrelevant to the fact that nobody, anywhere, for any reason, has a legitimate right to know what you own or track it in any manner.
cscitney87
Regular Member
That's fine that you posted a relevant source for bound book information on the ATF. I'm glad you did so. You'll read, in the same source, that the bound book is not regularly requested. In fact, you'll read- from your source- that the bound book is only sent to the ATF in the result of an FFL closing. You haven't sourced any information stating bound books are routinely sent to the ATF by an operating FFL- of which the ATF compiles a searchable database of gun owners and their registered firearms. I am finished here no more replies for me I win.
I win.well as far as databases... the bound books seem to be electronic and could be considered a distributed database considering:http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html
Notice: eTrace 4.0:
Notice: eTrace 4.0:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
That was me, remember how some of the other members tried to say I was BS'ing.
JoeRocket and NavyLT looked into (I believe)and found out that DOL (department of license) is requiring that info and that is isn't illegal or at least is a "gray" area. And yes I was absolutely telling the truth.
I also talked to the owners of a small gun shop here and he asked his friend who is an LEO about it and he confirmed it.
That being said yes it does bother me that they are doing this and sharing the information with other agencies.