IAFIS and now NGI
 

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS,
is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to
requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and
federal partners—and our own investigators—solve and prevent crime and
catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint
search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage,
and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

What is included in IAFIS: Not only fingerprints, but corresponding
criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical
characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; and
aliases. The system also includes civil fingerprints, mostly of
individuals who have served or are serving in the U.S. military or have
been or are employed by the federal government. The fingerprints and
criminal history information are submitted voluntarily by state, local,
and federal law enforcement agencies.

How big it is: IAFIS is the largest criminal fingerprint database in the
world, housing the fingerprints and criminal histories for more than 70
million subjects in the criminal master file, along with more than 34
million civil prints. Included in our criminal database are fingerprints
from 73,000 known and suspected terrorists processed by the U.S. or by
international law enforcement agencies who work with us."

IAFIS was launched in 1999. It's replacement, NGI became fully
operational in 2014.

Wow. Over a 100 million fingerprints and records on file and instantly
available to federal, state and local law enforcement. So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System,

I think that if they actually had a good computerized fingerprint
system, it might call into question the infallibility of fingerprints.
I wonder how many matches they will have with different people and how
many points match if they did a global search of the database.
There are a number of cases where "experts" have positively matched
fingerprints and then found out they were wrong. This is really more
of an art than a science and there is a lot of opinion in the
identifications. The examiner decides which points match, which don't
and which are inconclusive.

If this does get melded with a number of other biometric parameters it
would be much more useful but fingerprints alone are usually only
valuable when you have the print and an otherwise implicated suspect.
The first step might be to get better samples of everyone's
fingerprints because those smudgy cards they have now are far from
perfect. That is from the fingerprint guy at my sheriffs office. He
said that when they actually submit these to the FBI for something,
about half of them are rejected.

The up side of the computer is that it takes a lot of the "art" out of
this discipline and adds more impartial science. The computer will not
look at them with an opinion in mind.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System,

I think that if they actually had a good computerized fingerprint
system, it might call into question the infallibility of fingerprints.
I wonder how many matches they will have with different people and how
many points match if they did a global search of the database.
There are a number of cases where "experts" have positively matched
fingerprints and then found out they were wrong. This is really more
of an art than a science and there is a lot of opinion in the
identifications. The examiner decides which points match, which don't
and which are inconclusive.

A computer does it, at least initially. Inquiry results are
almost instantaneous. They don't have a bunch of FBI examiners looking
through books anymore. :-)


If this does get melded with a number of other biometric parameters it
would be much more useful but fingerprints alone are usually only
valuable when you have the print and an otherwise implicated suspect.
The first step might be to get better samples of everyone's
fingerprints because those smudgy cards they have now are far from
perfect. That is from the fingerprint guy at my sheriffs office. He
said that when they actually submit these to the FBI for something,
about half of them are rejected.

The most recent ones I've had done were done digitally, not with ink.
Up here and until about a year or so ago, your digital fingerprint was
taken every time you purchased a gun from an FFL. It was transmitted
electronically at the gun shop while you waited and the approval of the
sale was almost immediate. The purpose was to ensure it was really
*you* and that you had an active and current gun permit ... which also
means you had had a background check. The state replaced this system
with a "pin" number assigned to you. You have to provide it as well as
present your gun permit in order to purchase a firearm.


The up side of the computer is that it takes a lot of the "art" out of
this discipline and adds more impartial science. The computer will not
look at them with an opinion in mind.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS,
is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to
requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and
federal partners—and our own investigators—solve and prevent crime and
catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint
search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage,
and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

What is included in IAFIS: Not only fingerprints, but corresponding
criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical
characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; and
aliases. The system also includes civil fingerprints, mostly of
individuals who have served or are serving in the U.S. military or have
been or are employed by the federal government. The fingerprints and
criminal history information are submitted voluntarily by state, local,
and federal law enforcement agencies.

How big it is: IAFIS is the largest criminal fingerprint database in the
world, housing the fingerprints and criminal histories for more than 70
million subjects in the criminal master file, along with more than 34
million civil prints. Included in our criminal database are fingerprints
from 73,000 known and suspected terrorists processed by the U.S. or by
international law enforcement agencies who work with us."

IAFIS was launched in 1999. It's replacement, NGI became fully
operational in 2014.

Wow. Over a 100 million fingerprints and records on file and instantly
available to federal, state and local law enforcement. So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

I've not heard anyone say a gun registry as described was not technically feasible.
Was that someone here? The question seemed to be 'was it worthwhile'? Hell, I figure
it's about as worthwhile as a registry of model airplanes. My 10 year old grandson is
now registered. What a joke.

I wonder if IAFIS also includes all the former military whose fingerprints reside
somewhere. Seems like 70 million would be a small number if that's the case.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 12:58 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS,
is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to
requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and
federal partners—and our own investigators—solve and prevent crime and
catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint
search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage,
and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

What is included in IAFIS: Not only fingerprints, but corresponding
criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical
characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; and
aliases. The system also includes civil fingerprints, mostly of
individuals who have served or are serving in the U.S. military or have
been or are employed by the federal government. The fingerprints and
criminal history information are submitted voluntarily by state, local,
and federal law enforcement agencies.

How big it is: IAFIS is the largest criminal fingerprint database in the
world, housing the fingerprints and criminal histories for more than 70
million subjects in the criminal master file, along with more than 34
million civil prints. Included in our criminal database are fingerprints
from 73,000 known and suspected terrorists processed by the U.S. or by
international law enforcement agencies who work with us."

IAFIS was launched in 1999. It's replacement, NGI became fully
operational in 2014.

Wow. Over a 100 million fingerprints and records on file and instantly
available to federal, state and local law enforcement. So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

I've not heard anyone say a gun registry as described was not technically feasible.
Was that someone here? The question seemed to be 'was it worthwhile'? Hell, I figure
it's about as worthwhile as a registry of model airplanes. My 10 year old grandson is
now registered. What a joke.

I wonder if IAFIS also includes all the former military whose fingerprints reside
somewhere. Seems like 70 million would be a small number if that's the case.


According to the website I got the info from, yes, it does. Not sure
when it started though. The IADIS system was put in place in 1999.
Could be that our fingerprint records are not included.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

===

It would be very difficult. What would be easy however is to turn a
lot of people into criminals just like prohibition and the war on
drugs. Prohibition came about because of a concerted effort by a lot
of well intentioned but misguided individuals, same with the war on
drugs. Both had (have) unintended consequences far beyond what was
originally envisioned. I firmy believe that increased gun legislation
would end up the same way. Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

===

It would be very difficult. What would be easy however is to turn a
lot of people into criminals just like prohibition and the war on
drugs. Prohibition came about because of a concerted effort by a lot
of well intentioned but misguided individuals, same with the war on
drugs. Both had (have) unintended consequences far beyond what was
originally envisioned. I firmy believe that increased gun legislation
would end up the same way. Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.



If you recall that was tried with boats years ago as part of a "luxury"
tax. Didn't last long. In fact, Congress passed it in 1991 and Bush
41 signed it into law. It was canned two years later.

Wow. A boating reference.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:21:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System,

I think that if they actually had a good computerized fingerprint
system, it might call into question the infallibility of fingerprints.
I wonder how many matches they will have with different people and how
many points match if they did a global search of the database.
There are a number of cases where "experts" have positively matched
fingerprints and then found out they were wrong. This is really more
of an art than a science and there is a lot of opinion in the
identifications. The examiner decides which points match, which don't
and which are inconclusive.

A computer does it, at least initially. Inquiry results are
almost instantaneous. They don't have a bunch of FBI examiners looking
through books anymore. :-)



The question then is how good is the computer and how many hits do
they get on a partial set of prints?

If this does get melded with a number of other biometric parameters it
would be much more useful but fingerprints alone are usually only
valuable when you have the print and an otherwise implicated suspect.
The first step might be to get better samples of everyone's
fingerprints because those smudgy cards they have now are far from
perfect. That is from the fingerprint guy at my sheriffs office. He
said that when they actually submit these to the FBI for something,
about half of them are rejected.

The most recent ones I've had done were done digitally, not with ink.
Up here and until about a year or so ago, your digital fingerprint was
taken every time you purchased a gun from an FFL. It was transmitted
electronically at the gun shop while you waited and the approval of the
sale was almost immediate. The purpose was to ensure it was really
*you* and that you had an active and current gun permit ... which also
means you had had a background check. The state replaced this system
with a "pin" number assigned to you. You have to provide it as well as
present your gun permit in order to purchase a firearm.



Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

I think it will only be taxes

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 4:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.

Voters make mistakes occasionally.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 7:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:21:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System,

I think that if they actually had a good computerized fingerprint
system, it might call into question the infallibility of fingerprints.
I wonder how many matches they will have with different people and how
many points match if they did a global search of the database.
There are a number of cases where "experts" have positively matched
fingerprints and then found out they were wrong. This is really more
of an art than a science and there is a lot of opinion in the
identifications. The examiner decides which points match, which don't
and which are inconclusive.

A computer does it, at least initially. Inquiry results are
almost instantaneous. They don't have a bunch of FBI examiners looking
through books anymore. :-)



The question then is how good is the computer and how many hits do
they get on a partial set of prints?

If this does get melded with a number of other biometric parameters it
would be much more useful but fingerprints alone are usually only
valuable when you have the print and an otherwise implicated suspect.
The first step might be to get better samples of everyone's
fingerprints because those smudgy cards they have now are far from
perfect. That is from the fingerprint guy at my sheriffs office. He
said that when they actually submit these to the FBI for something,
about half of them are rejected.

The most recent ones I've had done were done digitally, not with ink.
Up here and until about a year or so ago, your digital fingerprint was
taken every time you purchased a gun from an FFL. It was transmitted
electronically at the gun shop while you waited and the approval of the
sale was almost immediate. The purpose was to ensure it was really
*you* and that you had an active and current gun permit ... which also
means you had had a background check. The state replaced this system
with a "pin" number assigned to you. You have to provide it as well as
present your gun permit in order to purchase a firearm.



Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"


Maybe you shouldn't sandpaper your fingertips. ;-)

IAFIS and now NGI
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:37:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I wonder if IAFIS also includes all the former military whose fingerprints reside
somewhere. Seems like 70 million would be a small number if that's the case.


According to the website I got the info from, yes, it does. Not sure
when it started though. The IADIS system was put in place in 1999.
Could be that our fingerprint records are not included.



That gets back to those smudgy cards I was talking about then.
I am sure that is all they have on me and I have been fingerprinted a
lot.
I still think fingerprints are an archaic art form. These days we have
the ability to use DNA in a similar fashion and it seems to be a far
better ID technology.
Unfortunately it may be too good. You can find out too much from DNA
and privacy people are concerned.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:24:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

It is certainly the fear they use to enforce it but I doubt there are
very many guns that actually get traced unless a president gets shot.
It is like that Maryland deal where they are keeping a fired casing
from every gun sold. Has that ever caught a criminal?
I think there is just a warehouse somewhere outside of Baltimore with
a half a ton of useless once fired brass

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:33:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.



If you recall that was tried with boats years ago as part of a "luxury"
tax. Didn't last long. In fact, Congress passed it in 1991 and Bush
41 signed it into law. It was canned two years later.

Wow. A boating reference.

Two in one night. I am amazed.

I do think the luxury tax is not comparable tho because it was
defeated because it killed jobs.
A registration tax would be seen like the myriad of other "sin taxes"
and we already got used to paying registration taxes on the other
things we register (houses, cars, boats and now even toys.)

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:02:30 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 7:39 PM, wrote:

Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"


Maybe you shouldn't sandpaper your fingertips. ;-)

Hole saw

It is a lot better now tho but my fingerprint will never be the same.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:52:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI



The thing is you can legally buy the parts you worry about blowing up
without any paperwork or restrictions at all. The serialized part can
just be the piece that holds the trigger in a lot of designs. An
enterprising person could figure out how to make some very capable
guns with minimal actual machining, just using off the shelf parts.
I know a guy (the same guy who showed me the PVC silencer) who was
making a small 9mm sub machine gun from parts with a minimal amount of
actual machining. I got away from there because I look horrible in
orange ;-)

I never heard how it turned out.

I am still surprised at how many people who are selling "almost ready"
AR lowers. Everything else in an AR is just a "part". I would worry
more about that than most of the stuff we are talking about here.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:58:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:

That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.


It is not just the republicans. Do you think Bernie and Hillary are
the best the left could come up with?
We have created such a hostile political environment, I doubt anyone
who is not crazy would even think about running.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/9/2016 1:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.


His/her position on gun laws is certainly not the only criteria by which
a politician is judged.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/9/2016 1:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:02:30 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 7:39 PM, wrote:

Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"


Maybe you shouldn't sandpaper your fingertips. ;-)

Hole saw

It is a lot better now tho but my fingerprint will never be the same.



Just think of what you can get away with now. BTW, I know a guy
who learned not to get a finger too close to a running fan belt pulley.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/8/2016 11:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those
records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and
sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good.
Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the
dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI




Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:22:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 1:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.


His/her position on gun laws is certainly not the only criteria by which
a politician is judged.

Nope, you also have abortion and gays.
Beyond that they all seem to blur into a version of the Bushes. They
may campaign differently but once they get into office they conform.

The only real exceptions this time are Trump and Sanders and they are
both scary in their own right.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:49:56 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those
records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and
sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good.
Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the
dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI




Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

IAFIS and now NGI
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.






Bovine excrement. The Tea Party may help push some right leaning
candidates, but on the Democrat side, we have a Socialist, a dishonest,
incompetent women and a very few others. You have Koch, et. Al. On the
right, and Soros, et. Al. on the left. Wall Street and banks mostly
running this country. They give us pretty much the same candidates all the
time. Show me the money.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 14:09:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.

Another good argument against meaningless laws.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.

IAFIS and now NGI
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:29:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.


===

The more difficult you make it to legally buy and sell guns, the more
you will accelerate the already budding "build your own gun" movement.
It's easier than you might think and the result can be very credible,
and totally untracable.