Is the Brady Background Check De Facto Registration?

You know, one argument I don't hear very often against the idea of "universal" background checks (e.g., closing the gun-show/private-party "loophole") is the effect it may have on privacy. Even though the government can't currently keep track of who buys what guns (except from demanding to see FFL records from time to time) its not implausible for it to know WHO owns at least one gun, based on whether or not they've ever been run through a Brady background check. It's not gun registration as much as it is gun-OWNER registration. But of course, the government is supposed to destroy those records after 90 days from the check...

While its currently possible to avoid being subjected to government scrutiny by only buying firearms through private-parties, if the government ever banned paperless private-party sales and demanded everyone go through a dealer and/or be checked, the government would have a rough list of who all the law-abiding gun-owners were, even without registration of each gun. This could be very handy if it ever came down to door-to-door searches of suspected gun-owners some dark future day when the 2nd and 4th Amendments were suspended, perhaps due to some manufactured "emergency" or general martial law situation in which the Bill of Rights was cast aside.

How do you weigh in?

they are going to your house first to tear it apart and find every gun you own.

For the record, I have a CCW and am not a member of the NRA and don't worry much about the government taking away mine or anyone's firearms. I am all for registration of all handguns as they are used in most (90% of gun crimes) crimes.

Hard to fathom all the NRA members and CCW holder here that worry about confiscation.

:D

Warrantless wiretaps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Extraordinary Rendition? Enhanced interrogation? Secret no-fly watch lists?

yup

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're damn right. Red Dawn was fiction.

Sadly, thanks go Bush, and largely continued by Obama, it is now a reality that we are a nation that suspends habeus corpus, uses extraordinary rendition (hauling people off to countries that turn a blind eye to torture), enhanced interrogation techniques (torture), secret no-fly lists, and pervasive domestic surveillance.

Just like the people in 1920's German republic couldn't foresee the end of democracy there either.

the enemy could be anywhere and attack at any time!!!!

:rofl:

The only real threats to this country are gang bangers, armed teabagger morans, Mexican Cartels and Al Qeda

They get their goodies though "law abiding" gun shops and gun shows

yup

I live a half mile from Juarez Mexico, the most dangerous city on the planet. You said we have these groups are the only real threats:

"The only real threats to this country are gang bangers, armed teabagger morans, Mexican Cartels and Al Qeda"


So we have gang bangers here, there are probably some armed teabagger morans, there are definately mexican cartels and potentially al qeda (your spelling :rofl:).

I would say that definately make it OK that I carry a concealed firearm, right?

but beware - the enemy is under the bed, in the closet, in the attic, in the basement, around every corner....

yup

:rofl:

We are everywhere

We are watching

We know all

yup

ATF form 4473 on the other hand...

Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales and 5 years where the sale was denied by the NICS check coming back disapproved or other disqualifying information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

FFL holders act esentially as... an agent of the federal government where those forms are concerned.

All the good people here what happens to those forms when the gun shop goes out of business.

And a nice BATFE official signs a receipt.

No sane person actually think the government should, could or would go after 300 million guns stored in homes in the USA today.

This type of crap should go to the 9/11 forum.

via registration information.

Think CA, NJ and NY. All three of those states have gone after firearms.

Is it paranoid when persons from the government state the opposite of what you are saying?

I should be ready to hide my vodka.

There are too many guns in the hands of citizens to worry about it at this point.

Much bigger battles to fight. But keeping you paranoid is the goal of the NRA.

"That is like saying because prohibition happened, I should be ready to hide my vodka."

Don't twist yourself in knots comparing something that happened once 50 plus years ago, with things that have happened in multiples in the last decade or two, and don't hurt your neck looking away from these:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

A lot of work posting that for nothing. You do not understand the difference between talk and people going door to door and taking guns. If you really think that is close to happening then the BRA marketing campaign has hooked you like a fish.

I have a list of quotes from people wanting to ban blacks, gays, jews, etc. But you notice that those groups have not had any rights taken from them lately? Actually it is getting better not worse. Same for the gun rights. No major set backs in the gun battle. Actually we are winning most of the battles.

But the NRA is making you think Obama is about ready to swoop in with troops to take away your guns and you are paranoid enough to believe it. And they collect money and supporters from that paranoid talk.

Shit, I own 3 handguns, two shotguns and a rifle. I am not 1% worried about anyone coming by my house to take them.

Will there be setbacks in the gun battle. Of course. Just like there are setbacks for blacks and gays, but a few idiots do not make a policy.

This argument is about this:

Will the government go door to door and take guns away from Americans. If you answer YES you are being a sucker to the NRA.

"A lot of work posting that for nothing. You do not understand the difference between talk and people going door to door and taking guns. If you really think that is close to happening then the BRA marketing campaign has hooked you like a fish."

You didn't make clear, to these eyes, that it was going door to door you were referring to.

But since you've clarified, meet patricia konie:

http://pun.org/josh/archives/Patricia%20Konie%20Gun%20Confiscation.wmv

"I have a list of quotes from people wanting to ban blacks, gays, jews, etc. But you notice that those groups have not had any rights taken from them lately? Actually it is getting better not worse. Same for the gun rights. No major set backs in the gun battle. Actually we are winning most of the battles."

Um...remember the assault weapons ban? The DC gun ban? The Chicago gun ban? Are those things just niceties in your view, since nobody went door to door?

ANd were those people, the quotes of whom you have a list of, US attourney generals, or other legislators in any time one might consider recent?

Yes, it IS getting better not worse, but not because of people in denial of what IS and what HAS been, and what almost was. ANd not because people in denial of the INTENT of what is, what was, and what almost was.

"But the NRA is making you think Obama is about ready to swoop in with troops to take away your guns and you are paranoid enough to believe it."

Are you a mind reader now? How exactly would you know what I think about Obama?

"This argument is about this:

Will the government go door to door and take guns away from Americans."

Well, sorry friend, but thats an pig ignorant way of looking at things, since thats generally not how government does things in a land with a 4th amendment such as ours.

Instead, they send out letters saying basically "turn them in, get rid of them, move them out of state...or else" as they did with SKS rifles in CA. Since they didn't go door to door, thats just fine with you then is it?

Guess how they knew who to send the letters to.

I'll give you a hint:

It - the answer - has the letters r e g i s t r a t i o and n in it.

"the BRA marketing campaign has hooked you like a fish"



I guess you got me there.

If I may quote you: "No sane person actually think the government should, could or would go after 300 million guns stored in homes in the USA today."

You say it would never happen. That any suggestion that it would is "NRA paranoia."

In all honesty can you say that there have been zero gun confiscations in the US in the past 20 years?

How many by the Federal Government? How many of those cases were overturned by the courts?

If you push the argument that CCW holder commit very few crimes, therefor they are good for society, couldn't one say there have been so few confiscations of registered handguns in this country, registration would be good for society? I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of CCW holders commit gun crimes than legal guns have ever been confiscated in the USA. I'm using this as an example of your logic and not to deny "shall issue", but to say there is a good argument for registration of handguns.

300+ thousand firearms were estimated by the state of NJ.
300 to 500 thousand firearms were estimated by the state of CA.

In NY the state nor the city of NY published any numbers.

The vast majority of these firearms that were banned accounted for only .026% of crime in NJ and 3.7% in California. The bans on these weapons have had no noticeable effect on crime. The bans in NJ was so broad that it also banned .22 rifles and some BB guns. The deputy chief of Trenton PD was quoted: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming .026 of 1 percent of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

1991 cut off date. So, it's pretty hard to say 300 thousand registered guns were confiscated. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0396d.asp

confiscated, not how many were. The best # number I can find is between 10 and 20 thousand of those 600,000. Then the laws were overturned. Then, of those numbers, most were turned in and not search for or taken without permission. So, 10 thousand guns confiscated over a decade, out of 300,000.000.
Seems your chance of shooting yourself in the foot while cleaning your pistol are a lot higher.

CCW holders to commit crimes, using your bumper sticker logic.

Edit: information already posted by Beevul

questioning the sanity of gun owners. This has become quite a pattern hasn't it?

Gun registration is a precursor to gun confiscation..And even if you for whatever reason don't want or can't believe that, you certainly have to admit it can be used that way..

Why would you blindly trust any government?

Maybe you skip words to read what you want.....

This is becoming so old with you......

I said "some, not most gun owners". Which means you think there is NO gun owners who are paranoid. Please let me know if you think NO gun owners are paranoid.

You logic means "car registration is a precursor to car confiscation" or "pet registration is precursor to pet confiscation".

At times I cannot even tell if you are serious.

And have there been a rash of legislative efforts to ban pets and cars?

Have their been multiple examples of car banning and pet banning?

I mean, that's what you stated yesterday. Another contradiction from the Gun forum's resident king of contradictions..

Btw, you didn't answer my question....why would you blindly trust the government?

Why do you blindly trust the NRA?

The government is wrong many times. But the logistics of collecting 300 million weapons is beyond any logic anyone can throw at it. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! Just like you needing your guns to overthrow the USA government will never happen in my or my kids lifetime or their kids lifetime.

The NRA keeping gun owners paranoid is as big a scam as anything the government could do to you. And you are falling for it 100%.

They need you scared to keep you thinking Obama is evil and wants to take your guns away. And it is working.

where have I ever claimed to "blindly trust the NRA"??..What I have said, is the NRA is a single issue organization, and on that one issue, that one issue alone, they represent and defend my views. All the political side show stuff?...We've gone over that numerous times in the past as to the reasons..

You, OTOH, have stated the Brady Campaign is "mostly sincere and they have a good motive"...yet you continue to claim to be pro gun rights.

I'm sure you're familiar with the expression...with friends like you, who needs enemies?

I do think the Brady campaign just wants less guns because they are wrong about thinking it will stop deaths. Nothing wrong with that. Stopping deaths is a good idea. They just have the wrong way of doing it. And they are failing anyway.

If you think the NRA is any less honest then you are gullible.

So, you can support the NRA and I will not insult you and call you a non-liberal. But you will continue to call me anti-gun. See the difference?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh really? Then what was this about in your response to me yesterday?

"I am suspicious if some here are democrats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=410909&mesg_id=411032

I don't really need to continue to call you anti gun. Your call for gun registration, a banning of open carry, the kissing of Brady Bunch butt...all that pretty much speaks for itself..

"If you think the NRA is any less honest then you are gullible."

Theres a difference, one that seems lost on you.

One group supports a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and one opposes it. And lies about it.

That difference tips the scales, and makes tolerable - not prefferable - but tolerable, the nras shortcomings.

"I do think the Brady campaign just wants less guns because they are wrong about thinking it will stop deaths. Nothing wrong with that."


When they attempt to have the force of government get into our homes and gunsafes to do it, there IS something wrong with that.

Do you disagree?

I'll answer yours directly, after you answer mine directly, since I asked first:



When they attempt to have the force of government get into our homes and gunsafes to do it, there IS something wrong with that.

Do you disagree?

get them all at once.

"But the logistics of collecting 300 million weapons is beyond any logic anyone can throw at it. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!"

I have seen it suggested here that it will take a few generations but eventually we will be gun free. Or are they just not sane, paranoid?

I have seen prominent politicians suggest a confiscation of firearms but of course I know you have seen the quotes, they are in this thread and you dismissed them.

I absolutely suspect that they keep such records.

This is a government that routinely intercepts and monitors all domestic communications.

Do you really think they are going to ignore the treasure-trove of "potential terrorists" in the database they control?

The List of NRA Members.


:rofl: :rofl:

You're right.

Admit it, you kind of like frequenting this forum though, don't ya?

during the Bush administration the "deputization" of various "leaders of industry" whose businesses were "vital to national security". That list probably corrolated with W's campaign donor list. I'm posting from a phone so I can't run down a link right now - my apologies.

Is there any doubt that our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business? I sometimes wonder how much data mining it would take to stall a career or prevent entire groups of people from from prospering because of profiles generated and maintained by government to protect corporate profits that are indistinguishable from our national interest.

Maybe, just maybe, they don't have to take the gun to beat you. Maybe all they have to do is "flag independent thinkers" based on a profile based in part on gun ownership and associations with others through firearms transfers. "Troublemakers" usually try to arm themselves unless they're authoritarians who arm themselves to defend the power structure. I bet corporate America would put them right to work.

Tin foil hat stuff? Maybe. But it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "terror watch list".

of the NRA. Not a very Big Business enemy.

Sure, they are supposed to purge records after IIRC 90 days, but you have to do database backups that would enable to restore all of the records that you are supposed to have, and one backup is insufficient.

If they back up the whole database nightly and retain backups for three generations, that means they could look back as far as 93 days at any given moment. In practice I keep archival backups for much longer in case software developers release bad code that dinguses up the system, and the problem isn't discovered for several weeks.