- Messages
- 463
- Reactions
- 332
Is it registration? This is what many people are asking. Let me explain the current process we have in Oregon that spills into the Federal Government. In Oregon Licensed Dealers (FFLs) are required by Federal law to run a background check on any person buying a firearm. The FFL, in Oregon, will then call OSP (Oregon State Police). OSP then runs your name and SSN against the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) controlled by the FBI. Furthermore, the FFL must, first, fill out the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives) Form 4473 to which the BATFE is privy to.
The obvious civil issues I have with this form are many. First, the form contains your name and address. Where I live has no bearing on whether or not I may partake in a Right. You also have the option of submitting your SSN (Social Security Number) to quote help prevent misidentification. I am not required to submit my SSN but it seems from the many horror stories I have read that misidentification seems to be a problem that happens far too often when purchasing a firearm, a Right.
Other information that MUST be given to receive an approval status infringes even more. When filling out Form 4473 there is a box labeled Ethnicity. You have one of two boxes you MUST check, are you Hispanic or Latino or are you Not Hispanic or Latino? This should be grossly offensive to the Hispanic community. The BATFE uses this information to come out with statistical data on what ethnicity purchases guns. Is that the only purpose that this could be used for? How are we to know that there is not a prejudice? Could there be in the future? Are there any checks to make sure this doesnt happen? Why MUST I divulge my ethnicity? Why is it relevant when pertaining to finding out if I may partake in a Right?
The next box is just as offensive. You must divulge your Race. Again, if you omit checking at least one box, you will be denied your Right to own a firearm. The races that you have the options from are as follows; American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or White. These are the ONLY options you have and you MUST choose at least one. What if youre Middle Eastern? Are you to check White? Again, I beg the question, why is this relevant when attempting to purchase a firearm? Why can I not omit this information?
The next box I have issue with is labeled Type of Firearm. Types to choose from are either pistol, long gun, or other. Why must the Fed or OSP for that matter know what type of firearm I own other than to at a later time tax it or to confiscate it? One of the biggest fears that people have in the firearms community is that at a later date Congress will pass a law forbidding types of firearms that are currently legal today. This is probably the singular reason Congress finds it hard to pass any firearms legislation. When you have Senators that are quoted saying If I could have got them all, I would have it is easy to not want to give an inch of compromise.
The last few boxes are Make, Model, Serial Number, Type (again), Caliber or Gauge. I am going to skim through these since some of my arguments will be found to be redundant. I will just touch on a couple generally. I believe that the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights was meant to limit the Government from infringing on the Right every American has to own and carry a firearm. Over the years congress has passed what they would deem reasonable limits on that right. I would question whether the Founders would accept the argument that they were reasonable. I believe that the Second Amendment was formed not only for the States to provide help to the Federal Government when asked but also for the people to ensure that out Government does not infringe upon our rights. If this is true, how are the people to hold to the spirit of resistance that was prevalent when this great nation was founded. If you believe like me you can obviously see the conflict of interest that the Fed may have when it comes to making sure there is no insurrection against them. The registration or logging of what type of firearm I have, along with the model, and serial number is grossly in violation of how I would perceive the purpose Second Amendment. Again, all of these components have little to nothing to do with If I may have a firearm but instead when I get one, how can it be found.
The last issue I pose with the From 4473 is not Form 4473 it is actually that if you buy more than one firearm at a time in the course of 5 days you must instead fill out BATFE Form 3310.4. This form is specifically for those who buy more than one gun at a time from the same dealer. I would like to know the relevance? This form logs enthusiasts, like myself, and subjects them to possible undue scrutiny. It is not reasonable to assume that I may be involved in criminal activity simply because I buy a pistol for myself and another for my wife at the same time.
Since we know by now that background checks are not simply background checks lets dive into why expanding background checks/registration to private sales will not help keep private sales from happening. Current proposed legislation for Oregon would require every Oregonian to go through the process I explained in the beginning of this paper, from FFL, to OSP, through the Form 4473 or 3310.4. In Oregon private sales happen every day. I currently have several firearms that were from private sales. There is no record of those sales taking place or at least none that OSP or the BATFE are privy to. If the proposed legislation was to take effect yesterday I would still be able to sell my firearms to other private persons without detection from OSP or the BATFE. Since my firearms are not registered in any database to me, there is no deterrent for me to stop selling within a private transfer, other than the obvious want I have for being lawful. Simply put, there is no way for you to know if a private transfer happened before the date that the proposed legislation took effect unless it is registered.
In Oregon, OSP keeps a record of all firearms transfers that require background checks. By law they keep them for 5 years. If I buy a firearm from a FFL but then 5 years later choose to transfer it to a private person, how would OSP enforce this law if they dont have the records to be sure a transaction happened? Well, there is a way around that. Every FFL is required by the BATFE to keep their records for inquiry of every transfer and every denied transfer. Ironically, if you were denied a transfer they only have to keep your records for 5 years but if you were found to be lawful and otherwise not prohibited from owning a firearm they must keep your records for 20 years. Seems this law was passed in the spirit of forming a registry instead of prosecuting criminals who attempt to feloniously obtain firearms. It seems that the priorities of law makers are misguided. Why in 2010 (most recent data) did we have 2393 applications that were denied in Oregon, 77 of which were appealed and reversed, yet we only had 90 arrests for the crime of attempting to obtain a firearm? Why did we have even fewer convictions than arrests? Yes, these people could have gone right back out and purchased a gun from a private seller, but only because OSP failed to arrest, or the Judicial system failed to prosecute those criminals for that crime. What happened to the other 2226 denied transactions? Why were they not prosecuted? If we are having problems enforcing existing law then why would we elect to further the infringement?
There are more problems with registration, one being an active trace system that the BATFE currently maintains. Within it firearms that deemed problem guns go into the system. If a gun is used in a crime it goes in the system and stays there. If a person removes a digit of the serial number of a firearm and that firearm is recovered that firearm with all of the possible serials goes in to the trace system. So if you own a firearm that is the same make and model the BATFE will enter your information into the system regardless whether your criminal or not. If a company goes out of business they MUST hand over their records and all of the information goes into the trace system. If a gun is even suspected that it will be used for a crime it goes in. Once a firearm goes into the system, there is no way to appeal for it to be removed. The Fed forever has record that you have owned a weapon.
With the last segment of my paper I would like to ask the question What would out Founders think? The biggest fear that our Founders had was that the Federal Government would have too much power followed closely by those that feared that anarchy would erupt without a strong enough Federal Government. There was a balance that was agreed upon that we can all agree is no longer near where the Fathers had initially intended. Even those that wanted a strong Federal Government had reservations about the concept. They wanted to make sure that the Rights of the people were not trampled the way they saw while under Englands rule. After the Revolution started to quiet down and talks on forming governmental structure commenced the Founders finally Ratified our Bill of Rights to reassure those that had reservations of a strong centralized government. Our Bill of Rights was made to limit government, not to limit the people. The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights reads as follows A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There have been many Federal rulings as to the findings of the words regulated meaning put in order, Arms meaning more than just firearms but ammunition as well. Yet somehow we also have those ruling reading that we may not have any weapon for just any purpose. The very definition of infringed is an act so as to limit or undermine; encroach upon. If we are to protect ourselves from an overbearing Federal Government why are we generally disallowed to own firearms of a militant nature? It would seem that the very weapons that we were meant to have are either taxed, banned or heavily regulated. If the government is allowed to limit what kinds of firearms are available for me to defend myself against said government what is to keep the government from taking my Rights away? The correct answer is nothing.
In the 1787, Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as Ambassador to France, wrote a letter to a friend. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
Thomas Jefferson refers to what later would be known as the Shays Rebellion. He insinuates that the Federalists were using the situation to push for a stronger centralized government. With that push we have the formation of our Bill of Rights as assurances that a government may not make us subjects but that we remain free men. Upon that our country was founded, on that did the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists agree.
In closing I would say that a Right is not worth giving up, no matter how many dead. Even if a Right was subject to denial for increased security, it would be logical to weigh the rights of the many over the rights of a few men. 90 less prohibited persons on the street is not a reason for me to give up my Right.
Did I miss anything?
The obvious civil issues I have with this form are many. First, the form contains your name and address. Where I live has no bearing on whether or not I may partake in a Right. You also have the option of submitting your SSN (Social Security Number) to quote help prevent misidentification. I am not required to submit my SSN but it seems from the many horror stories I have read that misidentification seems to be a problem that happens far too often when purchasing a firearm, a Right.
Other information that MUST be given to receive an approval status infringes even more. When filling out Form 4473 there is a box labeled Ethnicity. You have one of two boxes you MUST check, are you Hispanic or Latino or are you Not Hispanic or Latino? This should be grossly offensive to the Hispanic community. The BATFE uses this information to come out with statistical data on what ethnicity purchases guns. Is that the only purpose that this could be used for? How are we to know that there is not a prejudice? Could there be in the future? Are there any checks to make sure this doesnt happen? Why MUST I divulge my ethnicity? Why is it relevant when pertaining to finding out if I may partake in a Right?
The next box is just as offensive. You must divulge your Race. Again, if you omit checking at least one box, you will be denied your Right to own a firearm. The races that you have the options from are as follows; American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or White. These are the ONLY options you have and you MUST choose at least one. What if youre Middle Eastern? Are you to check White? Again, I beg the question, why is this relevant when attempting to purchase a firearm? Why can I not omit this information?
The next box I have issue with is labeled Type of Firearm. Types to choose from are either pistol, long gun, or other. Why must the Fed or OSP for that matter know what type of firearm I own other than to at a later time tax it or to confiscate it? One of the biggest fears that people have in the firearms community is that at a later date Congress will pass a law forbidding types of firearms that are currently legal today. This is probably the singular reason Congress finds it hard to pass any firearms legislation. When you have Senators that are quoted saying If I could have got them all, I would have it is easy to not want to give an inch of compromise.
The last few boxes are Make, Model, Serial Number, Type (again), Caliber or Gauge. I am going to skim through these since some of my arguments will be found to be redundant. I will just touch on a couple generally. I believe that the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights was meant to limit the Government from infringing on the Right every American has to own and carry a firearm. Over the years congress has passed what they would deem reasonable limits on that right. I would question whether the Founders would accept the argument that they were reasonable. I believe that the Second Amendment was formed not only for the States to provide help to the Federal Government when asked but also for the people to ensure that out Government does not infringe upon our rights. If this is true, how are the people to hold to the spirit of resistance that was prevalent when this great nation was founded. If you believe like me you can obviously see the conflict of interest that the Fed may have when it comes to making sure there is no insurrection against them. The registration or logging of what type of firearm I have, along with the model, and serial number is grossly in violation of how I would perceive the purpose Second Amendment. Again, all of these components have little to nothing to do with If I may have a firearm but instead when I get one, how can it be found.
The last issue I pose with the From 4473 is not Form 4473 it is actually that if you buy more than one firearm at a time in the course of 5 days you must instead fill out BATFE Form 3310.4. This form is specifically for those who buy more than one gun at a time from the same dealer. I would like to know the relevance? This form logs enthusiasts, like myself, and subjects them to possible undue scrutiny. It is not reasonable to assume that I may be involved in criminal activity simply because I buy a pistol for myself and another for my wife at the same time.
Since we know by now that background checks are not simply background checks lets dive into why expanding background checks/registration to private sales will not help keep private sales from happening. Current proposed legislation for Oregon would require every Oregonian to go through the process I explained in the beginning of this paper, from FFL, to OSP, through the Form 4473 or 3310.4. In Oregon private sales happen every day. I currently have several firearms that were from private sales. There is no record of those sales taking place or at least none that OSP or the BATFE are privy to. If the proposed legislation was to take effect yesterday I would still be able to sell my firearms to other private persons without detection from OSP or the BATFE. Since my firearms are not registered in any database to me, there is no deterrent for me to stop selling within a private transfer, other than the obvious want I have for being lawful. Simply put, there is no way for you to know if a private transfer happened before the date that the proposed legislation took effect unless it is registered.
In Oregon, OSP keeps a record of all firearms transfers that require background checks. By law they keep them for 5 years. If I buy a firearm from a FFL but then 5 years later choose to transfer it to a private person, how would OSP enforce this law if they dont have the records to be sure a transaction happened? Well, there is a way around that. Every FFL is required by the BATFE to keep their records for inquiry of every transfer and every denied transfer. Ironically, if you were denied a transfer they only have to keep your records for 5 years but if you were found to be lawful and otherwise not prohibited from owning a firearm they must keep your records for 20 years. Seems this law was passed in the spirit of forming a registry instead of prosecuting criminals who attempt to feloniously obtain firearms. It seems that the priorities of law makers are misguided. Why in 2010 (most recent data) did we have 2393 applications that were denied in Oregon, 77 of which were appealed and reversed, yet we only had 90 arrests for the crime of attempting to obtain a firearm? Why did we have even fewer convictions than arrests? Yes, these people could have gone right back out and purchased a gun from a private seller, but only because OSP failed to arrest, or the Judicial system failed to prosecute those criminals for that crime. What happened to the other 2226 denied transactions? Why were they not prosecuted? If we are having problems enforcing existing law then why would we elect to further the infringement?
There are more problems with registration, one being an active trace system that the BATFE currently maintains. Within it firearms that deemed problem guns go into the system. If a gun is used in a crime it goes in the system and stays there. If a person removes a digit of the serial number of a firearm and that firearm is recovered that firearm with all of the possible serials goes in to the trace system. So if you own a firearm that is the same make and model the BATFE will enter your information into the system regardless whether your criminal or not. If a company goes out of business they MUST hand over their records and all of the information goes into the trace system. If a gun is even suspected that it will be used for a crime it goes in. Once a firearm goes into the system, there is no way to appeal for it to be removed. The Fed forever has record that you have owned a weapon.
With the last segment of my paper I would like to ask the question What would out Founders think? The biggest fear that our Founders had was that the Federal Government would have too much power followed closely by those that feared that anarchy would erupt without a strong enough Federal Government. There was a balance that was agreed upon that we can all agree is no longer near where the Fathers had initially intended. Even those that wanted a strong Federal Government had reservations about the concept. They wanted to make sure that the Rights of the people were not trampled the way they saw while under Englands rule. After the Revolution started to quiet down and talks on forming governmental structure commenced the Founders finally Ratified our Bill of Rights to reassure those that had reservations of a strong centralized government. Our Bill of Rights was made to limit government, not to limit the people. The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights reads as follows A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There have been many Federal rulings as to the findings of the words regulated meaning put in order, Arms meaning more than just firearms but ammunition as well. Yet somehow we also have those ruling reading that we may not have any weapon for just any purpose. The very definition of infringed is an act so as to limit or undermine; encroach upon. If we are to protect ourselves from an overbearing Federal Government why are we generally disallowed to own firearms of a militant nature? It would seem that the very weapons that we were meant to have are either taxed, banned or heavily regulated. If the government is allowed to limit what kinds of firearms are available for me to defend myself against said government what is to keep the government from taking my Rights away? The correct answer is nothing.
In the 1787, Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as Ambassador to France, wrote a letter to a friend. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
Thomas Jefferson refers to what later would be known as the Shays Rebellion. He insinuates that the Federalists were using the situation to push for a stronger centralized government. With that push we have the formation of our Bill of Rights as assurances that a government may not make us subjects but that we remain free men. Upon that our country was founded, on that did the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists agree.
In closing I would say that a Right is not worth giving up, no matter how many dead. Even if a Right was subject to denial for increased security, it would be logical to weigh the rights of the many over the rights of a few men. 90 less prohibited persons on the street is not a reason for me to give up my Right.
Did I miss anything?
Didn't miss a thing that I can think of, but then my brain is full. There was lots of text. 
