Gun "registration" in the US

[Canarr]

So, just got sent the link to this article here:

http://www.gq.com/story/inside-feder...-too-many-guns

And I'm still not sure whether to be amused or horrified. Is this accurate?

[s_stabeler]

assuming it's accurate- and I suspect it may be- horrified. I think it says something when it is actually easier to trace a gun when the gun store is still in business ( it takes an average of 70 calls to trace a gun if the gun store is still in business.

the problem is, the gun lobby don't actually want the government to be able to know who owns what gun. ( I'm talking the NRA, here, not gun owners in general) so it is intentionally needle-in-a-haystack.

edit- not to mention, there is an absolutely simple way to computerise it while making it 100% impossible to use the database to confiscate guns. You can limit what fields can be searched on. In other words, limit it to searching by serial number. If you do that, then they would be able to trace a gun quickly, but could not- which is what the gun lobby are concerned about- be able to find out what other guns someone has.

[MadMike]

You can limit what fields can be searched on. In other words, limit it to searching by serial number. If you do that, then they would be able to trace a gun quickly, but could not- which is what the gun lobby are concerned about- be able to find out what other guns someone has.

And that's completely dependent on the program that processes the data. There's nothing to stop the government from obtaining the raw data and searching on it however they want.

[AccountingDrone]

edit- not to mention, there is an absolutely simple way to computerise it while making it 100% impossible to use the database to confiscate guns. You can limit what fields can be searched on. In other words, limit it to searching by serial number. If you do that, then they would be able to trace a gun quickly, but could not- which is what the gun lobby are concerned about- be able to find out what other guns someone has.

But the problem is [in the viewpoint of the NRA or those who dislike the registration deal] is that if there is a database, it can be seized and then everybodys registered firearms are known to the body who grabbed the database. When a good government is in power, the database would be safe, but if H*tler got into power, then the checks and balances are gone and the dictator could do whatever he wanted including taking the database and doing a smash and grab on the firearms owned by those who are not in the National Socialist Party ....

Think about it.

And for what it is worth, I am a believer in the Second Amendment, have no issue with the 10 day wait and police record check and have a number of handguns and long arms that are not on any registry or database, and several that are because I bought them in a state that had the 10 day wait and registry process. I would willingly turn over the registered ones, but they can pry the unregistered ones out of my dead cold hands. If they pulled a British/Aussie gun confiscation they would not be able to find my unregistered ones nor the ammo cans of ammunition for them. My belief is that when they make weapons illegal for law abiding citizens to own, then only criminals have weapons and I will not be disarmed. Police response to crimes is post-crime investigation, not in defending me when the crime is going down [with RARE exceptions.]

[and I used H*tler because I can't really use Clinton or Trump as I don't want to insult either politico at this point in the election process no matter what my opinion of either of them is and I can't remember the name of the guy in The Dead Zone]

[NecCat]

But the problem is [in the viewpoint of the NRA or those who dislike the registration deal] is that if there is a database, it can be seized and then everybodys registered firearms are known to the body who grabbed the database.

There is a simpler solution. Have every importer and seller register every gun sold by make, model, description, serial number and year sold in the database. The agency in the article could use the database to quickly identify the seller and year sold of every gun query by the police, and would continue to contact the seller, who could then look through individual slips for that year to find the purchase paperwork for that gun. Everything but the name and contact details of the owner would be in a searchable data base and the individual owners information would be equally as private as they are now. It would save about 65 of the 70 phone calls they currently have to make to identify gun ownership for police.

[s_stabeler]

minor point- a gun seizure in the US would be significantly different from the seizure of privately-owned handguns in the UK. From what I have read, when private handguns were banned in the UK, since gun ownership has never been particularly important in the UK, most handguns were voluntarily surrendered.(and also, they could have reasonable confidence that virtually all the handguns were surrendered)

Honestly, though, in a true gun seizure, then there's not actually much that the average citizen can do. That, and if a totalitarian government really did want to seize all firearms, they would probably just go around people's houses looking, not rely on a database.

my ultimate point, though, is that it is utterly ridiculous that there has to be a massively convoluted system for tracing who owns a particular gun. Would it not make more sense if the system was at least partially automated?

One other way of doing it would be to make it a variant on NecCat's idea- the database stores either contact details for the gun store, or the location in their warehouse where you can find the purchase paperwork.

Having said that, it makes me somewhat nervous to find that if- for example- some idiot drops a cigarette in the warehouse, then it could render it impossible to trace many guns. It's already only possible to succeed at tracing 65% of guns requested...

Also, while this is something that, if it was known I was suggesting it, my database Design teacher would string me up by the balls, there is a way to make it at least significantly harder to abuse a gun registration database. don't use a RDBMS, instead break the principle of program-data independence, and define the database right there in the program. It would mean you would need to write a whole new program to be able to search the database by owner name- and at great expense, quite possibly into the millions of dollars- and it is far harder to ensure there are not errors with the search by owner program.

[HYHYBT]

How hard, though, would it be to feed it all possible serial numbers and create a new database with the results?

[s_stabeler]

hard enough that it would actually be just as hard doing it by creating said database from the hard copies- it would require an almost-identical process.

[wolfie]

How hard, though, would it be to feed it all possible serial numbers and create a new database with the results?

Very difficult. Unlike car VINs (where part of the code identifies the manufacturer) or network card MAC addresses (which HAVE to be unique on a given network, so there's an organization assigning blocks of numbers to manufacturers), as far as I know there's NO global organization assigning blocks of possible serial numbers to manufacturers to avoid duplicates.

It's up to each manufacturer to avoid duplicates IN ITS OWN PRODUCTION (and there are some cases of deliberate duplication, such as German army-issue rifles manufactured between 1933 and 1939, with the duplicates being done to hide the fact that the army had more rifles than allowed under the Treaty of Versailles). It would be quite possible for a Smith & Wesson revolver to have the same serial number as a Chinese clone of the AK-47.

One thing the linked article didn't mention is what happens if the registration forms are permanently lost. For example, someone licensed as a FFL is operating part-time out of his home. He keeps his records on a computer (where, according to law, the tracking center would have to print out the records to avoid having them in searchable form). He dies, and the executors of his estate go through his assets. They find a computer, and not knowing the legal requirements dealing with the handling of records of an out-of-business FFL, wipe the disk and sell it as a used computer. How many of the Katrina records never made it to the tracking center because they got washed out to sea?

[Cia]

There is no waiting period for purchasing a handgun when you possess a valid CCW in SD. I purchased a Ruger .22 and a Kimber .45 and walked out the door with them the same day since I have a CCW. If you don't have a CCW then you have to wait seven days before receiving your handgun. I don't know if there's a waiting period for long guns.

If you buy at gun shows there are no waiting periods at all.

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, depending on the CCW laws, that can actually make sense. Specifically, if it works like a driving license- the gun seller being able to check if the CCW has been revoked- and there being regular background checks to retain the CCW. The idea being that to have a valid CCW, you alos need to meet the background check requirements for buying a gun.

[Gravekeeper]

This reads like an Onion article and the way that dude dresses isn't helping the impression...

[jackfaire]

From what I see the reason the NRA doesn't want a registry is because it's bad for business. Most of the people making up the NRA are the gun manufacturers not the Gun Owners.

The Gun Manufacturers want to sell guns. They can sell more guns to paranoid people stockpiling guns for the "apocalypse" than they can to the ordinary average gun owner. Even a collector isn't their biggest buyer.

Thus it's in the NRA's best interest to foster an environment where "THE GUBMINT WANTS YO GUNS" rather than actually work with the government. Convincing people that the Government is out to get them isn't just big business for guns either. In the US convincing people Big Brother's coming has them out buying a ton of "Anti-Government" Measures.

If the police had really wanted to avoid being forced to wear Body Cams they should have told people it was Big Brother trying to watch them and the 99% would be out protesting against them.

[wolfie]

There is no waiting period for purchasing a handgun when you possess a valid CCW in SD. I purchased a Ruger .22 and a Kimber .45 and walked out the door with them the same day since I have a CCW. If you don't have a CCW then you have to wait seven days before receiving your handgun. I don't know if there's a waiting period for long guns.

If you buy at gun shows there are no waiting periods at all.

As s_stabeler stated, a person with a CWP has already gone through the background check that's required for handgun purchasers (the waiting period is to allow time for the background check). A simple check that the CWP is still valid (i.e. not revoked) "piggybacks" on the background check required for it to be issued, so it's common sense (so how the heck did that law manage to get passed?) to accept it as equivalent to doing a fresh check.

The "no waiting periods at all" for purchases at gun shows is a misconception. It doesn't matter WHERE you buy the gun, it's WHO you buy it from. An FFL dealer with a table at a gun show would still be required to do the background check (complete with waiting period). The big thing about gun shows is that a lot of the gun sales are between two private parties, neither of whom is a FFL dealer. Legally, if you're buying the Luger that someone's grandfather who landed on D-Day brought back from Germany, it doesn't matter if the seller is a stranger at a gun show, or if they're your neighbour.

[Cia]

The gun stores call the FBI with your info even w/ a CCW when purchasing a gun. Don't know what that is supposed to accomplish since they only used my married name and not my maiden name.