View Full Version : Bills in Colorado House to repeal gun laws enacted last year
Holger Danske
01-08-2015, 14:37
Chris Holbert and Steve Humphery are sponsoring the following bills
15-1009 To repeal ban on mags with capacity larger than 15
15-1050 Repeal background check on private transfers
There is an article on the Gazette, but I don't know how to link from my phone.
Please contact your elected officials in support of these bills.
mtnrider
01-08-2015, 14:54
Thank goodness they were smart enough to separate them into two different bills. All though I am not holding my breath that it will ever get passed Dickenlooper. I can always dream though.
thvigil11
01-08-2015, 14:57
I'm sure someone will come to their senses and attach this into a anti- abortion/ repeal legalized pot/ burn the flag/ legalize puppy torture combination bill that will be sure to die. [Coffee]
wctriumph
01-08-2015, 16:18
I can see a repeal of the magazine capacity limit law but here is where we get the old "political compromise", we repeal the capacity limit but we get to keep the back ground checks. These guys will make a deal, then go back on it later on if they get another solid majority in the state houses.
Politics = I lend you $20 and you give me back $10 and say we're even, we both lost $10.
It will be time to start the email and phone campaigns again!
Rucker61
01-08-2015, 16:35
I can see a repeal of the magazine capacity limit law but here is where we get the old "political compromise", we repeal the capacity limit but we get to keep the back ground checks. These guys will make a deal, then go back on it later on if they get another solid majority in the state houses.
Politics = I lend you $20 and you give me back $10 and say we're even, we both lost $10.
It will be time to start the email and phone campaigns again!
Combining HB 13-1228 and -1229 gave the state a new revenue source which allowed them to divert tax based funding for CBI elsewhere. We aren't ever going to get these overturned.
I would love to see these passed. Will be emailing my reps
Here's a link with 4 bills
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150108/colorado-first-day-of-the-2015-session-sees-strong-pro-gun-activity
If you start off thinking you are defeated.... You probably are. Let's get behind this.
newracer
01-08-2015, 18:44
I hope I am wrong but I predict neither will pass.
mtnrider
01-08-2015, 18:46
I am hoping for the best but the reality is it doesn't matter what we want, do, or think. It's all going to come down to 1 man ....and he is a friend of Bloomberg
I've been hearing about Repuplicans repealing gun bills all day today on the news, but they only ever mention being able to carry without a permit, EVEN AT SCHOOLS! (Check back at 11:00!)
From CO Gun owners: http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/colorado-lawmakers-move-to-repeal-gun-control-laws-on-first-day-of-state-legislative-session/
BPTactical
01-09-2015, 06:06
I would love to see it happen but I'm not holding my breath.
The powers that be know that "gun control" is not going anywhere on a Federal level.
So they are going to push at a state level. Nanny Bloomingidiot and his ilk are going to be pouring resources into the fight.
We KNOW Hickenlooper is the poster child of spineless fucks and won't make a "unpopular" decision with his handlers.
In the words of Steven Tyler: "Dream On"
Well here is the thing. If it goes party line, we don't have the numbers. I believe Rep Holbert explained this pretty well in a post not too long ago. If anyone remembers the recalls last year though, that may be in the back of the mind of 2-3 dems that were on the fence when this crap got rammed through. If they change their mind now that they have seen how ridiculous these laws are then the tide has turned and it will end up on Hick's desk. I would bet he would veto it, but then he at least has to put his face on it again.
Honey Badger282.8
01-09-2015, 22:29
I would love to see both of these passed but I think the magazine restriction has the best chance of being overturned.
BPTactical
01-10-2015, 08:32
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a bill such as the above made it to Howdy Doodies desk.
1- Sign it
2- Veto it
3- Ignore it and let it become law quietly.
I will take door #3
That would be fine by me.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a bill such as the above made it to Howdy Doodies desk.
1- Sign it
2- Veto it
3- Ignore it and let it become law quietly.
I will take door #3
mtnrider
01-10-2015, 11:25
I expect Bloomberg will be putting a lot of pressure(and money) on his old pal Hickendicker to veto anything. To have any of these repealed would be a Huge blow to the anti crowd and they are going to pull out all the stops to make sure that doesn't happen.
Bloomberg will be putting the pressure on Hick. He is a gun control fellow traveler but he also knows that IF he signed legislation repealing gun control he would loose nothing politically at the local level (Colorado). Also, he might gain some support by doing so.
I wonder if he's looking at a political future beyond governor. Personally I don't think so. If he can persuaded (not pressured) that he looses nothing by repeal, it could happen. Persuasion not pressure might be a better tactic.
My $0.02.
Hotchef181818
01-10-2015, 13:01
I can see a repeal of the magazine capacity limit law but here is where we get the old "political compromise", we repeal the capacity limit but we get to keep the back ground checks. These guys will make a deal, then go back on it later on if they get another solid majority in the state houses.
Politics = I lend you $20 and you give me back $10 and say we're even, we both lost $10.
It will be time to start the email and phone campaigns again!
By by my math I'm still up $10 bucks of your money but what do I know.
Bloomberg will be putting the pressure on Hick. He is a gun control fellow traveler but he also knows that IF he signed legislation repealing gun control he would loose nothing politically at the local level (Colorado). Also, he might gain some support by doing so.
I wonder if he's looking at a political future beyond governor. Personally I don't think so. If he can persuaded (not pressured) that he looses nothing by repeal, it could happen. Persuasion not pressure might be a better tactic.
My $0.02.
Nothing to base it on, but Hick has the gibe of someone who thinks he's on track for a presidential run.
I suspect this is why he took such a hard turn left on things like weed, gun control, and the death penalty. He's doing what he thinks will please the party bosses so they'll give him the go ahead to pursue higher office.
FYI, it wasn't "last year" it was 2013. My how time flies...
Gcompact30
01-10-2015, 16:18
Bloomberg needs to keep his ass in New York or where every he is from. Stay out of CO.
Combining HB 13-1228 and -1229 gave the state a new revenue source which allowed them to divert tax based funding for CBI elsewhere. We aren't ever going to get these overturned.
I've got no issue with background checks. Just make it a web or phone app that people can use without getting a dealer involved. Return simple yes or no after the buyer fills out the form.
68Charger
01-10-2015, 17:39
I've got no issue with background checks. Just make it a web or phone app that people can use without getting a dealer involved. Return simple yes or no after the buyer fills out the form.
you forgot an exemption for those with a CHP in good standing...
you forgot an exemption for those with a CHP in good standing...
Yeah, wish that bill had been signed.
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:02
No issue with BG check??? B.S. Ridge!!!! C'mon man, use your head!! I have a real issue with backround checks. Anything on paper can be filed and used later to confiscate. If they did not want to use this as a means to confiscate later ask yourself why they need to know the serial number and the brand of gun on the forms in the first place if all that was intended was to find out about your backround. Wake up, of the two laws this was the worst. Mag law was not enforceable, neither was the BG check, but dumb gunowners self enforce this BG law on each other.
No issue with BG check??? B.S. Ridge!!!! C'mon man, use your head!! I have a real issue with backround checks. Anything on paper can be filed and used later to confiscate. If they did not want to use this as a means to confiscate later ask yourself why they need to know the serial number and the brand of gun on the forms in the first place if all that was intended was to find out about your backround. Wake up, of the two laws this was the worst. Mag law was not enforceable, neither was the BG check, but dumb gunowners self enforce this BG law on each other.
Besides that one movie, where has the 4473 been used to confiscate firearms?
kidicarus13
01-10-2015, 18:22
Besides that one movie, where has the 4473 been used to confiscate firearms?
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.
Besides that one movie, where has the 4473 been used to confiscate firearms?
When has a form 4473 been used to keep a criminal from obtaining a gun?
Requiring government permission to exercise a right is wrong in so many ways.
When has a form 4473 been used to keep a criminal from obtaining a gun?
Requiring government permission and paying a fee to exercise a right is wrong in so many ways.
FIFY
FIFY
I'll agree with this. Colorado NICS was created with the promise that it would never require an extra fee during the transaction, and that promise was broken with this law.
As for Eric's question, background checks have stopped people from getting firearms. Hell, I saw it happen last year at The Firing Line.
HBARleatherneck
01-10-2015, 18:32
im trying to remember...what do the liberals think about background checks and fees to vote? how about background checks to peaceably assemble? how about background checks and fees to murder babies? with liberals its all off limits except for with guns.
maybe a background check and fees before someone slides across the border and pops out a baby? maybe a background check and fee for muslims wanting to go to mosque?
its funny none of it is ok, except to limit the 2a.
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:36
Seriously, do you really believe there is not a database being compiled on all the private sales guns that had NO paperwork on them before??? So using your logic why worry about the mag ban? Have you heard of mag confiscations yet? Wake TF up!!! BOTH laws are bad, but the worst of the two is the BG law that puts thousands, perhaps millions of non papered, not traceable guns on the radar screen.
Besides that one movie, where has the 4473 been used to confiscate firearms?
im trying to remember...what do the liberals think about background checks and fees to vote? how about background checks to peaceably assemble? how about background checks and fees to murder babies? with liberals its all off limits except for with guns.
maybe a background check and fees before someone slides across the border and pops out a baby? maybe a background check and fee for muslims wanting to go to mosque?
its funny none of it is ok, except to limit the 2a.
You need a permit to peaceably assemble.
Seriously, do you really believe there is not a database being compiled on all the private sales guns that had NO paperwork on them before??? So using your logic why worry about the mag ban? Have you heard of mag confiscations yet? Wake TF up!!! BOTH laws are bad, but the worst of the two is the BG law that puts thousands, perhaps millions of non papered, not traceable guns on the radar screen.
Do you not believe that there is a database with you on it because of anything you've posted?
HBARleatherneck
01-10-2015, 18:42
no, actually in most cases you dont. in larger groups and in some municipalities, yes. but, what about a background check?
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:42
Yeah, and read me that sentence about the "permit" in the bill of rights.
You need a permit to peaceably assemble.
Do you not believe that there is a database with you on it because of anything you've posted?
Answer me this:
Do you think a felon should be allowed to own a gun? To vote? Should someone under investigation for making threats against their spouse be allowed to purchase a firearm?
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:53
So now you are afraid of a database from postings on the internet, but not from backround check forms? If you don't want to discuss or defend your silly statements then don't post them.
You need a permit to peaceably assemble.
Do you not believe that there is a database with you on it because of anything you've posted?
Answer me this:
Do you think a felon should be allowed to own a gun? To vote? Should someone under investigation for making threats against their spouse be allowed to purchase a firearm?
Yes.
Seriously, do you really believe there is not a database being compiled on all the private sales guns that had NO paperwork on them before??? So using your logic why worry about the mag ban? Have you heard of mag confiscations yet? Wake TF up!!! BOTH laws are bad, but the worst of the two is the BG law that puts thousands, perhaps millions of non papered, not traceable guns on the radar screen.
Oh fuck, here we go again with this shit.
Enough already.
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:56
Yes a former felon should be allowed to own a gun. After he has done his time, paid his debt to society and has been released, and all his other rights have been restored, why not his gun rights?? If he cannot be trusted with a gun why has he been freed from prison? Where in the constitution does it say an ex felon can't own a firearm?
Answer me this:
Do you think a felon should be allowed to own a gun? To vote? Should someone under investigation for making threats against their spouse be allowed to purchase a firearm?
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 18:58
Brutal
Enough? Says who?? We all have right to our opinion don't we? This is a forum isn't it? Why are gun people so threatened by the discussion of the ramifications of the backround check law?
Zundfolge
01-10-2015, 19:02
Answer me this:
Do you think a felon should be allowed to own a gun? To vote? Should someone under investigation for making threats against their spouse be allowed to purchase a firearm?
Yes, felons should have ALL their rights restored at some point after they do their time. As for someone under investigation, they are innocent until proven guilty so yes they should be able to purchase a firearm. If later they are convicted of a crime than part of their punishment is that they lose their rights for a time, but no crime should end your rights forever (unless you are executed for it or jailed for life) and no rights should be removed without a trial and conviction.
HBARleatherneck
01-10-2015, 19:05
the problem is..everytime you give up any freedom, it will bite you in the ass.
here is an example
lets say two men want to get married and the state they live in will not allow them to marry? that would be bad Right?
the trouble is, some dipshit somewhere in the past decided it was ok to let the goverment tell him that he needed permission to marry. the government has no right to "allow or not allow" you to marry whoever you choose. yet the freedom was given away and now some people want some of the freedom back and the government doesnt want to give it back.
Enough? Says who?? We all have right to our opinion don't we? This is a forum isn't it?
You're yelling at me about my opinion. Mine is worth no more or less than yours.
the problem is..everytime you give up any freedom, it will bite you in the ass.
here is an example
lets say two men want to get married and the state they live in will not allow them to marry? that would be bad Right?
the trouble is, some dipshit somewhere in the past decided it was ok to let the goverment tell him that he needed permission to marry. the government has no right to "allow or not allow" you to marry whoever you choose. yet the freedom was given away and now some people want some of the freedom back and the government doesnt want to give it back.
Government isinvolved because taxes are involved. Remove tax breaks for married couples and it's no longer their problem.
HBARleatherneck
01-10-2015, 19:24
i agree. end the majority of government involvement in our lives.
Zundfolge
01-10-2015, 19:56
Government isinvolved because taxes are involved. Remove tax breaks for married couples and it's no longer their problem.
Taxes should be on consumption, not income anyway (since reporting one's income is a massive violation of privacy rights).
You're yelling at me about my opinion. Mine is worth no more or less than yours.
No, he was yelling at Brutal.
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 20:48
Was speaking to Brutal.
Yelling? Who's yelling? THIS IS YELLING.
You're yelling at me about my opinion. Mine is worth no more or less than yours.
Besides that one movie, where has the 4473 been used to confiscate firearms?
Umm. California. New Jersey. New York.
Was speaking to Brutal.
Yelling? Who's yelling? THIS IS YELLING.
[facepalm]
Firearm information is not transmitted as part of a 4473 background check. I better watch the security camera for those ATF ninjas that secret into the store at night to scan the 4473's, because that's the only way what is suggested is going to happen.
That was my point. Every time this subject comes up, the tin foil hat goes on a bit too tight for Mr milwaukeeshaker. It really gets old.
jerrymrc
01-10-2015, 22:10
Keep it civil. I am not joking.......
milwaukeeshaker
01-10-2015, 22:26
Tell me please, when a gunshop closes up, where do the 4473 go to then? Are they surrendered to the ATF, or are they destroyed? Then explain to me how the law enforcement agencies are able to trace a firearm to the person it was sold to? Now don't you think so same authorities just hate it when a gun cannot be traced to anyone? Why do you think BG checks are the antis wet dream? Follow it to the logical conclusion. No tin hat, I just don't have blinders on.
[facepalm]
Firearm information is not transmitted as part of a 4473 background check. I better watch the security camera for those ATF ninjas that secret into the store at night to scan the 4473's, because that's the only way what is suggested is going to happen.
Lighten up, guys...
http://youtu.be/jjU8bweI_6k
SenHolbert
01-10-2015, 23:28
As you take up the effort to contact YOUR state Representative and YOUR state Senator, then members of the committee(s) to which a bill is assigned, please ask the member how he/she intends to vote on each bill. It is very common for citizen advocates to focus only on telling legislators how you want us to vote. That's OK… I'm not trying to silence you. The point is for you to determine up front how to most effectively communicate with each legislator that you contact. Why would anyone devote time to convincing me to vote for my own bill? Why focus on explaining why a legislator should vote "Yes" on a repeal bill when he/she is already 100% committed to doing exactly that? Ask first, then thank those who agree with you, educate the undecided, and remember those who oppose your position when the next election comes around.
Start with a question, then respond accordingly.
Umm. California. New Jersey. New York.
Those have actual state level gun registries. The 4473 has not been used as such.
kidicarus13
01-11-2015, 00:10
https://www.ar-15.co/showthread.php?t=144529
Those have actual state level gun registries. The 4473 has not been used as such.
Not trying to be difficult here.. But, the difference being what exactly? It doesn't matter which form you fill out, the end result is the same.
Not trying to be difficult here.. But, the difference being what exactly? It doesn't matter which form you fill out, the end result is the same.
Because one actually uses the 4473, and the other has a state mandated database that runs separate from the federal forms.
Because one actually uses the 4473, and the other has a state mandated database that runs separate from the federal forms.
You mean, like CBI?
You mean, like CBI?
CBI uses firearm type (handgun/longgun/receiver) and serial number, just like the 4473. That's not a gun registry, because they have no clue what type of firearm that is. It's like having a database consisting of license plates without the cars that they go to.
CBI uses firearm type (handgun/longgun/receiver) and serial number, just like the 4473. That's not a gun registry, because they have no clue what type of firearm that is. It's like having a database consisting of license plates without the cars that they go to.
The serial number IS NOT REPORTED to CBI. it is only recorded by the FFL on the 4473 and in his bound book.
Clearly state:
A. The last five digits of your FFL number.
B. Long gun, handgun or both.
C. Customer's name – LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE. Say and spell each name if necessary.
D. Customer’s Date of Birth. (Year-Month-Day).
E. Customer’s Sex and Race.
F. Social Security – optional.
G. Customer’s Driver’s License Number/ID Number.
C'mon guys, at least stick with facts.
This thread makes me want to go buy a gun.
This thread makes me want to go buy a gun.
Aren't you ascared they will have you in their registry?
I just gave me place of birth and SSN to Harbor Freight today to save 1% on a $2 discount tool.
I actually get very nervous every time I buy a gun as I have a unique situation. It's nothing bad, but would take a long time (at least 3 sentences) to explain.
Irving, they don't deny for getting caught masturbating in the boys shower in 9th grade. Stop worrying.
Everything always leads back to that day...[/1000yardstare]
I just gave me place of birth and SSN to Harbor Freight today to save 1% on a $2 discount tool.
I actually get very nervous every time I buy a gun as I have a unique situation. It's nothing bad, but would take a long time (at least 3 sentences) to explain.
http://youtu.be/-PjTuSQNLI4?t=16s
Rucker61
01-11-2015, 08:20
This thread makes me want to go buy a gun.
Don't they all?
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 10:08
C'mon somebody. Answer my valid question, or are you just going to ignore what you don't want to face? Brutal you seem to know all, what's the deal? Where, oh where do the 4473's go? Huh?
Tell me please, when a gunshop closes up, where do the 4473 go to then? Are they surrendered to the ATF, or are they destroyed? Then explain to me how the law enforcement agencies are able to trace a firearm to the person it was sold to? Now don't you think so same authorities just hate it when a gun cannot be traced to anyone? Why do you think BG checks are the antis wet dream? Follow it to the logical conclusion. No tin hat, I just don't have blinders on.
newracer
01-11-2015, 12:34
C'mon somebody. Answer my valid question, or are you just going to ignore what you don't want to face? Brutal you seem to know all, what's the deal? Where, oh where do the 4473's go? Huh?
I believe they are sent to the ATF.
I believe they are sent to the ATF.
I don't think they are afraid of answering your question. I believe the FFL retains for 20 years. If they close shop, anything under 20 years goes to ATF. Someone jump in & correct me if I am mistaking. After 20 years the NSA scoops them up. Now, back to your bunker before your location is geolocated.
I don't think they are afraid of answering your question. I believe the FFL retains for 20 years. If they close shop, anything under 20 years goes to ATF. Someone jump in & correct me if I am mistaking. After 20 years the NSA scoops them up. Now, back to your bunker before your location is geolocated.
Don't mean to add to your anxiety, but some Gun Shops retain the information (Model, SN, date of purchase, etc.) on their computers FOREVER. I am not referring to 4473 some have you fill in online. They retain it for their own purposes. One was able to bring up my name & tell me when I bought a particular firearm several years ago.
BPTactical
01-11-2015, 13:22
FFL must retain 4473's for twenty years or life of the business. If the life of the business is less than 20 years upon cessation of business the FFL must remit the 4473's to the BATFE within 30 days.
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 13:47
So, then by doing a backround check there is a record made with serial number, and owner of a lot of previously not papered, privately owned guns, right? This should be of far more concern than some magazine capacity ban, shouldn't it? Why does that label me as some nut, causing the negative comments on this site? Why are there not more gun folks a lot more worried about the BG law? Seems more threatening to gun owners given the current state of things.
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 13:48
And then what? does anyone really think that information is just destroyed and not entered into a database?
FFL must retain 4473's for twenty years or life of the business. If the life of the business is less than 20 years upon cessation of business the FFL must remit the 4473's to the BATFE within 30 days.
And then what? does anyone really think that information is just destroyed and not entered into a database?
I guess I'll worry about it in twenty years. Then again, rapture will come before that right?
And then what? does anyone really think that information is just destroyed and not entered into a database?
It is against the law for the federal government to make a database. It's part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
kidicarus13
01-11-2015, 13:53
It is against the law for the federal government to make a database. It's part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
Very naive
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 14:02
Really??? You actually said that?? A gun owner. Unbelievable.
Ostriches everywhere.
It is against the law for the federal government to make a database. It's part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 14:03
LMAO
I guess I'll worry about it in twenty years. Then again, rapture will come before that right?
Really??? You actually said that?? A gun owner. Unbelievable.
Ostriches everywhere.
What, does being a gun owner mean your expected to be breaking the law?
Tell me please, when a gunshop closes up, where do the 4473 go to then? Are they surrendered to the ATF, or are they destroyed? Then explain to me how the law enforcement agencies are able to trace a firearm to the person it was sold to? Now don't you think so same authorities just hate it when a gun cannot be traced to anyone? Why do you think BG checks are the antis wet dream? Follow it to the logical conclusion. No tin hat, I just don't have blinders on.
C'mon somebody. Answer my valid question, or are you just going to ignore what you don't want to face? Brutal you seem to know all, what's the deal? Where, oh where do the 4473's go? Huh?
"Retired" bound books go to a warehouse in Georgia, if memory serves correctly. Take some initiative and Google it, if it has you that wound up.
And then what? does anyone really think that information is just destroyed and not entered into a database?
You are absolutely right. A few of us here on the forum are part of the conspiracy. You've outed us. Game over. The database DOES exist. Now what shall we do???
You are absolutely right. A few of us here on the forum are part of the conspiracy. You've outed us. Game over. The database DOES exist. Now what shall we do???
Clearly we have to eliminate him.
BPTactical
01-11-2015, 15:03
Clearly we have to eliminate him.
As soon as we eliminate My Little Pony[mlp]
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 15:07
I was referring to the fact that you actually believe what the government says.
Here, try these.
Social Security numbers were never to be used for an ID
Social Security was not to be taxed
Social Security is solvent
Shall not be infringed
What, does being a gun owner mean your expected to be breaking the law?
I was referring to the fact that you actually believe what the government says.
Here, try these.
Social Security numbers were never to be used for an ID
Social Security was not to be taxed
Social Security is solvent
Shall not be infringed
Source for any of the social security claims?
Don't spill the beans on the lock box.
Btw, which forum member has the key?
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 15:19
Just realize that the important Colorado law to get rid of is the BG check, not the magazine ban. That one should be a secondary concern. Every time I raise this point a bunch of you naysayers go on the attack about how I'm some conspiricy nut living a bunker. All I'm saying is we should be more worried about the possible problems brought about by the BG law. The mag ban is pretty impotent in comparison. Hell, everybody has mags that were "grandfathered" already, so no loss there, but a lot of people have gun safes full of totally legal inherited, and private bought firearms that no one knows about, and would like to keep them that way. That's all my point is. Enough said, I'm out.
You are absolutely right. A few of us here on the forum are part of the conspiracy. You've outed us. Game over. The database DOES exist. Now what shall we do???
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 15:20
Well known just look up the original documents when SS was proposed.
Source for any of the social security claims?
Well known just look up the original documents when SS was proposed.
Please share them. You've been asking people for information in this thread and expecting them to go find it for you. Please return the favor.
wctriumph
01-11-2015, 15:22
Source for any of the social security claims?
Best I could find.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?
A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.
A previous interim director of the ATF refused to answer the question regarding whether or not the ATF maintained a permanent database of firearm transactions, which included the last known owner of a firearm.
Also. MSR.
I do get a little tired of these threads. Can we do a sticky with all the relevant information and just point to it when this inevitably comes up.
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 15:40
My God. You truly are an Ostrich. I've asked for no one to look up any info. Everything I spoke about is well known, no research involved. I'm done. This is fruitless.
Please share them. You've been asking people for information in this thread and expecting them to go find it for you. Please return the favor.
Gcompact30
01-11-2015, 15:40
I agree greed with you the magazine ban is secondary to the bullshit BG/law or checks. Vehicles kill more people then guns and I don't need a BG to sell you my vehicle. It's propaganda BS. If I go to a gun store and purchase a gun from a business I don't have a problem doing a background if the business pays for it :-). Just my thoughts only. It's hard as hell for the magazine capacity to be enforced anyway.
Just realize that the important Colorado law to get rid of is the BG check, not the magazine ban. That one should be a secondary concern. Every time I raise this point a bunch of you naysayers go on the attack about how I'm some conspiricy nut living a bunker. All I'm saying is we should be more worried about the possible problems brought about by the BG law. The mag ban is pretty impotent in comparison. Hell, everybody has mags that were "grandfathered" already, so no loss there, but a lot of people have gun safes full of totally legal inherited, and private bought firearms that no one knows about, and would like to keep them that way. That's all my point is. Enough said, I'm out.
I have been trying to figure out the 'best' answer on the BGC's. I don't think any of us want to sell to a felon, terrorist, etc, which is the point of the law. That is where I do believe the 90% statistic commonly used. The problem stems from the registration that many (not all) feel is the real reason behind the BGC's. What needs to happen is that there is a way that a seller can check the staus of the buyer without the required SN. That could be (relatively) simply setup, I would think. Maybe something like a "Go-No Go" based on a drivers license number. There are going to be abuses of any system and I can think of a few with this one. The point is a full repeal.... Gonna be hard (not impossible). If there is a well thought out alternative it has a better chance to succeed.
Rucker61
01-11-2015, 18:59
I have been trying to figure out the 'best' answer on the BGC's. I don't think any of us want to sell to a felon, terrorist, etc, which is the point of the law. That is where I do believe the 90% statistic commonly used. The problem stems from the registration that many (not all) feel is the real reason behind the BGC's. What needs to happen is that there is a way that a seller can check the staus of the buyer without the required SN. That could be (relatively) simply setup, I would think. Maybe something like a "Go-No Go" based on a drivers license number. There are going to be abuses of any system and I can think of a few with this one. The point is a full repeal.... Gonna be hard (not impossible). If there is a well thought out alternative it has a better chance to succeed.
How about an iphone or android app doorway into NICS?
Rucker61
01-11-2015, 19:02
Just realize that the important Colorado law to get rid of is the BG check, not the magazine ban. That one should be a secondary concern.
The problem is that the Democrats tied it to a $10 fee that the CBI gets to keep. They diverted budgetary funds away from CBI to other pet projects, since background checks provide funding. They ain't never giving that money stream back.
milwaukeeshaker
01-11-2015, 19:03
This!!!
I have been trying to figure out the 'best' answer on the BGC's. I don't think any of us want to sell to a felon, terrorist, etc, which is the point of the law. That is where I do believe the 90% statistic commonly used. The problem stems from the registration that many (not all) feel is the real reason behind the BGC's. What needs to happen is that there is a way that a seller can check the staus of the buyer without the required SN. That could be (relatively) simply setup, I would think. Maybe something like a "Go-No Go" based on a drivers license number. There are going to be abuses of any system and I can think of a few with this one. The point is a full repeal.... Gonna be hard (not impossible). If there is a well thought out alternative it has a better chance to succeed.
I was just thinking about a P2P app that the buyer with a valid state issued DL could use to gen a one-time single use code to give the seller. The seller could then verify the buyer is GTG.
All you would need to do is keep the code for verification if there was ever an issue.
I was just thinking about a P2P app that the buyer with a valid state issued DL could use to gen a one-time single use code to give the seller. The seller could then verify the buyer is GTG.
All you would need to do is keep the code for verification if there was ever an issue.
Too simple,not enough red tape to justify the budget of unnecessary workers...
newracer
01-11-2015, 19:25
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc181/Sturmgewehr-58/reddawnform4473jx9.jpg
Honey Badger282.8
01-11-2015, 19:54
How about we just make a firearms endorsement on state issued IDs? Make it an opt-out program so you don't have to worry about a registry because having the endorsement doesn't mean you are trying to buy a gun. No serial numbers or type of gun attached to any personal information, automatic firewall to a gun registry. Then when you go to purchase a firearm you only need to show the ID.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
01-11-2015, 20:00
How about we just stop worrying about controlling what free people can purchase and own, and direct the energy into punishing those who commit the crimes? (Maybe starting on the governing level LOL) I don't personally feel that any bgc or registration laws stop crimes, they only help create more criminals - and leave the door open for the underlying system/registration/etc to be exploited in the future.
Zundfolge
01-11-2015, 21:04
How about we just stop worrying about controlling what free people can purchase and own, and direct the energy into punishing those who commit the crimes? (Maybe starting on the governing level LOL) I don't personally feel that any bgc or registration laws stop crimes, they only help create more criminals - and leave the door open for the underlying system/registration/etc to be exploited in the future.
THIS. Because BGCs simply do not work. Criminals STILL get as many guns as they want and guns are not kept out of the hands of mentally ill people either. Keep in mind that EVERY mass shooter that got their guns legally went through BGCs. At best they are a waste of time and money and at worst they're a tool that can be used to undermine law abiding gun ownership.
The problem is that the Democrats tied it to a $10 fee that the CBI gets to keep. They diverted budgetary funds away from CBI to other pet projects, since background checks provide funding. They ain't never giving that money stream back.
Is there any reason for the CBI to even be involved? Can FFLs directly access the federal system that CBI uses?
Cut the middleman, end the fee. No need to have extra non-essential employees if we can do without them.
Is there any reason for the CBI to even be involved? Can FFLs directly access the federal system that CBI uses?
Cut the middleman, end the fee. No need to have extra non-essential employees if we can do without them.
That would make too much sense.
We tried to abolish the redundant CBI check the year before the 2013 BS bills got rammed down our throats. No go.
How about an iphone or android app doorway into NICS?
That's what I'm saying. The buyer can fill out a simplified form, and the app returns a simple yay/nay response. Doesn't delve into why. Doesn't have any privacy issues. The data can be cached in the app and flushed after the result returns.
How would you verify that the buyer is filling out the app with the correct info? If I know my mom can buy a gun, how are you going to know I'm not filling out her info unless you look over my shoulder?
How would you verify that the buyer is filling out the app with the correct info? If I know my mom can buy a gun, how are you going to know I'm not filling out her info unless you look over my shoulder?
I'm just an idea guy. It's up to the design team to work out those problems.
argonstrom
01-12-2015, 18:09
THIS. Because BGCs simply do not work. Criminals STILL get as many guns as they want and guns are not kept out of the hands of mentally ill people either. Keep in mind that EVERY mass shooter that got their guns legally went through BGCs. At best they are a waste of time and money and at worst they're a tool that can be used to undermine law abiding gun ownership.
Agreed.
I don't know why so many feel that compromising with gun control groups is the best way to go. Laws punish crime; they don't prevent it. The gun control debate was settled in 1791.
Zundfolge
01-12-2015, 18:29
I don't know why so many feel that compromising with gun control groups is the best way to go.
Time to post this again:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
That picture illustrates it to a tee. At the end, you look like an out of control person that is so angry and can't be talked to. That is their goal. Poke the bear until it snaps and then kill the bear for being dangerous.
I want my full autos back. Over the counter no forms for purchases of everything. I want to buy a suppressor from walmart. I want to buy a belt fed from tractor supply. And I want to buy a surplus hummer with an m2 a a trunk full of ammo included!
milwaukeeshaker
01-12-2015, 19:38
Sniper, I know you are being humorous, but I agree, you should be able to do all those things with no problems, permits, fees, or regulations.
Shall not be infringed.
I want my full autos back. Over the counter no forms for purchases of everything. I want to buy a suppressor from walmart. I want to buy a belt fed from tractor supply. And I want to buy a surplus hummer with an m2 a a trunk full of ammo included!
Sniper, I know you are being humorous, but I agree, you should be able to do all those things with no problems, permits, fees, or regulations.
Shall not be infringed.
I think we're all in agreement here on this point. Getting off into the weeds about an imaginary defacto registry is what gets these threads all twisted up.
At this point it is not a question of compromise. There was no compromise because neither side was listening. BCG's are the law of the land and as the Trading Post shows.... Most of us are complying......... because we are law abiding. It is now a question getting back to something better than where not compromising has gotten us. A full win would be a repeal, but the defeatest attitude around here seems to have forgotten throwing three of the bastards out last year. So... In light of that, don't call it compromise.... Call it winning back some of what we lost because "WE" don't compromise and remeber this. When you don't compromise, don't listen and go for all or nothing........... Sometimes your winning's........... Are "NOTHING"
To be clear this works both ways as three of the Dems learned last year. We all need to learn to listen more.
mtnrider
01-12-2015, 21:37
A full win would be a repeal, but the defeatest attitude around here seems to have forgotten throwing three of the bastards out last year.
Unfortunately the "thrown out" have been replaced by more of the same now. It was short lived. Sad.
milwaukeeshaker
01-13-2015, 20:12
I'm sorry, but "imaginary" is your opinion. Mine is the GOVT can NEVER be trusted, so to me it's almost a 99% chance that there is a list. You have no more proof that a registry does not exist than I do that one does. We should be able to discuss this possibility with input from both sides, rationally, without some individuals going derogatory.
I think we're all in agreement here on this point. Getting off into the weeds about an imaginary defacto registry is what gets these threads all twisted up.
Aloha_Shooter
01-13-2015, 20:40
I'm sorry, but "imaginary" is your opinion. Mine is the GOVT can NEVER be trusted, so to me it's almost a 99% chance that there is a list. You have no more proof that a registry does not exist than I do that one does. We should be able to discuss this possibility with input from both sides, rationally, without some individuals going derogatory.
While I understand your philosophical point, you're wrong about "no more proof". We have statutes that prohibit registries at the state level, testimony from FFLs and LE personnel, etc. saying the registry doesn't exist versus an unsubstantiated allegation. Go ahead and discuss calmly and rationally PLEASE but one side of the debate DOES have more substantial evidence than the other.
I am with you on "IF" there is a list and it pisses me off to even think about it. It is worth getting in a twist about.
I'm sorry, but "imaginary" is your opinion. Mine is the GOVT can NEVER be trusted, so to me it's almost a 99% chance that there is a list. You have no more proof that a registry does not exist than I do that one does. We should be able to discuss this possibility with input from both sides, rationally, without some individuals going derogatory.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
01-13-2015, 20:47
Since it's been proven that a gun can be traced to it's last "registered" owner time and time again, I don't personally see how anyone could deny that a defacto registry exists. I think it is a registry with the consistency of swiss cheese..... but I think the more laws passed on collecting data, the more solid it gets as the holes are filled in.
Well said. A gun bought today in CO that never leaves CO can be fully traced assuming all laws are followed meaning..... There is a registry. This cannot be denied. All the holes are filled nicely.
Since it's been proven that a gun can be traced to it's last "registered" owner time and time again, I don't personally see how anyone could deny that a defacto registry exists. I think it is a registry with the consistency of swiss cheese..... but I think the more laws passed on collecting data, the more solid it gets as the holes are filled in.
Zundfolge
01-13-2015, 21:52
The tracing of individual guns is really not all that useful to a police state, they don't really need a registry of guns per se, just gun owners.
The combination of 4473s, CHLs, NFA, Credit Card transaction records, NRA and other gun organization membership, firearms forums, email lists and other sundry data pools means that I guarantee you that all levels of government know who the gun owners are.
So registration as a means of creating lists of doors to kick in aren't really the goal of things like universal BGCs. The point of UBGCs is as a simple irritant and vexation that makes gun ownership just slightly more onerous to discourage as many non gun owners as possible from crossing over into the gun camp. And frankly just plane old spite ... they hate us simply because we disagree with them and if they can spit in our eye they will ... I believe it was Justin that put the gun laws that passed in perspective calling them nothing more than "counting coup in the culture war".
Rucker61
01-14-2015, 07:50
Well said. A gun bought today in CO that never leaves CO can be fully traced assuming all laws are followed meaning..... There is a registry. This cannot be denied. All the holes are filled nicely.
A registry matches a gun's serial number with a name in a database, right? How do the authorities get the serial number to start the tracking process?
rock_castle
01-14-2015, 08:11
If Hick was smart he would work to get the mag ban repealed. He is already on record as saying it is a bad law. He can right a wrong and win support among more voters. It would make him appear more to the political center than just a lapdog of the left. We'll see. I doubt it will change.
A registry matches a gun's serial number with a name in a database, right? How do the authorities get the serial number to start the tracking process?
Crime scene?
Rucker61
01-14-2015, 09:01
Crime scene?
So you have to be a criminal for the cops to trace a gun that you own?
4473
A registry matches a gun's serial number with a name in a database, right? How do the authorities get the serial number to start the tracking process?
68Charger
01-14-2015, 09:35
This really comes down to "what are you really afraid of"?
If you're afraid that you'll ditch your gun after robbing a bank and they'll find it in the bushes and be able to track it back to you- they'll find the serial# off the gun in the bushes.
If you're afraid "they" are going to come to your door with a list of guns (and their serial#s) and demand them (confiscation)... then they'd have to get it off the 4473 (aka the "Red Dawn" scenario)
Zundfolge
01-14-2015, 09:38
If Hick was smart...
You can just stop right there.
This really comes down to "what are you really afraid of"?
If you're afraid that you'll ditch your gun after robbing a bank and they'll find it in the bushes and be able to track it back to you- they'll find the serial# off the gun in the bushes.
If you're afraid "they" are going to come to your door with a list of guns (and their serial#s) and demand them (confiscation)... then they'd have to get it off the 4473 (aka the "Red Dawn" scenario)
Go back and re-read my post #129 (https://www.ar-15.co/threads/144529-Bills-in-Colorado-House-to-repeal-gun-laws-enacted-last-year?p=1820885&viewfull=1#post1820885) If they want to start kicking in doors they don't need lists of specific guns, just lists of people that own (or are just likely to own) guns ... kick in their doors at oh-dark-thirty and toss the place.
JohnnyDrama
01-14-2015, 10:50
The tracing of individual guns is really not all that useful to a police state, they don't really need a registry of guns per se, just gun owners.
The combination of 4473s, CHLs, NFA, Credit Card transaction records, NRA and other gun organization membership, firearms forums, email lists and other sundry data pools means that I guarantee you that all levels of government know who the gun owners are.
So registration as a means of creating lists of doors to kick in aren't really the goal of things like universal BGCs. The point of UBGCs is as a simple irritant and vexation that makes gun ownership just slightly more onerous to discourage as many non gun owners as possible from crossing over into the gun camp. And frankly just plane old spite ... they hate us simply because we disagree with them and if they can spit in our eye they will ... I believe it was Justin that put the gun laws that passed in perspective calling them nothing more than "counting coup in the culture war".
This is probably one of the most concise summaries of what is happening with guns I've read. This thinking closely matches the conclusion some buddies and I arrived at while sitting around a campfire back in the Clinton regime.
So you have to be a criminal for the cops to trace a gun that you own?
No, but it will likely expedite the process... [emoji13]
Repeal them all. Let god sort them out.
Zundfolge
01-14-2015, 11:46
Repeal them all. Let god sort them out.
That should be a T-Shirt
EDIT: here we go (tossed this together for S&G):
https://www.ar-15.co/attachment.php?attachmentid=54989&d=1421260876
54987 <- Vector PDF
WRT serial searching, my belief is that the serial number search is going to start at the MFR.
Then it will hit the first FFL 4473, and so on, until they come to the end or the trail goes cold.
I expect if a gun was reported stolen, then the make/model/serial would be in a database.
Aloha_Shooter
01-14-2015, 13:52
Well said. A gun bought today in CO that never leaves CO can be fully traced assuming all laws are followed meaning..... There is a registry. This cannot be denied. All the holes are filled nicely.
Nope. It not only can be denied, it is denied due to the fact that the underlying assumption is fallacious.
In the first place, some guns are exempt from the UBGC law. Buy a gun older than 50 years like an M-1 Garand or Springfield 1903A3 from a private citizen and you don't have to go through an FFL.
In the second place, the paperwork has to be filed for them to go through it. IF they have a serial number to start from, they call the manufacturer and can trace to a distributor and then a retailer but then from a retailer, they can only get to the first purchaser. If the first purchaser is unavailable, it's a laborious process to search for any transfer.
In fact, the claim that it's been "proven" a gun can be traced to its last registered owner founders on the very fact that many traces come up empty and the fact that Colorado does not register guns and owners. Our Scout council bought 10 new rifles for the camp this past year and the question about ownership created quite a dilemma precisely because the Fudd assumption about an ownership registry is false.
I appreciate the wariness but all the FUD is ridiculous.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
01-14-2015, 14:19
A traced firearm starts with checking the criminal database to see if it is reported stolen/etc. If not and it's important enough to warrant then it can an attempt to be "traced" by going through the importer or manufacture, down the line to distributors, ffl dealers, down to the last owner that is listed on paperwork. That to me seems pretty cut and dry that said gun can be traced to the last "registered" owner. I never said police/atf could locate said last owner or anything/one else after to that matter (hence the swiss cheese reference), just that there is in fact a method of registration in place. Just because it's not all in a computer under one database program labeled "gun owner registry" does not mean it's not there, nor does the fact that it is not legally called "registration" mean that it is not used as such when deemed necessary.
afterthought...I think a lot of the worry is stemming from the collection of serial numbers with these new background checks. It would be easy enough to enter all this in a state database, would it not? "Don't worry, we can only use the information 'legally' ;) "
Nope. It not only can be denied, it is denied due to the fact that the underlying assumption is fallacious.
In the first place, some guns are exempt from the UBGC law. Buy a gun older than 50 years like an M-1 Garand or Springfield 1903A3 from a private citizen and you don't have to go through an FFL.
In the second place, the paperwork has to be filed for them to go through it. IF they have a serial number to start from, they call the manufacturer and can trace to a distributor and then a retailer but then from a retailer, they can only get to the first purchaser. If the first purchaser is unavailable, it's a laborious process to search for any transfer.
In fact, the claim that it's been "proven" a gun can be traced to its last registered owner founders on the very fact that many traces come up empty and the fact that Colorado does not register guns and owners. Our Scout council bought 10 new rifles for the camp this past year and the question about ownership created quite a dilemma precisely because the Fudd assumption about an ownership registry is false.
I appreciate the wariness but all the FUD is ridiculous.
Our Scout council bought 10 new rifles for the camp this past year and the question about ownership created quite a dilemma precisely because the Fudd assumption about an ownership registry is false.
I appreciate the wariness but all the FUD is ridiculous.
If someone, in several states, bought 10 long guns at once there would have to be a MSR filed - and those guns, with their serial numbers, would be permanently flagged at the ATF and linked directly to the buyer.
The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales of handguns to the same purchaser [18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)]. The sale of two or more handguns must be reported if they occur at the same time, or within five business days of each other.
In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositions to an unlicensed individual of two or more rifles within five consecutive business days having the following characteristics: (1) semiautomatic; (2) a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 mm); and (3) the ability to accept detachable magazines.
ATF has long used multiple sales information to detect, investigate, and prevent firearms trafficking. ATF views the recovery of one or more firearms used in crimes that were part of a multiple purchase as an indicator of firearms trafficking, particularly if one of the firearms was recovered a short time after the multiple sale occurred (known as a short time–to–crime).
If someone, in several states, bought 10 long guns at once there would have to be a MSR filed - and those guns, with their serial numbers, would be permanently flagged at the ATF and linked directly to the buyer.
Scout camp rifles were most likely .22s, and likely purchased in Colorado, which would exempt them from the reporting requirements.
In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositions to an unlicensed individual of two or more rifles within five consecutive business days having the following characteristics: (1) semiautomatic; (2) a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 mm); and (3) the ability to accept detachable magazines.
Scout camp rifles were most likely .22s, and likely purchased in Colorado, which would exempt them from the reporting requirements.
Re-read my post.. if someone, in several states, ..
Aloha_Shooter
01-14-2015, 16:59
I suppose you're equally disturbed that the ATF wants to know when people without any connection to agriculture suddenly want to buy a truckload of fertilizer but doesn't care that you picked up a 20 lb bag at Home Depot or that the Treasury Department wants to know when you take $10,000 or more in cash or securities out of country but doesn't care about people driving across the border with just enough money to hire a hooker? The fact ATF wants to know about mass purchases of firearms in four border states which have had issues with Mexican organized crime does not support the allegations of a mythical registry that keep getting posted.
I suppose you're equally disturbed that the ATF wants to know when people without any connection to agriculture suddenly want to buy a truckload of fertilizer but doesn't care that you picked up a 20 lb bag at Home Depot or that the Treasury Department wants to know when you take $10,000 or more in cash or securities out of country but doesn't care about people driving across the border with just enough money to hire a hooker? The fact ATF wants to know about mass purchases of firearms in four border states which have had issues with Mexican organized crime does not support the allegations of a mythical registry that keep getting posted.
Umm. It completely and totally justifies it. replace "Mexican organized crime" with "Gang crime" or "Drug crime", then its not just four border states anymore. They ATF initially tried that tactic and got pushed back.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.