I went through the background check process last night. It took over an hour.

[geckosfeet]

I think you know why I went through the process but the point of this post is to describe the process as it exists in a relatively small shop in the state of MA. I seek merely to inform.

After inspecting the merchandise I informed the sales clerk on my decision to purchase and he started the initial store sales paperwork. About 15 minutes there. Then I was asked to fill out the federal form, ATF 4473-1.

In this store ATF 4473-1 is filled out online. This is not the case in all stores. Some have you fill out a paper form. This store has two small laptops anchored to a table in front of the cash register (one cash register) so that they can have two people filling out the form at the same time.

In case you have never had the opportunity to see ATF 4473-1 this is a link to a pdf of the current form. If you any interest in the background check process and have never seen it this is what ATF 4473 looks like and the kind of questions that are asked.
Firearms Transfer Record Part I - Over the Counter

I filled it out and and went back to browsing around the store. About a half and hour later I was told I made a mistake on question 9 - I had put in my State license ID. That is the wrong number and it came up invalid. I had to fill it out again.

About half an hour later the sales people collected me to start the state transfer form. Most of that data is imported form ATF 4473-1 so I did not have to fill it out. Just two signatures.

I have to point out that there were only two sales people juggling three transfers and a number of other sales during the hour and a half I was in the store. I got here about 7:30PM and left at approximately 9. If I were to strip out all the time I spent standing around browsing waiting for the sales clerks, I would guesstimate the process would take about half an hour.

So this is the process as it exists today in a small store in the state of MA. My experience has been similar in all stores I have been to in MA. The stores that have more sales people can afford to have that person dedicated to processing you while other clerks take care of customers. But it still takes about an hour from the time when you walk in till you walk out.

Mileage may vary in other states. I would be interested in hearing about experiences with this process in other states.

[BainsBane]

1. A whole hour to purchase a lethal weapon

How awful for you. You had to provide your driver's license number. The inhumanity. Obviously that is far worse than letting criminals have easy access guns and kill people. One hour of your time is so much more important than the thousands of lives lost through gun violence.

Try getting an abortion in any red state. Then you'll see what real obstruction of constitutional rights is like. Even worse, report a rape to the police and watch them not bother to investigate.

[geckosfeet]

3. Zooom. You are right on schedule Alice. I am not advocating letting criminals have easy access.

Where did you get that from? I am sorry, did my post have that whinny snotty complaining attitude some posters have? I tried to be objective and simply relate the process.

And how on earth do you connect an hour of my time to thousands of lives lost to gun violence? I mean besides in your head.

Abortion? Rape? Obstruction? Jeez. Try to focus on something for more than three seconds. Where is abortion mentioned in the bill rights by the way?

BTW - third and second to last paragraphs on the form:



Please direct your comments regarding the "estimated average burden" to the Reports Management Officer.

on edit #23: BTW - this is the Gun Control and RKBA Group. The abortion group is around the corner....

[Just Saying]

32. I think the point is that both are legal

Yet women's rights are being stripped and infringed by the very people who fight so hard for your gun rights.

You should be on our team.

[geckosfeet]

44. What makes you think that I am not.

I fully support womens rights, reproductive and otherwise. But this is an RKBA forum and thread.

And bainesbane is a habitual anti 2A poster that rarely offers any real information or discussion around 2A. It's more like drive by hate posting....

[Just Saying]

45. Oh I see.

I'm not privy to some of the relationships on here.

[BainsBane]

72. That's complete BS

I have over 287 posts in this place, so much so that it's now listed as my favorite group on my profile, which is horrifying. As a result I'm avoiding posting in here much.
I've provided lots of arguments and evidence, as my journal shows. It doesn't support their world view that guns are more important than everything else, so they reject it. They reject everything that doesn't validate their view of the world, and they support the gun lobby's suppression of public funding into research on gun violence in order to keep the American public in the dark. They are terrified of what research will yield, so they are willing to stomp out the First Amendment in favor of their guns.

His whole story about not wanting women to have guns is complete bullshit. I don't support gun confiscation. That's typical gunner hysteria that they trump up--on cue with the NRA--to try to spread false propaganda about gun control. It's just like the NRA's "Obama coming for our guns" crap, only here they focus on the evil "controllers and banners" who have the nerve to support the President's Democratic proposals on guns on a Democratic site.

I will be truly amazed if I ever see that poster express interest in abortion, rape, or any subject other than guns.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

77. You should be pro-choice, not anti-choice

Where is it your place to dictate to others what they can and can't do to protect themselves and their families?

I don't presume to tell you what you can do with your body.

[BainsBane]

78. Try rereading my post

because you obviously didn't. Jesus.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

80. Pro-choice is not limited to one subject

It applies to all different areas of life, including the right to chose to defend oneself.

I read your post. You think that my right to defend myself is not as important as your right not to be scared.

Were I to change the subject to abortion, you would label me as anti-choice. I find it disingenuous for you to believe that the same state that you want to stay out of your issue (abortion) should be involved in mine (defense of my family).

It is not a consistent belief system.

[BainsBane]

85. Where in my post does it say I oppose your choice to have a gun?

I said I support the proposed reforms the Democratic President has put forward. Jesus. If you can't read what's the point? "Gun confiscations, Gun confiscation." "Obama and the Democrats are coming for my guns, Waaaa, Waaaa." I'm not interested in having a dialogue with whatever voices are in your head.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

87. Take a look at your journal and posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023156136

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052251

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3051911

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172125660#post90

I could have pulled more, but it is obvious that you don't support the right to self-defense.

[BainsBane]

89. Oh, you mean the right to murder an unarmed black teenager?

Or the right to kill someone over your precious television set? Or the idea that your property isn't more important than someone else's life. That really is horrible of me.


None of those posts say what you think they do. In fact, I feel quite certain you haven't bothered to read them.

Your citing the one on Mexico is particularly funny. It takes apart the NRA talking points and provides data. That you find that actual data so objectionable really says everything.

The one's making fun of the paranoid gunner are proven by your responses here.

If you so hate the Democratic Party's proposed reforms on guns, why are you here? You joined long after those reforms you find so objectionable were proposed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. I fully support your right to ridicule those that express unreasonable fear.

Just as I have the right to ridicule those that express an unreasonable
and statistically unsupported fear of any group...

[ExCop-LawStudent]

94. No, I mean the right to defend oneself

I started commenting here recently. Do you really think that someone only becomes a Democrat when they show up here? I've been a Democrat for years.

And taking apart the NRA talking points? Not hardly, and if you call that providing data, I would hate to see any "real" research you do. Even the Wiki article you link to warns that the information does not meet their (Wiki's) low quality standards.

Why don't we look at some real data?

"After more than nine decades of ever more stringent controls, the homicide rate in England is roughly double what it was in 1900 during the pre-gun control era." Don B. Kates & Carlisle Moody, Heller, McDonald, and Murder: Testing the More Guns = More Murder Thesis 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1421, 1436 (2012) (noting that gun control in England has resulted in an 86% increase in the homicide rate).

Finland has 14 times the gun ownership of Estonia, but 1/7th the murder rate; Spain has 12 times the guns as Poland, but 1/2 the murder rate. Id. at 1439.

&quot R)esults are generally negative for the violence control effectiveness of gun control...." Gary Kleck & E. Britt Patterson, The Image of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates 9 J. Quant. Crim. 249, 283 (1993).

&quot T)he comparison among Canada, Mexico, and the United States still does not support the thesis of more guns, more murder (table 3)." Gary Mauser, Some International Evidence on Gun Bans and Murder Rates Fraser Forum 23, Oct. 2007.

[BainsBane]

96. Complete bullshit

All NRA fabrications. The US homicide rate is 4x what the UK's is. That post you took such objection to of mine shows as much. I also take apart that NRA lie on Mexico. You're trotting out long discredited bullshit. That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Mexico has a high murder rate because of guns from the US. The states with the highest homicide rates are in the North, where the cartels are awash in guns trafficked from the US. The states furthest from the US have homicide rates a fraction of those of states like Chihuahua and Sinaloa. If the gun ban were the reason for the homicide rate, areas with the least access to guns rather than those with the most guns would have the highest murder rates.

Guns are designed to kill. That kind of blatantly dishonest and deluded crap just shows how bankrupt the pro-gun argument is. If that's the best you can do, you might as well give up. I'm not continuing this conversation. I have far too many posts in this group. The idea that people look at my post and see Gungeon as my favorite group and might think I'm some pro-gun nut is too horrifying for me to tolerate.

[gejohnston]

97. what NRA lie on Mexico?

the one where you confuse two cities? Or the one where you forget the M-16s and AKs were still in Central America or not realize that those places still have militaries that get their armories robbed?

[BainsBane]

100. The one I systematically went through with you and Green Storm Cloud

and you refused to read the report presented to you in black and white and continued to claim it said it proved 90% of the guns from outside the US, when the GAO report says the complete opposite. You proved to have absolute disregard for the truth in that discussion, as you did in the one about the bans on federal funding into research about guns. I'm truly sorry that your agenda outweighs respect for the truth. You refuse to take in any new information and steadfastly cling to the NRA propaganda even when it is proved false.

I can't even begin to imagine what two cities you're talking about. The discussion is in my journal, and it will be surrounded by your desperate denials of facts put right in front of you. The entries for our discussion on the ban of federal funding into research on guns are among the most recent entries visible in my journal so anyone can see them and see your denial of evidence put directly in front of you.

I edited that last post to include more data, should you be interested. I know, however, that you steadfastly deny anything that doesn't confirm the pro-gun propaganda you're steeped it. I see no need to go through a discussion we've had before. It's entirely your failing that you can't acknowledge when you are wrong. It's sad, but it does show your cause is so profoundly corrupt that you need to rely on fabrication and distortion to maintain it.

Here are some of the links of the GAO reports in case anyone who does have an interest in truth and facts happens to pass by.

On Mexico's homicide rate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3049868
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3044851

On pro-gun blatant fabrication that the GAO report shows 90% of guns trafficked into US come from somewhere other than the US

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053353

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3050873


International homicide data show the US's rate is 4x that of the UK's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053659

Shows the DECLINE in violent crime in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

[gejohnston]

103. in other words,

all of what I said since you did not prove what you said.

No, it said those guns were not given to the ATF to be submitted. There were a number of reasons including not having any US markings having to be made or imported in the US, no markings at all, or they knew where it could have come from.
You claimed that it was an accurate statistical sample. I pointed out the fallacy and your lack of knowledge on how long a gun can sit on shelf or that they have current militaries.

As for the BBC article, I'll have to get back with you on that.

[BainsBane]

105. 24% is a very large statistical sampling by any measure

It's a huge sample, in fact. You had a fair enough point that it was not a random sampling, yet you have offered no theory as to why that sample would have been altered and for what reasons. Concerns about the sample does not excuse your complete distortion in claiming the report says 90% of the guns were shown NOT to have come from the US when it proves that 87% (about, I'm working from memory but anyone can check the report themselves from the links above) of the traceable guns did come from the US.

[gejohnston]

107. I actually did

you just refused to read it. I explained it, as did the Stratfor article, in great depth. The GAO report itself said it was not a random sampling. The sample was all of the ones that could be traced to the US commercial market.
hand grenades were not part of that sample
a .380 caliber Glock would not be part of that sample
an HK G-36 would not be part of that sample
a real AK-47 would not be part of that sample

I did not say that. I said, that the claim that 90 percent of those guns as going from the US legal commercial market was baseless. A lot were from the US, but they were not semi auto nor could be bought cash and carry at a gun show or flea market. At least not legally anyway.

[BainsBane]

112. That's not an explanation

Note: I'm happy to discuss this further if you want to start an OP in another section of DU. I have way too many Gungeon posts and it's now listed as my favorite group, which freaks me out. I can't have that. I do apologize for the inconvenience to you and other members here.

Now for what I hope will be my last response in the gungeon for a while:

The ATF lists the weapons they looked at. Did you check to see if those guns were among them?

Here are the most common firearms they found


9 mm pistol
.38 caliber revolver
.22 caliber pistol
.380 caliber pistol
7.62 mm AK-type semiautomatic rifle
.22 caliber rifle
.223 caliber AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle
.45 caliber pistol
.38 caliber pistol
12 gauge shotgun

Here is a video clip of some guns recovered:
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/gao-09-709/

Your entire argument related to those guns s based on the idea that if a gun isn't LEGALLY for sale in the US it couldn't be trafficked to Mexico, which is patently absurd. You have no idea what guns are most commonly recovered or how they made it into the country. The entire trade to Mexico is illegal. The notion that traffickers would only purchase from legal gun sellers is absurd. It's nonsensical.

Moreover, even if none of those types of guns you list have ever been in the US (which we know is not true) that says nothing about how prevalent they are among the total number of guns in Mexico.

Did you read the part of the GAO report that said a good percentage of imported guns made it to Mexico through the US. Most of the guns coming from Central America are also from the US, as anyone with any awareness of the US war in the region in the 1980s and early 90s would know. You argued that some were Russian. True. The Russians supplied the Sandinistas with guns via Cuba, but far, far less than the US supplied the Contras and its allies in military dictatorships in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Speculation, however, is not proof. The available evidence is that the vast majority of guns trafficked into Mexico come via the US, and the percentage has increased steadily in the years leading up to that report.

You haven't said why the Mexican government would distort the sample. What reason would they have for deliberately withholding foreign trafficked guns, and how would they even know the origins of those guns before they turned them over to the ATF? To skew the sample so completely, they would have had to deliberately withhold foreign guns. Why would they do that? For what conceivable reason? What does it benefit them? What reason would the ATF have for falsifying a report on gun trafficking into Mexico? How does that help US-Mexican relations in anyway? How does it enhance the interests of the US in anyway?

The fact that you don't like what the report says is not justification for rejecting the evidence. The case of gun research was another area where you did that. My recent journal entries show some of my end of that exchange.

Here is example where you betray your obviously contradictory position on sources: In the context of a discussion of a recent trial, You claimed newspaper reports were unreliable http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036569#post219
Yet you then turn around and cite media accounts you like better than the GAO report. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983#post174
As well as a newspaper account, after previously claiming they were unreliable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983#post155

What's clear is you like sources that confirm what you believe, regardless of how suspect or distorted, and you reject even the most highly reliable sources that don't confirm your biases.

BTW, Perhaps you should the new gun member that you've decided the UK is irrelevant when discussing the effectiveness of gun bans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052100


I hope that some day you decide that you value your mind and character enough to be truthful on these issues. If you consider denying facts integral to your defense of gun rights, I have to wonder if advancing that cause is really worth compromising yourself. It seems sad to me.

[gejohnston]

115. I listed those one specifically because

they are not imported in the US for the commercial market. You listed calibers, which has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Everything else you said backs up what I said.

[petronius]

119. It's not a question of distorting, deliberately skewing, or falsifying - I don't see where

anyone has suggested that the Mexican or US authorities did that. Rather, the Mexican government never set out to create a real statistical sample (i.e, a probability sample) in the first place, that wasn't their goal. Rather, they selected which guns to submit for tracing, and therefore it's inappropriate to infer from this set that 87% of the criminally-held guns in Mexico are sourced from the US civilian market. How they made their selection I don't know, but the obvious guess would be that they chose guns which were seized in circumstances or quantities that suggested a trace might be useful in an investigation, and/or had markings clearly indicating a US civilian source. (To be blunt, I'm not sure at this point whether you are simply unfamiliar with the concepts of sampling and statistical inference, or whether your war with Teh Evil Gunners has made you unable or unwilling to try and understand what others are saying, or whether it's a combination.)

It's clear that the US civilian market is a non-trivial source of guns for the criminal market in Mexico, but what you are being told - correctly - by GE and others is that it isn't 87% of the total; it's almost certainly lower. Also, I can't see where anyone has claimed that 87% of guns do not come from the US, what I'm seeing is that the number that does come from here is not 87%. See the difference?

Here is the part of your post I am referring to:

You haven't said why the Mexican government would distort the sample. What reason would they have for deliberately withholding foreign trafficked guns, and how would they even know the origins of those guns before they turned them over to the ATF? To skew the sample so completely, they would have had to deliberately withhold foreign guns. Why would they do that? For what conceivable reason? What does it benefit them? What reason would the ATF have for falsifying a report on gun trafficking into Mexico? How does that help US-Mexican relations in anyway? How does it enhance the interests of the US in anyway?

All that said, I think it's clear that the US civilian market is a significant (perhaps the largest) source of illegally-held firearms in Mexico, and it's worth interrupting that flow. The Mexican military and law enforcement is a second significant source, and smuggling across other borders is a third. However, it is not supported to say that the the US civilian gun market is the cause of violence in Mexico, and I'd be willing to bet that the DTOs could go a long way toward meeting their weapons-needs from other sources, if the US-civilian-sourced guns completely vanished.

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Ahem- the Mexican government only submitted 24% of seized guns for tracing.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf

(page 16)

In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to ATF for tracing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. Show us the rates of homicide and gun ownership in those countries, then.

(England, Finland, Estonia, Spain and Poland)- and while you're at it, the homicide rate in England in 1900
v. today.

Prove that it's bullshit- they gave cites, you can too...

[BainsBane]

101. Wow

What is it about you gunners that you expect everyone to wait on you hand and foot?
I've never seen a group of people so unwilling to do their own research and who sits back and demands others provide it for them. Truly astounding. Now, I don't know if that's some tactic you've all been taught at some pro-gun seminar for the internet, or if you are just the sort of people who expect people to follow your orders and be at your beckon call all the time. It truly is strange. I must say it smacks of entitlement. No one else on the web does that. Yet several of you do the exact same thing. It truly is astounding.

Provide your own data. I'm not your servant.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. I expect *anyone* who makes a claim to be able to back it up- even you.

EC-LS gave us a few cites. You didn't.

You claimed their post was "Complete bullshit"- but you have yet to show their claims about
gun ownership and homicide rates in certain European countries are false.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. If you won't provide links, what you offer is opinion, not an argument

Links like this one:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf

(page 16)

...In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to ATF for tracing.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

120. I provided and cites

If you want to attempt to refute it, it is not up to me to do your work for you.

We don't have to defend a statement that is properly cited when all you say is "nanana it is wrong!"

I've never seen a group of people so unwilling to do their own research...

If you think the data is wrong, prove it. Otherwise we know that you're full of it.

[CokeMachine]

99. Just for you in your own words

" You're trotting out long discredited bullshit. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. You really don't have the slightest interest in the truth, do you? "

Thank you!!

Note to jury: This will be alerted as usual. Please note that the quote is not from me but from BB.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. Yet here you are, posting away under no coercion to do so...

[ExCop-LawStudent]

117. Actually, none of those are from the NRA

You might check the citations. All came from academic, peer-reviewed journals.

Are you sure you know how to do research? That took me about 30 minutes on Ebsco. You could also find it on Hein or Jstor, or for the legally inclined on Lexis, Westlaw, or Bloomberg.

The point on the UK is that they started to implement gun control over 90 years ago. Before they started, the homicide rate had been dropping. It has increased ever since, and the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US.

If you want to leave, buh bye.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. True, but the NRA makes a convenient boogeyman...

[Just Saying]

79. I tend to agree with you.

Shutting down research is very disturbing to me. Crime statistics only tell part of the story and I'm sorry but I'm not going to believe stats compiled by people profiting from the gun culture.

It's sad that we can't have honest debate over this issue.

[beevul]

81. Whats complete BS is your characterizations.

"I have over 287 posts in this place, so much so that it's now listed as my favorite group on my profile, which is horrifying. As a result I'm avoiding posting in here much."

And yet you continue to agitate on the subject elsewhere outside your protected group.

"I've provided lots of arguments and evidence, as my journal shows."

You provide whatever you think supports your arguments and ignore everything that doesn't. You have a nasty habit of claiming people say things they didn't actually say ,or do things they didn't actually do, or hold positions which they have never espoused.

All one needs to do is a du search of the word ipnabla to see many examples.

" It doesn't support their world view that guns are more important than everything else, so they reject it. They reject everything that doesn't validate their view of the world, and they support the gun lobby's suppression of public funding into research on gun violence in order to keep the American public in the dark. They are terrified of what research will yield, so they are willing to stomp out the First Amendment in favor of their guns."

Wow, another example so soon...theres a shock. The reality here, is that its your worldview here, that if we don't agree with it, you then characterize us as "their world view that guns are more important than everything else". That says more about your worldview re:guns and the lengths you would be willing to go to foist it on everyone else, than it does about anything else.

The suppression of anti-gun lobbying by a governmental organization, that you refer to, is not accurately characterized as "suppression of public funding into research on gun violence", and several of us have pointed out this simple fact to you both in this forum and in others, yet you continue with these inaccurate characterizations, obviously deliberately, in spite of having the truth pointed out for you. That's a dishonest tactic to say the least.

" I don't support gun confiscation."

Yet you want to see the second amendment deleted, and think only those with a badge should carry a gun (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023222478#post20 ) , and never seem to denounce those who would ban all guns if they could.

If you really wanted to convince people that you were a reasonable "I just want reasonable gun control" type of gun control activist, you could start by denouncing those who would ban them all. But you wont. I wonder why.

[BainsBane]

86. Yes, it truly is a horror that I exercise my right to free speech

Don't fret. The NRA is working on that.
I'm sorry you have such trouble discerning a joke from policy. I've explained the position multiple times. Since you refuse to accept what my actual views are, I can only assume you prefer gun control activists try to confiscate your guns. Holding on to that straw man seems to mean a great deal to you.

If you don't think guns are more important than anything else, why do you devote most of your time to advancing gun "rights"? Why do you consistently attack gun control proponents? I have seen no evidence that you care about anything else. You certainly don't post about anything else on DU.

What is it about gunners that makes them think other should make their argument for them? You have a multi-billion dollar lobby carrying your water. Victims of gun violence have no one. The sense of entitlement is unreal. I've never seen a group of people who expected others to articulate their arguments for them It truly is astounding. Most people have enough self-respect and initiative to advance their own arguments.

I cannot think of anything that matters less to me than what you want. Remdi95.

[beevul]

92. I"m sorry, was someone attacking your rights?

I certainly wasn't.

You're free to misquote, mischaracterize, falsely attribute, and erect straw men til your hearts content.

We on the other hand, are free to continue to point it out every single time you do it.

"I'm sorry you have such trouble discerning a joke from policy. I've explained the position multiple times. Since you refuse to accept what my actual views are, I can only assume you prefer gun control activists try to confiscate your guns. Holding on to that straw man seems to mean a great deal to you."

Gee, a joke is supposed to have a funny connotation to it. No, like I said in another post, when you said you'd "delete" amendment 2, You conveyed that message yourself. You did it deliberately. It wasn't a muscle twitch, and you didn't trip and fall into the "delete the second amendment" key. And you certainly weren't joking. And short of saying "I didn't mean it", you're hastily walking back the clear meaning - that is to say, the clear message you know you intended to send, and the meaning you know full well that anyone would receive when you conveyed it. And yeah, its an extreme view. You know it, I know it, anyone that reads it knows it. it is what it is.

If you don't think guns are more important than anything else, why do you devote most of your time to advancing gun "rights"? Why do you consistently attack gun control proponents? I have seen no evidence that you care about anything else. You certainly don't post about anything else on DU.

Do you really think you're the arbiter of whos legitimate on DU and who isn't? Arrogant much? You have the nerve to accuse others of a "sense of entitlement" after saying garbage like that? R.O.F.L. I've been a reader here since 2001, and been posting since 2003, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't recognize your sincerity, legitimacy, capability, or your authority to make that judgement. I've posted about a number of things over the years, and even recently, but you go ahead and draw what conclusion you like. You do and will anyway. The only "gun control advocates" I engage, are those that publicly spew dishonesty, or falsely attribute words, meanings, actions, or positions to others out of simple anti-gun ideological bent. And those that insinuate that you must not be a Democrat if you believe strongly enough in gun rights to argue about them - like you just did.

"What is it about gunners that makes them think other should make their argument for them? You have a multi-billion dollar lobby carrying your water. Victims of gun violence have no one. The sense of entitlement is unreal. I've never seen a group of people who expected others to articulate their arguments for them It truly is astounding. Most people have enough self-respect and initiative to advance their own arguments."

LOL. I don't even know what that pile of word salad means, let alone how it applies to anything I've said. It looks like a rage filled pile of poop.

Its always funny to hear from the "I want my free speech - but I'm going to make a special group where yours isn't allowed" posters, especially when they're being accusatory about their free speech being interfered with.

[CokeMachine]

93. +1000 --

Careful or you'll be accused of gossiping!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Actually, some of those who are frustrated with the private ownership of guns oppose women owning

firearms in their homes for self-defense.

A rape victim who wants to own a firearm for self-defense in their own home, to even deter other criminal activities or have some peace of mind, is in their minds no different from any other "gun nuts".

They don't want you or any other women to have a choice as to whether to own a firearm or not. They can't succeed because their over-the-top proposals are irrational. But they will continue with their "gun nut" attacks.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

7. I agree, way too long to buy a gun

You should move to Texas, the last one I bought took about 15 minutes.

[premium]

14. In Nevada,

it's about 5-10 minutes, walk in, pick the firearm you wish to purchase, fill out Form 4473, clerk calls it in, pay for firearm, walk out, easy peasy.

The BGC in Nevada is run by the Nevada Highway Patrol who has several dedicated phone lines just for BGC's, ususally takes about 1-2 minutes for them to check and see if buyer is a prohibited person.

Seem to work very well.

[oneshooter]

95. With a Texas CHL it's even faster.

"it's about 5-6 minutes, walk in, pick the firearm you wish to purchase, fill out Form 4473, show clerk your Texas CHL, pay for firearm, walk out, easy peasy.

[anomiep]

121. I'd argue you'd have to account for all the time it takes waiting for that CHL to arrive

Fill out online form, pay for permit
Take CHL class, pass both portions (classroom & range)
Go to fingerprinting appointment
submit all documents
Wait.
Wait.
Wait.
...
still waiting ...

I figure all that ought to be amortized across all the firearm purchases made while the license is valid.

[oneshooter]

122. You got a few items wrong.

The form I first filled out 15 years ago was not online. When you take the class both fingerprints and photos are taken there. Submit payment for the permit, you pay for the class when you take it, when you submit the forms. By law the wait is not more than 30 days, however it has taken as long as 45 days.

My first renewal took 23 days, my second took 20 days. I take the renewal class 30 days before my permit is out. Fee for renewal is 1/2 of first time.

[anomiep]

123. Not really

Today, you can fill the forms out online. You can scan and submit your documentation online. You can still mail it if you'd like, and the DPS website states "The Department will make every effort to issue your license within 60 days of receiving the completed application packet." - not 30.

Doesn't mean I got it wrong - it means things change

[geckosfeet]

46. Hmmm. Maybe New Mexico. Possibly Arizona. But the way things are right now

for me, NH is much more likely.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. That's probably longer than what it takes to buy a gun in a Chicago neighborhood -- from one

of the violent thugs who has been convicted many times but always seems to be released through the revolving-door justice system.

[CreekDog]

65. but Texas has a far higher crime rate

maybe buying a gun faster doesn't make one safer.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

66. Except that Texas doesn't have a higher crime rate

In order, the rate of violent crime per 100,000, by state, 2011 FBI UCR.

Texas is in the middle. California, with its waiting period has a higher violent crime rate than Texas.

1. Tenn. - 608.2
2. Alaska - 606.5
3. SC - 579.9
4. NM - 567.5
5. Nevada - 562.1
6. Delaware - 559.5
7. Louisiana - 555.3
8. Florida - 515.3
9. Maryland - 494.1
10. Arkansas - 480.9
11. Mo. - 447.4
12. Okla. - 454.8
13. Michigan - 445.3
14. Illinois - 429.3
15. Mass. - 428.4
16. Alabama - 420.1
17. California - 411.1
18. Texas - 408.5
19. Arizona - 405.9
20. NY - 398.1
21. Georgia - 373.2
22. Penn. - 355.0
23. Kansas - 353.9
24. NC - 349.8
25. Ohio - 307.4
26. Oregon - 247.6
27. RI - 247.5
28. ND - 247.0
29. Indiana - 331.8
30. Colorado - 320.2
31. WV - 315.9
32. NJ - 308.4
33. Wash. - 294.6
34. Hawaii - 287.2
35. Conn. -272.8
36. Miss. - 269.8
37. Mont. - 267.5
38. Iowa - 255.6
39. SD - 254.1
40. Nebraska - 253.2
41. Kentucky - 238.2
42. Wisconsin - 236.9
43. Minn. - 221.2
44. Wyoming - 219.3
45. Idaho - 200.9
46. Virgina - 196.7
47. Utah - 195.0
48. NH - 188.0
49. Vermont - 135.2
50. Maine - 123.2

[gejohnston]

67. Hey, Wyoming with its 60-70 percent gun ownership rate

is lower than Hawaii. Just saying. I guess Florida's three day waiting period, and lower gun ownership rate isn't that impressive either.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

68. I considered adding DC

since it's a district not in any state, but I figured JTO and the others would flip out at their violent crime rate of 1,202.1.

Especially since guns are basically still not allowed in DC.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Not to mention #49 Vermont, with it's damn near non-existent state gun laws.

A point that will be studiously ignored by several parties in this thread...

[CokeMachine]

69. Quit it!!

You'll ruin his high about CA. The land of the not so free and Oakland, Richmond, LA (polluting the Grand Canyon since whenever).

[hlthe2b]

11. Exactly... the last two times I purchased a car (using cash--no loans) it took more than 3 hours

and that was AFTER a verbal agreement was reached with sales staff (and manager) as to final price.

So, yeah. Buying a potentially lethal weapon takes time (as well it should).

[premium]

13. Wow,

geckosfeet explains the MA process for purchasing a firearm, and did it very calmly with good info and you immediately come in here with whining about how easy it is for law abiding citizens to purchase a legal product?
And then to top it off, you throw in something about abortion and rape?

[Eleanors38]

15. She missed the 10¢ cigar, though.

[premium]

16. LOL. nt.

[krispos42]

33. So then. since this delay is okay...

...I take it you have no objections to voting being as complicated?

[Common Sense Party]

35. I could go to the convenience store and buy a "lethal weapon" in about 30 seconds.

They're called knives, and they're right next to the cash register.

Or I could go to Home Depot and after about 20 minutes of wandering aimlessly lost, I could most likely have my hand on about two dozen "lethal weapons." Shovels, screwdrivers, hammers, two-by-fours, chainsaws, axes, etc.

A gun isn't the only lethal object out there.

Many things can be lethal weapons if someone (1) knows how to use it in a harmful way and (2) has the intent to harm another.

And (2) is the most important.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

76. What a load of crap

I worked a bunch of sexual assaults, and we worked harder on those than any other offense except a homicide.

I also worked cases where there wasn't a sexual assault for only one reason, which is that the intended victim was armed and defended herself.

But people like you would rather she be raped than to make the choice to defend herself. That's what your unconstitutional gun policies create by taking away people's choices.

[darkangel218]

2. One hour isnt bad at all.

Down here it takes days.

[geckosfeet]

4. Where is here? I know in California there is a ten day waiting period.

Maybe a good idea however based on crime statistics in that state I am not sure it really does that much. Two or three days may be long enough to let someone cool off. If they hold onto their anger that long they probably shouldn't be sold a weapon. But how do you screen for that?

[darkangel218]

40. FL. but i think it varries by county as well, and if one has ccw or not

[gejohnston]

71. three business days

so if you buy on Friday, you pick up on Wednesday, assuming it isn't a three day weekend or some holiday. If you have a CCW, you are exempt from having a waiting period.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

70. The cooling off period is a fallicy.

The three states with the lowest crime rates all have some things in common.

Open carry of loaded firearms is legal, without a permit.

Concealed carry of loaded firearms is legal, in two of the states with a "shall issue" license and in one without a permit.

No waiting period.

No registration.

No permit to purchase.

[geckosfeet]

73. Interesting. Sources? Is that gun crime or overall crime rate?

[ExCop-LawStudent]

74. Source

2011 FBI Crime Report. Violent crime by State.

[geckosfeet]

75. Although I am familiar witht the cited source, links are helpful and courteous.

Thanks.

[ileus]

5. I haven't bought one since the ban drums have been pounded

but it took around 10 minutes every time last year for me.

This year I've been working on building ammo and parts for the AR's.


I only have plans to buy one complete firearm this year, I need to start a thread to decide what it should be.

[geckosfeet]

6. Pre-ban drums the time was about the same here.

It is not that burdensome. I am just interested in how different states implement the process.

Your state is...? (If you don'mind)

[bowens43]

8. the fact that you showed an intent and a desire to purchase a weapon

should have been enough to disqualify you.

[Duckhunter935]

10. Why, is it not legal?

and what would disqualify him, please tell us. Your turn to let us know your internet diagnosis.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Saw that movie

Not go all Yossarian on you but, "Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying."

I can't be sure but could your posting this concept constitute copyright infringement?

[geckosfeet]

20. "That don't make no sense"

How does intent to buy disqualify someone?

Read the form. The criteria for ineligebility are spelled out. You don't get to make your own rules for other people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Unacceptable

"You don't get to make your own rules for other people."

Pro-control will cry and stomp its feet over that.

[geckosfeet]

29. I have the number of a good therapist. She is really good with control issues.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. On a related note

I've noticed that there's a need for a mobile app with an "I feel like I'm losing control" button.

The app would then dial a high rated therapist geographically close to the user.

[geckosfeet]

42. Oh yeah. The clock starts when they answer the phone.

[bike man]

9. That time frame was about my experience also for a shotgun. Revolver was several days. nt

[Lurks Often]

12. Generally about 15 minutes or so

but that was prior to the gun buying frenzy we've been in. It pretty much depends on how busy the state (CT) is when the store calls to get the authorization number for the sale

[tularetom]

18. Takes about 20 min here in CA but you still have a 10 day wait to pick up the firearm

And you have to have a handgun safety certificate (pass a multiple choice test) to purchase a pistol or revolver. And they give you a handful of snap caps so you can demonstrate that you know how to safely load and unload your purchase.

I bought a single action Colt last year and forgot that my certificate had expired so I had to take the test again so it took an extra 15 minutes or so.

Seems like a reasonable process to me.

[geckosfeet]

27. 1911?

That's what I bought - a Sig.

[tularetom]

59. No, a single action army 1873 revolver

like this one here:


in .45 LC.

[geckosfeet]

60. Oh my. That a beauty. Caliber? Ammo type?

[tularetom]

62. This particular gun is .45 Long Colt

And I'm careful to only use wimpy "cowboy loads" in it to keep barrel pressure low because the gun was originally not designed for use with modern smokeless powders.

[geckosfeet]

63. As long as you load your own, or get someone to load to your spec

I guess your ok. I was thinking it was cap and ball.

[DonP]

19. About 15 to 20 minutes in Illinois

With the crowds lately, I usually spend more time waiting for an available clerk than filling out the 4473. Of course you always have to be sure they didn't screw with the "yes/no" questions again.

I think there's a BATFE bureaucrat that randomly changes one question every few months, just to screw us up.

Just this past Monday at lunch I was in a local GS picking up a purchase (3 day waiting period) and watched them refuse to sell to a couple where the wife had a FOID card and the guy didn't and he kept pointing to guns for "her" to look at. Straw purchase written all over it. Reassuring to see how seriously the clerks took it.

[geckosfeet]

21. There was a sign in the shop i bought at that said

We reserve the right to refuse to sell firearms

I think that they are legally required to refuse a sale if they suspect something.

The owner of the shop is an ex cop. I am hoping that he is one of the ex cops that actually knows the laws. But more importantly I hope he knows what to look for in terms of behavior and warning signs that suggest refusing g a sale.

[DonP]

49. They have the same signs up here too along with the ubiquitous "Don't Lie for the other Guy" posters

Also signs about "No texting or cell phone use" in the store, all to prevent straw purchases.

My local store has had a few cases where one couple or a guy comes in to look things over. When they tell him he can't touch a gun with out a valid FOID card (Illinois), he leaves and less than 5 minutes later another guy or woman with a FOID comes in and asks to look at the same exact gun. They refuse to sell it to them. They said it happens about once a week and it's always somebody from Chicago.

A lot of people are first time buyers now though and don't even realize you must have an FOID card to even shop for a gun. The ones from Chicago seem to get really PO'd and have to be given a blank FOID application form and politely reminded that they voted for these laws.

[geckosfeet]

50. Wow. What a scam... Crooks are nothing if not inventive

[Jenoch]

22. It has been

several years since I have completed Form 4473. What exactly are they looking for in question #9?

[geckosfeet]

23. I provided a link to a pdf of the form. Question 9 asks for some

federal ID number. I suspect for federal employees. I put in my MA license pin and NICs kicked it back.

NICs works. It's just that putting infrastructure in place to support all sales, private and otherwise would be a monumental and expensive task.

[Jenoch]

24. I looked at the form.

I'm still not quite sure what Question 9 is looking for. Did you end up leaving it blank and it went through?

[geckosfeet]

25. Yes. Exactly. The clerk said to just leave it blank.

[CokeMachine]

37. The instructions for question #9

are on page 4 of the PDF doc. Something about the NICS Voluntary Appeal file.

[geckosfeet]

47. Ahhhh. thanks.

I speed read page 4.

And I certainly was not reading the instructions while filing out the form.

I did not mention that the computer kept freezing up. It took that much longer to fill it out.

[SoutherDem]

55. Question #9

That question was explained to me at Bass Pro Shop that if someone has been denied incorrectly, they are given this number when they are later approved. Then in the future you use it to let the reviewer see what has happened in the past and prevent it in the future. I don't know all the "check points" but apparently the system is built to favor caution (when in doubt do sell the gun).

It actually sound similar to the credit check system at some retailers. You get approved or denied but a denial can/will be reviewed to see if it was justified.

[geckosfeet]

56. Thanks. fot the explanation. My first application failed because I used an incorrect number.

The second application went through when I left it blank.

[MicaelS]

28. Found this over on AR15.com

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=44&t=322942

If you have been denied by the FBI NICS background check when attempting to purchase a firearm, you can fill out an application for the Voluntary Appeal File. Normally information obtained during the NICS check and the subsequent Proceed/Delay/Denied response is deleted at the end of the NICS business day. Opening a VAF allows NICS to keep your information and background check results stored. This will allow you to get faster responses and fewer delay/denied responses. NICS will issue you a UPIN number to be written on the Form 4473. This number would be given to NICS when your dealer makes his call.

[geckosfeet]

34. I only get denied when I make mistake on the form.

And that has happened to me twice. Real easy to misread one of those questions. But I just fill it out again and it's good to go.

[Just Saying]

30. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

I've spent more time buying a car or signing mortgage papers.

Would this process need to be done for every purchase or just every so many years or something?

[geckosfeet]

38. Every purchase of a new gun from an ffl. Private sales just need the state transfer form.

No. It is not unreasonable.

I was mainly trying to raise awareness of how the federal process is implemented. Also trying to gauge how this would be implemented for all sales. There would likely be a high cost.

[wercal]

104. Frankly alot of private sales use an FFL dealer

If I ever sold a gun, I'd pony up thirty bucks to have a local dealer run the transaction. I don't want any problems, if the buyer goes and does something stupid.

So, don't know if extending the checks to private sales will make a difference. People with something to lose (ie no criminal record) would do it, and alot are.already doing it
...people with crime on the mind would just violate the law.

[geckosfeet]

114. Good thoughts. Help support your local ffl as well. Here we just need to

file a state transfer of ownership form

Purchasing and Selling

Q: How many guns a year can a person sell without being a dealer?

A: Under M.G.L. c. 140, §128A, a properly licensed resident who is not a dealer may sell up to four guns in any one calendar year through a private transfer of ownership.
top of the page

Q: Should a special form be used when selling guns through a private sale?

A: The state form required for private sales is an FA10 Form. The FA10 replaced what was known as the "Blue Card" previously used for private sales. This is essentially the same form used by dealers except that instructions are included with each private sale form. This form can be obtained from any police department. The seller must fill out the form and forward it to the Firearms Record Bureau (FRB) within seven days of the transaction.
top of the page

Q: Do weapons purchased by Massachusetts residents while in another state have to be reported in Massachusetts?

A: M.G.L. c. 140, §128B, residents who purchase from someone other than a Massachusetts dealer, either within or outside the Commonwealth, must report the purchase within seven days to the FRB. The FA10 form, which can be obtained from any police department, is the simplest way to make such a report.
top of the page

Q: Can a Massachusetts resident sell a gun without being a licensed dealer?

A: Yes. Under M.G.L. c. 140, §128A, a Massachusetts resident may sell a gun provided that he lawfully possesses it with an appropriate FID Card or LTC, or is otherwise exempt, and that the person buying the gun is also properly licensed with the appropriate FID Card or LTC (depending on the type of gun being bought).
top of the page

[wercal]

116. Presently in KS I am required to do nothing

Which is why I would use a dealer for any private sale...just for my own protection. But if we had a form like what you deecribed, that would be even better.

[Straw Man]

64. Reasonable.

Would this process need to be done for every purchase or just every so many years or something?

Every purchase. And come next year in NY State, it will have to be done for every ammo purchase too.

Obviously, if it will take an hour to buy a box of ammo, one would want to consolidate purchases. However, the state police will be monitoring the system looking for "large purchases." No information is available on what constitutes a "large purchase." A 500-round brick of .22 LR? I can shoot that up in a week. I buy .22 LR by the case: 5000 rounds at a time. Should I expect the Boys in Grey to be knocking on my door?

[doc03]

31. I would guess I never waited more that 5 minutes at the most. When I applied for my concealed

carry permit the Sheriff called the next afternoon that I could pick it up.

[geckosfeet]

53. State? I waited about six weeks for my license. I hear it's worse now, depending on the town.

[doc03]

61. Ohio, I hear it takes about a week for the

CCW permit now.

[Common Sense Party]

36. I can't remember how long it took in Utah, but I'd guess it was less than 20 minutes. nt

[jeepnstein]

39. Last pistol I bought it took a couple of days.

I did the 4473, they made the call, and then the gunsmith from the back swooped in and grabbed the pistol from the counter. He said I could have it back when he said it was "ready". It was Colt Perfection when he called me to come and get it.

I don't understand everyone's fascination with how fast you can complete a transaction. With modern technology it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. What would be really nice would be if the NICS database had all the data it needs to be accurate and in full compliance with the law.

[geckosfeet]

48. Good point. If you know the 4473 you can buzz thru it. I don't know the form that well

so I took my time and read the questions fairly throughly. Still made a mistake.

[Jenoch]

43. I wonder if the 'Permit to Purchase' system we have in Minnesota would speed things up?

The permit to purchase is needed to buy a handgun or 'assault weapon'. A CCW also acts as a permit to purchase.

I have not purchased a gun from a dealer in several years. I was with my father however when he bought a Ruger LCP .380. I don't think it took an hour, but it did take extra time only because it was the first handgun sale that store had ever conducted. They gathered up all of the employees that would be responsible for selling handguns so they could learn the procedure. Previously they only sold rifles and shotguns (Mill Fleet Farm for those of you in Minnesota or Wisconsin).

[SoutherDem]

54. In Alabama it is about the same

It seems to take an average of about 30-45 min. Most stores I have been at use the paper form but one did use the laptop form this one took longer to fill out the form because each question was on a new page which had to load but the actual "calling in" was very quick so it more or less balanced out.

[rl6214]

57. Once I fill out the 4473 it normally takes about 20 minutes

I've got my CCL so I've already been fully vetted.

[geckosfeet]

58. Me too. It still takes a while here. We do a state transfer and the federal.

And the shops are small and understaffed.

[oldhippie]

82. Takes me about five minutes .....

... to fill out the 4473 here in Texas. My FFL is a friend of mine and we have lunch together with several other friends each Thursday. He usually brings the firearm to lunch, I fill out and sign the form while sipping a Dos Equis and waiting for the Top Shelf Queso. I give him the money and he gives me the firearm. (It's usually in a bag as to not scare the patrons, but not always. Nobody cares.) No need for a NICS check as we all have TX CHLs. By the time the entrée comes we are all done, and the rifle leaning against the wall. Major arms deal at El Chico. LOL! Ironically, this is two doors down from the old Killeen Luby's restaurant (now a Chinese buffet.)

[geckosfeet]

83. Go ahead. Rub it in some more.

Just don't get all uppity when us yankees start moving in.

[oldhippie]

84. Got a bunch down here already .....

I'm from New York! (I have been assimilated, mostly because I was a competition shooter.)

[geckosfeet]

88. Ha ha. Good one. Maybe I'll join you down there someday.

[wercal]

102. I've bought two in Kansas this year

One was Cabelas...computer terminals.and a half dozen people behind the counter
...took an hour and a half for the check.

Other was a small time shop. Hand filled out the form...two guys working....thirty minutes.

So its hit or miss. Its a bit of a trip for me to Cabela's, so I am happy there isn't a CA style waiting period.

[sigmasix]

106. this same OP was posted a couple months ago

Is this a copy/paste of the original post with the same wording and everything? Or is this a new, unexplained duplication in experience?

[geckosfeet]

113. Please provide a link to the op you are citing.

This is a first for me. There may have been a similar post - it is a common experience. I would be interested in seeing the post.