Why we oppose reporting multiple sales

I’ve recently read some people who wonder what the problem is with the reporting of multiple sales of gun (most recently in the news is talk about long guns–which is illegal).

It’s the same problem as with “one gun a month” and other schemes. The only way this can be enforced is if there is gun registration. Sure, an individual retailing could keep records of their customers and do a search for the last 5/30 days. Even looking past the chilling effect of having a time limit before you were enabled to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms the problem to effectively enforce such a limit there would have to be a central list of the last time everyone purchased a gun to prevent someone from going to the gun store across the street, state, or country (yes, dual residents can purchase guns in two or states) to purchase another one before the “proper” time had expired.

Gun registration (and probably gun owner) registration is unlikely to pass muster in the courts and it certainly won’t pass muster with a very large percentage of the gun owning population. Just look at what happened in Canada with their gun registration—Then crank the dial on that reaction to about “12”.


8 thoughts on “Why we oppose reporting multiple sales

  1. I oppose it because the .gov wants it. At this ‘freedom level’ I think the .gov should have to justify to max extent any action it wants to take limiting the freedom of the people. They have earned a level of zero trust.

    That said, how is the rifle reporting requirement different from the one the feds already have for multiple handgun purchases?

  2. Gun registration is illegal as it currently stands in Federal law today. 18 USC 926(a) specifically forbids any state or government agency from establishing a system of gun registration, owner registration or both.

    The long gun multiple sale reporting is illegal because it is trying to be enacted by end-running the laws that requires such regulatory changes to be given proper notice and comment not to mention the fact that the law that codifies the multiple handgun reporting is explicit in it applying to handguns only. Multiple sale reporting as done today for handguns isn’t illegal since it does not require registration. It is merely notice from the FFL to the BATFE that so-and-so bought more than X handguns on a single day. I suspect a similar thing is intended for the multiple long gun reporting. But to do it will require an act of Congress to change the law. It should not be allowed to be done as a regulatory change by the ATF since the law clearly forbids it for rifles. Law of unintended consequences works both ways. Not just against citizens.

  3. As a rule or law, this won’t work. As Joe suggested, what stops prospective buyer of multiple rifles from stopping by multiple gunstores?
    I am sure if the same multiple handgun buyer went to multiple gunstore for handguns, the result would be the same. Owning multiple rifles or handguns and no one the wiser.
    As the first poster stated, if it comes from the government, it won’t be trustworthy.
    “Whatever it is, I am against it.”

  4. Also like most gun regulations its stated goal is horribly redundant. People want this to prevent people from wholesaling long guns on the black market, which is illegal. And the black market exists so prohibited people can acquire guns, which is illegal. And the prohibited people are buying guns to commit crimes with them, which by definition is illegal.

    People claiming “common sense gun control” are simultaneously claiming that laws are grossly innefective, but a less direct or strict law will be greatly effective.

    I simply oppose laws that are proposed to stop criminals from commiting acts that are already illegal.

    And that’s not even looking at how innefective these laws are by nature.

  5. The ATF has a lot of tentacles, & the method you cite seems like an obvious way to get around the longstanding handgun reporting requirement. Have they ever prosecuted anyone for skirting the law in such a way? Or is it legal to do that?

    Still, the GCA specifically says that only handguns, not long guns, were subject to such reporting. But apparently that does not matter (and why should we expect it to? Neither does the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient).

  6. I am sure if the same multiple handgun buyer went to multiple gunstore for handguns, the result would be the same.

    I’ve never tried it myself*, but I assume they’ve set up the NICS check to flag multiple handgun purchases within a month. I’m almost positive it works this way in states like VA that have a one-gun-a-month limit, and I assume they would do it the same way with long guns.

    * Since I have a CHP, I’m exempt from VA’s one-gun-a-month restriction – it would not actually be illegal for me to try it.

  7. Putting aside the issue of who it was sold to (“straw sales”? Is that the term?), it would also fail the Jews in the attic test.

    For their protection, you wish to provide the jews (blacks, gays, reactionaries) in the attic with firearms for last ditch protection against the mobs (government thugs, Lou H…..)with weapons.

    The limit would impact your ability to protect (or provide for the protection of) the group in the attic. As would National ID and rationing, it would serve to expose the protected group.

  8. @Jake
    NICS gets absolutely no information about the weapon you’re buying. It could be a long gun or a hand gun.
    All NICS does is the following:
    It goes and pulls your record for any “red flags” if they are seen you get a hold.
    Now you get to wait until the red flags are validated as still being current. If the flags are no longer current and you’re actually clear, they will green light the transaction at which point you can pick up the firearm. If you’re not clear you get a big fat denial. They cache this information for 48 hours and then are required by law to dump it. IE if you go to buy another gun 48 hours after you were cleared you get to do the waiting process all over again.

    NICS has no clue what was purchased, just that dealer X ran a check on “John Doe”.


Comments are closed.