Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What are you going to do this week to support expanded background checks? [View all]petronius
(26,695 posts)186. If you say pharmacy rather than convenience store, it would be arguable
Licensed firearms dealers are required to keep a bound record of every gun they bring in, and every gun that goes out. This data is kept indefinitely, and handed over to ATF when the dealer goes out of business.
Sales Records: FFLs are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely. The dealer must record, in bound form, the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm not later than the close of the next business day following the purchase or acquisition. The dealer must similarly record the sale or other disposition of a firearm not later than seven days following the date of such transaction and retain Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record. When a firearms business is discontinued, these records are delivered to the successor or, if none exists, to the Attorney General
http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records-policy-summary/
ATF does conduct inspections to ensure compliance with this requirement, and can revoke licenses if necessary. However, ATF can only inspect each dealer once a year, and doesn't have the ability to do them all - most dealers will be inspected maybe every 5 years. And ATF does find that non-trivial numbers of firearms drop out of inventory. (This, IMO, is another area where more funding and more thorough enforcement of existing law would be a good thing.)
http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html
The inventory issue I think you're referring to is that, while FFLs are required to keep those bound records and are subject to inspection, ATF can not require FFLs to conduct an annual physical inventory to detect missing firearms. This is one of the Tiahrt Amendments (MAIG links to the 2010 text, the inventory prohibition is at the bottom of the big yellow chunk). So without an actual inspection, it's made more difficult to detect firearms missing from dealer inventory.
FWIW, I don't understand the reason to not require dealers to do an annual inventory and note any absences - it sort of seems that most normal businesses would be doing that anyway...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
238 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What are you going to do this week to support expanded background checks? [View all]
BainsBane
Sep 2013
OP
lol, that is pathetic. I did not know the group had safe haven protection and even if it
Jefferson23
Sep 2013
#13
If private gun sales are so rare and the vast majority of sales already subject to background checks
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#34
You'd have to ask the NRA. I was generally okay with it once it was amended to preclude..
X_Digger
Sep 2013
#38
When I see the bill, I will decide. If it's just that, and not DiFi's AWB 3.0, I'll support it.
X_Digger
Sep 2013
#51
It doesn't change the fact that the seller commits a felony if they sell to an alien of their state.
pipoman
Sep 2013
#63
There is no requirement that a seller is required to obtain proof of the buyer's state of residence
rdharma
Sep 2013
#66
There is no "due dilignce requirement" in the law. No requirement to obtain ID of the buyer.
rdharma
Sep 2013
#95
No. I'm not lying...... I'm just illustrating how easy it is to skirt the existing laws.
rdharma
Sep 2013
#151
No, Pipoman is correct: the only sales* that don't require a background check
petronius
Sep 2013
#16
Not in this case. What law are they breaking if they say they are selling as a hobby?
Robb
Sep 2013
#67
Didn't help that the GOP dragged ATF leadership in front of a House Judiciary committee in 2006
Robb
Sep 2013
#91
Then there is the voting rights act and Obamacare, more big government plots
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#214
Most gun owners I know care less about the checks and more about how they are implemented
Lee-Lee
Sep 2013
#42
It only need include felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#163
our government is checking your background this very second. pls do not call it spying tho nt
msongs
Sep 2013
#24
Is that your excuse for making sure criminals have unfettered access to guns?
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#30
I called my senators to let them know I support background checks and gun control.
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#40
And here I thought there were calls from the gun control side for 'compromise'.
HolyMoley
Sep 2013
#78
So how do you feel about my proposal- background checks done online or via smartphone app
Lee-Lee
Sep 2013
#88
To them, 'compromise' usually means, "I'll only ask for half of what I want right now." n/t
X_Digger
Sep 2013
#85
Look, you want criminals to have access to guns, there is nothing I can do about that
BainsBane
Sep 2013
#125
wellet me try and make sense of all this you asked by parsing it. not a gun owner btw.
professor5000
Sep 2013
#140
This is why gun nuts should not be allowed on DU and at the very least their posts should not be
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#221
The big problem is that gun owners believe that people with your attitude will never be satisfied
badtoworse
Sep 2013
#141
if it is something you agree with anyway, why would our side HAVE to give something?
CTyankee
Sep 2013
#222
But if you agree with background checks why is that something you "give away"?
CTyankee
Sep 2013
#227
Ifyou are correct, then I sense that there was a bit of change of tone by some gun folks. Perhaps a
CTyankee
Sep 2013
#236
Nothing until we re-tax the wealthy, end costly trade agreements and get a public option.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#234