Feds Illegally Maintain Registry Of Firearm Owners; Media Fails To Report It

[Lucille]

Oh look. The paranoid lunatic nutjobs were right again.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-04/feds-illegally-maintain-registry-firearm-owners-media-fails-report-it


To be very clear, the NICS system is retaining records of legal purchases, it is sharing that information with other agencies, it is retaining and sharing information containing enough detail to match the purchaser to a government created list, and now the US government is publicizing the fact that it is doing this even though it is a violation of federal law.

This comes at a time when the government is making another power-grab for firearms. If we can’t trust the government to obey its own laws, how can we trust them with more power? This revelation leaves those seeking sensible reform to a shoddy gun control system in the lurch. It has become clear the only way to avoid having your firearms purchases tracked and registered by the federal government is to exploit the “gun show loophole” so many want to close.

A list of news outlets parroted the government’s release of information without questioning where the data came from and the legality of it be recording. Whether you agree with the concept of gun registration or not, the failure to report the dubious origin of the data demonstrates either poor journalism or complicity in pushing a government agenda. Those outlets include: The Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, the New York Daily News, CBS, and dozens of others.

[TheTexan]

But,

does it make us safer?

[Anti Federalist]

Shocked, shocked I am.

The timing on this is perfect.

Gun toting "terruhists" shoot up the joint in gun free Kalifornia, and the House is ready to pass "no fly- no guns" laws.

[Matt Collins]

I wouldn't doubt they are retaining NICS information, but is there any actual evidence of this?

[Anti Federalist]

I wouldn't doubt they are retaining NICS information, but is there any actual evidence of this?

Even more disturbing is that to make the matches, the government must retain records on everyone, or at least have every purchase in a supposedly confidential system scanned. That data is being shared within the government, contrary to federal law. When the FBI released its figures, it went as far as saying that 2,000 known or suspected terrorists bought a pistol, sports rifle, or assault weapon. This means they are collecting information about the types of purchases as well. Just matching a name to a list would not be enough to come up with accurate data. This means the NICS program, which was promised to be free from other agencies, is sharing personal data such as name, date of birth, address, and social security number.

To be very clear, the NICS system is retaining records of legal purchases, it is sharing that information with other agencies, it is retaining and sharing information containing enough detail to match the purchaser to a government created list, and now the US government is publicizing the fact that it is doing this even though it is a violation of federal law.

[TheTexan]

To be very clear, the NICS system is retaining records of legal purchases, it is sharing that information with other agencies, it is retaining and sharing information containing enough detail to match the purchaser to a government created list, and now the US government is publicizing the fact that it is doing this even though it is a violation of federal law.

How do we know they got the information from NICS?

They may have gotten the information from reading their text messages, in which case it would be perfectly legal!

[nobody's_hero]

Shocked, shocked I am.

The timing on this is perfect.

Gun toting "terruhists" shoot up the joint in gun free Kalifornia, and the House is ready to pass "no fly- no guns" laws.

At least if they put me on a no-fly list, I had, have, and will have no intention of flying anyway.

Giving up my firearms would be a bit tougher to circumvent.

[Peace&Freedom]

Even more disturbing is that to make the matches, the government must retain records on everyone, or at least have every purchase in a supposedly confidential system scanned. That data is being shared within the government, contrary to federal law. When the FBI released its figures, it went as far as saying that 2,000 known or suspected terrorists bought a pistol, sports rifle, or assault weapon. This means they are collecting information about the types of purchases as well. Just matching a name to a list would not be enough to come up with accurate data. This means the NICS program, which was promised to be free from other agencies, is sharing personal data such as name, date of birth, address, and social security number.

To be very clear, the NICS system is retaining records of legal purchases, it is sharing that information with other agencies, it is retaining and sharing information containing enough detail to match the purchaser to a government created list, and now the US government is publicizing the fact that it is doing this even though it is a violation of federal law.

1) Always and forever, there is no such thing as an unshared government database. This is also why the grabbers are so upset over the "gun show loophole"---oh no, a sale is not in our database, we can't track and control everybody, oh my! Not being in a database means they can't document you've violated a law, when (not if) they later find a way to demand that the guns be turned in, and you refuse to.

2) Always and forever, when the control freaks say "common sense" gun legislation now, they mean "camel's nose" for mandatory bans, turn-ins or gun confiscation later. The whole point is to increasingly criminalize gun ownership en masse, by constantly expanding the class of people who are "determined" by bureaucrats to be disqualified from having one.

3) Always and forever, we need to counter the "common sense" rhetoric meme with "PROVE IT." As in "there are already hundreds of gun control laws on the books, so aren't all the common sense restrictions already covered?" Or, "are you saying yours are the first "common sense" laws to be proposed? And is there ANY end point to the number of "common sense" gun laws you want to add?"

Or how about, "these laws are all unconstitutional, because they infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, whereas the second amendment plainly says this right shall NOT be infringed. The appropriate way to resolve this conflict, according to the constitution, is through the amendment process, via adding language that permits such restrictions. So if these new proposed laws really are "common sense" measures that everybody agrees on, there should be no problem passing them via constitutional amendment. And if the amendment doesn't pass, that means they weren't common sense, right?"

[TheNewYorker]

As long as we are safer it's all that matters. Whenever I buy a new firearm, I make sure to send a letter to my local police department to let them know what I bought and where in the house I keep it.

Officer safety is even more critical than our own. If the police are not safe, who is going to protect us and our safety?

[Working Poor]

Well at least there is one data base I am not on as I don't own a gun.

[brushfire]

Well at least there is one data base I am not on as I don't own a gun.

Meeee Neeeder...

[Peace&Freedom]

As long as we are safer it's all that matters. Whenever I buy a new firearm, I make sure to send a letter to my local police department to let them know what I bought and where in the house I keep it.

Officer safety is even more critical than our own. If the police are not safe, who is going to protect us and our safety?

Safety is the responsibility of We the People first and foremost, aspects of maintaining the safety are delegated to the police at the consent of the governed. What are you prepared to say or write to the cops when they announce they must grab your firearms, or that you must turn them in? How about, "from my cold dead hands." Or the new one: "When they come for my guns, they'll get the ammo first."

[TheTexan]

What are you prepared to say or write to the cops when they announce they must grab your firearms

"Here you go, and here's the one the wife was planning on hiding under the mattress. She's right over there in the next room"

[Lucille]

http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2015/12/09/wednesday-links-35/


New York begins to crack down (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/12/and-so-it-begins-governor-cuomo-feels.html) on resisters of the so-called SAFE Act. And where did they get those 4473s, anyhow?

Where indeed? Don't expect the holophobic statist lapdogs in the media to bring it up.


Two months ago, the State of New York began to enforce, in little baby steps, the SAFE Act.

Today, we have this announcement posted on AR15dotCom:


"The New York State Police have launched an investigation into alleged SAFE Act violations and appear to have possession or copies of 4473s showing who purchased firearms. Consider speaking with a lawyer if contacted."

Just exactly where and how the NYSP got hold of 4473s is an interesting question. They either got them from ATF industry operations inspectors or directly from cooperating quisling gun sellers. In any case, it is obvious that the Supreme Court refusal to hear the Chicago case is viewed as a green light to tyrannical gun raids.


Update post from the guy whose pump action gun the New York State Police demanded to see to determine if they could charge someone with a safe act violation after they got all the 4473 of a closed gun shop and combed through them fishing for safe act violations

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_9/592371_I_fent___now_with_moar_NYSP__UnSAFE_ACT__an d_4473_s_.html

So
1 state cops have 4473s or access to the info
2 upstate cops are demanding to even see pump action guns like the crossfire as they cluelessly troll for safe act arrests
3 was not an " add on" or "illegal gun"