Strictly Street Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Isn't this an infringement in and of itself? New legislation being considered by the Maryland House of Delegates would allow police to run checks of the state’s gun registry Isn't it illegal to even have a state gun database? New buyers have the background check which is destroyed after ten days, right? Edited March 6, 2014 by Strictly Street 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Isn't it illegal to even have a state gun database? apparently not http://cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm Edited March 6, 2014 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 apparently not http://cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm Interesting. They cannot use the NICS database to get the info on the state level. Wonder where they get the info? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Isn't it illegal to even have a state gun database? New buyers have the background check which is destroyed after ten days, right? It's illegal for the Fed's to have a gun database, the NCIS info has to be destroyed in a few days. States can do whatever they want, so they require the gun shops to register the sale with the state for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YSR_Racer_99 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I certainly hope this is the first step. The first step in taking away Mag's right to free speech. You love Magz. It gives you somebody to spar with...I think you'd be lost w/o him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Interesting. They cannot use the NICS database to get the info on the state level. Wonder where they get the info?Connecticut is using the retained state database. It was their choice to do so. Nothing prevents them from doing that.The state database is built from background checks when individuals purchase weapons, or even try to purchase weapons. Most states do not retain the information. Only a few choose to do so. And maybe a city or two, like Cleveland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Connecticut is using the retained state database. It was their choice to do so. Nothing prevents them from doing that.The state database is built from background checks when individuals purchase weapons, or even try to purchase weapons. Most states do not retain the information. Only a few choose to do so. And maybe a city or two, like Cleveland. Are you sure that is what is happening. I have never seen anything that suggests States or Cities are involved in a NCIS background check. It is a phone call that goes straight to the Feds isn't it? That has always been my experience. There isn't any local involvement. What is going on in MD and Conn is they are requiring people to register their guns with the State, which is what Cleveland also used to do and that is how they are getting what info they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Are you sure that is what is happening. I have never seen anything that suggests States or Cities are involved in a NCIS background check. It is a phone call that goes straight to the Feds isn't it? That has always been my experience. There isn't any local involvement. What is going on in MD and Conn is they are requiring people to register their guns with the State, which is what Cleveland also used to do and that is how they are getting what info they have.Regardless, in Connecticut, it is required to register with the state database.I think you are correct. NICS is only federal information, submitted by the states.I think I confused myself, since many of the background checks I'm familiar with did include checking state records. edit: I did find this, 13 states do the NICS themselves, locally. (And some in part.)http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-mapConnecticut does, Ohio does not. Also found this, the federal NICS checks 3 federal databases.Interstate Identification Index (III), a database of criminal history record informationNational Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and arrest warrantsNICS Index, which includes the information contributed by federal and state agencies identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms who are not included in the III or NCIC, such as persons with a prohibiting mental health history or who are illegal or unlawful aliens.Essentially, those are checks of past, present and future. Edited March 7, 2014 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 edit: I did find this, 13 states do the NICS themselves, locally. (And some in part.)http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-mapConnecticut does, Ohio does not. Ok, this tibit of info you found raises some concerns. The fed law, as I understand it, says the NCIS must remove all info associated with an approved background check pretty quickly..like in a matter of days. Now that is a federal law applying to a federal agency. I doubt that law applies to Connecticut who basically is taking the info from the FFL then calling the FBI/NCIS themselves. So there is a possibility that they are retaining records. I don't know that, but it seems possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Ok, this tibit of info you found raises some concerns. The fed law, as I understand it, says the NCIS must remove all info associated with an approved background check pretty quickly..like in a matter of days. Now that is a federal law applying to a federal agency. I doubt that law applies to Connecticut who basically is taking the info from the FFL then calling the FBI/NCIS themselves. So there is a possibility that they are retaining records. I don't know that, but it seems possible.From what I've read, the state of Connecticut freely admits that they permanently retain the records. I saw what year they started, but don't remember. I might find it. I think it was the year they required state registration. It occurs to me that some people might think that if they previously registered at time of purchase, they didn't need to register again under the new mandate. Don't know the answer to that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prekarious Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 nics may have to be cleaned regularly but ffl holders are required to keep record of sales for I believe 7 years before allowed to destroy. All they have to do is go through the recorded sales to see who bought what. Nice little loophole they placed in the system so they can still say there isn't a registry in effect. Just makes them have to do a bit more work for the same effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattm Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Ermahgerd!! Someone may discover that I am a "dickless lunatic NRA member." ***George Carlin quote**** Seriously, you guys need counseling. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Ermahgerd!! Someone may discover that I am a "dickless lunatic NRA member." ***George Carlin quote**** Seriously, you guys need counseling.Oh, look everybody! The shit stirring, über lib, bikeless, douchecanoe is back! Let's all show this little bitch how much we missed him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Hah. Carlin was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Conn. police refuse to enforce new gun lawshttp://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws A showdown is developing between a sizable number of Connecticut state police officers and the politicians who passed into law highly restrictive gun control, gun bans, and bans on high capacity magazines.Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.A major news story on these developments is due to be published soon, but Hardy received an advanced notice via email from Tyler Jackson, the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers Association, the organization that sent the open letter.According to Hardy,Tyler Jackson has emailed me an interesting story, soon to appear online (I'll link to it once it does)-- the gist is that the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers' Assn has released an open letter stating that the police will not "be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law." So far 250 LEOs have cosigned the letter. Interesting turn of events...... Edited March 10, 2014 by Strictly Street Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Connecticut Cop: “I Can’t Wait To Get The Order To Kick Your Door In”At least one Branford, CT, cop is itching to try to enforce Connecticut’s blatantly unconstitutional gun ban, and has told Cinque that he “cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in.”There are 1,120 State Police in Connecticut. There are less than 7,000 local police officers. Branford itself has just 51.I’m not sure that the threatening officer has thought through how hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the state—and not just those who own banned firearms—may respond to provocation. http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-cop-i-cant-wait-to-get-the-order-to-kick-your-door-in/ Bring in the usual suspects! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_c_F Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Connecticut Cop: “I Can’t Wait To Get The Order To Kick Your Door In”At least one Branford, CT, cop is itching to try to enforce Connecticut’s blatantly unconstitutional gun ban, and has told Cinque that he “cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in.”There are 1,120 State Police in Connecticut. There are less than 7,000 local police officers. Branford itself has just 51.I’m not sure that the threatening officer has thought through how hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the state—and not just those who own banned firearms—may respond to provocation. http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-cop-i-cant-wait-to-get-the-order-to-kick-your-door-in/ Bring in the usual suspects! Yeah, I read that he's been suspended pending an investigation. Whole thing started over him being compared to the Gestapo on Facebook, hahaha. Power-tripping is the worst vacation ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yeah, I read that he's been suspended pending an investigation. Whole thing started over him being compared to the Gestapo on Facebook, hahaha. Power-tripping is the worst vacation ever. News upgrade - Workman's Comp leave, not suspended.(Injured by Facebook? Work related?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 News upgrade - Workman's Comp leave, not suspended.(Injured by Facebook? Work related?) Post Traumatic Stress would be my bet. They always claim that when they are caught acting like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Post Traumatic Stress would be my bet. They always claim that when they are caught acting like that. Sounds legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 This will get interesting once it's clear who is on what side of the line. If the majority of police refuse to support the state government, they can either backpedal and strike the laws, or maybe request help from state national guard who may not support them either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 This will get interesting once it's clear who is on what side of the line. If the majority of police refuse to support the state government, they can either backpedal and strike the laws, or maybe request help from state national guard who may not support them either. That would get interesting, the states national guard kicking down doors - next step federal troops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Next stop open revolt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Naw, next stop more bitching on the internet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Naw, next stop more bitching on the internet. Maybe and maybe not. The actions of law enforcement don't leave much wiggle room. If they come to your door your options are limited.Insist on seeing a warrant? Umm.. to what end? Just because they are there you are already going to jail. Warrant or no.Refuse to let them in? Umm... don't think that will work. They will kick in the door and arrest you and add resisting arrest to the rest of the charges they file.Start a shoot out? Umm... don't think that will work. They will be better armed than you are. Re-enforcements will be available to them but not to you.Start a standoff? Umm.. don't think that will work. They will shut off the power and water just wait you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.