SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed background checks
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed background checks Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by Colby Bruce:
Are these people being compensated for the cost of the firearms that are being confiscated?


If you are found with your stash, do they pay you the street value or seize it as evidence?

Really, Jim? You equate a legal firearm with illegal drugs?

A general thought, when the NICS procedure was designed, the 3-day response time was designed as a limit on the Government, a requirement that the FBI respond without delay. The whole idea that they would attempt to recover the firearm after-the-fact is outrageous.


--------------------------
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-- H L Mencken

I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is.
-- JALLEN 10/18/18
 
Posts: 9127 | Location: Illinois farm country | Registered: November 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
delicately calloused
Picture of darthfuster
posted Hide Post
Too bad they don't hunt and recall illegally cast votes....



You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
 
Posts: 29607 | Location: Highland, Ut. | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Really, Jim? You equate a legal firearm with illegal drugs?



wouldn't it be a firearm that was illegally purchased, why blame the firearm, it had no idea that it was being sold improperly by an FFL... Big Grin



 
Posts: 23238 | Location: Florida | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
If you lied on the form and got passed the NCIS, you have the gun illegally, right?

Those are the ones they at trying to retrieve, I believe, because you are not supposed to have it.

They aren't going to give you the money back when they pick it up.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:

Really, Jim? You equate a legal firearm with illegal drugs?

A general thought, when the NICS procedure was designed, the 3-day response time was designed as a limit on the Government, a requirement that the FBI respond without delay. The whole idea that they would attempt to recover the firearm after-the-fact is outrageous.


Aside from whether you think the various classes of prohibited persons are good ideas:

That firearm is contraband in a prohibited person's hands. Just as heroin would be for anyone. If you are a prohibited person under the statute, you cannot possess a firearm and it is evidence of a crime and you are charged with knowledge of the law that makes you a person who can't possess firearms. The statute doesn't merely prohibit you from buying a gun - it prohibits you from possessing one.

Just as someone can't complain that he didn't know cocaine was illegal, a prohibited person can't complain he didn't know he couldn't own a gun. We are all charged with knowledge of the law, whether malum in se or malum prohibitum.

I am curious as to whether ATF plans to arrest any of these people since being a person prohibited from possessing a gun is a crime. I guess not, but they could.

Again, I don't agree that all the classes of prohibited persons should be prohibited, but that is the current state of the law.

Edit - you could fail a background check through some error and not actually be a prohibited person. I wonder if that was considered?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53117 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
My objection to JALLEN's post was that he was equating a legal product (firearm) with an illegal product (stash), not the status of the person in possession.

As to a prohibited person complaining he didn't know he couldn't own a gun, I would argue that filling out a 4473 and waiting three days for a response is proof that the person thought he was NOT prohibited. I'm sure that in the real world, many of those people are just hoping the FBI screws up the background check, but that would be a tough sell to me as a juror.


--------------------------
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-- H L Mencken

I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is.
-- JALLEN 10/18/18
 
Posts: 9127 | Location: Illinois farm country | Registered: November 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
My objection to JALLEN's post was that he was equating a legal product (firearm) with an illegal product (stash), not the status of the person in possession.

As to a prohibited person complaining he didn't know he couldn't own a gun, I would argue that filling out a 4473 and waiting three days for a response is proof that the person thought he was NOT prohibited. I'm sure that in the real world, many of those people are just hoping the FBI screws up the background check, but that would be a tough sell to me as a juror.


How can passing a background check by mistake justify claiming ignorance of the law, and of the fact that a person is a prohibited person?

"Well, I'm a convicted felon and a daily meth user, but if they don't deny me when I go to buy a gun it must be all kosher now." Really?




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53117 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Exceptional Circumstances
Picture of dave7378
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
My objection to JALLEN's post was that he was equating a legal product (firearm) with an illegal product (stash), not the status of the person in possession.

As to a prohibited person complaining he didn't know he couldn't own a gun, I would argue that filling out a 4473 and waiting three days for a response is proof that the person thought he was NOT prohibited. I'm sure that in the real world, many of those people are just hoping the FBI screws up the background check, but that would be a tough sell to me as a juror.


Oxy is legal in some instances and illegal in others. Same with firearms.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 5906 | Location: Hampton Bays, NY | Registered: October 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dave7378:
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
My objection to JALLEN's post was that he was equating a legal product (firearm) with an illegal product (stash), not the status of the person in possession.

As to a prohibited person complaining he didn't know he couldn't own a gun, I would argue that filling out a 4473 and waiting three days for a response is proof that the person thought he was NOT prohibited. I'm sure that in the real world, many of those people are just hoping the FBI screws up the background check, but that would be a tough sell to me as a juror.


Oxy is legal in some instances and illegal in others. Same with firearms.


So? It is illegal drug use that makes one a prohibited person. Oxy is illegal if you don't have a prescription. Legal if you do. That isn't rocket surgery.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53117 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Exceptional Circumstances
Picture of dave7378
posted Hide Post
quote:
Oxy is illegal if you don't have a prescription. Legal if you do. That isn't rocket surgery.



That is the point I was trying to make. The firearm is illegal in the hands of one who can't legally possess it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 5906 | Location: Hampton Bays, NY | Registered: October 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by Colby Bruce:
Are these people being compensated for the cost of the firearms that are being confiscated?


If you are found with your stash, do they pay you the street value or seize it as evidence?

Really, Jim? You equate a legal firearm with illegal drugs?


I don't read JALLEN as saying illegal drugs are equivalent to guns.

What I read him saying is that if the gov't takes something from someone which that person shouldn't have possessed in the first place (regardless of whether it's illegal to possess, or only illegal for that individual, specifically to possess), there is no requirement for compensation. He is not making a broad moral argument against private gun ownership.


quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
A general thought, when the NICS procedure was designed, the 3-day response time was designed as a limit on the Government, a requirement that the FBI respond without delay. The whole idea that they would attempt to recover the firearm after-the-fact is outrageous.


The 3 day limit was enacted to encourage the FBI to develop a system which would promptly address the need for accurate background checks. Without a limit, the FBI could perform an NFA-style check and unnecessarily delay transfers of firearms. Also, FBI is executive branch. Given some of the past presidents we've had, do you think some of them might be invested in, let's say, delaying the transfer of firearms into private ownership?

Elapsing of the the 3-day answer period was never a "pass." We never had this issue as long as I recall, but our standing shop policy was that we would not transfer a firearm even if the 3-day answer had elapsed because it was on us to recover the firearm if we let it walk and the buyer later received a "denied."

Finally, some of the figures in this article appear to be straight up mistakes, as in: buyers who received approvals, but should not have. In that case, they probably lied on their 4473s and if so, should not be compensated for seized items they should never have been approved for in the first place.
 
Posts: 17733 | Registered: August 12, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
My objection to JALLEN's post was that he was equating a legal product (firearm) with an illegal product (stash), not the status of the person in possession.



I don’t follow that thinking. The key element is possession, of something one is not supposed to have.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
4000/25 mill is .00016 pct error rate


Says it all right there. In part these people are those that had criminal histories and involuntary COURT ORDERED commitments to mental health facilities that should have been included in data bases (NICS), but weren’t. Like the guy that attacked church goers in Texas, some of these people were legally prohibited because of military service histories that were never passed on to the Department of Justice by the Department of Defense. Addressing these deficiencies was and is proper. If funding is needed, it should be provided by Congress as these are federal mandates.


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 10187 | Location: The Free State of Arizona | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
I don’t follow that thinking. The key element is possession, of something one is not supposed to have.

But you compared it to something that nobody is supposed to have. The nuance is important, in that it implies that guns and crack cocaine morally equivalent, which we all know they aren't.

What I intended as a minor admonition to a member I highly respect, is getting out of hand. How about we get back on topic, OK?

LDD, I never worked in a gun store, haven't really bought that many guns, and probably fewer than half from dealers which would require a 4473. Mostly from private parties. I do remember some dealers withholding firearms beyond the 3-day limit if the NICS report had not come back, but they were few and far between around here. You are absolutely right that the limit was enacted to control the government (my words, not yours) and prevent exactly the potential abuse you described. No dealer ever told me that the government compelled them to recover a properly-delivered firearm, but I really have no idea what actions the government took in that case. In two cases I remember, I was told it was the ATF that showed up, but when the dealer showed the paperwork was in order, they left with no consequences for the dealer. This was not recent, though.


--------------------------
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-- H L Mencken

I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is.
-- JALLEN 10/18/18
 
Posts: 9127 | Location: Illinois farm country | Registered: November 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dave7378:
quote:
Oxy is illegal if you don't have a prescription. Legal if you do. That isn't rocket surgery.



That is the point I was trying to make. The firearm is illegal in the hands of one who can't legally possess it.


I misunderstood. We agree, then.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53117 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Exceptional Circumstances
Picture of dave7378
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by dave7378:
quote:
Oxy is illegal if you don't have a prescription. Legal if you do. That isn't rocket surgery.



That is the point I was trying to make. The firearm is illegal in the hands of one who can't legally possess it.


I misunderstood. We agree, then.


We do indeed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 5906 | Location: Hampton Bays, NY | Registered: October 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
I don’t follow that thinking. The key element is possession, of something one is not supposed to have.

But you compared it to something that nobody is supposed to have. The nuance is important, in that it implies that guns and crack cocaine morally equivalent, which we all know they aren't.

What I intended as a minor admonition to a member I highly respect, is getting out of hand. How about we get back on topic, OK?



With respect, it isn’t even a nuance. In both cases someone possesses something unlawful for that person to possess. It is completely irrelevant that other can possess one lawfully. They are inly trying to retrieve weapons from those who are forbidden to possess them, and did so only through some sort of error or willful misrepresentation.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
My guess would be that if the person who was improperly approved either by return of an ok or default of 3 days simply complies and returns the firearm then they would not be arrested. Unless of course the feds show up with several other felony warrants for arrest, outside of the purchase itself.

This report simply says that a little over 4000 applications (4473) were approved and should not have been, the questions they (govt) should be answering is, why, who did it, what was the reason and how are they addressing these items.



 
Posts: 23238 | Location: Florida | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
If you lied on the form and got passed the NCIS, you have the gun illegally, right?


If one isn't in compliance, one isn't in compliance, good faith or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The questions on the form are quite straight forward. Could one possibly be ignorant that one has renounced his citizenship? Been convicted of domestic violence?

In the remote chance that one has in good faith checked "no" on the form when indeed it was a yes and one didn't know it, that's going to be hard to explain, and regardless of whether it can be explained, one has a duty to know the answer before signing one's name. It's a legal document.

quote:
Originally posted by newtoSig765:

But you compared it to something that nobody is supposed to have. The nuance is important, in that it implies that guns and crack cocaine morally equivalent, which we all know they aren't.


Morality is subjective, a function of opinion and emotion, sometimes tradition, culture, and custom. It's far from unequivocal, universal, or legal.

This is a legal question, not a moral one.

If a person is prohibited from possession, whether it's a drug, a weapon, child pornography, or the nuclear launch codes, one is prohibited from possession. The "what" and the "why" isn't really what's important, so much as the whether; whether one is allowed to possess. If one isn't, then possession is illegal.

If one has bought illegally, possessed illegally, then sold illegally, one is only guilty of one more crime in the selling.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed background checks

© SIGforum 2024