They don’t want background checks

Via email from Joe Waldron of Gun Owners Action League of WA, February 1, 2013:

Let there be no doubt in your mind, HB 1588, and similar bills to be offered at the federal level, are after one thing only: gun registration.  If they want to debate registration, by all means do so.  But call it what it is.  Don’t try to sell it under a false flag, and one that is likely to gain widespread support even among gun owners.  There ARE ways to conduct background checks WITHOUT the record-keeping.  We showed them that in Olympia twice in the past decade.  They rejected it, and admitted that what they wanted was the “audit trail” — the paperwork.

“Audit trail”. Yeah. Got it.

That is what they said about the NICS checks records when they were supposed to be destroyed after a person had successfully passed. They didn’t destroy the records as required by law. They kept them “for audit purposes”.

Attorney General Janet Reno even once said the system was unable to delete the records. Then they, with much howling, consented to 90 day retention of the records. In 2001, under a new administration, the DOJ changed the retention to “less than one day”. In reviewing the impact this would have the GAO reported (pages 1 and 2):

According to the NICS regulations, information on allowed firearms sales is used only for purposes related to ensuring the proper operation of the system or conducting audits of the use of the system.

Then on page 4:

NICS officials told us, however, that the FBI would not lose any routine audit capabilities under the proposed policy for next-day destruction of records.

On the other hand, a next-day destruction policy would adversely affect
certain nonroutine audits of the system. Specifically, under current DOJ
policy, if a law enforcement agency has information that indicates that an individual is prohibited from purchasing firearms under federal law, the agency may request that the FBI check whether the name appears in NICS records of allowed transfers. If the FBI finds a record showing an allowed transfer to a “prohibited person” (e.g., a transfer to an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States), that record indicates a potential violation of law, and the FBI may disclose the record to the appropriate law enforcement entity. These audits of the accuracy of responses given by NICS, and the additional (secondary) benefit of assisting law enforcement investigations, generally would not be possible under a next-day destruction policy.

In the GAO’s own document the FBI was admitting they were using the records in ways that were not authorized by law. Yet no one went to jail.

Eventually, they claim, regulations were implemented that required the records be destroyed within 24 hours. But why should we trust them? They were using the records illegally before and no one was punished. What is the incentive to keep them from violating the law again? They cannot be trusted.

In California and New York where guns were registered gun owners were told, with great sincerity, “No one is trying to take your guns.” In New York, several years ago, they did confiscate registered guns. In California they are attempting to pass laws that will confiscate registered guns.

The government in general, and anti-gun people in particular, cannot be trusted. Do not ever give them a means, no matter how indirect, to register your guns, your books, your religion, or your sexual preferences. It’s none of their business. And all have been used in other times and other places to imprison and/or murder people by the 10s of thousands and even millions.

If you allow it there is an unacceptably high chance it will not end well.

12 thoughts on “They don’t want background checks

  1. Something hit me. How come the same people who claim that they Respect the RKBA, and they’ll NEVER take away one’s Guns, are doing everything in their Political Power to do so? Just look at New York State. And yet, when the Law-Abiding Citizens exercise our Constitutional Rights to Peacefully Assemble and Protest, we are accused of being “Paranoid” about the Threat of Firearm Confiscation, and they DENY that there’s a “Conspiracy” to Destroy the 2A.

    What would the Anti-Gunners say if the NRA, GOA, SAF, et.al. march up to Congress and DEMAND that every “Able-Bodied Citizen who Qualifies” be Issued an M16 and Ammo and Accessories for the “Well-Regulated Militia,” AND that if that Citizen refuses to Join up could be sent to Jail for Years for “Failure to Comply?” They’d have a Heart Attack!

    So which side of the “Gun Debate” is wearing a Tin-Foil Hat?

  2. “But call it what it is. Don’t try to sell it under a false flag, and one that is likely to gain widespread support even among gun owners.”

    Same reason they hide everything else (see: Obamacare, federal arguments for): If they were honest, they wouldn’t have a chance.

    This is standard statist operating procedure. Doesn’t that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling?

  3. Pingback: More on Registration | Shall Not Be Questioned

  4. “In New York, several years ago, they did confiscate registered guns.” What year was this?

    • 1991:

      In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns — namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm — and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered “assault weapon” had been used in a violent crime in the city.

      The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

      The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

      The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms — 2,615 out of 3,360 — have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: “for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned.”

      I added the link to the post. It was hard to find and I gave up last night when I wrote the post. I spent the 30 minutes this afternoon to correct for my lack of perseverance last night.

  5. They’ve ‘successfully’ confiscated firearms in California, as well, already: an imported model of the SKS Sporter received an OK-sign from the state Attorney General for a couple of years under some contradictory laws, requiring registration, then the state promptly changed the rules and began taking them.

    Do not ever give them a means, no matter how indirect, to register your guns, your books, your religion, or your sexual preferences.

    That’s a rather tricky slogan to carry out, in practice. As you point out, the FFL systems has a practical registration aspect already, and has for longer than many current gun owners have been alive. Doctors kinda actually do have reason to ask about past sexual partners, and while neither that nor marriage licenses line up perfectly, it’s a pretty significant proxy.

    Will book stores — reliable, available ones — survive another decade of Amazon? Can we trust it, or its competitors, or protect them from government eyes? Let’s say you keep charitable donations to religious organizations off your IRS form — it’s a public thing, attendance.

  6. question for the lawyer-types out there. Given Haynes v US (1968), http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html , can the same logic be used to thwart prosecution for failure to submit to a background check? If so, it would seem to be useful rhetorically to point the fact that ONLY otherwise law-abiding types can be hit with background check laws, but not felons and prohibited persons. This basic fact will strike most people as absurd, and will erode support for such requirements when they grok it.

    • Within Washington State, we know have the state’s permission to smoke pot, but it’s still a federal felony. If you check “no” on that box on the 4473, you’re committing perjury. If you check “yes” you commit a felony by attempting to purchase. If you buy anyway, under those circumstances, the only way to avoid self incrimination would be to avoid the background check entirely.

      • Ah, good point. Might sway a few of the more liberal non-committed gun-owners on the issue.

  7. Pingback: SayUncle » Background checks

  8. Lie to your physician if asked about gun ownership. Despite Obamacare provisions to prohibit this, it will end up in your electronic medical record (EMR) and will come back to haunt you. I foresee any mental health treatment making you a target.

  9. Pingback: Washington Residents, Contact Your State Legislators - The Minuteman

Comments are closed.