Abdullah the Butcher Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/ From USA TODAY Justices hit straw purchasers of guns WASHINGTON The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people. The decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called straw purchasers, even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s. For gun purchasers to be allowed to buy from licensed dealers without reporting the actual final owners of the firearms, the justices said, would make little sense. The 5-4 ruling was wriitten by Justice Elena Kagan. "No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identiry of a gun's purchaser -- the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer," she said. Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This.... isn't anything new? It's already on the ATF form... Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This.... isn't anything new? It's already on the ATF form... Did you read the case? Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This.... isn't anything new? It's already on the ATF form... Did you read the case? I read what was in the article, and what the guy did is already illegal. What am I missing? That they're upholding something that already exists? Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This.... isn't anything new? It's already on the ATF form... Did you read the case? I read what was in the article, and what the guy did is already illegal. What am I missing? That they're upholding something that already exists? Well, a certain wing of the Supreme Court seemed to think that despite the plain language that it didn't really exist. It's existence was apparently a worthy question. Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This.... isn't anything new? It's already on the ATF form... Did you read the case? I read what was in the article, and what the guy did is already illegal. What am I missing? That they're upholding something that already exists? Well, a certain wing of the Supreme Court seemed to think that despite the plain language that it didn't really exist. It's existence was apparently a worthy question. I guess. I mean, even the ATF's form basically say "lol, just say it's a gift," so sure it's kosher legally, but the end result is the same. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 _ _ \_(`'/)_/ OK...I just had to see if I was smart enough to figure out how to do that. I give myself a c-. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 Link to comment
strigori Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. There is no database, and there shouldn't be, unless concessions are made. Link to comment
strigori Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. There is no database, and there shouldn't be, unless concessions are made. There are rows and rows and rows of file cabinets of paper files. Where do you think all those registrations end up? The information exists, there is not a single good reason why that that information is not entered into digital format. The only thing it does it waste time and money (both paid by the tax payers) when there is a need to track a gun. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. There is no database, and there shouldn't be, unless concessions are made. There are rows and rows and rows of file cabinets of paper files. Where do you think all those registrations end up? The information exists, there is not a single good reason why that that information is not entered into digital format. The only thing it does it waste time and money (both paid by the tax payers) when there is a need to track a gun. Agreed. When we track the sale of other things that can kill at the will of the operator (e.g. automobiles), it makes no sense to forego tracking firearm transactions. Link to comment
MidnightRider Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. There is no database, and there shouldn't be, unless concessions are made. There are rows and rows and rows of file cabinets of paper files. Where do you think all those registrations end up? The information exists, there is not a single good reason why that that information is not entered into digital format. The only thing it does it waste time and money (both paid by the tax payers) when there is a need to track a gun. Agreed. When we track the sale of other things that can kill at the will of the operator (e.g. automobiles), it makes no sense to forego tracking firearm transactions. To what end? Tell me, how do they know which gun store to go to when investigating a crime? I mean, that is the whole purpose of archiving the 4477's in a database, correct? How long do you think it would take them to develop some actionable intelligence? Days, weeks, months or years? What are they going to do when they get the 4477s in hand? Do they process 20 years worth from every FFL in the state every time a violent crime involving a firearm is committed? Why do you feel it's the Fed's business versus the state's? You actually want the orchestrators of "Fast and Furious" to track MY guns? No. Link to comment
strigori Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Now can we deal with the fact that we can't keep gun owner info on computers.... We have what is probably the last piece of info in existence that is NOT in a computer database. There is no database, and there shouldn't be, unless concessions are made. There are rows and rows and rows of file cabinets of paper files. Where do you think all those registrations end up? The information exists, there is not a single good reason why that that information is not entered into digital format. The only thing it does it waste time and money (both paid by the tax payers) when there is a need to track a gun. Agreed. When we track the sale of other things that can kill at the will of the operator (e.g. automobiles), it makes no sense to forego tracking firearm transactions. To what end? Tell me, how do they know which gun store to go to when investigating a crime? I mean, that is the whole purpose of archiving the 4477's in a database, correct? How long do you think it would take them to develop some actionable intelligence? Days, weeks, months or years? What are they going to do when they get the 4477s in hand? Do they process 20 years worth from every FFL in the state every time a violent crime involving a firearm is committed? Why do you feel it's the Fed's business versus the state's? You actually want the orchestrators of "Fast and Furious" to track MY guns? No. What are you talking about? You make zero sense. And have absolutely no clue what 'Fast and Furious' was. They can track everything because the information exists in paper format. It just takes a long time. Instead of taking hours or days, it would be as simple as typing in the serial number. So lets make it a bigger PITA when the police find a weapon used in a crime to track where it came from to more quickly and efficiently solve crimes. What are you doing with your guns the cops would want to know about? Link to comment
MidnightRider Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Oh? Please inform me what I don't know of Fast and Furious. I assume you were involved in it to know so much more than I. Also, please share with everybody exactly how many investigations you've been involved with to have such intimate knowledge of the investigation process. Just to be clear, are you asking me what I'm doing with my guns or are you making a blanket statement about gun owners, in general? Try to remove some of the emotion from your posts, it clouds your judgment. Here is the code that I live by: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. You get on with your bad self in that regard. Me? I'm a big boy and don't need anyone to take care of me so the Fed can f#ck off until such a time that I do commit a crime, which won't happen, so yeah, the Fed can KMA. I look forward to you enlightening us with your adventures of daring do in your efforts to stamp out gun crime. Link to comment
Recommended Posts