Is tracking multiple purchases by one person in violation of the Second Amendment?

[Ptah]

[Loudly]

1. A well regulated millitia keeps its weapons in an armory.

And out of the hands of the public, who are a menace to each other.

[Ptah]

2. So, weapons are in the control of the state?

[Loudly]

3. Are you going to war with your government?

No. You're not.

Been there, done that.

It was called the Civil War.

Never again.

[Ptah]

4. I'm not very well-spoken.

I meant to start this thread wondering about the NRA's
objection to tracking multiple sales of rifles to individuals.

I am not at war with anyone or anything.

[Oneka]

8. I believe

That the NRA's objection, to the tracking scheme, was that the fed/gov lacked the statutory authority , to enact such a requirement. The ATF has been tracking multiple handgun sales since the 68 GCA, but that law never specifically allowed the tracking of multiple long gun sales. The ATF enacted this new requirement via a "demand letter" and rePortedly used fast and furious data to help justify it. http://www.guns.com/emails-prove-atf-used-qfast-and-furiousq-to-institute-gun-regulations-4400.html

Hope the info helps.

[Ptah]

9. So, the NRA objects to multiple sales to drug cartels being monitored?

[Oneka]

12. that is not what i indicated

but it's a beautiful looking strawman you are attempting to build.

What i indeed said was: the NRA objected to the ATF using the "demand letter" approach to enacting a regulation, rather then using,
statutory authority, granted by congress, through specific legislation.

[PavePusher]

20. And the American Revolution.

I suppose that was bad too.

The Constitution protects the means to oppose tyranny. It is no guarantee of success, or that your definition of tyranny is correct or equal to someone elses.

[bongbong]

13. yes

Further details about the Founding Father's intent of the 2nd Amendment can be found in Federalist Paper #29.

[slackmaster]

16. You have a very low opinion of the public

But the public IS the militia, and every home is allowed to serve as an armory.

[FBaggins]

17. That isn't true at all.

Just got back from a trip to Colonial Williamsburg and a tour of teh armory. The weapons there were for campaigns. So if they were going to march off to fight indians on the frontier they would all be using pattern pieces (and could thus share ammunition).

But for regular militia duties, members were not only permitted to provide their own weapons, ammunition, and powder... they were required to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. the public?

isn't that just you and me?

[Hoyt]

5. No. Multiple purchases are as suspect as some of boogeymen used to justify toting.

[Ptah]

6. Did the F&F perps do multiple purchases?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. NO.

The F&F perps work for the ATF.

[petronius]

7. With the caveat that I am in no way a Constitutional scholar, I would say it's unlikely

that tracking sales of firearms, or firearms registration in general, would violate 2A. It may or may not be good public policy, it may be undesirable in the view of gun owners, it may be a waste of resources, it may open the door to abuse or create a slippery slope toward further restrictions that themselves would violate 2A, but in itself I doubt it's unConstitutional.

Something that I think gets lost in gun rights/control discussions is that 2A is not the only thing that matters - determining whether something is or isn't barred by 2A isn't necessarily the beginning, end, or even part of a specific discussion. There are plenty of laws or policies that may be Constitutionally allowable, but just aren't good ideas. (And, perhaps, some good ideas that are barred by the Constitution. But of course no gun control ideas are in that latter category... )

[Starboard Tack]

10. How could it be?

There is no rule TMK that says rights are not subject to regulation and monitoring. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but hardly a violation of 2A.

[krispos42]

31. 4th Amendment?

Right to privacy, perhaps?

Or can the government decide there are other things that they can mandate the tracking of purchases of?

[Starboard Tack]

32. It needs to be addressed, but with Google et al, the practice is already ubiquitous.

I think 4A becomes more illusory every day and the government is only a minor player in it's destruction, so far.

[FBaggins]

11. No. But...

... it could be a violation of the 4th and your right to privacy.

[bongbong]

14. Right to privacy?

You think the "right to privacy" still exists?

I have a bridge to sell you; CHEAP! If you're interested, send me an email.

[PavePusher]

21. So, you've surrendered?

Interesting datum there.

[bongbong]

22. Strawman alert!

So, you've decided to pull something out of your butt and tack it onto me?



Let me know what your plan is to stop the vacuuming up of the records of every American's every single activity.

[hack89]

23. So eroding it further is the progressive thing to do?

just give up and go with the flow since there is no point in restoring our right to privacy? Ok.

[bongbong]

25. So ... it's not

I never said what your "So ....." post implied. Just stated the fact that an argument based on "right to privacy" is kinda obsolete these days. Fighting to get that right back is of course the right thing to do.

But the march of technology stays 10 steps ahead. Now you can be fingerprinted from 10 feet away. They can photograph detail the size of a fingernail from space. 3-D radar mapping can see thru walls, and .... that's just what we know of. The classified stuff is probably 100x as intrusive.

Technology has done an end-run around "right to privacy". TPTB don't need to get in your face to get nearly every detail of your personal life. They can do it in ways the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned.

[hack89]

26. So the first step in fighting back is to resist when ever we are presented the opportunity.

fighting any effort to expand government's power to keep records on what I own and what I do is a good start.

[Starboard Tack]

33. How would you go about restoring it?

The government is a minor player. You'd have to roll back 30 years of technology to get back any semblance of privacy. 4A faded into oblivion during Reagan.

[hack89]

34. I am referring specifically to government intrusion into my privacy

why can't gun control advocates find a way to achieve their goals without surrendering even more of my lost privacy to the government?

[Starboard Tack]

35. Oh, I agree.

I think they should spend their money on education and public service announcements, rather than pushing restrictive legislation. Let's face it, legislation isn't going to work. The cat is out of the bag. Chasing it is pointless. If we want to kill it, we should stop feeding it.

[slackmaster]

15. Yes, it's the same level of harassment as requiring someone who wishes to vote to present a photo ID

[jeepnstein]

18. Probably not.

If a person is buying a matched set of something, or just stocking up for the zombie apocalypse they're not breaking any laws. Triggering a follow up on the 4473's is reasonable and would pretty much clear up the matter in a minute or two. It would also probably turn up a few straw buyers. How worked up you get about this all depends on what brand of tin foil you use for a hat.

Registration is a no-go. But the 4473 is an affirmation that you are an eligible buyer and is a totally different thing. I see no problem with a quick phone interview to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak. Personally, I think it would be a waste of money and manpower but some people really get their shorts in a bundle over someone owning an "arsenal".

[NewMoonTherian]

19. No, because it's not preventing a person from keeping or bearing arms.

It's simply a tool that is used to violate the second amendment.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. confusion. can you elaborate on this:

"...a tool that is used to violate the second amendment."

since you answered No.....I am not certain I understand. Can you clarify your position and the reason for it, please.

Thanks.

[NewMoonTherian]

30. Looking back, that is a little confusing.

Of itself, tracking multiple purchases doesn't interfere with firearm ownership. Nor would registration or recording private gun sales, or ballistic fingerprinting, or publishing CCW holder lists, or any other measures that deal with gathering and sharing information. However, what is done with that information is usually a violation of the second amendment. That's why we consider the information-gathering measures to be harmful. That, and they violate privacy rights.

Now, laws allowing LEO's to stop open carriers and check for handgun permits without probable cause is a 4th amendment nightmare. We in Oklahoma are buckling down for a court battle on this very issue once our new open carry law takes effect.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. Yes, for the same reason that

NewMoonTherian said No.