Is there a tougher background check?

[Hawaiian]

Apart from costing more and taking longer, is the background check required for Class 3 guns any different - stricter on pass/fail criteria, or more thorough - from normal guns?

Yes, it is. I know a guy that had always passed the NICS when purchasing firearms from an FFL. However when he filed a form 4 with ATF, they pulled records going back to the beginning of time nationwide and when the record of a arrest 35 years prior, not a conviction, just an arrest, did not contain the final disposition of the charge, he was delayed and told it was his responsibility to contact the court where the arrest charges were filed and secure the final disposition.
He had to do the ATF's job for them and the court had to dig through microfiche records to find that the charges were dismissed with no conviction.
So yes, The ATF/FBI are more through and detailed than the normal background check.

 

[No_Regerts]

Just sell it to someone you know and be prepared to sell at a discounted rate.

 

[40Garand]

I'm thoroughly lost. What does all these long winded responses have to do with anything but your own opinionated views?

He's just another industry poser with a pipe dream. He came here and shot himself in the foot on page 1. Now he's attempting to shovel himself out a hole with replies as long as a Herman Melville novel.

 

[No_Regerts]

He's just another industry poser with a pipe dream. He came here and shot himself in the foot on page 1. Now he's attempting to shovel himself out a hole with replies as long as a Herman Melville novel.

I've been humming the tune of "the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", myself.

 

[40Garand]

I've been humming the tune of "the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", myself.

Thank you Gordon Lightfoot!

 

[oremike]

Yes, it is. I know a guy that had always passed the NICS when purchasing firearms from an FFL. However when he filed a form 4 with ATF, they pulled records going back to the beginning of time nationwide and when the record of a arrest 35 years prior, not a conviction, just an arrest, did not contain the final disposition of the charge, he was delayed and told it was his responsibility to contact the court where the arrest charges were filed and secure the final disposition.
He had to do the ATF's job for them and the court had to dig through microfiche records to find that the charges were dismissed with no conviction.
So yes, The ATF/FBI are more through and detailed than the normal background check.

This happened to me, same story only I was applying for my 06 FFL and got denied. Turns out I was arrested in Clackamas Co. but Oregon City runs the Jail. I went to Clackamas Co court and the charge was dropped but the court never sent the paperwork to the jail. So 30 years later I had to spend the day looking at mirofisk at the court house , getting some one to cerify that they had no interest in me then take that paper to the City jailer and get them to agree they had no interest in me then send the whole shooten' match to the FBI so they could tell the ATF that I was a good guy and could make ammo for fun and profit.

 

[moroza]

Yes, it is. I know a guy that had always passed the NICS when purchasing firearms from an FFL. However when he filed a form 4 with ATF, they pulled records going back to the beginning of time nationwide and when the record of a arrest 35 years prior, not a conviction, just an arrest, did not contain the final disposition of the charge, he was delayed and told it was his responsibility to contact the court where the arrest charges were filed and secure the final disposition.
He had to do the ATF's job for them and the court had to dig through microfiche records to find that the charges were dismissed with no conviction.
So yes, The ATF/FBI are more through and detailed than the normal background check.

Thank you for actually answering the question!

I'm thoroughly lost. What does all these long winded responses have to do with anything but your own opinionated views?

You asked (post 3), that's what.

The second amendment still insures those that have not committed a crime can legally by a firearm. Those that want to buy a pre 86 transferable machine gun, CAN IF LEGAL.

No, I can't, because the price is artificially raised by a factor of roughly 80.

I draw the line at where it was drawn when the constitution was written. The founders thought they were being rather clear about that.

You draw the line at muskets?

You came here as an asylum seeker presumably because it was better than where you were and now want to bend our laws to your will? How's that working out for you?

Better than your reading comprehension, apparently.

Any Non N.B.C. weapon that is man portable, and any Non N.B.C. weapon not man portable is available with a license.

Arguably reasonable. What would you have as licensing criteria?

 

[American123]

Thank you for actually answering the question!


You asked (post 3), that's what.

No, I can't, because the price is artificially raised by a factor of roughly 80.


You draw the line at muskets?


Better than your reading comprehension, apparently.


Arguably reasonable. What would you have as licensing criteria?

With that response regarding muskets it's clear to me that you're seriously uninformed or feigning such. Think of the technological development that they saw within their lifetime and you think they didn't perceive it possible that continued technological development would happen afterward?

Furthermore, the bill of rights doesn't say muskets, it says "arms" which means any and all array of weaponry.

 

[Cavedweller]

I've heard reports from some family that stayed behind of rampant organized crime following its collapse (organized by other than the government, that is), in one case a single old man defending himself from a carload of invaders with something belt-fed he had left over as a war souvenir. Sure, in certain contexts, that level of firepower is a reasonable necessity. Do you really think the US in 2021 is that context?

If we're talking about restriction on the weapons themselves - and this is a serious question, not rhetorical - where do you draw the line? Pistol grips? Ridiculous to even mention them. SBR and suppressors? Surely not. Do you think your neighbors should be allowed to mount an M60 on their Jeep? Ok, how about an M61? On their bulldozer, covered in Chobham while we're at it? How about an M65 (I don't mean the Tikka)?

Sounds like a rehash of the old "Do you think the framers of the Constitution really wanted people to have AR-15s?" argument.

Well. yeah they did.

If you are so worried about your invention being misused, then perhaps you shouldn't market it.

 

[moroza]

I'm sure they perceived it - Ben and Tom and George and the rest were some smart guys - but what they wrote in 2A didn't address the matter at all. I think that's at least in part because 18th century military weaponry, at least for individuals, differed little from civilian - they just had more of it*. The amount of firepower that technology level made available to a single person was nowhere near what it is today. Mass shootings by anything other than a mass of shooters was impossible, and possibly inconceivable.

Do you think they also intended to allow unrestricted private ownership of NBC weapons?

*As an aside, I wonder about the prevalence of privately-owned artillery or warships back then. Militias had cannons, but what about a single homestead?

 

[No_Regerts]

So, what I'm hearing is you've invented something that makes a gun more lethal/easier to use/whatever that isn't an NFA item, but you want a more thorough background check that's analogous to an NFA process?

 

[ColeInOregon]

 

[American123]

I'm sure they perceived it - Ben and Tom and George and the rest were some smart guys - but what they wrote in 2A didn't address the matter at all. I think that's at least in part because 18th century military weaponry, at least for individuals, differed little from civilian - they just had more of it*. The amount of firepower that technology level made available to a single person was nowhere near what it is today. Mass shootings by anything other than a mass of shooters was impossible, and possibly inconceivable.

Do you think they also intended to allow unrestricted private ownership of NBC weapons?

*As an aside, I wonder about the prevalence of privately-owned artillery or warships back then. Militias had cannons, but what about a single homestead?

There were privately owned warships, and artillery pieces.

The progression to arguing about personal ownership of ICBM was predictable.

To try to reframe this conversation compared to what the founders thought - since they didn't mention any caveats whatsoever to "shall not be infringed." Following that premise it would appear they wouldn't restrict that either.

Ships and cannons and fire back then could still level cities. The concept of total annihilation for groups of people was still real and possible even before modern bombs.

 

[LDmax]

This must be a pretty game changing accessory. If we guess it will you tell us?

 

[Cavedweller]

You may be able to control who you sell your device to, but you can't control who they sell it to. So, if so much control is necessary, don't sell it.

 

[Koda]

Kalashnikov regretted inventing the AK47....

 

[Ura-Ki]

I've tried to respond to this but honestly I just have too many questions to type them all out. I'll just say I'm unsure how to interpret these restrictions of rights, or why anyone thinks it's ok to do so to an otherwise free and non-felonious US citizen….

I'm at a loss here too!

If it's NOT an NFA item, then WTF Actual, Over, why would I bend over and take a FBI rectal exam, complete with rat tailed toilet brush and pay the $200 to get this super double secret accessory that is supposed to make my gunz choot betteror and more deadlier then they already are? It's ether NFA restricted, or it's not, and attempting to force a compliance to such makes me think the grey area is not so grey at all!
So, the real question here, does this dude what's peddlin his uber chooter thingamabob have an SOT or Manufactures License and ATF letters of approval?

Otherwise, this "device" as it were, is worthless, no matter what he claims it is or does!

 

[Koda]

Ive had a hard time following this thread but if I understand correct the OP has invented something he thinks would qualify as an NFA item and is grappeling with the moral decisions to bring it to market. Consider that anyone can invent something and it isnt an NFA item until there is a reason it becomes an NFA item (or banned).

 

[American123]

Kalashnikov regretted inventing the AK47....

That's something I need to go learn about now.

 

[40Garand]

Otherwise, this "device" as it were, is worthless, no matter what he claims it is or does!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he's trying to reinvent the wheel or tweak an already existing binary trigger system. If somebody has some earth shattering invention that's going to change the game one would not come on a forum and start floating around what ifs and already have restrictions in mind. At this point I'm just going to file this guy under troll. If you have some earth shattering gadget, take it to the right people, secure your patents, and retain legal if need be or just ask a mod to close the thread.