Yeah, the DCM. But ya know Boom, (and I do agree with you on SUPPORT) you probably heard of "Sportsmens Guide" I think...Mail order rag...well, for $45 they sent me (about the same time) an old Mauser carbine (couple in fact) that shoots straight as all getup scopeless at 100 yards. and all they wanted was $$$...no questions asked. Anyway, I'm backing out of this slowly......turning around....and run like the wind.......
Those guns were considered antiques, by federal law. They are not regulated and required no Federal Form 4473. I think the cutoff date was around 1898. Any firearm manufactured after that cannot be sent mailorder from dealer to individual, yet the Government that you are so paranoid of made an exception and sent you a modern rifle direct to you, with nothing more than your finger prints as proof of your good standing in society.<br /><br />Come on Robby! Git mit der program. The way you express your stand now, you are of the same influence on the subject as PW, Rolmops, WillyBright and theriver. Now you wouldn't want to be counted amongst the likes of them, would ya.
This is comparing apples to oranges,smoking in public is a privilege,fire arm ownership is a right that is guaranted by the 2nd admendment,as far as the FBI knowing who owns guns,every time a citizen buys a registered gun,your name goes on a list.not joining the NRA will not prevent that,the NRA is there for the law biding citizen and iam thankful they are.
pjc and jt57!!! You'll be happy to hear you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! I REPEAT******WRONG*****
<br /><br />The BATF is prohibited by law from keeping a database of gun owners. As the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment stands, any federal restriction of ownership of legal firearms by legal citizens is prohibited and thereby any database to record that ownership is also prohibited. <br /><br />Even under Clinton, the liberal elements that pack the federal beauracracies (batf specifically here) tried their best to begin to compile a database from the 4473 forms that they had in there possesion. They had the sympathy, of course, of the Clintons and the PW's. This would have required a fair amount of money to do this. Congress, mind you, stepped in and said "uh, uh, you ain't going to do that. You have no mandate in law to do so. And just to be sure that you do not try to sneak around and do it anyway, we are going to defund you (the BATF) by a sufficient amount so that you do not have the funds to do it." THIS IS THE FACT OF IT. And it was only caught and congresses nose held to the fire BECAUSE OF THE NRA!!!!<br /><br />Here is the way the record keeping works. You buy a handgun from a dealer. They are required to fill out a LOCAL jurisdiction form that can be used to check your eligibility to own a handgun. There is a database at the local level ONLY. It is not tied in, in any way to a non-existant Federal data base. <br /><br />You also fill out a federal 4473 form for both handgun and longgun purchases. This form stays with the Firearm Dealer. There is no database of any kind created from these forms. If a Dealer goes out of business, these forms are forwarded to a federal depository for safekeeping, under the dealers name. It is from these retained forms that the BATF wanted to begin to create a Database, but were prohibited from doing so by Congress.<br /><br />Now you say, what is the point of either the dealer or the BATF retaining these 4473 forms?<br />If a crime is committed and the firearm retrieved, Law enforcement takes the serial number of the gun and goes to the Manufacturer. The manufacturer tells law enforcement what dealer or distributor purchased the firearm. Once the dealer is identified, then the appropriate law enforcement agency actually has to go to the dealer who then produces the 4473 to show who bought the gun. The trace goes on from there. If the dealer is no longer in business then the logs and forms of that dealer can simply be accessed at the BATF repository.<br /><br />****Again, THERE IS NO FIREARMS OWNERSHIP DATABASE other than for handguns only, at the local county or city level.
They're just guilt ridden, dogsdad. They're just lookin for excuses to justify their lack of cajones!
or at least they just didn't understand how the record keeping worked. After my post, they won't be able to use those excuses anymore.
Unfortunately, the nations of our beloved Commonwealth Cousins were not born in the forge of conflict, as was ours. They have no national experience or fire in there bellies for the the concept of the inalienable right to personal firearms. But none the less that does not make the broad historical concept of it any less valid. Let's just be sure that we do not get so far distant that we adopt their same malaise. What was valid, in this instance, in 1789, is no less valid today. And that my friends was the genius of our national birth and the wisdom of those who were responsible for it.
In Australia's case you'd be right.<br /><br />As we were founded as a convict colony by the Poms they weren't going to let us get our hands on any guns, nor did they want to repeat the experience of colonials asserting a right to bear arms about a dozen years after you'd shown them where that can lead.<br /><br />We evolved our nation in a gentler manner from convict colony to separate colonies to federation of the colonies as states within our nation without any armed conflict among ourselves or with England, or anyone else. <br /><br />During the same period you had your devastating Civil War which has no parallel here. You also had your Frontier Wars which also don't have any real parallel here as our settlers and military forces didn't face anything like the organised opposition you had from indigenous peoples. Then there were various other military episodes like your wars with the Spanish through Mexico and the early 19th century wars with the British through Canada. The net result was, unlike here, a long period of intermittent military conflict on your soil after Independence which had to make citizens aware of the need to defend themselves.<br /><br />Here, government tended to follow settlers reasonably soon so that we came to rely on police forces and government for order and defence, although there are thousands of examples of how people were badly served by drunks and fools in those offices.
