7 ms·

>"I need a gun that can’t have serial numbers on it" Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no database connecting owners to guns[0] let alone ballis

>"I need a gun that can’t have serial numbers on it" Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no database connecting owners to guns[0] let alone ballistics tests to serial numbers. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

wl 8y ago
Just because there's no database doesn't mean a gun can't be connected to an owner. Manufacturers keep records of which serial numbers go to which distributors. Those distributors keep track of which dealers get which guns. Those dealers are required by law to keep a record of who bought what guns. It's not a database query, but it is a few phone calls. And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system. Getting a gun not connected to you requires breaking the law these days. NIBIN is a database of shell casing toolmarks that can potentially link shell casings found at different shootings together.
- nabnob 8y ago
  This varies state by state, and California is notorious as one of the states with stricter gun laws. In many parts of the country, person-to-person gun sales (without a firearms license) are common and police rarely investigate them.
  - unityByFreedom 8y ago
    notorious?
    - LanceH 8y ago
      Notorious because a lot of the laws passed (or attempted) are designed not to regulate gun ownership, but to prohibit it in practice.
    - solidsnack9000 8y ago
      Many of the laws of California, and of certain localities in California, reflect hostility to guns and gun owners more than they reflect any concern with public safety. For example, in San Francisco it was illegal for many years to own an airsoft gun (replica firearm that fires little 0.2g plastic pellets). This was struck down only when Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a law to the effect that replica firearms were to be regulated at the state level. It is hard to see what a ban on airsoft guns was intended to accomplish, since they are not viable as weapons at all. More seriously, California laws concerning handgun sales prevent Californians from benefitting from safety improvements in newer firearms (as well as preventing them from benefitting from the coolness of new firearms). Only handguns on a select list are permitted to be sold in California, and Kamala Harris closed the list some years ago. Ostensibly this is because the state of California would (a) like to see newer handguns implement "micro-stamping", where the gun imprints its serial number on each shell and bullet as it is fired and (b) believes this technology to be generally available. It's not that (a) is a bad thing but (b) is completely false; there are virtually no firearms that implement micro-stamping. Most absurdly, the ban on "assault weapons" is in practice a ban on rifles with a pistol grip, as opposed to those with a classic stock. Rifles are used in a small minority -- 5% -- of shootings, in any event. They are (a) inconvenient to transport and (b) harder to use for a robbery, where the robber would like to have one hand free to grab stuff. The ban on rifles with pistol grips is something that is more a matter of showing the flag than affecting a real positive public benefit. Travel restrictions on firearms are also more onerous than useful. In California, we can travel with firearms to any place where we may legitimately use firearms or transship them, but woe betide us if we should stop for a coffee on the way there. Thus we may travel to and from a shooting range, but not stop for lunch at any point. Given that we are to lock our unloaded firearms up when we travel with them, it's hard to see what is gained by preventing us from stopping along the way.
      - all_factz 8y ago
        It always gets me how eloquent and informed gun-rights people become about owning weapons which are basically intended to kill people.
        8y ago
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    This comes down to NRA lobbying I believe. There are some fascinating articles on this topic - https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8/?r=AU&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trac...
    - drewmol 8y ago
      I agree this topic is fastinating. From that article, "Since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than have died in all our wars put together. In 2014: 33,599. Who's doing all the shooting and where are they getting all those guns and how many do they have and can't we get control over this clusterfuck? Wouldn't a national gun registry give us a tool to stop some of the killing?" Consider that ~ 2/3 of those are suicide when interpreting the numbers and impact a searchable federal registry may have. >That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. I'm not a gun owner but the risk/reward of creating said digital registry is unclear to me. There was a newspaper (in NY I think) who published a list of registered gun owners names and addresses several years ago and it struck me as counter producitve.
      - jki275 8y ago
        Exactly... Do you really trust the government to safeguard such a database? If it existed, it would be hacked and the resulting data used to create target lists for burglaries. It would actually likely increase the number of guns in criminal hands.
        yowzadave 8y ago
        > It would actually likely increase the number of guns in criminal hands. This seems like a fairly wild speculation. To pick just one possible counter argument: are you suggesting that criminals, if they could choose, would prefer to rob homes that they know beforehand are heavily armed?
        drewmol 8y ago
- clubm8 8y ago
  >Just because there's no database doesn't mean a gun can't be connected to an owner. Manufacturers keep records of which serial numbers go to which distributors. Those distributors keep track of which dealers get which guns. Those dealers are required by law to keep a record of who bought what guns. It's not a database query, but it is a few phone calls. And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system. Not everyone lives in California, and IIRC it's even legal to buy a gun in, say, Nevada, and bring it into California if it is legal to own there.
  - wl 8y ago
    The person in question lived in California. It is a violation of federal law to buy a handgun in a state you're not a legal resident unless you go through an FFL in your home state.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- masonic 8y ago
  And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system ... and end up in the state DOJ database, searchable by serial number or by owner. During a traffic stop, when an officer calls in your ID, they can instantly know whether you legally own hand it"assault weapons", and how many.
  - masonic 8y ago
    s/hand it"assault weapons"/handguns or "assault weapons"/
ahakki 8y ago
It is actually possible to legally aquire a fully automatic machine gun without serial numbers. IIRC when the machine gun ban of 1986 was passed there was an amnesty period where anyone could register any firearm no questions asked, in hopes of getting everything registered. Some GIs who had stolen army equipment (mainly service rifles) registered that, but because they where scared of being cought they removed the serial numbers beforehand. These firearms are still legally transferable as Machine Guns registered before 1986.
- crikli 8y ago
  That's two events mixed together. There was an amnesty similar to what you're talking about in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and it's the only firearms amnesty that's been offered. The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 (why is it that these bills always do the opposite of their title) did not have amnesty provisions. The big thing it did was ban civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms with specific exceptions where stringent requirements are met.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    No the OP is correct. The 1968 amnesty was very broad. Even felons were allowed to keep their guns.
  - ahakki 8y ago
    Yes I mixed up the 1968 Gun Control Act and it's associated amnesty with the 1986 Machine Gun Ban. I was just going off the top of my head. https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397/ https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397...
  - wl 8y ago
    Closing the registry was a poison pill added to FOPA after introduction. The bill passed, even with that amendment. Aside from the registry, it provided legal protection from the patchwork of state firearm laws for travelers who are just passing through a state.
- jki275 8y ago
masonic 8y ago
There is no manual technique that can obscure a properly stamped serial number from modern detection techniques anyway.
- rocqua 8y ago
  I'd expect sufficient filing to do a lot, or does the stamp like affect the metallurgy deep down?
  - jki275 8y ago
    It does. There's a whole forensic science built around recovery of defaced s/ns of firearms.

wl 8y ago

Just because there's no database doesn't mean a gun can't be connected to an owner. Manufacturers keep records of which serial numbers go to which distributors. Those distributors keep track of which dealers get which guns. Those dealers are required by law to keep a record of who bought what guns. It's not a database query, but it is a few phone calls. And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system. Getting a gun not connected to you requires breaking the law these days. NIBIN is a database of shell casing toolmarks that can potentially link shell casings found at different shootings together.

nabnob 8y ago
This varies state by state, and California is notorious as one of the states with stricter gun laws. In many parts of the country, person-to-person gun sales (without a firearms license) are common and police rarely investigate them.
- unityByFreedom 8y ago
  notorious?
  - LanceH 8y ago
    Notorious because a lot of the laws passed (or attempted) are designed not to regulate gun ownership, but to prohibit it in practice.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Many of the laws of California, and of certain localities in California, reflect hostility to guns and gun owners more than they reflect any concern with public safety. For example, in San Francisco it was illegal for many years to own an airsoft gun (replica firearm that fires little 0.2g plastic pellets). This was struck down only when Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a law to the effect that replica firearms were to be regulated at the state level. It is hard to see what a ban on airsoft guns was intended to accomplish, since they are not viable as weapons at all. More seriously, California laws concerning handgun sales prevent Californians from benefitting from safety improvements in newer firearms (as well as preventing them from benefitting from the coolness of new firearms). Only handguns on a select list are permitted to be sold in California, and Kamala Harris closed the list some years ago. Ostensibly this is because the state of California would (a) like to see newer handguns implement "micro-stamping", where the gun imprints its serial number on each shell and bullet as it is fired and (b) believes this technology to be generally available. It's not that (a) is a bad thing but (b) is completely false; there are virtually no firearms that implement micro-stamping. Most absurdly, the ban on "assault weapons" is in practice a ban on rifles with a pistol grip, as opposed to those with a classic stock. Rifles are used in a small minority -- 5% -- of shootings, in any event. They are (a) inconvenient to transport and (b) harder to use for a robbery, where the robber would like to have one hand free to grab stuff. The ban on rifles with pistol grips is something that is more a matter of showing the flag than affecting a real positive public benefit. Travel restrictions on firearms are also more onerous than useful. In California, we can travel with firearms to any place where we may legitimately use firearms or transship them, but woe betide us if we should stop for a coffee on the way there. Thus we may travel to and from a shooting range, but not stop for lunch at any point. Given that we are to lock our unloaded firearms up when we travel with them, it's hard to see what is gained by preventing us from stopping along the way.
    - all_factz 8y ago
      It always gets me how eloquent and informed gun-rights people become about owning weapons which are basically intended to kill people.
      - 8y ago
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  This comes down to NRA lobbying I believe. There are some fascinating articles on this topic - https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8/?r=AU&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trac...
  - drewmol 8y ago
    I agree this topic is fastinating. From that article, "Since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than have died in all our wars put together. In 2014: 33,599. Who's doing all the shooting and where are they getting all those guns and how many do they have and can't we get control over this clusterfuck? Wouldn't a national gun registry give us a tool to stop some of the killing?" Consider that ~ 2/3 of those are suicide when interpreting the numbers and impact a searchable federal registry may have. >That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. I'm not a gun owner but the risk/reward of creating said digital registry is unclear to me. There was a newspaper (in NY I think) who published a list of registered gun owners names and addresses several years ago and it struck me as counter producitve.
    - jki275 8y ago
      Exactly... Do you really trust the government to safeguard such a database? If it existed, it would be hacked and the resulting data used to create target lists for burglaries. It would actually likely increase the number of guns in criminal hands.
      - yowzadave 8y ago
        > It would actually likely increase the number of guns in criminal hands. This seems like a fairly wild speculation. To pick just one possible counter argument: are you suggesting that criminals, if they could choose, would prefer to rob homes that they know beforehand are heavily armed?
        drewmol 8y ago
clubm8 8y ago
>Just because there's no database doesn't mean a gun can't be connected to an owner. Manufacturers keep records of which serial numbers go to which distributors. Those distributors keep track of which dealers get which guns. Those dealers are required by law to keep a record of who bought what guns. It's not a database query, but it is a few phone calls. And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system. Not everyone lives in California, and IIRC it's even legal to buy a gun in, say, Nevada, and bring it into California if it is legal to own there.
- wl 8y ago
  The person in question lived in California. It is a violation of federal law to buy a handgun in a state you're not a legal resident unless you go through an FFL in your home state.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
masonic 8y ago
And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system ... and end up in the state DOJ database, searchable by serial number or by owner. During a traffic stop, when an officer calls in your ID, they can instantly know whether you legally own hand it"assault weapons", and how many.
- masonic 8y ago
  s/hand it"assault weapons"/handguns or "assault weapons"/

ahakki 8y ago

It is actually possible to legally aquire a fully automatic machine gun without serial numbers. IIRC when the machine gun ban of 1986 was passed there was an amnesty period where anyone could register any firearm no questions asked, in hopes of getting everything registered. Some GIs who had stolen army equipment (mainly service rifles) registered that, but because they where scared of being cought they removed the serial numbers beforehand. These firearms are still legally transferable as Machine Guns registered before 1986.

crikli 8y ago
That's two events mixed together. There was an amnesty similar to what you're talking about in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and it's the only firearms amnesty that's been offered. The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 (why is it that these bills always do the opposite of their title) did not have amnesty provisions. The big thing it did was ban civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms with specific exceptions where stringent requirements are met.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  No the OP is correct. The 1968 amnesty was very broad. Even felons were allowed to keep their guns.
- ahakki 8y ago
  Yes I mixed up the 1968 Gun Control Act and it's associated amnesty with the 1986 Machine Gun Ban. I was just going off the top of my head. https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397/ https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/52520-11-397...
- wl 8y ago
  Closing the registry was a poison pill added to FOPA after introduction. The bill passed, even with that amendment. Aside from the registry, it provided legal protection from the patchwork of state firearm laws for travelers who are just passing through a state.
jki275 8y ago

masonic 8y ago

There is no manual technique that can obscure a properly stamped serial number from modern detection techniques anyway.

rocqua 8y ago
I'd expect sufficient filing to do a lot, or does the stamp like affect the metallurgy deep down?
- jki275 8y ago
  It does. There's a whole forensic science built around recovery of defaced s/ns of firearms.