On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:12:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:20:26 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I just think there should be a
chain of custody for something like a firearm that, if it falls into the
wrong hands could be used for purposes the original owner never
envisioned.

Can you tell us what you think that would accomplish preventing firearm deaths? Or maybe just clear up what that sentence was supposed to mean. :-)



Sure.

You buy a gun from a FFL. A record of the sale is kept that identifies
you as the purchaser and owner. That is required now by federal law.

Five years later you decide to sell the gun to a friend. It's a private
sale so no background check is required and no record of the transaction
is required. You might do an informal bill of sale but there is no
record of the transaction anywhere else.

2 years later your friend sells it to someone else. Again, no
background check and no record kept of the transaction.

That person happens to be a criminal. He holds up a store, shoots the
proprietor killing him, drops the gun in his haste to escape and it's
found by the police.

The police check the serial number with the manufacturer. It tracks
that gun to the FFL who sold it to you. They check the FFL records.
Says you are the owner of that gun.

So what? I have a transfer document, and the third person down the
line, Toad, sold the gun for $2000 cash and reported it stolen.

That's one potential result. The other is that the fact that without
any form of record keeping (chain of custody) the gun can quickly
become completely untraceable.

Keeping records of each transfer doesn't mean it will necessarily
prevent any crimes or deaths but it makes it more difficult for the
criminally minded to get a gun and may make it possible to determine who
committed the crime. Won't solve things overnight but in time it will
reduce the number of untraceable firearms available.

Wow. Such assumptions.