Hey, remember when I told ya that Tyler Technologies (a Third Party Contractor for the NYSP doing Background Checks) could be hacked and Data spilled?

[FP1201]

Done a 4473 or Ammunition buy since September of last year? your Personally Identifiable Information is with these Clowns.

Tyler Technologies Data Breach | disb

Tyler Technologies has alerted the DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking that it has experienced a data breach related to securities data. Tyler Technologies discovered unauthorized access to their cloud that stores DISB’s STAR system client data. To understand what we know about...

disb.dc.gov

Lubbock County Not Only One With Tyler Technologies Software Issues

radio.kttz.org

STOP TYLER Technologies

STOP TYLER Technologies. 171 likes · 1 talking about this. Community

www.facebook.com

My last post on this thread was an addendum: Is New York’s Ammo Background Check System a Legal Snare Being Set for Gun Owners

 

[Cavalry]

Not that I will be in that particular database breech but that company sounds like quite the shitshow. This is what happens when you go with the lowest bidder.

 

[fresch]

It is all just floating in a cloud above us, right; said the jackass running for President.

 

[Zerex]

It was intentional, as a lib sold the info to anti gun groups.................I am in it................I am happy that I am..................ATF already has over 1 million gun transfers, on 425 million guns.............I have my own photo on file from an old submission.

I am afraid of a pink and green haired, hepatitis ridden degenerate????

 

[Vinson57]

Cover story for the data goes right to the feds.

 

[Saltwater60]

On I have not. And why would they want your information? There must be a reason.

 

[Deplorable Me]

It was part of the plan all along.

 

[pshift]

Your information is already in the ether ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[FP1201]

This just popped up on ammoland:

Is New York’s Ammo Background Check System a Legal Snare Being Set for Gun Owners

“When the NYS Police encourage dealers to bypass the law, it’s either entrapment, incompetence, or a hack." “There’s no good explanation for this kind of sudden, systemic issue.”

www.ammoland.com

 

[Beerman]

This just popped up on ammoland:

Is New York’s Ammo Background Check System a Legal Snare Being Set for Gun Owners

“When the NYS Police encourage dealers to bypass the law, it’s either entrapment, incompetence, or a hack." “There’s no good explanation for this kind of sudden, systemic issue.”

www.ammoland.com

I missed the part where it references relevant info on being able to buy ammo twice with one BGC. More info on this?

 

[FP1201]

I missed the part where it references relevant info on being able to buy ammo twice with one BGC. More info on this?

i have nothing: I searched both the Dealer and Public State Web sites and came up empty...I was also looking to quote the paragraph about Dealers being able to forego the Ammo Check when the system in down; that seems to have disappeared as well.
As far as I can tell, and it's been told to me a few times that non-dealers/keepers/etc. do NOT have to register or utilize the ammo check system to casually dispose of ammunition to another person.

 

[Robin]

And never forget that it is our money through taxation, much of it illegal, that funds this corrupt communist system of fuckucation.
Robin

 

[FP1201]

And never forget that it is our money through taxation, much of it illegal, that funds this corrupt communist system of fuckucation.
Robin

Because we've let them.

 

[Beerman]

i have nothing: I searched both the Dealer and Public State Web sites and came up empty...I was also looking to quote the paragraph about Dealers being able to forego the Ammo Check when the system in down; that seems to have disappeared as well.
As far as I can tell, and it's been told to me a few times that non-dealers/keepers/etc. do NOT have to register or utilize the ammo check system to casually dispose of ammunition to another person.

So what’s that article about? I’ve heard/read nothing regarding multiple purchases on one bgc. Who is doing that? The article is horribly misleading.

 

[FP1201]

So what’s that article about? I’ve heard/read nothing regarding multiple purchases on one bgc. Who is doing that? The article is horribly misleading.

You and I have read the same article, and I just figured it was my own ignorance and lack of reading comprehension...that said, Ammoland doesn't always post the best stuff, and Capanna, well bless her Heart, she tries.

The Lawyers seen to be chasing headlines, and perhaps she's right about getting jammed up, and certainly about NY setting double standards or modifying the Law after it's written: I'll swear that I read that in cases where the ammo BGC system was inoperable, that it could be bypassed and no where did I read about one check covering a couple weeks, or any of the other arbitrary shit offered up.
Tangentially, that "Semi-Automatic Rifle Licenses: well that was supposed to be a separate Licenses obtained using the same requirements as getting a Handgun Licenses, now I see the usefulness and saving grace of amending an existing Handgun Licenses, but unless someone can show me where the Law reads differently, well it's a violation, one taken as seriously as processing an application within six months.
Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised; NY is controlled by Democrats, and we know how famous they are for duplicity.

 

[urjustamemory]

The way I read the article, SP is telling FFL's to do 2 sales with one BGC, which the way the BGC law was written, is not okay to do.

 

[FP1201]

The way I read the article, SP is telling FFL's to do 2 sales with one BGC, which the way the BGC law was written, is not okay to do.

Ignore my commentary, I didn't comprehend your statement: Yes, I too think the jest of the article is just that, and/or one check is good for two weeks, but that makes no sense as the information required of the two different systems and the checks within ask different questions with differing data required to be entered in each, for example with ammunition, one's occupation has to be listed, and there was (initially anyways) the demand for an e-mail address, Phone number, SSN#, et.al.

I'm sorry Sir, but unless I'm mistaken or we're reverting the to SAFE Act where the State Legislators thought they would be able to access the FBI's NICS system to perform ammunition checks, it is incorrect that the Law prior to current amendments was to be single source with one check sufficing both.

In my defense, it has been well over a year since I read the proposed Legislation, then the passed Laws (which are never finalized as proposed, nor subjected to Public or Law Enforcement review/commentary. that my mind has moved from curious and sure of the intent, to confused and apathetic.

 

[urjustamemory]

Ignore my commentary, I didn't comprehend your statement: Yes, I too think the jest of the article is just that, and/or one check is good for two weeks, but that makes no sense as the information required of the two different systems and the checks within ask different questions with differing data required to be entered in each, for example with ammunition, one's occupation has to be listed, and there was (initially anyways) the demand for an e-mail address, Phone number, SSN#, et.al.

I'm sorry Sir, but unless I'm mistaken or we're reverting the to SAFE Act where the State Legislators thought they would be able to access the FBI's NICS system to perform ammunition checks, it is incorrect that the Law prior to current amendments was to be single source with one check sufficing both.

In my defense, it has been well over a year since I read the proposed Legislation, then the passed Laws (which are never finalized as proposed, nor subjected to Public or Law Enforcement review/commentary. that my mind has moved from curious and sure of the intent, to confused and apathetic.

No reason to be sorry
As I said, that is the way I read it, but then it states Capanna's criticism is grounded in legal concern under the SAFE act, so I don't know. Quote below is direct off the site, I didn't type each in capitalized letters

"
Last week, federally licensed firearms dealers in New York discovered a surprising update: customers could purchase ammunition twice a month under a single background check. While this may seem like a convenience for buyers, attorney, and firearms compliance expert, Paloma Capanna sees it as a legal trap. She argues that the change directly contradicts state law, which requires a background check for EACH and EVERY ammunition purchase.

“The New York State Police are essentially telling dealers to break the law,” Capanna said. “This opens them up to fines, misdemeanor charges, and even losing their licenses.”

 

[FP1201]

No reason to be sorry
As I said, that is the way I read it, but then it states Capanna's criticism is grounded in legal concern under the SAFE act, so I don't know. Quote below is direct off the site, I didn't type each in capitalized letters

"
Last week, federally licensed firearms dealers in New York discovered a surprising update: customers could purchase ammunition twice a month under a single background check. While this may seem like a convenience for buyers, attorney, and firearms compliance expert, Paloma Capanna sees it as a legal trap. She argues that the change directly contradicts state law, which requires a background check for EACH and EVERY ammunition purchase.

Gotcha,
I suppose it's possible that the same Dealer could add additional ammo to his registry (they have to maintain a record of all transactions) but I doubt they're going to give out the 11 character transaction number to the buyer, nor would another dealer take that number for their records...Usually the logistics or possibilities aren't all that hard to figure out, but I'm beginning to suspect the whole story is fabricated on bullshit.
Unless you're wasting their time, they're too busy, or just don't want to disclose anything to you, a Dealer/employee might take the time to show you (those curious) just how the system works from their end....understanding what the Dealer has to go through, sure eliminates a lot of speculation and discontent when there's a delay.

 

[urjustamemory]

Gotcha,
I suppose it's possible that the same Dealer could add additional ammo to his registry (they have to maintain a record of all transactions) but I doubt they're going to give out the 11 character transaction number to the buyer, nor would another dealer take that number for their records...Usually the logistics or possibilities aren't all that hard to figure out, but I'm beginning to suspect the whole story is fabricated on bullshit.
Unless you're wasting their time, they're too busy, or just don't want to disclose anything to you, a Dealer/employee might take the time to show you (those curious) just how the system works from their end....understanding what the Dealer has to go through, sure eliminates a lot of speculation and discontent when there's a delay.

I really do not know but I am leaning on the fabricated on bullshit too

 

[Beerman]

<snip> I'll swear that I read that in cases where the ammo BGC system was inoperable, that it could be bypassed…

§ 400.03 Sellers of ammunition
Section 5. “This requirement of this section shall
not apply (i) if a background check cannot be completed because the
system is not operational as determined by the superintendent of state
police, or where it cannot be accessed by the practitioner due to a
temporary technological or electrical failure, as set forth in
regulation, or (ii) a dealer or seller has been granted a waiver from
conducting such background check if the superintendent of state police
determines that such dealer is incapable of such check due to
technological limitations that are not reasonably within the control of
the dealer, or other exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the
dealer, pursuant to a process established in regulation, and at the
discretion of such superintendent.”

Sorry for the poorly parsed text. That’s how it cuts/pastes.

 

[FP1201]

§ 400.03 Sellers of ammunition
Section 5. “This requirement of this section shall
not apply (i) if a background check cannot be completed because the
system is not operational as determined by the superintendent of state
police, or where it cannot be accessed by the practitioner due to a
temporary technological or electrical failure, as set forth in
regulation, or (ii) a dealer or seller has been granted a waiver from
conducting such background check if the superintendent of state police
determines that such dealer is incapable of such check due to
technological limitations that are not reasonably within the control of
the dealer, or other exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the
dealer, pursuant to a process established in regulation, and at the
discretion of such superintendent.”

Sorry for the poorly parsed text. That’s how it cuts/pastes.

Thank you for the validation...shame, I'll just bet none of the Dealers will abide by the provision.