Hunter Customs
New member
I'm with 44 AMP on this one.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hate NICS? Well, How 'bout BIDS?
- Thread starter Shane Tuttle
- Start date
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Hal, I get your point about BIDS having to retain a database and NICS required to destroy/delete the info.
My counterpoint is, how do we know without a doubt that information is being deleted. Yes, by law, they have to under 18 USC S922(t). After seeing the abuse of gov power for the past 40 years, I don't trust that notion. They won't allow a public audit. WHY?
The only people in the database are ones that are not legally able to own a firearm. It's just a search of your name (and SS# is my speculation). If your name isn't on the list, then out the door with your new gun. The fed gov knows nothing.
The less involvement the fed gov has, the better I feel.
44 AMP's statement is surely a valid one. We need reformation of the laws regarding those that have done their time. But I think we're comparing two different issues here.
My counterpoint is, how do we know without a doubt that information is being deleted. Yes, by law, they have to under 18 USC S922(t). After seeing the abuse of gov power for the past 40 years, I don't trust that notion. They won't allow a public audit. WHY?
The only people in the database are ones that are not legally able to own a firearm. It's just a search of your name (and SS# is my speculation). If your name isn't on the list, then out the door with your new gun. The fed gov knows nothing.
The less involvement the fed gov has, the better I feel.
44 AMP's statement is surely a valid one. We need reformation of the laws regarding those that have done their time. But I think we're comparing two different issues here.
It might be considered two different issues here, but they are interrelated, I think.
Without a "prohibited class" there is little point to a background check.
Which has just put me on another track, where I think I now see another issue with the blind system. To be sure, let's see if I get this essentially correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
The BIDS is, essentially only a list of the names (and identifiers) of prohibited persons. The idea is that only the dealer sees the list, and if you aren't on it, sale proceeds.
And only prohibited people are on the list, so its ok, right? THEY don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, right? Or, do they? Is this a valid legal issue? Is the dealer an "agent of the government"? Or not?
It seems to me that any list (which has to be provided by the govt.) would also have to be provided as a written list (as there is no requirement I know of that an FFL HAS to have computer access).
A written list, which has to be periodically updated, NOT in the hands of government employees with security rules could very easily become "availiable" on the street. And last month's old copy thrown in the trash would be just as valuable.
So, that's ONE point. Another point is how inclusive the list can be. WHAT are the things that get on the prohibited list??
Conviction of listed offenses, or a court order. Is there anything else??
The court order part is particularly troublesome, are we actually at the point where locally issued restraining orders (order of protection, etc.) are or can be entered into a national database?? (as an aside, does a court order, issued by a state judge carry to other states? In other words, if a CA judge issues an order prohibiting you from buying a firearm, is it still a valid order in Maine?)
Are we currently putting this level of information into NICS? Are supposed to be and just doing it inefficiently? I don't know, but I do know our system and the fact that it relies on the people in it, so it is going to have "holes" in it, despite everyone's best efforts.
Is there a legal difference between govt employees (LEO or subcontract) looking at your records, in the course of an investigation (background check) and the gun dealer doing it? YOU are giving permission for YOUR records to be checked, but the dealer has to look at EVERYONE on the list to see if you are there. Might this be a privacy issue??
And if you don't include those people under "temporary" court orders on the list, then a sale to someone who is prohibited at the time, could easily occur.
If we aren't doing that now, then not doing it under the blind system doesn't change anything, and still leaves what could rightly be seen as a large hole in the system's ability to prevent purchase by prohibited persons.
Just a few points, I'm sure others will come up as we discuss this further.
Without a "prohibited class" there is little point to a background check.
Which has just put me on another track, where I think I now see another issue with the blind system. To be sure, let's see if I get this essentially correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
The BIDS is, essentially only a list of the names (and identifiers) of prohibited persons. The idea is that only the dealer sees the list, and if you aren't on it, sale proceeds.
And only prohibited people are on the list, so its ok, right? THEY don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, right? Or, do they? Is this a valid legal issue? Is the dealer an "agent of the government"? Or not?
It seems to me that any list (which has to be provided by the govt.) would also have to be provided as a written list (as there is no requirement I know of that an FFL HAS to have computer access).
A written list, which has to be periodically updated, NOT in the hands of government employees with security rules could very easily become "availiable" on the street. And last month's old copy thrown in the trash would be just as valuable.
So, that's ONE point. Another point is how inclusive the list can be. WHAT are the things that get on the prohibited list??
Conviction of listed offenses, or a court order. Is there anything else??
The court order part is particularly troublesome, are we actually at the point where locally issued restraining orders (order of protection, etc.) are or can be entered into a national database?? (as an aside, does a court order, issued by a state judge carry to other states? In other words, if a CA judge issues an order prohibiting you from buying a firearm, is it still a valid order in Maine?)
Are we currently putting this level of information into NICS? Are supposed to be and just doing it inefficiently? I don't know, but I do know our system and the fact that it relies on the people in it, so it is going to have "holes" in it, despite everyone's best efforts.
Is there a legal difference between govt employees (LEO or subcontract) looking at your records, in the course of an investigation (background check) and the gun dealer doing it? YOU are giving permission for YOUR records to be checked, but the dealer has to look at EVERYONE on the list to see if you are there. Might this be a privacy issue??
And if you don't include those people under "temporary" court orders on the list, then a sale to someone who is prohibited at the time, could easily occur.
If we aren't doing that now, then not doing it under the blind system doesn't change anything, and still leaves what could rightly be seen as a large hole in the system's ability to prevent purchase by prohibited persons.
Just a few points, I'm sure others will come up as we discuss this further.
kilimanjaro
New member
Sounds to me all this concept does is move access to the NICS database further down the chain to the FFL, who would be responsible for making the determination of purchaser status instead of the FBI.
It also would allow for non-compliance by the FFL without oversight, seems to me.
Not a good idea.
If you're opposed to registration, as I am, just destroy the records after a term of years. I've yet to hear just what the public good is for being able to discover that the proverbial firearm found at a crime scene was purchased at Charlie's Hardware Emporium on March 21st, 1973. The question is who was in possession of it on the day of the crime. Even registering firearms to the title owner won't tell you that.
It also would allow for non-compliance by the FFL without oversight, seems to me.
Not a good idea.
If you're opposed to registration, as I am, just destroy the records after a term of years. I've yet to hear just what the public good is for being able to discover that the proverbial firearm found at a crime scene was purchased at Charlie's Hardware Emporium on March 21st, 1973. The question is who was in possession of it on the day of the crime. Even registering firearms to the title owner won't tell you that.
kilimanjaro
New member
And, you could live in a state that does this :
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/training/652012.pdf
Washington state does not register guns, but it does register handgun purchases.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/training/652012.pdf
Washington state does not register guns, but it does register handgun purchases.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Well, 44 AMP, now that you put it that way, it very well is interrelated. Your, and others, assertions make a solid case against BIDS.
I just wish there was a way to get rid of background checks altogether.
I just wish there was a way to get rid of background checks altogether.
My biggest gripe with the current system (other than the everpresent possibility of me being mis-identified by the system) is the fact that the government virtually refuses to prosecute prohibited people who are breaking the law trying to buy a gun through legal channels.
I don't see how you can be denied by NICS without ALSO having lied on the 4473, which I believe is a crime.
When the Vice President, waves this matter off with a joking "we don't have time for that" (I saw the footage, he was directly asked about it, and that was his response), how can the rest of us NOT feel the background check is a burdensome imposition without real benefit??
Personally, I think the same purpose (keeping prohibited persons from buying through a dealer) could be done simply by marking their ID. Driver's license or whatever. Its already a crime to use false ID, do you think a computer check is going to find the false ID?? I think it might not. Isn't it possible that the system simply finds nothing (because it is a false ID) and, finding nothing, approves the sale??
I honestly don't know, but I do wonder if just putting a code on the driver's license might not be much, much cheaper and just as actually effective??
I don't see how you can be denied by NICS without ALSO having lied on the 4473, which I believe is a crime.
When the Vice President, waves this matter off with a joking "we don't have time for that" (I saw the footage, he was directly asked about it, and that was his response), how can the rest of us NOT feel the background check is a burdensome imposition without real benefit??
Personally, I think the same purpose (keeping prohibited persons from buying through a dealer) could be done simply by marking their ID. Driver's license or whatever. Its already a crime to use false ID, do you think a computer check is going to find the false ID?? I think it might not. Isn't it possible that the system simply finds nothing (because it is a false ID) and, finding nothing, approves the sale??
I honestly don't know, but I do wonder if just putting a code on the driver's license might not be much, much cheaper and just as actually effective??
Hunter Customs
New member
Here's one for ya, my brother purchased a handgun from me, called NICS the sale was approved that fast.
Called in a sale of a long gun for him the sale was delayed for the full three days.
This happened on three long guns so I ask NICS what he could do to correct the problem, I was told there's nothing he could do because he was not denied.
Personally I see no purpose in the checks, they already proved they do not stop someone that's determined to kill someone.
It does not even stop a prohibited person from acquiring a gun in Missouri, prohibited people can go to any farm auction in Missouri that has guns for sale and purchase a gun no paper work at all.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
Called in a sale of a long gun for him the sale was delayed for the full three days.
This happened on three long guns so I ask NICS what he could do to correct the problem, I was told there's nothing he could do because he was not denied.
Personally I see no purpose in the checks, they already proved they do not stop someone that's determined to kill someone.
It does not even stop a prohibited person from acquiring a gun in Missouri, prohibited people can go to any farm auction in Missouri that has guns for sale and purchase a gun no paper work at all.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
I ask NICS what he could do to correct the problem, I was told there's nothing he could do because he was not denied.
You should talk to someone else at NICS, or rather HE should. A few years ago friend of mine had a delay a couple times, (hours not days) and he went through channels about it. Turned out his file was "flagged", and that was all the operator could tell, they had to get the supervisor to check why it was flagged.
It was flagged because he had a Q level clearance! Apparently, they put a "this is a good guy" note or something on his file, as it hasn't happened since.
dogtown tom
New member
As Hunter Customs said, NICS will not tell ANYONE the reasons for a delay. They will not tell the dealer the reason for a denial either. Yhis is part of the Federal Brady Law.44 AMPQuote:
I ask NICS what he could do to correct the problem, I was told there's nothing he could do because he was not denied.
You should talk to someone else at NICS, or rather HE should.
He's pulling your leg.A few years ago friend of mine had a delay a couple times, (hours not days) and he went through channels about it. Turned out his file was "flagged", and that was all the operator could tell, they had to get the supervisor to check why it was flagged.
Q level clearance means absolutely nothing. When someone gets a NICS delay, it just means the FBI needs additional time to research the buyers name and records.It was flagged because he had a Q level clearance! Apparently, they put a "this is a good guy" note or something on his file, as it hasn't happened since.
Shane - sorry I took so long to get back to this.Hal, I get your point about BIDS having to retain a database and NICS required to destroy/delete the info.
My counterpoint is, how do we know without a doubt that information is being deleted.
Point is with a relational database & it's management system, it doesn't matter if information is deleted or not - as long as normal standard best practices are followed.
Primary one being - - proper backups.
It's not only possible that with NICS, point in time back/restore methods are being done, since that's the defacto standard best practice with not only Microsoft SQL, but Oracle and DB2 also. Those are the three that a government agency would use.
I don't believe any of the open source database engines are FIPS compliant (Federal Information Processing).
Anyhow it's difficult to explain & still not get so detailed it bores one to tears with more detail about a database engine than you want to know.
The main point is - - since the entire database can be recreated at any point in it's entire existence, then it makes no difference what's deleted at allor even when it's deleted.
If you bought a gun on December 23rd, 2004 @ 4:30 PM and it was called into NICS - - all anyone has to do is get out the backups and restore the database to December 23rd or December 24th - any time after the NICS call at 4:30 on the 23rd and before 4:30 on the 24th.
Since it's not live data, there's no violation.