Let me begin by stating outright that the registration of gun owners by government entities in the United States cannot be considered an unlikely paranoia because it has already happened. In several instances, in several states-- even the final step of using such registration lists to confiscate firearms from the citizenry-- the record shows that those in power will abuse that power if we let them.

Those instances are documented in the files found at http://www.gunowners.org/bitb.htm on the GOA website. It is not my purpose to convince you that registration (and its greater evil, confiscation) is a threat to liberty. It is not my purpose to convince you that such things are not only in our future, but our past as well. You are either a student of history or you are not.

Rather, it is my purpose to show you that a national gun owner registration list is not only possible with the Instant Background Check, it is actually built in to the system.

After stating that I wouldn't be giving you a history lesson, forgive me for touching on one aspect of the past (continuing today). I must do so in order to illustrate how ridiculously transparent the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System-- don't ask me to explain the missing BC) registration scheme actually is.

In 1996, a Commission for the Bureau of Justice Statistics developed a computer database through which all information regarding gun purchases must flow. The result was the Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking: FIST.

This is a database program. Not long ago, computer databases were the esoteric constructions of highly-paid computer professionals who understood how data could be interlinked and manipulated in ways heretofore unknown. Today, the average computer user can easily work with user-friendly fields in such programs as Access and Excel.

The only limitation on the FIST program is human restraint. Information is sent from the dealer to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO), who is the person responsible for executing the background check. The CLEO is supposed to retain the information for only 20 days, but is in effect accountable to no one for doing so.

In 1997, GOA warned that with all of this information already computerized, it would be a simple task to gather up diskettes nationwide and compile a national list of gun owners.

Mike Slavonic, NRA Director and Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, weighed in by stating:

What most Americans don't know is that once instant check goes into effect in 1998 the purpose of Brady could be used to set the stage for national confiscation. Instant check could eventually keep guns out of the hands of everyone by registering everyone who purchases a handgun, rifle and shotgun and who obtained concealed weapons permits in a computerized database like 'FIST'. The most difficult problem with a gun ban is locating the firearms. FIST [with the help of the instant check], over time, could solve that problem.

Now it is 1998, and new information has come to light. Handing diskettes to BATF so they can decide which doors to kick in next? Scary, and given their history, certainly possible. "Lookback" subroutines allowing the feds to snoop into the state-level computers while connected online? Simple-- maybe states like Vermont would add blocking code, but don't count on it. Locating firearms over time through FIST and Instant Check? Absolutely possible and terrifying. Many knowledgeable persons (including myself) felt that once everything was centralized through the National Instant Check-- meaning getting diskettes from St. Louis would no longer be a problem-- all that stood in the way would be "a few simple lines of code that any programmer could add."

To those who would say, "Oh come on now-- no programmer is going to do such a thing when the rules state that Instant Check can't be used as a gun registry," I tell you right now:

The government doesn't need to find such a programmer. The ability to compile such a list is inherent in the operation of the system, and anyone who knows which function key to hit can compile a registration list virtually in an instant.

What proof do I have for this assertion? Luckily (?) I didn't have to examine the software. The feds gave me the answer themselves.

I refer to a document entitled "Interstate Identification Index (III) Program," on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division. It was delivered to GOA (when we requested it) by Allen Nash, Review, Analysis and Development Unit, Programs Development Section, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306.

Now then. The crux of the matter lies in their description of how firearms purchase background check information would be handled-- once it enters the centralized federal computer:

An authorized agency responsible for screening applications for firearms and related permits will conduct an inquiry of III using a firearms-related purpose code. [Emphasis added.] The initial record response will display the source [state(s) or FBI] responsible for providing the subject's record. A literal translation of the status flag [Emphasis added] will follow each source. The translation will indicate if a subject is either prohibited from purchasing a weapon or not prohibited from purchasing a weapon based on the information on file, or that a review of the detailed criminal history is necessary to determine the subject's firearm purchase eligibility.

III policy mandates written and/or computerized logging of all transactions to assist in the auditing of user agencies and in the investigation of alleged system abuse.

Back to databases-- and they call them such. Database reports (audits) are generated by telling the computer what fields to spew forth.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE FBI'S DESCRIPTION OF III THAT INDICATES DATA MUST BE DESTROYED. ON THE CONTRARY, IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT ALL INQUIRIES WILL BE LOGGED.

Now it gets a little more complicated. The FBI has stated, on paper, that they will log every inquiry to the III program, and make them available for "auditing" purposes. How does this figure into the National Instant Check system? Aren't those Brady checks administered by the NICS rather than III, whatever that is? Same deal-- it's all FBI under Janet Reno's Justice Department and interlinked electronically. From the "For What Purposes Can III Be Used" section of the document we have been discussing:

For agencies in those states that must comply with the background check provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the Attorney General has designated III as part of the "national system" to use for handgun-related background checks.

From "NICS: National Instant Criminal Background Check System," dated January 1998 and on U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Services Division (recognize that?) letterhead:

The NICS will be a national database containing records on persons who are disqualified from receiving firearms. FFLs will contact the NICS to initiate background checks on individuals purchasing firearms. This is a computerized background check system, operated by the FBI.... The FBI has developed the NICS through a cooperative effort with the ATF and local/state enforcement agencies.

The NICS is not a firearms registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer will be destroyed.

However, there is nothing in the Brady Act, the BATF implementation regulations, or Janet Reno's description of NICS which mandates the immediate destruction of records. The BATF states that it will have three "business days" just to return an answer, right or wrong. The FBI states that III (Reno-designated as part of the system) policy MANDATES a record of EVERY inquiry. How long does it take to select a field and hit "Print?"

But the feds have told us that Instant Check shall not be a gun owner registration vehicle. That is a "comfort" to me, for I can't recall a time when Janet Reno and the FBI ever joined together to target American citizens.

And that's too bad, because I can't reconcile my "trust" of our federal bureaucrats with my knowledge that it is impossible to audit firearms background checks-- unless a registration database is first maintained.

The above was written before the FBI published its own version of Brady implentation regulations. I am sorry to report that the FBI has confirmed my fears with the following language found in those regulations:

Has applied for the purchase of a firearm or a firearms-related permit or license and has had his or her name forwarded to the NICS as part of a request for a NICS background check. (Identifying information about this category of individual is maintained for system administration and security purposes only in the ``NICS Audit Log,'' a system transaction log described below under the headings ``CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM'' AND ``RETENTION AND DISPOSAL.'' In cases where the NICS background check does not locate a disqualifying record, information about the individual will only be retained temporarily for audit purposes and will be destroyed after eighteen months. The system will not contain any details about the type of firearm which is the subject of the proposed transfer (other than the fact that it is a handgun or a long gun) or whether a sale or transfer of a firearm has actually taken place.)

System records may be disclosed to the news media or members of the general public or to a victim or potential victim in furtherance of a legitimate law enforcement or public safety function, e.g., to assist in locating fugitives; to provide notification of arrests; to provide alerts, assessments, or similar information on potential threats to life, health, or property; or to keep the public appropriately informed of other law enforcement or FBI matters of legitimate public interest in accordance with 28 CFR 50.2. System records may also be disclosed to the news media or general public in other situations of legitimate public interest where disclosure would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.