Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms

a reply to: Dfairlite

Aren't the federal background check records supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours of the check for persons that pass the check?
If the record is destroyed how is a "registry" maintained?
I am confused.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Alleged yes. We will find out in the investigation if it was actually him. We will see.

I'll leave that determination to professionals.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Aren't the federal background check records supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours of the check for persons that pass the check?

No. They're retained. At least, according to janet reno they are. Indefinitely.

a reply to: Dfairlite

They are retained by the gun store not by the feds.
If the feds want access they have to get a warrant then go through the manufacturer to the store.
It is not like the feds have 24/7 on demand registry.

The truth in these discussions is important.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the truth is important, according to janet reno the computer that does the check is incapable (lol) of deleting a record.

a reply to: shooterbrody

To make things even more fun it would seem the NICS system backs up to the NCIC system which not only has a much longer data retention policy, but it's connected to international organizations meant to track criminals. So even if we have data destruction policies here, our backups are internationalized and those countries may not have any policy that makes them respect our data retention/destruction requests or laws. So the only thing really safeguarding against this being a full fledged registry is the fact that it's extremely incomplete.

It’s not a loss of freedoms you should worry about; Freedom is not under daily assault.

It’s your Liberty you’re losing, it’s Liberty that’s endangered.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I see what you did there. Nice Ilhan!

It's funny how for many, it's an all or nothing gambit. Apparently there is no middle ground. The only option is our current situation, and to do anything else is "giving up freedoms."

There actually can be concessions you know. People can still have guns, but they can be SO much better vetted than they are now. Obviously there is a huge gaping hole between who should have guns, and who is getting access to guns.

Wait.. let me guess: "slippery slope, start giving in to some concessions, and it will just continue!"

Well, doing nothing will yield exactly what we are getting now. It's ironic that one or two people dying by the hands of an illegal alien means we should INSTANTLY build a 70+ billion dollar wall, because even 1 death is worth saving. BUT.. with guns, there are no limits to the number of innocents killed that will change people's mind that anything should be done.

a reply to: Dfairlite

so the doj is not following the law?
the law states the checks are to be destroyed? true or not?

originally posted by: fleabit
It's funny how for many, it's an all or nothing gambit. Apparently there is no middle ground. The only option is our current situation, and to do anything else is "giving up freedoms."

There actually can be concessions you know.

What other freedoms and rights, would you apply this train of thought to ? Words can ruin lives, would you apply that train of thought to the first amendment ?

a reply to: shooterbrody

so the doj is not following the law?

Correct.

the law states the checks are to be destroyed? true or not?

True.

a reply to: Dfairlite

wasn't there a court case about this in which the ruling stated portions of the checks could be retained for six months for "audit purposes"(to ensure the checks WERE NOT BEING USED AS A REGISTRY) but then had to be destroyed?
and the portions retained did not include the name on the check or the gun type or amount?

seems I read that somewhere......

which would still require leos to get a warrant and go through the manufacturer to find the store and then get the info from the store?

a reply to: fleabit

There actually can be concessions you know. People can still have guns, but they can be SO much better vetted than they are now.

The ACLU disagrees.

Obviously there is a huge gaping hole between who should have guns, and who is getting access to guns.

It's actually not that big of a hole. Consider that there are more guns than people in the US.

Well, doing nothing will yield exactly what we are getting now.

Will it though? I mean, these shootings are a recent phenomenon while the 2nd amendment has been around since the 18th century.

It's ironic that one or two people dying by the hands of an illegal alien means we should INSTANTLY build a 70+ billion dollar wall, because even 1 death is worth saving.

That's not why we need a wall. We need a wall to enforce our current immigration law.

with guns, there are no limits to the number of innocents killed that will change people's mind that anything should be done.

The problem is, the anti-gun lobby isn't interested in saving lives. If they were, we'd hear a whole lot more about mental health and societal morals that need to change. Instead we just hear that it's the weapons fault and therefore law abiding citizens must be subjected to more restrictions.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, but again, the DoJ has testified to congress that they're not following the law, so it doesn't really matter what the law says. Furthermore, the loopholes I pointed out in data retention make the laws about destroying the data in NICS all but irrelevant.

a reply to: Dfairlite

so even after 2000 with the "lost" case you assert the doj is not following the law?
www.fbi.gov...

The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.

guess the fbi just outright lies to the public on their website?

It can be summer up as such they force laws they pass onto the citizens. If you don't follow the laws they pass they take you from your family with force if need be. They then lock you away with others for whatever amount of time they seem fit for not following laws they pass. There should be national votes on certain laws like Obama care or the gun free cities. Just my 2 cents

a reply to: shooterbrody

so even after 2000 with the "lost" case you assert the doj is not following the law?

Yes. And even if I was wrong about that, they use loopholes to get around the law.

guess the fbi just outright lies to the public on their website?

Definitely. I mean, they do have a whole page about 9/11 that I'm sure is inaccurate. Do you expect them to spell it out in big bold letters that they're not following the law or do you expect them to just post the law inferring that they follow it?

originally posted by: fleabit
It's funny how for many, it's an all or nothing gambit. Apparently there is no middle ground. The only option is our current situation, and to do anything else is "giving up freedoms."

There actually can be concessions you know. People can still have guns, but they can be SO much better vetted than they are now. Obviously there is a huge gaping hole between who should have guns, and who is getting access to guns.

Wait.. let me guess: "slippery slope, start giving in to some concessions, and it will just continue!"

Well, doing nothing will yield exactly what we are getting now. It's ironic that one or two people dying by the hands of an illegal alien means we should INSTANTLY build a 70+ billion dollar wall, because even 1 death is worth saving. BUT.. with guns, there are no limits to the number of innocents killed that will change people's mind that anything should be done.

Well when BGs buy guns legally, and BadGuys (BG) register guns and BGs follow laws, I'll think about it.

But there is no law limiting MY freedoms, my right to live, my right to defend myself with whatever it takes that i'm willing to sign up for.

Explain how giving up freedom and maybe saving even one person from being shot (given the laws of average) is worth it. I and my loved ones are far more important than any alleged or theoretical 'stranger' i jeopardy. Why you and yours are not, I'll leave up to you to understand because it's illogical.

That was a scrupulous thing for the founding fathers to say as they all held land with wealth attached to their names!

That being said the average Joe just wants to make a life for his-her family...

Thus....until a foreign entity encroaches on the U.S


Will be business as usual and whatever it takes...