ATF whistleblowers sound alarm on Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales: repo

Essentially, the Biden administration is trying to legislate. Current federal law requiring background checks only applies to sales by FFL holders. By adding private sellers to that requirement, Biden is legislating. Only the Congress can legislate. This is my objection to the proposed new regulation. It's not the background checks on private sales I object to. It's that making that requirement is the purview of Congress, not the President. The job of the President is to execute our laws, not to create them.

The federal government is required by law to destroy records of approved background checks within 24 hours. State laws vary, but we are talking about federal law here.

The NFA defines "machine gun." They cannot simply reclassify an unmodified semi-automatic firearm as a machine gun. The law is clear as to what a machine gun is.

Background checks don't create a record with the federal government except in cases where the application was denied. What I'm talking about here is background checks, not a registry. I am not opposed to background checks for all the reasons I talked about earlier. But to "keep" and "bear" arms is a constitutional right, and I don't believe we should have to "register" with the federal government the exercise of a constitutional right.

I don't agree that this "ends private ownership." When you think about it, there are background checks because peaceful, law-abiding citizens have a right to private ownership. In a country where all firearms ownership is banned, there would be no background checks for owners of firearms. If an owner of a firearm was discovered, the person could be arrested and charged without a background check. In the U.S. background checks regulate the transfers of firearms as a protection to peaceful, law-abiding people, but they don't "end private ownership."

Our constitutional rights to speech, assembly, and even religion have reasonable limitations, primarily meant to protect life and property. It follows that there may be reasonable limitations placed upon firearms ownership as well. Proposed laws and regulations that substantially interfere with the rights of peaceful, law-abiding people are unconstitutional and should be opposed. I just don't see a background check as being a step that substantially interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. I've had those checks done on me many times, and not once have they stopped me from buying, owning, keeping or using a firearm.

Seth

 

But the FFL is required to keep them for so many years. Hence the “essentially”

 

They literally reclassified a stock as a machine gun with a simple definition change. Don’t kid yourself they can’t do it.

 

Like I said… the gun store is required to keep record of all background checks for some determined amount of years. It is a registry cause all the government has to do is require all these stored background checks to be sent in for an investigation or creation of a registration. It is essentially a registry.

 

that's true

let me ask you something since I never could figure out what a bump stock would be useful for but I don't think there should be a 1934 NFA in the first place

if people could still buy modern machine guns the same way they buy suppressors or SBRs do you think the bump stock would have ever been created? and yes, I think the government is going to lose on the reclassification bullshit especially if Chevron standards are stricken as they should be

 

This damn sure does because it’s all about permission. Without that permission you can not practice a right. Is a right permissive? This is nothing but borrowing from the power holder not retaining your own power.

I k ow good law abiding people who refuse to buy anything outside of private sales. They’re great people even. But they want zero record of what’s in their safe. If you think the government doesn’t know what you bought with a background check you’re kidding yourself. They’re all electronic these days. Have you ever read Edward snowdens book?

 

Yes, I agree with that.

It's against the law for felons to own guns, and they can be imprisoned for violating that law. So of course it can be enforced. Our police are more than happy to enforce those laws. "Soft on crime" prosecutors and judges thwart those efforts.

But like I mentioned to Joe Knows in my last post, background checks are one issue. I find background checks to be acceptable. A registry is another issue. I see them as separate issues. I do not believe peaceful, law-abiding people should have to "register" with the federal government to exercise a constitutional right.

I have not researched the legal rationale for why the federal government may regulate firearms sales instead of leaving it to the states. Without doing all that research, I can only guess. But it may have something to do with the power granted to Congress by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Or, it may be a rationale that, since the Constitution is federal law, the federal government may impose some regulations on the rights it grants as long as those regulations do not thwart the right as it was intended to be used. Or, it might come from the Preamble of Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare ..." Perhaps the rationale comes from all of those things. Like I said, I haven't done that research, but you do bring up an interesting point.

But using another constitutional right as an example, we know that the federal government may prohibit certain kinds of speech. Perjury, for example. Another would be Conspiracy to commit a crime. Extortion is another example. Revealing national defense secrets is a crime. In times of a declared war, the crime of Treason could be committed by speech. None of those federal crimes can be defended by claiming a constitutional right to free speech. So the reality is that our Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but the same federal government whose founding document guarantees the right may also prohibit certain exercises of the right. It's as if the federal government, with the approval of our courts, is saying "You have these rights, to be exercised as they were intended, but they may not be exercised in a way that puts at risk or harms our people or our nation." So, at least in my mind, for what that's worth, the background check requirement is consistent with that theory.

Well if there are 300,000 denials per year, and 42% are felons, and the rest are denied for other good reasons, I don't believe those checks are worthless.

They should be though.

And choices have consequences, don't they? But if a mere felony drug possession conviction was the only thing on the record, and the person is no longer taking illegal drugs, and the conviction was 20 years old or more, I could see permitting the restoration of the right.

 

I do think it would have been created. It’s a cheap way to increase the rate of fire so yes I think it still would be around. And I agree there should not be a 1934 NFA as well. And I wouldn’t count your eggs. The whole reason it’s a right is because the government should not be trusted with legislation against it.

 

Wonder why Charles Manson was never arrested before they committed all those murders then

 

so you do not think owning a gun is a right, you think it's a privalage

 

I don't worry about that, and I'll tell you why. It's because it takes a massive amount of work to trace just one gun. First the LE agency has to find out who the manufacturer sold the gun to. It will then have to contact the importer (if it applies) and the wholesaler to find out who the retailer was. Then they would have to contact the retailer to find out who the gun was sold to. Now if the original owner sold it to an FFL dealer or a private person, they would have to continue the tracing effort by going to that dealer or person. They would have to continue that tracing from dealer to dealer to dealer, or person to person to person if the gun had been bought and sold over and over. And with all the scams that go on, people are not going to respond to emails and letters. All of that effort is going to have to be face to face, with proof that the agent is a bonafide LE officer. And after all that work, the trail can just simply run out. People die, leads dry up. So the only reason LE is going to do all that work is in very serious cases, probably only unsolved murder cases. So honestly, trying to create an accurate central database from dealer records of tens of millions upon millions of sales, is a practical impossibility. And that's why I don't worry about FFL's keeping their records. If LE contacts an FFL about a gun, it's for a good reason. It's not to simply create a database of tens of millions of gun owners.

 

He had a long arrest and incarceration record, having spent half his life in custody, by the time the murders he is famous for were committed.

 

The cops were told not to arrest him although they seen him with guns. Read the book “ chaos”

 

That wouldn’t take as long as you think in todays digital age.

 

It is not "permission" to exercise the right. As a peaceful, law-abiding American citizen, I already have the right, and it may not be substantially infringed. But unfortunately, not all American citizens are peaceful. Not all American citizens are law-abiding. And those people exact a deadly toll on the rest of us. The background check is just verification that I am not one of them. In the U.S. government has two primary functions. One is to uphold the Constitution and the other is to protect the nation. A quick background check does not deny my right to "keep and bear arms", but it does at least try to fulfill government's duty to protect its citizens. A quick background check fulfills both of those two primary functions.

 

so why do we need background checks at the private sale level if we can already prosecute felons. You see, when the Brady bill was passed, the rational was that since FFL (firearms licensed dealers) can buy and sell firearms in INTERSTATE commerce, congress had the power to make THEM do the background check. Now I find that interstate commerce jurisdiction to be bullshit but it currently is the law. HOWEVER, private citizens ARE PROHIBITED from selling guns INTERSTATE to anyone but a licensed dealer. I as a private citizen cannot buy from another private citizen across state lines., So the interstate commerce jurisdiction is not present. If a felon is caught with a gun, he can be prosecuted but that isn't the main reason for pushing for background checks. It's to create a demand for registration

those are ACTIONS that harm others. a background check requirement is purely a malum prohibitum statute

they are if those who are stopped from buying are not prosecuted. they merely get the gun someplace else even though they have committed federal perjury. Less than 1/10 of one percent are even charged and that is usually part of a bigger indictment. I know, the 24 years I was a federal prosecutor, the only case we had of someone lying on a 4473 was part of several other charges. And having researched it-it was before the Brady bill was implemented so there was no background check run at the time of the purchase-(the guy lied but he actually beat the rap because he claimed the other state where he had a felony record gave him a "restoration of rights" letter after he served his time. The jury believed that while we proved that didn't remove his 18 USC 922 bar to owning a gun, he believed it did)

 

It’s not just verification or the FFL would not be forced to keep the record for as long as they do.

 

So, Counselor, I have a question. If you cross state lines to buy a gun from a private citizen, can you and the private citizen make it legal by taking the gun to an FFL and transacting it through the FFL? In other words, the seller sells it to the FFL who then sells it to you. Would that be legal?

Also, I don't deny that the gun banners would like to turn background checks into a federal registry. I'm sure they would. 2A supporters should fight against that. But, as I've already said, I see background checks and registration requirements as two distinct issues.

Yes, but the intent behind it is to protect society, a fundamental duty of government. So you were a prosecutor? We have something in common because I was a police officer for decades until I retired. But before I could become a police officer, a set of my fingerprints were taken, and a background check was done on me. And while I was a police officer, a routine call for me was to return to the PD and roll a set of prints for an applicant - usually a prospective public school teacher. The applicant had a pre-addressed envelope to mail the fingerprint card in so that a background check could be done on him or her. These background checks done on police officers and public school teachers may have been malum prohibitum as you say, Counselor, but I see them as a reasonable step that is intended to protect society.

Now I realize that becoming a police officer or a public school teacher is not a constitutional right like the right to keep and bear arms is. It could be argued that I am comparing apples to oranges by bringing up background checks that are done for purposes other than the exercise of a constitutional right. But they are all done for the same basic purpose - to protect society, which I see as a fundamental duty of government.

I believe that we reduce crime by being tough on crime. I believe in the "broken windows" practice of enforcement. I believe that if the system gives out tough punishments for the little stuff, eventually we will have less big stuff. I hear what you're saying about less than 1/10 of 1% of people who lie on a 4473 are ever prosecuted. If I had the power to do it, I would change that. And I would slam them. If we locked up those people for a minimum of 6 months the first time they lied on one of those forms, word would get out pretty dang quick not to do that. It's just a fact that when we don't prosecute certain crimes, we aren't doing society any favors. We're just encouraging more of those types of crimes.

 

I had to think about that for a minute. My opinion is that the law was designed to suit two purposes. One was a nod to gun owners, to prevent the federal government from creating a centralized registry of firearms owners. The second was a nod to assisting legitimate LE investigations, giving LE the ability to begin the trace of crime guns in order to solve murders or other very serious crimes.

 

yes if you go through a licensed dealer. in fact that is how just about everyone LEGALLY buys across state lines. I buy several guns here and there from CZ Custom in Arizona. I pay for the gun on line-it is shipped to my local dealer where I fill out form 4473, and pay him 25 dollars for doing the transaction

yes but after the Obama DOJ established that enforcement of private background checks require registration of currently owned firearms, the gun banners started really pushing for "universal background checks" to create a demand for registration. Most criminals get guns from people who already know the buyer is a criminal

 

Ooh!

FOX News claims a "whistleblower" said so! (but won't name the whistleblower).

Well, that settles it. We all know how accurate FOX News is, after all.

 

Just as a registry would as well. It’s essentially a registry

 

So why are gun groups prepping to sue the ATF over this?

 

Does the begging for donations give you any idea?

 

Well I donated because it is the truth. The best part… it’s a tax write off