Gun collectors outbid cops in police gun buy-back scheme!

reply to post by Indigo5


I have no problem going after gun store owners, who knowingly are selling to strawman. I also have no problem with the ATF actually doing their job and following up on suspicious activity or running stings, unfortunately and regardless of their protestation, they are not doing those things now. And, they are within current law to do so.

The only issue I wouldn't want to see start to happen is if the owner doesn't know he sold to a straw buyer and the gov targets the store owner. For example, if any stores had guns in stock, I could walk in and out in as many minutes as it takes to bring the gun out of the back and swipe my card. This is not because the owner isn't doing his job, but because through work and my CCW permit the FBI already has my fingerprints on file and I have gone through background checks (more thorough than NICS). All I have to do is show a card and walk out the door. If I decided to turn around and sell it to some kid down the street, who would normally not be able to . . . they come after me, not the owner of the shop. However, if a strawman comes in and uses bad/stolen info and he walks out with firearms . . . is that the shop's fault? Why would they be liable, if they have called in to NICS? How would the shop owner know that is a stolen SS#? That's on the FBI at that point.

It would be hard to pin on the shop owner unless someone rats him out . . . or he is stupid enough to say he would sell to a strawman to an undercover.

So outside of current laws, regardless of the ATF saying they are afraid of a political lobby organization and that's why they don't enforce, I don't think there is a lot we can add. I wouldn't care if they added some sort of quarterly audit system or something. But, I'm at a loss how any other regulation could slow this down, when the real criminal is the buyer (as long as the owner is clearing them through NICS).

EDIT - and I would definitely being running surveilance on those 1% or ask them to run stings out of their shops . . . if they even have a shop. I know a couple people that have FFLs that run everything out of their garage, because they are more smiths than shop keeps.

Originally posted by solomons path

The only issue I wouldn't want to see start to happen is if the owner doesn't know he sold to a straw buyer and the gov targets the store owner. For example, if any stores had guns in stock, I could walk in and out in as many minutes as it takes to bring the gun out of the back and swipe my card. This is not because the owner isn't doing his job, but because through work and my CCW permit the FBI already has my fingerprints on file and I have gone through background checks (more thorough than NICS). All I have to do is show a card and walk out the door. If I decided to turn around and sell it to some kid down the street, who would normally not be able to . . . they come after me, not the owner of the shop. However, if a strawman comes in and uses bad/stolen info and he walks out with firearms . . . is that the shop's fault? Why would they be liable, if they have called in to NICS? How would the shop owner know that is a stolen SS#? That's on the FBI at that point.

Agreed and that enforcement question needs to be answered...I think one of the only succesful prosecutions from the article I cited is where a FFL Dealer entered false info into the system on behalf of the buyer. But there is a lot of in-between and the FFL needs to be protected from over-zealous prosecution as well.

Originally posted by solomons path

So outside of current laws, regardless of the ATF saying they are afraid of a political lobby organization and that's why they don't enforce, I don't think there is a lot we can add. I wouldn't care if they added some sort of quarterly audit system or something. But, I'm at a loss how any other regulation could slow this down, when the real criminal is the buyer (as long as the owner is clearing them through NICS).

I think that a system that flags repeated large qauntities of gun purchases by a single buyer in short period of time would help. An extra layer of scrutiny might discourage the straw buyer? Or at least the ATF can call him and ask what is up with all the gun buys? Or maybe if someone buys more than X number of guns a year, they agree to/sign a doc that a local cop can come inspect thier collection a year from then to ensure they still have the guns or sales docs as to whom they sold them to? I don't know...

All in I agree it is a tricky space to start with, but I still think it has the most potential to make a difference in total gun violance....and the flow of guns to criminals.

Originally posted by Indigo5


I think that a system that flags repeated large qauntities of gun purchases by a single buyer in short period of time would help. An extra layer of scrutiny might discourage the straw buyer? Or at least the ATF can call him and ask what is up with all the gun buys? Or maybe if someone buys more than X number of guns a year, they agree to/sign a doc that a local cop can come inspect thier collection a year from then to ensure they still have the guns or sales docs as to whom they sold them to? I don't know...

Should have stuck with "I don't know".
The tracking of firearm sales is illegal by the Govt, and not within the confines for the 2nd Amendment.

There is no reason for the Govt to track, as with as many blunders and illegal acts by the FBI and BATF over the last 15-20 years, false positives would only contribute to more lawful citizens being unlawfully harassed by the Govt, if not more Ruby Ridge incidents.

This is not gun safety, it is Govt Gun Control. The Govt has no business tracking what is purchased, whether it be ammunition, firearms or firearm related items.
There is no legal reason why the lawful citizen should sign a document giving carte blanche to a Govt agent to inspect what they own lawfully in the first place.
Thought people were innocent until proven guilty??

In the new Tyrant 0bama world, I guess that only works when you are a Liberal or Progressive.

Originally posted by Indigo5


BUT the NRA is steadfastly against that and has successfully nuetered the ATF in funding, manpower and actual legislation forbidding them from being effective...and that drives the debate to the uneccessary extreme of everyone should be able to own guns...or ban them all.

Having been part of raids on FFL dealers, and having friends that hold FFLs and have been inspected and raided, I can state that you truly have no clue as to what you are talking about. And below, you stating something that John Stewart said, on COMEDY CENTRAL speaks volumes to your information source.

The BATF can audit once a year, unless the FFL us believed, not know but believed to have discrepancies with their inventory. If they are a FFL dealer with Class 3 and/or Class 3 manufactures license, they can be audited at different times.

As for neutered???I guess by that you mean coming in to a business on a belief, seizing all firearm inventories and being able to hold it indefinitely is neutered, then yeah, I guess they are.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Jon Stewart had a bit the other night that outlined the NRA and ATF fairly well...

Right now the ATF is PROHIBITED by law from inspecting even a FFL dealers inventory more than ONCE a year....AND has so few resources that in practice the average for a FFL dealer is an inspection ONCE EVERY SEVENTEEN YEARS...and that is for folks with FFLs! Let alone any tracking of private sales...NRA says hell no!

It really is a good watch...

www.thedailyshow.com...

edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

And again, John Stewart seems to be your go to source for alot these days. That is just sad, and frightening as many like you seem to turn to a comedian on a comedy network channel for news.

The BATF, instead of setting up shops trying to get gang bangers into a store to buy and sell guns, only fail miserably and have a Class 3 firearm stolen, maybe they should do their job or be disbanded.

The BATF spends more time and resources trying to cohere and entice citizens and FFL Dealers into performing illegal acts, no wonder they state they don't have enough money to perform other functions.

reply to post by NarrowGate


Nah.. I have a feeling it was one of the single uses they sell at every milsurp store in the US.

Originally posted by macman

The BATF can audit once a year, unless the FFL us believed, not know but believed to have discrepancies with their inventory. If they are a FFL dealer with Class 3 and/or Class 3 manufactures license, they can be audited at different times.

We have a fundemental difference in posting styles...you just say stuff...and I provide facts and links...Not really interested in that kind of discussion...last post to you based on other exchanges...bait away as usual...but as to your claim above..

No..."believe" isn't a warrant..

With certain exceptions, the GCA allows ATF to conduct one warrantless, annual compliance inspection of a federal firearms licensee (FFL).

www.atf.gov...

And in practice

The ATF Does Not Regularly Conduct Compliance Inspections on Active FFLs, Including Large-Scale Retailers

According to the ATF Director, for the ATF to ensure compliance with federal firearms laws, FFLs should receive a compliance inspection at least once every three years.

However, the ATF is currently unable to even begin to meet that goal. We found that most FFLs are inspected infrequently or not at all.

ATF workload data show that the ATF conducted 4,581 FFL compliance inspections in FY 2002, or about 4.5 percent of the approximately 104,000 FFLs nationwide.48 At that rate, it would take the ATF more than 22 years to inspect all FFLs.

www.justice.gov...

Originally posted by Indigo5


We have a fundemental difference in posting styles...you just say stuff...and I provide facts and links...

Yeah, the Daily Show and all. Ok then.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Not really interested in that kind of discussion...last post to you based on other exchanges...bait away as usual...but as to your claim above..

No..."believe" isn't a warrant..

With certain exceptions, the GCA allows ATF to conduct one warrantless, annual compliance inspection of a federal firearms licensee (FFL).

www.atf.gov...

With certain exception....Hmmmm I wonder what that means.

Originally posted by Indigo5
And in practice

The ATF Does Not Regularly Conduct Compliance Inspections on Active FFLs, Including Large-Scale Retailers

According to the ATF Director, for the ATF to ensure compliance with federal firearms laws, FFLs should receive a compliance inspection at least once every three years.

However, the ATF is currently unable to even begin to meet that goal. We found that most FFLs are inspected infrequently or not at all.

ATF workload data show that the ATF conducted 4,581 FFL compliance inspections in FY 2002, or about 4.5 percent of the approximately 104,000 FFLs nationwide.48 At that rate, it would take the ATF more than 22 years to inspect all FFLs.

www.justice.gov...

So, you have first hand knowledge to the frequency of inspections conducted, as opposed to a press release that does not disclose their actual working schedule.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Right now the ATF is PROHIBITED by law from inspecting even a FFL dealers inventory more than ONCE a year....AND has so few resources that in practice the average for a FFL dealer is an inspection ONCE EVERY SEVENTEEN YEARS...and that is for folks with FFLs! Let alone any tracking of private sales...NRA says hell no!

It really is a good watch...

www.thedailyshow.com...

And again, John Stewart seems to be your go to source for alot these days. That is just sad, and frightening as many like you seem to turn to a comedian on a comedy network channel for news.

ATF is allowed under federal law to inspect federally licensed gun dealers once a year, but agency officials said inspections are done at an actual rate of about one every 17 years.

www.washingtonpost.com...

How many different sources would you like?...Nevermind...forgot answers isn't your game..

reply to post by Indigo5


Another press release from the BATF not stating their working schedule?

Okay then.

reply to post by Indigo5

And secondly, lets also look at what types or classes there are for FFLs.
You, as many are not exactly well informed as to this.

federalfirearmslicense.net...

And

en.wikipedia.org...

SO, with the BATF stating that they don't have the man power to inspect all, then they are correct, but, it appears that some are not exactly needed to be inspected.

Plus, there are different rules that apply for the Class 3 FFLs.


Also, what you gave as proof, from your sources, states Compliance inspection. There are also inventory inspections that are conducted as well.

You, like many others, have bought into the semantics of another Govt Agency.