Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks?

[usmarine0352_2005]

I'm not a legal scholar but this is a question that I've been thinking about. I believe that you should be able to buy a gun from someone else in a private sale and not have to go through a background check. But I don't know how that falls within the scope of the Constitution.


Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks (for private gun sales)?

 

[Old Fuff]

The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was a Constitutionally Protected Right.

But they also said that the right was subject to "Reasonable Regulation," without defining what that was.

So we won't know about Background Checks being reasonable or not until the Court rules on the issue.

And it can take years for a case to work its way thorough the court system.

However sitting office holder's have been known to act much quicker if it appears that they're current time in government service may be ended come the next election.

In other words, help get out the vote.

 

[BigPaw22]

No Rights in Jersey

If you live in New Jersey you don't have any constitutional rights unless they say so. Oh and they don't say so.:banghead:

 

[Rio Laxas]

I personally think we do, but I strongly doubt the Supreme Court would agree with me.

It seems to me that the only purpose a background check requirement serves is to infringe upon or aid in the infringement upon of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Some of that infringement may be arguably justifiable (as in the case of keeping firearms away from individuals adjudicated as mentally defective and not relieved of that disability), but it is infringement nonetheless.

Is it justifiable to require a background check of everyone in order to attempt keep prohibited individuals from acquiring firearms?

I don't think so, especially since it doesn't seem to be particularly effective at doing so.

 

[alsaqr]

i'm not thrilled at the idea of universal background checks. IMO: Universal background checks are constitutional.

Like it or not, universal background checks have broad bi-partisan support. Taken to referendum, laws mandating universal background checks would pass in many states.

After the rulings in Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS seems to have tired of second amendment cases.

 

[DeepSouth]

I believe universal background checks would go strongly and directly against the intentions of the founding fathers who wrote and signed the constitution.

But honestly, that's completely irrelevant in this day and age. The Constitution is degraded to the point where the writing is nearly invisible, metaphorically speaking.

My 2¢, worth just what you paid for it.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed sums it up for me. Sad this is that a lot of politicians and "higher powers" missed reading comprehension day in elementary school.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

More likely that requirements for concealed carry permits will be found unconstitutional in their present form and the procedure reduced to something like the universal background check. That is a fairly low burden on the individual. This is not to say the issued the OP raised is constitutional. As previously mentioned, these things seem to take forever to come to fruition.

 

[eddd7]

FBI and NICS

I read a legal brief (wish I'd have saved it) that pointed out at least three rights violations in the NICS form and what Amendment was violated. As I recall, it mentioned the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments......with specifics as to how and why.

The 5th seems clear enough......asking you to incriminate yourself, especially, not having been Maranda-ized before filling out the form.

The take-away was - all the FBI needs to do a background check is your name and social security number.......actually, only the last four digits of your SS number.

 

[Midwest]

I read a legal brief (wish I'd have saved it) that pointed out at least three rights violations in the NICS form and what Amendment was violated. As I recall, it mentioned the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments......with specifics as to how and why.

The 5th seems clear enough......asking you to incriminate yourself, especially, not having been Maranda-ized before filling out the form.

The take-away was - all the FBI needs to do a background check is your name and social security number.......actually, only the last four digits of your SS number.

I didn't find the legal brief, but I did find something about it. Here they talk about several sections of the 4473 form, and mention three amendments.

'Are Backgrround Checks On Guns A Violation Of Fifth Amendment Rights? (illegal, drugs)'

http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...nd-checks-guns-violation-fifth-amendment.html


"The Form 4473 of the background check process, or rather, certain parts of it, specifically sections 11e and 11j, are unconstitutional. It's very plain to see. It is in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. Some may even argue that the entire section 11 of the Form 4473 is a violation of the fifth amendment as it is a written interigation that forces one to be a witness against ones self. I will not make that argument, because the 5A says that you cannot be forced to be a witness against yourself in any criminal case, and buying a gun is not a criminal case..."


Edit:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...-checks-guns-violation-fifth-amendment-4.html


Here they say 9th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the Second Amendment.


"Filling out this for is a form of a violation of the 5th amendment for the following reasons: under the 5Th amendment no person shall be compelled to bear witness against oneself to implicate themselves in a false statement (intentional or nor Not). The ATF requiring you to disclose this information if not accepted would result in the denial of UR 2 Amendment rights. (This has nothing to do with background checks which I do not disapprove of) it is a big fly trap to catch any law biding citizen from being stupid enough from signing this for without consulting a lawyer first. Lets get back to the constitution--this form requires you to give up UR 5Th amendment rights in order to get UR 2Nd amendment rights. Under the 9Th amendment it is illegal for the government to require you to give up one right to get the other."
.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was a Constitutionally Protected Right.

But they also said that the right was subject to "Reasonable Regulation," without defining what that was.

So we won't know about Background Checks being reasonable or not until the Court rules on the issue.

And it can take years for a case to work its way thorough the court system.

However sitting office holder's have been known to act much quicker if it appears that they're current time in government service may be ended come the next election.

In other words, help get out the vote.

If you delve into DC v. Heller, you'll see that the Court didn't say one way or the other about what the subjugation advocates call "reasonable restrictions".

A constitutional amendment would be required to allow any restrictions upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Anything the Court, Congress or your local government does beyond that is a usurpation of power specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Bear in mind that there are people who have surrendered their comprehension and reasoning powers to the whims of the Court and I'm sure they will be posting rebuttals to my statements of fact very soon.

Woody

 

[culpeper]

I'm not a legal scholar but this is a question that I've been thinking about. I believe that you should be able to buy a gun from someone else in a private sale and not have to go through a background check. But I don't know how that falls within the scope of the Constitution.


Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks (for private gun sales)?

The answer to your last sentence is it does not fall under the US Constitution. It falls under the Declaration of Independence and it is an inalienable right for a citizen to buy and sell property. You are correct that you should be able to buy or sell a gun (or tractor or cow or hammer or car or steamship) to any one you want without a background check.

 

[culpeper]

...Bear in mind that there are people who have surrendered their comprehension and reasoning powers to the whims of the Court...

Woody

You are too correct.

 

[Old Fuff]

...Bear in mind that there are people who have surrendered their comprehension and reasoning powers to the whims of the Court...

True, but keep in mind that those "whims," become the law of the land, unless future legislation changes, or revokes the decision becomes law, and is upheld as constitutional by the same court system.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed," but the Court says that "reasonable regulation" is O.K. without being very specific about what is "reasonable." Reasonable then, is a matter of opinion.

Gun control advocates would likely say that they're isn't anything in the way of regulation that isn't reasonable. We of course would disagree.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was a Constitutionally Protected Right.

But they also said that the right was subject to "Reasonable Regulation," without defining what that was.

So we won't know about Background Checks being reasonable or not until the Court rules on the issue.

And it can take years for a case to work its way thorough the court system.

However sitting office holder's have been known to act much quicker if it appears that they're current time in government service may be ended come the next election.

In other words, help get out the vote.

If you delve into DC v. Heller, you'll see that the Court didn't say one way or the other about what the subjugation advocates call "reasonable restrictions".

A constitutional amendment would be required to allow any restrictions upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Anything the Court, Congress or your local government does beyond that is a usurpation of power specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Bear in mind that there are people who have surrendered their comprehension and reasoning powers to the whims of the Court and I'm sure they will be posting rebuttals to my statements of fact very soon.

Sigh! Your usual excursion to Fantasy Island, Woody. While you might believe this, the rest of the world will be continuing to carry on without any regard to or consideration of your beliefs.

The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...​

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

Thus if there is disagreement about whether a statute enacted by Congress applies to decide a controversy or the application of the statute is barred by the Constitution, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):

...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply....

And so --

• In its ruling in Marbury the Supreme Court was merely exercising its explicit authority given it in the Constitution to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution. In doing so and reaching its decision in Marbury it was applying established Common Law principles -- just as courts were, and are, expected to do.
  
  
• And as Marshall pointed out, to decide the matter in Marbury the Court had to either sustain an act of Congress or conclude that the act of Congress was contrary to the Constitution, and thus sustain the Constitution. Either the act of Congress was valid, yielding one result, or it was invalid as conflicting with the Constitution, yielding a different result.
  
  
• In other words, the Court could not, in Marbury, decide the case without choosing either a law enacted by Congress or the Constitution.
  
  
• And without judicial review under the Constitution of acts of Congress or other actions of public officials, what would be the remedy for such a law or action that one believed was repugnant under the Constitution? Do we have a civil war over every disagreement about the constitutionality of a law? Does each person get to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional and therefore whether to abide by it?

The courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:

...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....

And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):

...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....

So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction. You might think the law is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but no one cares. Your belief in the unconstitutionality or invalid of a law keeps no one out of jail, nor does it have any effect on the lives and property of real people in the real world.

Whether or not, as Second Amendment jurisprudence matures post Heller/McDonald the Supreme Court will ultimately find Universal Background Checks unconstitutional remains to be seen. But if it does, its ruling will be based on precedent and established legal principles.

So if one wishes to effectively and meaningfully argue that Universal Background Checks should be found unconstitutional, his arguments will need to be founded on the same types of bases, i. e., precedent and established legal principles. Arguments based on what might wish for or hope or want or like, or arguments based on a belief in unicorns, won't get anyone anywhere.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed," but the Court says that "reasonable regulation" is O.K. without being very specific about what is "reasonable." Reasonable then, is a matter of opinion.

The Court didn't even suggest that "reasonable restrictions" are OK under the Second Amendment. Like I said in the earlier post, a thorough reading of DC v. Heller bears that out; to wit:

Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.[sup][size=-2]26[/size][/sup]

26. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.​

The Court did not undertake an analysis of the presumptively lawful regulatory measures. The Court hasn't said one way or the other.

Woody

 

[freyasman]

A person is supposed to be presumed innocent of any crime until found guilty in a court of law in this country; it is one of our core legal principles. And yet, when buying a firearm, we are required to prove our innocence first? Where is the presumption of innocence? You are not required to establish your status before exercising any of the rest of your civil rights, so why is it required for this one?
Background checks are BS, IMO

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The Court did not undertake an analysis of the presumptively lawful regulatory measures. The Court hasn't said one way or the other.

Of course not. That was not the question before the Court, so there was no need to resolve it, nor could they. The question was not briefed, not was a resolution of the matter necessary to a determination of the case before the Court.

And that is why the question of whether or not Universal Background Checks are constitutional remains open and may ultimately be decided by the Court. If the Court had "said one way or another" the question might not still be open.

But any challenge to Universal Background Checks, if we want a favorable result, will still need to be based on precedent and established legal principles.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A person is supposed to be presumed innocent of any crime until found guilty in a court of law in this country; it is one of our core legal principles....

The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the matter. The presumption of innocence comes from the Common Law and is simply a technical, legal rule affecting the burden of proof in a criminal trial. At a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and should the prosecution fail to do so, the defendant is, because of the presumption of innocence, entitled as a to an acquittal.

But there are many examples of a need to demonstrate one's qualifications for something, e. g., a license or a benefit, in order to get it. You are not entitled to a presumption of qualification -- even if that qualification is a lack of a criminal record.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Court did not undertake an analysis of the presumptively lawful regulatory measures. The Court hasn't said one way or the other.

Which is the problem, and we both agree that they didn't say one way or the other. But this left the issue of regulation open for future review by the courts.

They could have taken the Second Amendment as specifically written - where it says, "shall not be infringed," to mean any controlling statutes were unconstitutional. But they didn't, and instead left the door open for "reasonable regulation," for which apparently several examples were suggested, but not limited too.

Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.26

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

This is a loophole if you will, that proponents of UBC can and will likely use in future litigation. They may or may not be successful.

All I am saying is that local, state, and possibly future federal UBC statutes won't be unconstitutional unless or until the courts say so, and various decisions are upheld (or overruled) by the Supreme Court, or they choose to leave the matter to a lower court decision.

 

[Red Wind]

My opinion, absolutely yes. No Universal cracks are Constitutional, Just re read those 27 words.


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[gun_with_a_view]

any challenge to Universal Background Checks, if we want a favorable result, will still need to be based on precedent and established legal principles

That, unless Chief Justice John Roberts elects to pull a rabbit out of his hat again as he did for the opinion on the Affordable Care Act.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Sigh! Your usual excursion to Fantasy Island, Woody. While you might believe this, the rest of the world will be continuing to carry on without any regard to or consideration of your beliefs.

That's quite a big leap on your part to assume there is not even one person in the entire world who agrees with me. You might want to check the ground you stand on.

The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution but it was the ratification of the Constitution by the several states that set the Constitution and the Court in motion. The Judicial power was set in the Supreme Court. Congress established the rest of the courts, and those other courts do not have the full extent of the juducial power assigned to the Supreme Court. To say the power was set to the 'federal courts' is disingenuous.

In other words, the Court could not, in Marbury, decide the case without choosing either a law enacted by Congress or the Constitution.

The Court had no choice. The Constitution itself states that it is the supreme law. All the Court did was find that Congress had no authority to create such a law. Seems you always leave this part of Marbury v. Madison out:

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

Does each person get to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional and therefore whether to abide by it?

Yes. There is no other way to get it into the courts. The courts say you must have standing, ergo, must be in some way injured by the law, to wit:

...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....

And this: ...

With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....

... Can be said to fall under the requirement that the Court must read and obey the Constitution.​

So if one wishes to effectively and meaningfully argue that Universal Background Checks should be found unconstitutional, his arguments will need to be founded on the same types of bases, i. e., precedent and established legal principles. Arguments based on what might wish for or hope or want or like, or arguments based on a belief in unicorns, won't get anyone anywhere.

So, in your world, the Second Amendment counts for nothing? Only "precedent and established legal principles" count? Obviously, in your world , "precedent and established legal principles" trumps the Court's duty to open, read, and obey the Constitution.

Woody

 

[culpeper]

I'm not a legal scholar but this is a question that I've been thinking about. I believe that you should be able to buy a gun from someone else in a private sale and not have to go through a background check. But I don't know how that falls within the scope of the Constitution.


Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks (for private gun sales)?

Marine, I have thought further on your question and need to give you a better in-black-and-white answer to your question. First you have to remember the Founders and the Framers had a clear understanding of human nature and you must remember, if you are seeking truth, that any citizen living today knows almost nothing of importance when compared to them and that includes myself. However, there is hope for us all.

I will jump in on page 210 because if I start at the beginning I may lose you. The Framers of the Constutition of 1787 argued about jurisdiction. The winners succeeded in giving us a republic. According to the Declaration of Independence Man is created by God and receive all of our inalienable rights from the same. In turn, Man creates government to ensure those rights. We delegate that which we are born to a legal fiction to ensure our liberty and rights.

Well things happen. A bunch of men shoot each other in Massachuetts. People start raising a ruckus and the next thing you have is meeting, a congress, of men from the colonies talking about becoming states. This is on the nation-state model. The state of Great Britain, the state of France, the state of Prussia and so on. Even today look on the back of notes of Kuwait and you will find the words State of Kuwait. So on June 7th 1776 Richard Henry Lee proposed in congress that:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

So in our case they created the first government of the colonies whose style would be called the United States of America. That document was the Articles of Confederation of 1777. The document states:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America".

II.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

...

Things were not working out so well finanicially and a group of congressmen advocated for a change. So in 1787 a convention was convened to make changes to the Articles. One of the things created was a three branch federal government for the Union of States. But they were jealous of their statehood and did not want to be subsevient to the Congress. So they hashed out the role of the Congress. Before each State by right could make treaties, coin money, make their own standards of weights albeit on the English standards, and they could raise militias and fight wars and all other things independent states on the world stage could do.

So they came up with the Constitution. They stated right up from what they intended.

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And they made it the supreme law of the land. But jurisdition was placed in the document for all to read and contrary to most gun peoples perceptions the so-called supremacy clause does not make federal superior to the laws of the States, the States that created the second government of the Union of States. The congress was bound hand and foot to a select and enumerated jurisdiction. It is clearly stated in Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have the power

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

What ever the congress creates only applies in the areas where congress has been given authority. Whatever the States create is only valid in the jurisdiction of the States. Let us suppose the absurd for a moment. Sacremento and the Governor pass and sign a law that says you can kick your dog on any day that ends in Y. BUT! Congress says you can not kick your dog at all. How does it work? If you are kicking your dog outside of the fence of Twenty-Nine Palms. There is nothing the Commander of the camp can do to you legally. Bring your dog on the camp and give it a swift kick and hoo-boy watch out. The CG has total jurisdiction because the Congress says he does.

So the long way around the barn is Congress can not make universal background checks on citizens in the States unless you live in places like Fort Knox, National parks, or the Guam, Puerto Rico. The States being independent nations in a federal union can enact jackass laws like universal background checks or they can remove them. That is up to the people of the States and their elected representatives to hash out every election.

You can determine the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968, too, even if you are not "legal scholar". The answer does not lie in any court case though there are some who would argue differently. Every citizen should become a legal scholar through their own self education.

I know this is somewhat long but it has to be to give a better understanding.

Semper Fi, Marine

 

[dogtown tom]

eddd7 I read a legal brief (wish I'd have saved it) that pointed out at least three rights violations in the NICS form and...

What is a "NICS form"? I've been a gun dealer for seven years and have never seen such a form.

The 5th seems clear enough......asking you to incriminate yourself, especially, not having been Maranda-ized before filling out the form.

No one is forcing the buyer to complete a Form 4473, hence no violation of the 5th Amendment. A buyer is free to buy a gun from someone who is not a licensed dealer.

The take-away was - all the FBI needs to do a background check is your name and social security number.......actually, only the last four digits of your SS number.

Hogwash.
You need to do some reading on the requirements for submitting buyer information to the FBI NICS.

Midwest:
"The Form 4473 of the background check process, or rather, certain parts of it, specifically sections 11e and 11j, are unconstitutional. It's very plain to see. It is in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. Some may even argue that the entire section 11 of the Form 4473 is a violation of the fifth amendment as it is a written interigation that forces one to be a witness against ones self. I will not make that argument, because the 5A says that you cannot be forced to be a witness against yourself in any criminal case, and buying a gun is not a criminal case..."


Edit:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...endment-4.html


Here they say 9th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the Second Amendment.


"Filling out this for is a form of a violation of the 5th amendment for the following reasons: under the 5Th amendment no person shall be compelled to bear witness against oneself to implicate themselves in a false statement (intentional or nor Not). The ATF requiring you to disclose this information if not accepted would result in the denial of UR 2 Amendment rights. (This has nothing to do with background checks which I do not disapprove of) it is a big fly trap to catch any law biding citizen from being stupid enough from signing this for without consulting a lawyer first. Lets get back to the constitution--this form requires you to give up UR 5Th amendment rights in order to get UR 2Nd amendment rights. Under the 9Th amendment it is illegal for the government to require you to give up one right to get the other."

A Form 4473 has diddly squat to do with the 5th Amendment.
It is no different than a voluntary statement of "I did it!" as the police officer walks up to a crime scene.

At a trial, the 5th Amendment DOES come into play.....if called as a witness you can invoke your 5th amendment rights to avoid being a witness against yourself.