What Happens To My Info?

[jrod648]

In one of my classes at school, we are creating a mock trial of a shooting. For the trial I am the defense attorney. The prosecutors claim that they are able to prove that the defendant bought a gun of the same caliber that was used in the shooting. I hope to discredit the prosecutors by proving to them that in the state of Virginia, guns are not registered.

This got me thinking, since the guns I purchase are not suppose to be registered with the state, what does the store that I bought the gun from do with my information of the purchase, after the purchase has been made? There seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this site, and since it is a site specifically for Virginia, I was hoping I could get some answers.

[CCFan]

Better come up with a new argument...

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

Although there's no "firearms registration" in the terms that you may be thinking of, all guns sold via stores in the Commonwealth go through the background check listed on VSP page linked above - any firearm you purchase can be traced.

[zephyp]

And, assuming the gun was purchased at the local gun store they are required by federal law to keep those forms on hand for a long time...forget the number but you can subpoena the local gun stores to give up those forms.

[gunderwood]

Yes, but unless they have lots of proof your client did it, they need to prove it was that specific gun. Do you realize how many guns of a specific type and caliber are in the state? How many Glock 19s or SIG 229s or specific 1911s varients or S&W revolvers, etc. Unless it is a very rare gun, the fact that your client bought a gun of the same model/caliber is not germane...

Lots of people on this board probably have bought that same model, are we suspects now?

[CCFan]

Lots of people on this board probably have bought that same model, are we suspects now?

In today's society? Hard to answer that question.

Back to the OP though, I was focusing on this statement:

I hope to discredit the prosecutors by proving to them that in the state of Virginia, guns are not registered.

If this is the main/only argument, and the prosecutors could prove a same-caliber firearm was purchased by the client (and the argument that there is no firearms registration blows up because they can prove it via the records recorded listed in the VSP website that I linked), well, then, what next? I'm not going to do all the work and argue multiple points for/against - that's for the class & OP to work out.

And, assuming the gun was purchased at the local gun store they are required by federal law to keep those forms on hand for a long time...

I believe it's 20 years to keep records - and if you go out of business, you have to turn in those records to the BATFE....

[SgtBill]

Yes the form is a #4473 if my memory is correct and I did have to turn in all my paperwork to the A.T.F. when I gave up my weapons Lic. many year's ago.
Bill

[LFS]

Better come up with a new argument...

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

Although there's no "firearms registration" in the terms that you may be thinking of, all guns sold via stores in the Commonwealth go through the background check listed on VSP page linked above - any firearm you purchase can be traced.

I don't think this is correct. All purchasers of firearms must undergo the background check, but the serial numbers of the firearms are never transmitted to the VSP and subsequently to the FBI. At least that is what I can tell by reading the link you provided above and the VA SP-69 form that dealers must submit. Though it is not clearly stated, the only firearms information handed to the state during the purchase process is if the purchase is for a handgun so the state can track purchases according to VA's crappy one-handgun-a-month infringement. Again, that's what I gather reading the links. Perhaps one of the dealers that frequent this forum, such as NOVA Arms or SEG, can clarify this.

Identifying information about the firearm are kept on Fed. ATF form 4473, which the FFL keeps in a notebook for 20 years at their store. And I believe the ATF can inspect that notebook without a warrant and for any reason, such as the local State's Attorney calling them up for a favor. And I would think any LEA with jurisdiction could obtain a warrant as well.

The hypothetical defense would then likely have to be that the gun was either lost, stolen, or sold after the purchase from the FFL dealer. And if it was resold, then the defendant will likely need to produce the name of the buyer to have credibility -- and if sold to an FFL, there will be a paper trail. If stolen, the defendant should have a police report and/or a completed SP-194 form to have any credibility. And if the defense is that the gun was lost, well a jury is likely to see the defendant as either incompetent or a liar or both.

[grumpyMSG]

In one of my classes at school, we are creating a mock trial of a shooting. For the trial I am the defense attorney. The prosecutors claim that they are able to prove that the defendant bought a gun of the same caliber that was used in the shooting. I hope to discredit the prosecutors by proving to them that in the state of Virginia, guns are not registered.

This got me thinking, since the guns I purchase are not suppose to be registered with the state, what does the store that I bought the gun from do with my information of the purchase, after the purchase has been made? There seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this site, and since it is a site specifically for Virginia, I was hoping I could get some answers.

Try a different approach, make the prosecutor prove it. He will need testimony, from somebody, store owner, LEO, BATF employee, then ask that individual how many other guns of that caliber he sold in his store, knew were sold in the county, state, etc.. If you know the specifics of the weapon, go to a few local gun stores and get a statement from the owners as to how many X caliber handguns they have sold. To put it differently, we know X was killed by a Ford truck because there was an "F" dent in his forehead. You just have to prove, he wasn't the only one who owned a Ford truck. Give the jury a lot of possible defendants.

[gunderwood]

In one of my classes at school, we are creating a mock trial of a shooting. For the trial I am the defense attorney. The prosecutors claim that they are able to prove that the defendant bought a gun of the same caliber that was used in the shooting. I hope to discredit the prosecutors by proving to them that in the state of Virginia, guns are not registered.

This got me thinking, since the guns I purchase are not suppose to be registered with the state, what does the store that I bought the gun from do with my information of the purchase, after the purchase has been made? There seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this site, and since it is a site specifically for Virginia, I was hoping I could get some answers.

Try a different approach, make the prosecutor prove it. He will need testimony, from somebody, store owner, LEO, BATF employee, then ask that individual how many other guns of that caliber he sold in his store, knew were sold in the county, state, etc.. If you know the specifics of the weapon, go to a few local gun stores and get a statement from the owners as to how many X caliber handguns they have sold. To put it differently, we know X was killed by a Ford truck because there was an "F" dent in his forehead. You just have to prove, he wasn't the only one who owned a Ford truck. Give the jury a lot of possible defendants.

Yup, all they have proved, assuming they can actually do that, is that your defendant owns something that tens of thousands of Virginians also own. Like I said, do you realize how many guns of a particular make and caliber that are sold in VA?

[jrod648]

WOW... Thanks everybody for the replies. I can honestly say that this was more responses than I expected. I appreciate all the different viewpoints that are being given, it helps me look at the situation from several angles. I looked at the website given by ccfan, I read through it quickly and as of right now I agree more towards LFSs' viewpoint but will definitely go back through it more carefully tomorrow.

[gunderwood]

And if it was resold, then the defendant will likely need to produce the name of the buyer to have credibility

Why? The law doesn't require that and if I sold it years ago it is unlikely I would remember who I sold it too.

[SgtBill]

And if it was resold, then the defendant will likely need to produce the name of the buyer to have credibility

Why? The law doesn't require that and if I sold it years ago it is unlikely I would remember who I sold it too.

+1
Bill

[LFS]

And if it was resold, then the defendant will likely need to produce the name of the buyer to have credibility

Why? The law doesn't require that and if I sold it years ago it is unlikely I would remember who I sold it too.

Because during a trial matters of fact are decided by a judge or jury not the legislature. And, especially for a jury, matters of fact often come down to the credibility of witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, and prosecutors. If part of your defense is that you sold the gun in question but can't recall to whom you sold it or, worse, refuse to state to whom you sold it, your credibility with the judge/jury is gonna drop off quite a bit.

[gunderwood]

And if it was resold, then the defendant will likely need to produce the name of the buyer to have credibility

Why? The law doesn't require that and if I sold it years ago it is unlikely I would remember who I sold it too.

Because during a trial matters of fact are decided by a judge or jury not the legislature. And, especially for a jury, matters of fact often come down to the credibility of witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, and prosecutors. If part of your defense is that you sold the gun in question but can't recall to whom you sold it or, worse, refuse to state to whom you sold it, your credibility with the judge/jury is gonna drop off quite a bit.

Your perspective is wrong.

You are arguing that it is my responsibility to prove my innocence rather than the states responsibility to prove my guilt. If the only thing they have on me is that at some point in the past I owed the gun and claimed to have sold it, my word, under oath, should end their case right there in a free society.

Anything else is tyranny and should not be allowed in a free society.

[LFS]

Your perspective is wrong.

You are arguing that it is my responsibility to prove my innocence rather than the states responsibility to prove my guilt. If the only thing they have on me is that at some point in the past I owed the gun and claimed to have sold it, my word, under oath, should end their case right there in a free society.

Anything else is tyranny and should not be allowed in a free society.

Good luck with that attitude in front of jury. I'm sure you'll win your freedom each and every time.

[gunderwood]

Your perspective is wrong.

You are arguing that it is my responsibility to prove my innocence rather than the states responsibility to prove my guilt. If the only thing they have on me is that at some point in the past I owed the gun and claimed to have sold it, my word, under oath, should end their case right there in a free society.

Anything else is tyranny and should not be allowed in a free society.

Good luck with that attitude in front of jury. I'm sure you'll win your freedom each and every time.

Are you telling me that the law is of no importantance in court and that I must win a popularity contest or loose my freedoms?

[jrod648]

While gunderwood is right that the law does not require a receipt of purchase or any kind of record of a transaction for a purchase from a private seller, I completely agree with LFS when he says that for a jury, it often comes down to the credibility of witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, and prosecutors. To me, having an attitude in the courtroom would not be beneficial because if the jury decides that they simply don't like you, it can become that much harder for the jury to decide in your favor. Reasonable or not, that seems to be the nature of many people.

My dad was telling me of a time he was sitting in a courtroom as a member of the jury. He said when the jury went to discuss what they thought about the case, one man said something to the fact of "I don't really like/trust this guy, lets just convict him so I can go home." Thank God that the other members of the jury would have none of that. However it just goes to show you how what the jury thinks about you could end up being important to the outcome of the case.

[gunderwood]

While gunderwood is right that the law does not require a receipt of purchase or any kind of record of a transaction for a purchase from a private seller, I completely agree with LFS when he says that for a jury, it often comes down to the credibility of witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, and prosecutors. To me, having an attitude in the courtroom would not be beneficial because if the jury decides that they simply don't like you, it can become that much harder for the jury to decide in your favor. Reasonable or not, that seems to be the nature of many people.

My dad was telling me of a time he was sitting in a courtroom as a member of the jury. He said when the jury went to discuss what they thought about the case, one man said something to the fact of "I don't really like/trust this guy, lets just convict him so I can go home." Thank God that the other members of the jury would have none of that. However it just goes to show you how what the jury thinks about you could end up being important to the outcome of the case.

You and LFS are projecting something I have never said. I never said anyone should give the jury attitude. I said that proving I owned the gun at one point is not enough to convict me of anything. It is a statement of fact and my lawyer would leave no room for doubt and neither would my testimony. I sold the gun, nothing else to it. It is sheer lunacy and tyranny to suggest that because I can't provide you with the information you want that I'm guilty of anything.

Care to tell me where you bought gas, how much it was per gallon and how many gallons you bought on February 7th, 2003? Wait you can't do that? I guess your guilty of murder...

[jrod648]

Gunderwood- I agree with you that proving that you at one time owned a firearm does not mean you are guilty of murder. When I wrote about having an attitude towards the jury, I did not mean to imply that you were giving the jury an attitude. I just meant to state my opinion of having an opinion. It was poorly written on my part and should have been separated from the first statement.

Going back to gun registration, while guns are not registered per se, it is now my understanding that the police can find out that you purchased a firearm if purchased from an FFL. Am I correct in this understanding or no? If I am then the FFL would have records of the make and model of the firearm purchased, but does the FFL also keep the serial number on record?

[Daholt757]

Anything else is tyranny and should not be allowed in a free society.

there are plenty of places in the free world where you are required to prove your innocence