No Gun Control News Today

[Ben]

This morning was the first time since Sandy Hook that I did not see a single gun control story on the front page of the Fox News website. I wonder if that's good, or if it's the calm before the storm of the bills various legislators are getting ready to drop?

[Viking]

"It's a trick. Get an axe."

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think we can read much into it. A month's worth of coverage is more than enough to establish ZOMGUNNZ!!! as a crisis that the Obama must protect us from NOW.

[Blakenzy]

We are at War for our Rights. Gloves are off. It's just the calm before a legislative Pearl Harbor.

[red headed stranger]

Most of the media outlets I am exposed to have been backpedaling to a narrative of, "the one gun control measure that has wide support is universal background checks."

[Jamisjockey]

Most of the media outlets I am exposed to have been backpedaling to a narrative of, "the one gun control measure that has wide support is universal background checks."

The so called gun show loophole.

Does anyone know if this has been proposed as a stand alone bill?

[Blakenzy]

Most of the media outlets I am exposed to have been backpedaling to a narrative of, "the one gun control measure that has wide support is universal background checks."

The universal background check is dangerous as hell. It ultimately gives Feds absolute authority to arbitrarily decide who is fit or not to buy a gun. It can be manipulated in any number of ways. Think of the current no-fly lists. Who knows what they will include as disqualifiers to firearm purchasing. Something as silly as having a record of past antidepressant treatment, or being currently involved in court proceedings regarding divorce or other non penal judicial matters could be used as an excuse to fail the check. I can assure you that the list of background items that makes a person fail the check will grow with time. Don't let your eye off of that one. It is not a harmless compromise.

[seeker_two]

The universal background check is dangerous as hell. It ultimately gives Feds absolute authority to arbitrarily decide who is fit or not to buy a gun. It can be manipulated in any number of ways. Think of the current no-fly lists. Who knows what they will include as disqualifiers to firearm purchasing. Something as silly as having a record of past antidepressant treatment, or being currently involved in court proceedings regarding divorce or other non penal judicial matters could be used as an excuse to fail the check. I can assure you that the list of background items that makes a person fail the check will grow with time. Don't let your eye off of that one. It is not a harmless compromise.

This....esp. with the precedent of no due process on the No Fly List & Terrorist Watchlist....

[red headed stranger]

I'm fully aware that the "universal background check" is not something that we want. I am just pointing out that that is the direction the anti-gun folks are most likely going to push the hardest, and RKBA people need to be ready to defend. 

[SteveS]

I'm fully aware that the "universal background check" is not something that we want. I am just pointing out that that is the direction the anti-gun folks are most likely going to push the hardest, and RKBA people need to be ready to defend. 

Despite our concerns, these have the most support out of any of the measures and Obama is not really going to have to expand much political capital to get it.

I agree it is a problem beven if you take out what could happen, look at all of the past problems with NICS and people being improperly denied. You also have had people put into the system that did belong there according to what the law said. There is a huge potential for abuse.

[AJ Dual]

Or of course that NICS could simply be de-funded, or shut down for some other reason at any time to completely shut down the transfer or acquisition of firearms (legally) nationwide.

[Perd Hapley]

Or of course that NICS could simply be de-funded, or shut down for some other reason at any time to completely shut down the transfer or acquisition of firearms (legally) nationwide.

I thought NICS had 3 days to respond, or the sale was approved. If NICS was down, wouldn't that mean that all sales would go through? Obviously, the ineligible buyers are still breaking the law, but the feds just aren't taking the opportunity to disapprove the sale.

[Tallpine]

I thought NICS had 3 days to respond, or the sale was approved. If NICS was down, wouldn't that mean that all sales would go through? Obviously, the ineligible buyers are still breaking the law, but the feds just aren't taking the opportunity to disapprove the sale.

Is that statute or regulation ? 

[AJ Dual]

Most people find that FFL's refuse to transfer even if the three-days has passed. They're too fearful of bad press, or getting the stink-eye from the ATF or local LEA's even if/when they followed the law to the letter, should a gun sold after three days turn up in a crime. Or they risk things like punitive audits etc. in the future, or from the local municipal government on things like zoning or building inspections, occupancy permits etc.

[Perd Hapley]

But we haven't yet seen what they'll do if NICS is simply unavailable for every customer. I also wonder if the possibility of defunding is addressed in the legislation.

[Fitz]

If they do the universal background check thing, I HOPE they have the balls to defund NICS

The uproar would be glorious

[Brad Johnson]

Most people find that FFL's refuse to transfer even if the three-days has passed. They're too fearful of bad press, or getting the stink-eye from the ATF or local LEA's even if/when they followed the law to the letter, should a gun sold after three days turn up in a crime. Or they risk things like punitive audits etc. in the future, or from the local municipal government on things like zoning or building inspections, occupancy permits etc.

Hard for them to get the stink-eye when the NICS rep will tell you, "This transaction is delayed.  If you hear nothing further from NICS the applicant may receive the gun after (date)."  This is said every time there's a NICS delay.

Brad

[AJ Dual]

Hard for them to get the stink-eye when the NICS rep will tell you, "This transaction is delayed.  If you hear nothing further from NICS the applicant may receive the gun after (date)."  This is said every time there's a NICS delay.

Brad

I'm well aware. However, I'm aware of MANY anecdotal stories where it's the "we reserve the right" policies of the FFL's that they wait or will re-call NICS again, because the CYA factor is so huge, and that this is common among most medium-sized town brick-n-mortar FFL's and chain stores with FFL's.

I think the FFL's willing to stand on the three-day-rule/law are either those in smaller towns, or the kitchen-table FFL's that have a relationship with their customers over several prior transfers etc.

I put it to my FFL/SOT friend to see what he says. He's pretty familiar with the "unofficial" penalties FFL's face even when they did nothing wrong and have followed the law to the letter. He's getting shut down, in part because of a customer of his who ran the whole NFA gauntlet for a suppressor, got back an approved Form 4, had passed NICS on other firearms transfers with him etc.

This FFL/SOT did lots of Class III deals for some of the local suburban PD's in the area too, quietly looking to get better dollars for their NFA stuff in the private market if it's pre '86, or at least elsewhere into the SOT market if it was post '86, for stuff like MP5's and SBR Rem 870's done by Mesa Tactical or Scattergun Tech, so they could upgrade to M4's etc. and not have to go to the city council hat-in-hand for money and budget.

So this is a man who already had lots of "good will" from the local LEA's to begin with.

Except several months later, the customer got caught trying to trade the suppressor for Meth, and because of this, word got around to the municipal zoning side of things, and now that the ATF knows the city withdrew it's approval, they would no longer renew his FFL, nice Catch-22 for him. Now all he can do is finish his remaining NFA transfers that are pending, then close up shop. Luckily he has a real estate and investment property business to fall back on.

This person is friends with Monkeyleg. He can vouch for this story.

[bedlamite]

Mike is awesome, it's too bad he got screwed. 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm well aware. However, I'm aware of MANY anecdotal stories where it's the "we reserve the right" policies of the FFL's that they wait or will re-call NICS again, because the CYA factor is so huge, and that this is common among most medium-sized town brick-n-mortar FFL's and chain stores with FFL's.

Two things... "anecdotal" and "common among brick-n-mortar"

I've heard the stories, too.  Want to know how many of the brick and mortar stores around here do that?  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zero.  Nor do any of the rural stores I go to on occasion.

In other words it might be common practice where you live, but it ain't common practice everywhere.  Stop spreading misinformation.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

Except several months later, the customer got caught trying to trade the suppressor for Meth, and because of this, word got around to the municipal zoning side of things, and now that the ATF knows the city withdrew it's approval, they would no longer renew his FFL, nice Catch-22 for him. Now all he can do is finish his remaining NFA transfers that are pending, then close up shop. Luckily he has a real estate and investment property business to fall back on.

How can they withdraw an approval on a zoning matter? I know laws differ from state to state, but I served as chair of my town's planning and zoning commission a number of years ago. Once we issued a determination that a proposed application met the regulations, there was nothing we could withdraw. The only way we could un-approve something would be if the nature of the business changed significantly -- enough to put it outside of what the regulations allowed.

[AJ Dual]

Mike is awesome, it's too bad he got screwed.  

Ah, another friend of Mike besides Monkeyleg.

Yeah, an FFL/SOT right within Milwaukee proper. He is a rare bird indeed.

In other words it might be common practice where you live, but it ain't common practice everywhere.  Stop spreading misinformation.

Thanks for your concern, but I won't. Since this FFL/SOT friend of mine, Monkeyleg, and bedlamite's aquaintence has been an FFL/SOT both in Wisconsin and in Arizona and that's a relatively wide range right there. And he's well tied into the standards and practices of the industry.

For all I know, your FFL's have misinformed you, or felt safe telling you that after three days they transfer without hearing from NICS because they know it rarely happens, and didn't want to tick off a customer in advance, or needlessly.

Anyway, I spoke this evening with Mike. After messaging him a question on Facebook if my above assertions in this thread were correct, he called me this afternoon as he was on the road as he was unable to type me a reply and stay on the road and all that important stuff.

Yes, he does not transfer after three days without hearing back from NICS, and it's his belief the majority of FFL's don't either. We're ALL in agreement it's "legal", but in his words, the ATF without actually ordering the FFL to not do it, will counsel them that they feel it to be "unwise".

If you do transfer after the three days is up, and NICS finally calls back with a denial, the ATF will hear of it, and while it's not illegal, it's in Mike's words "a grey mark on  your unofficial file" and it will be remembered if/when anything else regarding your FFL or the status of your business comes up in the future.

And he agreed with my notion that FFL's who knew the transferee well, or it was a small town FFL where everyone knew everyone would be those most likely to take a chance on transferring when the three days was up.

He also related to me some different incidents where he had both a delay that resulted in a denial, and a mistaken approval that NICS called back and reversed. One of the prohibited possessors had a signed a misdemeanor DV ticket pre Lautenberg Amendment for a shouting match with his wife and had no idea he was now a "prohibited possessor". *expletive deleted*-storm ensues. Mike was actually able to help the guy out with what was called an "Irrevocable Agreement of Consignment" that the ATF provided him, and buy the man's collection from him. He was given one day to do this, and had to priority and overnight-mail the agreement to both the MKE office and the main ATF office in D.C, plus detailed manifests of every last round of ammunition the man had, down to the make, description, caliber, if it was loose, or in a box etc. Headstamps if any, for unkown milsurp ammo. Apparently he had a hell of a time figuring out how to list some corroded green Carcano ammo the man had picked up in a yard sale and had handed over in an old paper bag as he divested himself of his collection. Plus all the usual information in his bound book.

No correlation... of course, but shortly thereafter, the FFL the man had purchased most of his firearms from over the years suddenly had the most exquisite ATF audit of his records he had ever had since going into business. Luckily, he had one small paperwork violation on a 4473 or the bound book etc. he was allowed to correct on the spot.

But again, it was just "pure coincidence". So, hey... whatever.  

So is transferring within three days without hearing from NICS LEGAL? Of course it is. Will doing it, especially if any come back denied get your FFL's you-know-whats crawled up with a microscope? Absolutely.

And so I stand by my contention many/most FFL's won't do it. And even if I do talk to a FFL/SOT that is known here by at least three board members, I understand it's all anecdotal. However, that's all the info you'll get, because one can hardly expect the ATF to keep hard data on their unofficial policies.

Mike has said he's now interested in this thread and would like to take a look-see, and I'm providing him with the link. He's not sure if he'll register just to comment, but he might. So my apologies Mike if anything I said was not quite correct when relaying what we discussed. I wasn't taking notes as we talked.  

How can they withdraw an approval on a zoning matter? I know laws differ from state to state, but I served as chair of my town's planning and zoning commission a number of years ago. Once we issued a determination that a proposed application met the regulations, there was nothing we could withdraw. The only way we could un-approve something would be if the nature of the business changed significantly -- enough to put it outside of what the regulations allowed.

Well, it might not be zoning. I don't own/operate a business so I probably misspoke as to exactly what is going on, but the City of Milwaukee in combination with the ATF has squeezed him out of business. Somehow, he managed to get approved for a home-based FFL by the city, or with whatever permits, forms, or a letter to the ATF it was permitted when he came back from AZ. Perhaps they "rubber-stamped it" seeing as he had a business file or whatever it was in Milwaukee before. I don't know.

If Mike signs on, and feels like sharing, perhaps he'll explain it better. I feel badly though, as I've shared a lot about his situation that he himself hasn't made public on some of the other gun forums he frequents just to back up my assertions.

[SteveS]

I have an 01 FFL. I certainly can't speak for all FFLs, but the BATFE agents I have dealt with strongly discouraged selling or transferring after a delay until you hear from NICS. Considering how much they can do to make my life hell, I take this advice very seriously.

[seeker_two]

I have an 01 FFL. I certainly can't speak for all FFLs, but the BATFE agents I have dealt with strongly discouraged selling or transferring after a delay until you hear from NICS. Considering how much they can do to make my life hell, I take this advice very seriously.

.....and this is how Obama will win....

I really feel for the FFL's & manufacturers in the coming future.....

[SteveS]

I should add that I only do this part-time. The BATFE agent explained it by a hypothetical. Lets say you got a delay and waited the required 3 days and still hadn't heard back, so you went ahead and transferred the gun.  Eventually NICS calls and says that he is denied. Turns out he is a felon. He goes and does something bad and while the dealer did follow the law, there is still liability, as they could have waited.

Yes, it is a bit far fetched, but I am risk adverse when it comes to this kind of stuff, so I can understand where some dealers are coming from. I don't know if other BATFE agents tell the same story or if they have other ways of making this point, but clearly they would rather you wait.