OD#3

  I very much agree with you on this; the legislature only has the authority to regulate the WEARING of arms, but this has never been challenged that I know of--at least not successfully.        I know that when I run TNDL's, the SSN shows up on the return as well (along with whether or not the person has a valid HCP).  It is funny sometimes when I'm taking a report from someone, and I ask for their SSN.  They sometimes reply that they don't give that information out, and they opt instead to just provide their name and date of birth.  They're not really protecting their SSN, but I don't argue with them.  Our report-taking software pre-populates the person's information from their TNDL record (if they have one), so when it finds their TNDL from the name and date of birth, it populates the SSN field anyway.  It just finds the TNDL record more quickly when using a number instead of last name and date of birth, and since most people don't know their TNDL# by heart, I often just ask for their SSN.       So I know that TICS has access to the SSN after running the TNDL, but I wonder if they even bother to scrutinize it.  I got a phone call around 0930 this morning from the gun store telling me that they arrived at work to discover that my appeal had been approved last night, and I drove on over and picked up my firearm.  There was, of course, no explanation, and I didn't ask the clerk about how he entered my information; the whole thing had been a hassle for them as well, and they had heavily discounted the firearm to begin with (friends with the owner).  I don't think they made much--if any--money on the sale, and I didn't want to even hint that any of this had been their fault.    I'm still mulling over the UPIN thing.  I know that TICS has access to my SSN, but I still wonder if it helps to draw attention to it.  Since I usually get approved, I don't know if the few denials have been the result of someone over there not doing their due diligence, or if it really matters about the SSN.  From the TICS website, it appears that my military ID along with my voter registration card would suffice for identification and residency documentation.  I may try that from now on and just see if it makes any difference.  Although I suspect I'll run into a few FFL's that are used to receiving only a driver's license and will therefore be initially reluctant about it.     No.  I've bought quite a few from individuals--usually collectible stuff.  But you can't always find exactly what you want with face-to-face deals--at least not very quickly.  And despite one's assessment of condition, the round count is often unknown (is it time to replace some springs, should that Beretta 92 locking block be replaced?) ; sometimes you just want a brand new gun.  But one of my friends with an FFL has quite a large personal collection, and he takes personal satisfaction from having purchased all of them from individuals.  He's only had his FFL for a few years, and he finds it a little ironic and funny that he has an FFL, yet he has never in his life filled out a 4473 for himself. It has become his goal to continue that trend for the rest of his life.   Thanks to all for your kind comments and advice and for lending an ear to my rant.  May all your future transactions go smoothly.

If it were only that, I would expect every John Smith in TN to get denied.  My name is uncommon.  Perhaps that is to my detriment though, because I would expect that TICS has to be more careful with common names due to the large number of hits.  With an uncommon name like mine, a single hit with that name and DOB might be enough for them to make assumptions.  I understand that they can't engage in dialogue with everyone they deny, but it is frustrating to have no real information.  The last time, I was denied, and it was overturned.  No explanation given, and I've just had to surmise the reason.  And since the individual records can't be stored (that would create an illegal firearms database), they have no way to learn from their mistakes.   Getting a UPIN is supposed to make this more foolproof, but I've been reluctant to do this, as I've been told that the process necessarily requires that one's future transaction records are no longer destroyed.  

Don't know why I posted this here.  Mods, this should probably have been in the General Chat Forum instead.     I see many threads on the internet from people who believe they were wrongfully denied by TICS for a firearm purchase.  Usually, they speculate about some past indiscretion that, while it shouldn't have mattered (expunged, dismissed, etc.), has somehow fallen through the cracks, and the court failed to update the records properly.    I just have to rant a bit though, because I don't fall into that category at all.  However, I was denied today for the THIRD time in a year.  I have a squeaky clean record--no arrests of any kind...ever.  No domestic issues of any kind...ever.  No dishonorable military issues (still serving in the National Guard)...ever.  Never used illegal drugs...ever.  No mental health issues, citizenship issues, etc., etc.  I've never even been pulled over before (and I've been driving for almost thirty years).  To top it off, I've been a police officer in good standing for over 18 years.  In short, I'm the last guy anyone would expect to have difficulty passing a TICS check, yet I have, for the third time, been denied.   I've appealed, of course--just like I did the last time.  That denial was reversed within a day, and I'm fairly confident that this will be too.  My best guess is that I'm sometimes being mistaken for someone else.  The second time it happened, I spoke to the lady at work that has to run periodic background checks on us every time we're up for our NCIC recertification, and I asked her if there were ever any hits on my name.  She said that there was a felon the last time she ran it that shared my first and last name and date of birth, but a cursory examination revealed that he had a SSN that wasn't even close, he was from another state, and he was a different race. She couldn't remember anything else about it, because it was so obvious to her that the felon wasn't me.   In short, the only information we share is our first and last names and dates of birth.  A google check at the time turned something up about the other guy--in New Jersey--, and he'd been recently convicted--hence, the probable reason for this to have so recently become a problem.  I tried to find him today on google and had no luck.    It is galling to me that some TICS employees appear to be so incompetent as to not look beyond a matching name and date of birth. I have never arrested anyone as the result of an NCIC hit unless and until I have absolutely verified that the warrant is valid and that the person I'm dealing with is positively the person identified on the NCIC hit.  Heaven forbid that we take someone's freedom away over a case of mistaken identity.  But the criteria used for denying someone the right to purchase a firearm is pretty sloppy.  Google your own name and DOB sometime, and you'll probably be surprised by the number of results you get.  And it really seems to depend greatly on which TICS employee is doing the check.  The first time I was denied, the clerk called TICS, told them I was a local police officer (I'd been in there in uniform just the day before), and asked them to please double-check the information.  The person he spoke to laughed and told him to have me come back the following day.  I went back expecting to see some sign of the denial being reversed.  The store had received nothing, but they ran me again, and I was approved.     The second time I was denied, I was picking up a pre-ordered firearm.  The check went fine, but when the clerk handed me a pistol instead of the rifle I'd ordered, he realized that he'd run the wrong gun; I had to fill out another 4473, and that time the transaction was denied.  I appealed and received a phone call from the store the next day informing me that the denial had been overturned.   I really hate to go the UPIN route, but I may have to.  The third time is a charm.  I always provide my SSN, and that really should be enough to distinguish me from a convicted felon.  I do understand from an FFL friend of mine that some FFL's will not include the SSN on the check, even when you provide it.  He always uses the SSN and carefully double-checks the number.  And I've never been denied when buying a firearm through him.  I didn't think to ask the clerk today about that.  I was very polite and understanding with him, as they don't get many denials there, and I could tell that he was uncomfortable about breaking the bad news to me.  As I've come to half-expect this sort of thing lately, I wasn't even angry then.  As the afternoon has progressed though, I've grown very irritated about the whole thing, and I just needed to get this off my chest.   If you've been patient enough to read through my rant, you might appreciate an update, so I'll provide one whenever there is a resolution.  And if you've ever been wrongfully denied, you might take comfort that you're not alone.  It happens to the most squeaky-clean people sometimes.   

Spin the cases in a drill. I chuck a socket that is slightly larger but considerably shorter than the case into a drill after I've made a shaft for the socket out of a small bolt. Spin the case while holding the neck in a propane torch flame. Depending on the case, it usually takes about 5 seconds to reach the proper anneal. Then I point the drill down and let the case fall into a bucket of water below. Dry cases in the sun or in an oven at low temps. I not only extend the life of my cases this way, but I've been able to eliminate sooty blowby in low pressure .45 Colt. Really helps keep my lever gun actions from gumming up with my .45 Colt black powder loads too; it eliminates the 44-40's advantage in this regard.

As long as we continue to believe that every tragedy entitles us to sue someone in order to be made whole, and that employers are vicariously liable for every action of their employees, this will continue to be an issue. So how about just pushing for a law that makes property owners immune from such liabilities? There are numerous instances in which the legislature has acted to limit the liability of a person or organization, and we all know that most of these "no guns" rules are motivated by liability concerns. I'm much more comfortable with limiting the "right" to sue someone than I am in limiting other more fundamental rights like property rights. That's the best, most succinct argument against the parking lot bill I've ever heard.

Justme, you make good arguments that could be used to convince a county or municipality to open their range to the public as the law currently allows. What I object to is the passage of a law that REQUIRES these entities to open their ranges. This legislation masquerades as a common-sense proposal to make available to the tax-paying public a publicly-funded asset that would otherwise be going to waste, when it is more akin to what has happened to military training areas over the years--they've become wildlife refuges. Ft. Stewart, Ga. was like that. Every tree that had a nesting pair of Red-Cockaded woodpeckers in it was prominently marked and cordoned off. Woe be to any soldier who so much as drove a tracked vehicle within fifty feet of such a tree, for he wasn't just punished through his chain-of-command; he faced huge fines and imprisonment. There were also gopher tortoises to look out for and Eastern Indigo snakes--also endangered species. And nowhere else have I see such strict EPA regulations. Training time was often spent digging up and disposing of an entire trash bag of dirt for each drop of oil that fell on the ground. Meanwhile, off post, vast tracks of old-growth forest was being cleared for business and housing developments. The Army tried to put a positive spin on it all, suggesting that troops could consider these areas as minefields or other tactical obstacles. But the real affect was that it complicated and hampered the effective training of troops. The American Public, unwilling to abide by such draconian EPA and Endangered Species Act interpretations, found another use for otherwise "wasted" tax dollars--just set aside those large military training areas as wildlife refuges. We've seen some encouraging legislation recently regarding ranges, such as the one grandfathering protection from nuisance ordinances attempting to close ranges that have existed for thirty years. But it also suggests that any range younger than this is most definitely subject to being declared a nuisance and closed. This bill you're so fond of seems to me to be just more of the "not in my backyard" attitude--its a way for the public to have more ranges available without having to put up with the noise a new range would afflict on our urban sprawl. Rather than declare public ranges important enough in this republic to inconvenience anyone, we'll just throw a bone and try to make everyone happy by making police departments open their ranges to the public when not in use. And we'll spin it by suggesting that taxes have already paid for it, it won't interfere with officer training, and that the shooting community is so well-behaved that there will be no need to staff it. It sounds like a win-win situation, but I predict that police department budgets will be strained by this. And police officer training that the public expects their tax dollars to be well-spent on, will suffer in the end.

I'm leary of "taxpayer-funded so should be open to the public" arguments. I used to shoot at a National Forest rifle range, because it was free back then. As in all things, a small percentage of the visitors there ruined it for everyone else; trash was everywhere, there was evidence of range tables, signs, and other structures having been deliberately shot at, and range safety was poor. That and the institution of a usage fee eventually drove me to join a local club. This was a much nicer facility, and the behavior of almost everyone was exemplary. Times change, and liability concerns eventually drove the club to institute the practice of having range officers and installing overhead baffles. These range officer positions were unpaid and staffed by retired folks who do a great job, but the range hours were necessarily shortened. Although initially annoyed by the restrictions, I have seen the benefits of much less trash and increased safety and longevity of the range infrastructure just by having someone in charge to keep an eye on everyone. But rules are still broken. The "unnecessary baffles" installed to prevent anyone from being able to shoot over the very high backstop have been hit by a few rounds over the years---the position of the impacts on the baffles indicating that the initial trajectory would have carried the rounds over the backstop. Trash is repeatedly placed in the "brass only" collection buckets. The shed roof over the shooting benches still develops an occasional new bullet-hole shaped leak every now and then. As nice as the club range is, it can't hold a candle to the local police range in terms of safety and overall condition of the equipment. This is because the shooting sessions at the police range are very tightly controlled. Police officers can't even shoot there any old time they want to; most shooting is done at scheduled intervals. There is evidence of errant low hits in the 4-foot high railroad tie walls in front of the target stands, but no deliberate vandalism. Lane marker posts that would have been shot in two in a few years at a public facility have been there for thirty years. A target storage shed installed 20-30 years ago is unscarred despite its being located DOWN-RANGE just 10-15 feet to the left of the far left target stand. The shed roof over the tables at the rear has no bullet holes in it. This all despite the "quick-draw" and "shooting while moving to cover and from cover" style of training that often goes on there. The police range is just not set up for informal target shooting by the public. The tables in the rear are over 50 yards from the target stands, the space between occupied by lane-marked asphalt designed to have the shooters down-range from the tables for most shooting. The targets are shot from varying distances, but the target stands are permanent--only the shooter moves. Everyone has to move to these different points at the same time so that no one is ever forward of the actual firing line. The police range was built with taxpayer money to train police officers. So it was designed differently than most other public and private ranges. In order to accomodate the public, the department would have to redesign the range and pay officers to police it. This would require even more taxpayer money--money that isn't provided in that unfunded mandate of a bill. I can almost guarantee that the monies needed would have to come from the department's own training budget--one that is already stretched pretty thin and currently provides only bi-annual range training for its officers---officers who, if they are serious about keeping their shooting skills up, must join private ranges to get in the needed practice. This bill is a bad idea.