CDZ Gaps in controlling/curtailing illegal access to firearms

[usmbguest5318]

1. Federal law does not require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement. Federal law does, however, require licensed firearms dealers to report the loss or theft of any firearm from the dealer’s inventory to the U.S. Attorney General or local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft.
2. State firearm loss and/or theft laws -- the temporal reporting window ranges from 24 hours to five days:
   • Nine states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of any firearms to law enforcement.
     • California -- California’s reporting requirement was enacted not through legislative action but only as a result of voters’ passing Proposition 63 in November 2016.
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Connecticut
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Delaware
     • District of Columbia (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • Illinois
     • Massachusetts (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • New Jersey
       • New Jersey also has a civil liability component, but only for assault weapons.
         In New Jersey, if a registered assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of that weapon is civilly liable for any damages resulting from that crime. This liability does not apply if the assault weapon was stolen and the registered owner reported the theft to law enforcement within 24 hours of his or her knowledge of the theft.
     • New York (24 hour window)
     • Ohio (24 hour window)
     • Rhode Island (24 hour window)
   • Maryland, requires individuals to report the loss or theft of handguns and assault weapons but not other firearms.
   • Michigan, requires owners to notify law enforcement about firearm thefts but not lost firearms.

What may one plausibly infer from the above (including information found at the links)?

• Thirty-nine states' elected officials quite simply do not give a damn and don't want to know about what happens to a gun after it's been legally purchased, although perhaps they care enough to pray for victims of of such firearms having been used unlawfully.
• Federal elected officials do not give a damn and don't want to know about stolen or lost firearms, except if they are stolen from someone/an entity that stands to suffer some measure of retail commercial (profit) loss as a result of the theft. (Read the code itself; several of the key provisions have exceptions and/or are written so that manufacturers, by dint of the nature of manufacturing vs. retailing and distribution, simply aren't subject to them, even though they, like any entity, can have their inventory stolen.
• Burden of Proof -- At the federal level, prosecutors of violations of the federal reporting statute can prevail only if they can show mens rea on the part of the alleged retailer or manufacturer. For example, if a dealer sells guns without background checks, it could claim any number of administrative oversights, or even "oops, we forgot," and avoid prosecution for failing to create, complete or submit the required documentation. Similarly, it would be very difficult for the ATF to prove that a dealer abetted a straw purchase unless there is video or audio footage or other highly probative evidence of such.

Enforcement/Oversight of Existing Laws
Additionally, at the federal level, enforcement of existing laws falls to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Part of the ATF's enforcement activities include periodic audits of firearms merchants' records/recordkeeping procedures. The quantity of ATF agents has remained roughly the same since 1972.

​

Moreover, from 2001 to 2015, the quantity of industry operations ATF inspectors fell from 961 to 811. As of 2017, those inspectors had ~135K federal firearms licensees' operations to inspect. That amounts to ~12 hours that each inspector has to review -- plan, organize, travel to, obtain, "tick and tie," "trace" and "vouch" -- the qualitative transaction records of each dealer, and that 12 hour figure assumes inspectors perform none but the noted activities, which obviously cannot at all be the reality of "a day in the life" of an ATF industry operations inspector.

The dearth of time available to perform any given audit means inspectors must resort to using sampling techniques to perform their audits. That may seem like a reasonable "compromise," but it's not. It's not because audit sampling techniques identify potential missteps/misstatements only if they occur on a somewhat recurring basis. For example, the odds are very low that sampling techniques will select for review a record that was part of a violation event/misstep that is a once or twice in a year happenstance.

That sounds reasonable, and but for the fact that we're talking about such violations making possible, even more so than were the violations not extant, deadly gun violence; thus one violation can become the initially causal event in a lethally ending sequence of events. After all, the primary purpose of the operations inspections (audits) isn't to reduce the risk of or dissuade administrative/civil wrongdoings such as a dealer simply not paying a tax or fee of some sort, though that may be what is found, and when it is found, it'll be addressed. The audit purpose is to dissuade the transfer of firearms to individuals who have no business possessing them.


Conclusion:
While I have not above addressed the gaps in the licensing process, the gaps I have identified certainly can be closed. How:

• Hire markedly more operations inspectors.
• Amend federal statutes from their mens rea required status to that of strict liability.
• Enact federal strict-liability criminal penalties/provisions similar to NJ's civil liability constraint and do so in a way that creates supply-chain interdependence so that:
  • Manufacturers (1) have a reason to give a damn about whom they allow to participate in their manufacture-to-market process and (2) have motivation to exert their own process controls on their downstream trading partners (distributors, transporters, and retailers), and
  • Individuals (persons not in the business of selling firearms) have a burden to exercise due circumspection and reporting in the "casual transfer" (sale/donation) of their gun(s).
• Enact federal legislation that prohibits insurance (business operations and property) reimbursement for thefts of firearms.
• Enact federal legislation requiring the reporting of all losses or thefts of firearms.

 

[yiostheoy]

1. Federal law does not require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement. Federal law does, however, require licensed firearms dealers to report the loss or theft of any firearm from the dealer’s inventory to the U.S. Attorney General or local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft.
2. State firearm loss and/or theft laws -- the temporal reporting window ranges from 24 hours to five days:
   • Nine states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of any firearms to law enforcement.
     • California -- California’s reporting requirement was enacted not through legislative action but only as a result of voters’ passing Proposition 63 in November 2016.
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Connecticut
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Delaware
     • District of Columbia (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • Illinois
     • Massachusetts (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • New Jersey
       • New Jersey also has a civil liability component, but only for assault weapons.
         In New Jersey, if a registered assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of that weapon is civilly liable for any damages resulting from that crime. This liability does not apply if the assault weapon was stolen and the registered owner reported the theft to law enforcement within 24 hours of his or her knowledge of the theft.
     • New York (24 hour window)
     • Ohio (24 hour window)
     • Rhode Island (24 hour window)
   • Maryland, requires individuals to report the loss or theft of handguns and assault weapons but not other firearms.
   • Michigan, requires owners to notify law enforcement about firearm thefts but not lost firearms.

What may one plausibly infer from the above (including information found at the links)?

• Thirty-nine states' elected officials quite simply do not give a damn and don't want to know about what happens to a gun after it's been legally purchased, although perhaps they care enough to pray for victims of of such firearms having been used unlawfully.
• Federal elected officials do not give a damn and don't want to know about stolen or lost firearms, except if they are stolen from someone/an entity that stands to suffer some measure of retail commercial (profit) loss as a result of the theft. (Read the code itself; several of the key provisions have exceptions and/or are written so that manufacturers, by dint of the nature of manufacturing vs. retailing and distribution, simply aren't subject to them, even though they, like any entity, can have their inventory stolen.
• Burden of Proof -- At the federal level, prosecutors of violations of the federal reporting statute can prevail only if they can show mens rea on the part of the alleged retailer or manufacturer. For example, if a dealer sells guns without background checks, it could claim any number of administrative oversights, or even "oops, we forgot," and avoid prosecution for failing to create, complete or submit the required documentation. Similarly, it would be very difficult for the ATF to prove that a dealer abetted a straw purchase unless there is video or audio footage or other highly probative evidence of such.

Enforcement/Oversight of Existing Laws
Additionally, at the federal level, enforcement of existing laws falls to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Part of the ATF's enforcement activities include periodic audits of firearms merchants' records/recordkeeping procedures. The quantity of ATF agents has remained roughly the same since 1972.

​

Moreover, from 2001 to 2015, the quantity of industry operations ATF inspectors fell from 961 to 811. As of 2017, those inspectors had ~135K federal firearms licensees' operations to inspect. That amounts to ~12 hours that each inspector has to review -- plan, organize, travel to, obtain, "tick and tie," "trace" and "vouch" -- the qualitative transaction records of each dealer, and that 12 hour figure assumes inspectors perform none but the noted activities, which obviously cannot at all be the reality of "a day in the life" of an ATF industry operations inspector.

The dearth of time available to perform any given audit means inspectors must resort to using sampling techniques to perform their audits. That may seem like a reasonable "compromise," but it's not. It's not because audit sampling techniques identify potential missteps/misstatements only if they occur on a somewhat recurring basis. For example, the odds are very low that sampling techniques will select for review a record that was part of a violation event/misstep that is a once or twice in a year happenstance.

That sounds reasonable, and but for the fact that we're talking about such violations making possible, even more so than were the violations not extant, deadly gun violence; thus one violation can become the initially causal event in a lethally ending sequence of events. After all, the primary purpose of the operations inspections (audits) isn't to reduce the risk of or dissuade administrative/civil wrongdoings such as a dealer simply not paying a tax or fee of some sort, though that may be what is found, and when it is found, it'll be addressed. The audit purpose is to dissuade the transfer of firearms to individuals who have no business possessing them.


Conclusion:
While I have not above addressed the gaps in the licensing process, the gaps I have identified certainly can be closed. How:

• Hire markedly more operations inspectors.
• Amend federal statutes from their mens rea required status to that of strict liability.
• Enact federal strict-liability criminal penalties/provisions similar to NJ's civil liability constraint and do so in a way that creates supply-chain interdependence so that:
  • Manufacturers (1) have a reason to give a damn about whom they allow to participate in their manufacture-to-market process and (2) have motivation to exert their own process controls on their downstream trading partners (distributors, transporters, and retailers), and
  • Individuals (persons not in the business of selling firearms) have a burden to exercise due circumspection and reporting in the "casual transfer" (sale/donation) of their gun(s).
• Enact federal legislation that prohibits insurance (business operations and property) reimbursement for thefts of firearms.
• Enact federal legislation requiring the reporting of all losses or thefts of firearms.

Informative, yes, but just ho-hum otherwise.

People with a gun need at all times to keep it on their person and/or under their pillow while they sleep. Otherwise it is easy to steal.

People who cannot keep their gun on their person and/or under pillow at all times need a gun safe which is bolted down into the cement floor.

The real crime of irresponsibility is NOT having a proper and secure gun safe.

My gun safe holds my hunting rifle and my assault carbine when I am not home.

My shotgun is locked and bolted to my spare tire rack inside my car and covered up from view. It is never more than a few feet from wherever I am, whether home or away.

My pistol is always by my side, either my right side in open carry for work or my left side in my concealed shoulder holster the rest of time, or under my pillow when I sleep.

You cannot just plaster over irresponsible gun behavior with more laws.

If your gun/guns get stolen or lost you just gave a very powerful weapon to a criminal. That's YOUR fault !!!

 

[Dale Smith]

1. Federal law does not require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement. Federal law does, however, require licensed firearms dealers to report the loss or theft of any firearm from the dealer’s inventory to the U.S. Attorney General or local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft.
2. State firearm loss and/or theft laws -- the temporal reporting window ranges from 24 hours to five days:
   • Nine states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of any firearms to law enforcement.
     • California -- California’s reporting requirement was enacted not through legislative action but only as a result of voters’ passing Proposition 63 in November 2016.
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Connecticut
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Delaware
     • District of Columbia (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • Illinois
     • Massachusetts (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • New Jersey
       • New Jersey also has a civil liability component, but only for assault weapons.
         In New Jersey, if a registered assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of that weapon is civilly liable for any damages resulting from that crime. This liability does not apply if the assault weapon was stolen and the registered owner reported the theft to law enforcement within 24 hours of his or her knowledge of the theft.
     • New York (24 hour window)
     • Ohio (24 hour window)
     • Rhode Island (24 hour window)
   • Maryland, requires individuals to report the loss or theft of handguns and assault weapons but not other firearms.
   • Michigan, requires owners to notify law enforcement about firearm thefts but not lost firearms.

What may one plausibly infer from the above (including information found at the links)?

• Thirty-nine states' elected officials quite simply do not give a damn and don't want to know about what happens to a gun after it's been legally purchased, although perhaps they care enough to pray for victims of of such firearms having been used unlawfully.
• Federal elected officials do not give a damn and don't want to know about stolen or lost firearms, except if they are stolen from someone/an entity that stands to suffer some measure of retail commercial (profit) loss as a result of the theft. (Read the code itself; several of the key provisions have exceptions and/or are written so that manufacturers, by dint of the nature of manufacturing vs. retailing and distribution, simply aren't subject to them, even though they, like any entity, can have their inventory stolen.
• Burden of Proof -- At the federal level, prosecutors of violations of the federal reporting statute can prevail only if they can show mens rea on the part of the alleged retailer or manufacturer. For example, if a dealer sells guns without background checks, it could claim any number of administrative oversights, or even "oops, we forgot," and avoid prosecution for failing to create, complete or submit the required documentation. Similarly, it would be very difficult for the ATF to prove that a dealer abetted a straw purchase unless there is video or audio footage or other highly probative evidence of such.

Enforcement/Oversight of Existing Laws
Additionally, at the federal level, enforcement of existing laws falls to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Part of the ATF's enforcement activities include periodic audits of firearms merchants' records/recordkeeping procedures. The quantity of ATF agents has remained roughly the same since 1972.

​

Moreover, from 2001 to 2015, the quantity of industry operations ATF inspectors fell from 961 to 811. As of 2017, those inspectors had ~135K federal firearms licensees' operations to inspect. That amounts to ~12 hours that each inspector has to review -- plan, organize, travel to, obtain, "tick and tie," "trace" and "vouch" -- the qualitative transaction records of each dealer, and that 12 hour figure assumes inspectors perform none but the noted activities, which obviously cannot at all be the reality of "a day in the life" of an ATF industry operations inspector.

The dearth of time available to perform any given audit means inspectors must resort to using sampling techniques to perform their audits. That may seem like a reasonable "compromise," but it's not. It's not because audit sampling techniques identify potential missteps/misstatements only if they occur on a somewhat recurring basis. For example, the odds are very low that sampling techniques will select for review a record that was part of a violation event/misstep that is a once or twice in a year happenstance.

That sounds reasonable, and but for the fact that we're talking about such violations making possible, even more so than were the violations not extant, deadly gun violence; thus one violation can become the initially causal event in a lethally ending sequence of events. After all, the primary purpose of the operations inspections (audits) isn't to reduce the risk of or dissuade administrative/civil wrongdoings such as a dealer simply not paying a tax or fee of some sort, though that may be what is found, and when it is found, it'll be addressed. The audit purpose is to dissuade the transfer of firearms to individuals who have no business possessing them.


Conclusion:
While I have not above addressed the gaps in the licensing process, the gaps I have identified certainly can be closed. How:

• Hire markedly more operations inspectors.
• Amend federal statutes from their mens rea required status to that of strict liability.
• Enact federal strict-liability criminal penalties/provisions similar to NJ's civil liability constraint and do so in a way that creates supply-chain interdependence so that:
  • Manufacturers (1) have a reason to give a damn about whom they allow to participate in their manufacture-to-market process and (2) have motivation to exert their own process controls on their downstream trading partners (distributors, transporters, and retailers), and
  • Individuals (persons not in the business of selling firearms) have a burden to exercise due circumspection and reporting in the "casual transfer" (sale/donation) of their gun(s).
• Enact federal legislation that prohibits insurance (business operations and property) reimbursement for thefts of firearms.
• Enact federal legislation requiring the reporting of all losses or thefts of firearms.

Informative, yes, but just ho-hum otherwise.

People with a gun need at all times to keep it on their person and/or under their pillow while they sleep. Otherwise it is easy to steal.

People who cannot keep their gun on their person and/or under pillow at all times need a gun safe which is bolted down into the cement floor.

The real crime of irresponsibility is NOT having a proper and secure gun safe.

My gun safe holds my hunting rifle and my assault carbine when I am not home.

My shotgun is locked and bolted to my spare tire rack inside my car and covered up from view. It is never more than a few feet from wherever I am, whether home or away.

My pistol is always by my side, either my right side in open carry for work or my left side in my concealed shoulder holster the rest of time, or under my pillow when I sleep.

You cannot just plaster over irresponsible gun behavior with more laws.

If your gun/guns get stolen or lost you just gave a very powerful weapon to a criminal. That's YOUR fault !!!

People can create an even more lethal way to kill people without a gun. Gasoline and a match. You can create a flame thrower with a spray bottle filled with a flammable liquid and a lighter. There is a reason that this corporate entity (disguised as government) is using the Hegelian Dialectic to try and move the herd towards laying down any means of protecting themselves. True story below that I have posted on this site before....



Back in 1969, my dad was a peace officer that worked graveyard and he taught my mom how to use a snub-nosed revolver and had her keep it at her bedside at all times. One night, someone broke in through the back door and came walking up the hallway. It woke me and my little brother up and my mom grabbed her gun. I was freaking out because my mom was telling the intruder that she had a gun and it was loaded. I could see the intruder's silhouette...my mom was a big time reader and she had her lamp on and would read late into the night so that is why I could see his shadow. I wanted to go and protect my mom but she told us to stay put and was she ever afraid? I still remember this like it happened yesterday. Our room was almost directly across from my parents but not quite. Eventually he was convinced that my mom was not bluffing and he shagged ass and left. Back then we only had rotary phones, no such thing as 911 and most people back then didn't have a phone in every room. About six months later this 18 year old kid that lived across the alley from us was arrested for raping and strangling to death a woman that lived on his block. They could never prove that this was the same kid that broke in our house but I would say the probability is rather high that it was. I am awfully glad that she had a gun to protect her and us.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. Federal law does not require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement. Federal law does, however, require licensed firearms dealers to report the loss or theft of any firearm from the dealer’s inventory to the U.S. Attorney General or local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft.
2. State firearm loss and/or theft laws -- the temporal reporting window ranges from 24 hours to five days:
   • Nine states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of any firearms to law enforcement.
     • California -- California’s reporting requirement was enacted not through legislative action but only as a result of voters’ passing Proposition 63 in November 2016.
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Connecticut
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Delaware
     • District of Columbia (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • Illinois
     • Massachusetts (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • New Jersey
       • New Jersey also has a civil liability component, but only for assault weapons.
         In New Jersey, if a registered assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of that weapon is civilly liable for any damages resulting from that crime. This liability does not apply if the assault weapon was stolen and the registered owner reported the theft to law enforcement within 24 hours of his or her knowledge of the theft.
     • New York (24 hour window)
     • Ohio (24 hour window)
     • Rhode Island (24 hour window)
   • Maryland, requires individuals to report the loss or theft of handguns and assault weapons but not other firearms.
   • Michigan, requires owners to notify law enforcement about firearm thefts but not lost firearms.

What may one plausibly infer from the above (including information found at the links)?

• Thirty-nine states' elected officials quite simply do not give a damn and don't want to know about what happens to a gun after it's been legally purchased, although perhaps they care enough to pray for victims of of such firearms having been used unlawfully.
• Federal elected officials do not give a damn and don't want to know about stolen or lost firearms, except if they are stolen from someone/an entity that stands to suffer some measure of retail commercial (profit) loss as a result of the theft. (Read the code itself; several of the key provisions have exceptions and/or are written so that manufacturers, by dint of the nature of manufacturing vs. retailing and distribution, simply aren't subject to them, even though they, like any entity, can have their inventory stolen.
• Burden of Proof -- At the federal level, prosecutors of violations of the federal reporting statute can prevail only if they can show mens rea on the part of the alleged retailer or manufacturer. For example, if a dealer sells guns without background checks, it could claim any number of administrative oversights, or even "oops, we forgot," and avoid prosecution for failing to create, complete or submit the required documentation. Similarly, it would be very difficult for the ATF to prove that a dealer abetted a straw purchase unless there is video or audio footage or other highly probative evidence of such.

Enforcement/Oversight of Existing Laws
Additionally, at the federal level, enforcement of existing laws falls to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Part of the ATF's enforcement activities include periodic audits of firearms merchants' records/recordkeeping procedures. The quantity of ATF agents has remained roughly the same since 1972.

​

Moreover, from 2001 to 2015, the quantity of industry operations ATF inspectors fell from 961 to 811. As of 2017, those inspectors had ~135K federal firearms licensees' operations to inspect. That amounts to ~12 hours that each inspector has to review -- plan, organize, travel to, obtain, "tick and tie," "trace" and "vouch" -- the qualitative transaction records of each dealer, and that 12 hour figure assumes inspectors perform none but the noted activities, which obviously cannot at all be the reality of "a day in the life" of an ATF industry operations inspector.

The dearth of time available to perform any given audit means inspectors must resort to using sampling techniques to perform their audits. That may seem like a reasonable "compromise," but it's not. It's not because audit sampling techniques identify potential missteps/misstatements only if they occur on a somewhat recurring basis. For example, the odds are very low that sampling techniques will select for review a record that was part of a violation event/misstep that is a once or twice in a year happenstance.

That sounds reasonable, and but for the fact that we're talking about such violations making possible, even more so than were the violations not extant, deadly gun violence; thus one violation can become the initially causal event in a lethally ending sequence of events. After all, the primary purpose of the operations inspections (audits) isn't to reduce the risk of or dissuade administrative/civil wrongdoings such as a dealer simply not paying a tax or fee of some sort, though that may be what is found, and when it is found, it'll be addressed. The audit purpose is to dissuade the transfer of firearms to individuals who have no business possessing them.


Conclusion:
While I have not above addressed the gaps in the licensing process, the gaps I have identified certainly can be closed. How:

• Hire markedly more operations inspectors.
• Amend federal statutes from their mens rea required status to that of strict liability.
• Enact federal strict-liability criminal penalties/provisions similar to NJ's civil liability constraint and do so in a way that creates supply-chain interdependence so that:
  • Manufacturers (1) have a reason to give a damn about whom they allow to participate in their manufacture-to-market process and (2) have motivation to exert their own process controls on their downstream trading partners (distributors, transporters, and retailers), and
  • Individuals (persons not in the business of selling firearms) have a burden to exercise due circumspection and reporting in the "casual transfer" (sale/donation) of their gun(s).
• Enact federal legislation that prohibits insurance (business operations and property) reimbursement for thefts of firearms.
• Enact federal legislation requiring the reporting of all losses or thefts of firearms.

Wow..You think 24 hours is taking a gun theft SERIOUSLY ENOUGH? I think you should require a 9-1-1 report before you clean up the mess in your house from the break-in or maybe a certified receipt from a courier..




After all -- the POTENTIAL of FINDING that weapon in 24 hours is damn near zero.... You seem awfully quick to discount a LOT of other weaknesses that Fall under FEDERAL GOVT auspices.. Why is THAT Xelor? Is it because you believe in the general excellence and competence of the FEDS to handle their CURRENT responsibilities?? You'd be DEAD wrong. In fact, more often than not, the "gun supply chain reporting" WORKS BETTER than the Fed oversight of it when actual major crimes occur..

1) Sutherland Springs, TX --- Did you forget that the mass shooter was allowed to purchase because the DOD was TOTALLY confounded and incapable of supplying Military court records to the InstaCheck system? They are being SUED for gross negligence.. Cities sue Defense Department over reporting to federal background check database - CNNPolitics

2) Orlando Night Club shooter.. Was the EVIL SHODDY gun store owners REPORTING to the FBI a perp that had been RELEASED FROM SURVEILLANCE by politically correct FBI time limits on profiled muslims. And then the FBI virtually IGNORED the warnings that they received because the case was "closed".. Gun Store Owner: We Alerted FBI to 'Suspicious' Customer

3) FBI has had TIPS and even full investigations on at LEAST 4 of the high profile mass shooters and never followed through. In the LEAST -- you can 'pause' the investigation. . But they are MORONS if they don't use the massive Domestic Surveillance system that we bought them to COLLECT and collate intel on them for another six months or a year... THAT -- would save more lives than "reporting thefts" toute suite.


So when we can expect a DETAILED gripping report on the massive performance gaps in the vaunted CHECKERS and GUARANTORS of Safety..?? I'll be there when you figure out which angle is MORE important. Especially if youre expecting to make the govt role BIGGER and MORE complicated... And I expect to see some equal or greater outrage...

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. Federal law does not require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement. Federal law does, however, require licensed firearms dealers to report the loss or theft of any firearm from the dealer’s inventory to the U.S. Attorney General or local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft.
2. State firearm loss and/or theft laws -- the temporal reporting window ranges from 24 hours to five days:
   • Nine states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of any firearms to law enforcement.
     • California -- California’s reporting requirement was enacted not through legislative action but only as a result of voters’ passing Proposition 63 in November 2016.
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Connecticut
       • The duty to report is triggered at the time the firearm owner knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen.
     • Delaware
     • District of Columbia (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • Illinois
     • Massachusetts (24 hour window)
       • Failure to report loss/theft can result in revocation of license and inability to obtain one in the future.
     • New Jersey
       • New Jersey also has a civil liability component, but only for assault weapons.
         In New Jersey, if a registered assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of that weapon is civilly liable for any damages resulting from that crime. This liability does not apply if the assault weapon was stolen and the registered owner reported the theft to law enforcement within 24 hours of his or her knowledge of the theft.
     • New York (24 hour window)
     • Ohio (24 hour window)
     • Rhode Island (24 hour window)
   • Maryland, requires individuals to report the loss or theft of handguns and assault weapons but not other firearms.
   • Michigan, requires owners to notify law enforcement about firearm thefts but not lost firearms.

What may one plausibly infer from the above (including information found at the links)?

• Thirty-nine states' elected officials quite simply do not give a damn and don't want to know about what happens to a gun after it's been legally purchased, although perhaps they care enough to pray for victims of of such firearms having been used unlawfully.
• Federal elected officials do not give a damn and don't want to know about stolen or lost firearms, except if they are stolen from someone/an entity that stands to suffer some measure of retail commercial (profit) loss as a result of the theft. (Read the code itself; several of the key provisions have exceptions and/or are written so that manufacturers, by dint of the nature of manufacturing vs. retailing and distribution, simply aren't subject to them, even though they, like any entity, can have their inventory stolen.
• Burden of Proof -- At the federal level, prosecutors of violations of the federal reporting statute can prevail only if they can show mens rea on the part of the alleged retailer or manufacturer. For example, if a dealer sells guns without background checks, it could claim any number of administrative oversights, or even "oops, we forgot," and avoid prosecution for failing to create, complete or submit the required documentation. Similarly, it would be very difficult for the ATF to prove that a dealer abetted a straw purchase unless there is video or audio footage or other highly probative evidence of such.

Enforcement/Oversight of Existing Laws
Additionally, at the federal level, enforcement of existing laws falls to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Part of the ATF's enforcement activities include periodic audits of firearms merchants' records/recordkeeping procedures. The quantity of ATF agents has remained roughly the same since 1972.

​

Moreover, from 2001 to 2015, the quantity of industry operations ATF inspectors fell from 961 to 811. As of 2017, those inspectors had ~135K federal firearms licensees' operations to inspect. That amounts to ~12 hours that each inspector has to review -- plan, organize, travel to, obtain, "tick and tie," "trace" and "vouch" -- the qualitative transaction records of each dealer, and that 12 hour figure assumes inspectors perform none but the noted activities, which obviously cannot at all be the reality of "a day in the life" of an ATF industry operations inspector.

The dearth of time available to perform any given audit means inspectors must resort to using sampling techniques to perform their audits. That may seem like a reasonable "compromise," but it's not. It's not because audit sampling techniques identify potential missteps/misstatements only if they occur on a somewhat recurring basis. For example, the odds are very low that sampling techniques will select for review a record that was part of a violation event/misstep that is a once or twice in a year happenstance.

That sounds reasonable, and but for the fact that we're talking about such violations making possible, even more so than were the violations not extant, deadly gun violence; thus one violation can become the initially causal event in a lethally ending sequence of events. After all, the primary purpose of the operations inspections (audits) isn't to reduce the risk of or dissuade administrative/civil wrongdoings such as a dealer simply not paying a tax or fee of some sort, though that may be what is found, and when it is found, it'll be addressed. The audit purpose is to dissuade the transfer of firearms to individuals who have no business possessing them.


Conclusion:
While I have not above addressed the gaps in the licensing process, the gaps I have identified certainly can be closed. How:

• Hire markedly more operations inspectors.
• Amend federal statutes from their mens rea required status to that of strict liability.
• Enact federal strict-liability criminal penalties/provisions similar to NJ's civil liability constraint and do so in a way that creates supply-chain interdependence so that:
  • Manufacturers (1) have a reason to give a damn about whom they allow to participate in their manufacture-to-market process and (2) have motivation to exert their own process controls on their downstream trading partners (distributors, transporters, and retailers), and
  • Individuals (persons not in the business of selling firearms) have a burden to exercise due circumspection and reporting in the "casual transfer" (sale/donation) of their gun(s).
• Enact federal legislation that prohibits insurance (business operations and property) reimbursement for thefts of firearms.
• Enact federal legislation requiring the reporting of all losses or thefts of firearms.

Informative, yes, but just ho-hum otherwise.

People with a gun need at all times to keep it on their person and/or under their pillow while they sleep. Otherwise it is easy to steal.

People who cannot keep their gun on their person and/or under pillow at all times need a gun safe which is bolted down into the cement floor.

The real crime of irresponsibility is NOT having a proper and secure gun safe.

My gun safe holds my hunting rifle and my assault carbine when I am not home.

My shotgun is locked and bolted to my spare tire rack inside my car and covered up from view. It is never more than a few feet from wherever I am, whether home or away.

My pistol is always by my side, either my right side in open carry for work or my left side in my concealed shoulder holster the rest of time, or under my pillow when I sleep.

You cannot just plaster over irresponsible gun behavior with more laws.

If your gun/guns get stolen or lost you just gave a very powerful weapon to a criminal. That's YOUR fault !!!

People with a gun need at all times to keep it on their person and/or under their pillow while they sleep. Otherwise it is easy to steal.

While the difficulty/ease with which one's firearm may be stolen, the OP's central theme addresses and entreats for discussion about gaps in the design and execution of current "internal control" policies and procedures pertaining to the structural manufacture-to-market processes for firearms.

I suppose one could propose legislation to address the "easy to steal" aspects and touchpoints in the process; however, I've not proposed such intrusive notions. I haven't proposed any such measures because I'm a "rules of the game" person, that is, I'm the sort who says, "here are the rules of the game; you know your situation better than do third parties, so you take whatever steps you feel you must to ensure that your (individuals and businesses) firearms are adequately secured such that only the most exceptional of, for the thief, serendipitous circumstances can result in your firearms being stolen." Thus the suggestions I penned in my conclusion, each of which derives from the extant process gaps I cited in the main portion of the OP.

The real crime of irresponsibility is NOT having a proper and secure gun safe.

Am I suggesting that not securing one's firearms is criminal? Well, that is among the themes in my OP. That said, more needs to happen than merely acknowledging that a given action/inaction is criminal. Tacit in the OP is that while gun possessors' negligent behavior is a problem, equally important is that the authorities at least be informed of when such negligence transpires(d). Such reporting is, IMO and that of eleven states, part of being a responsible owner/possessor of firearms.

I don't really care what means and modes one use to secure one's firearms. As goes the scope of this thread's discussion, what's relevant is (1) they are effective, (2) when they are not effective, that the happenstance of such is timely reported to the authorities, (3) what consequences seem fitting when those control procedures aren't followed/effective, and (3) what must be done to enforce the current body of "internal controls" over firearms and participation in the manufacture-to-market process.

I specifically noted that I didn't address the licensing processes and controls in the manufacture-to-market process, and it certainly is apt, if you so desire, to contribute to the discussion here by providing content pertaining to the licensing subprocess because it is, after all, part of the overall manufacture-to-market process. You (others) are more than welcome to create threads to discuss whatever you care to outside the scope of extant controls and enforcement efforts and options attendant to the manufacture-to-market process.

My shotgun is ... is never more than a few feet from wherever I am, whether home or away.

Really? How many feet do you consider to be "a few feet?" I must presume it's markedly more than I consider to be "a few feet."

If your gun/guns get stolen or lost you just gave a very powerful weapon to a criminal. That's YOUR fault !!!

While I absolutely do not concur with your verb choice of "gave," I do agree with the general sentiment of your above statement.

 

[flacaltenn]

News flash TODAY -- Another gap in "curtailing illegal access to firearms".. You definitely FAIL to curtail access to illegal use when your FBI IGNORES a very detailed and complete complaint that SOMEONE HAS a weapon and has expressed a desire to kill...

FBI apologizing at this very moment.. It's NOT the inanimate object that needs to be tracked and investigated. Stolen or not...

Logic and reason tells you that THIS is a FAR more important "gap" in prevention of criminal use of firearms..