That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I pointed this out in my first point.There is nothing to prevent them from prosecuting you if you are caught commiting this offense in the act, or afteward if there is proof you did it. Just like any other law.
That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I mentioned stings as one of these situations in my first post.If you sell your gun to an informant or under cover cop without going to NICS, then you go to jail.
I'll try once more and if this still doesn't get through to you then I'll concede that while your repetition will not make what you repeat true, it apparently makes it true to you.No. No registration is required. It can be enforced just like other laws...
Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.
YES, as I have stated more than once, and as you have stated, there are SOME circumstances where proof might be available to show that a law had been broken, but in the GENERAL case, the law would not be enforceable because in the GENERAL case it wouldn't even be possible to prove that a crime took place, let alone to pin it on someone.
Well, you and I believe that, but many in Congress don't. Even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with you and me, that won't necessarily prevent a tremendous amount of trouble from coming to pass in the interval between Congress passing a law and the Supreme Court overturning it....Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales in the first place.
If we can educate people now as to the reasons why it's a bad idea (in ADDITION to it's being outside the federal government's power) to instate universal background checks then we may be able to prevent that trouble from coming to pass in the first place.
Trying to argue against this law SOLELY on the basis that such laws are outside the intended purview of Congress is like trying to argue with someone who is trying to kill you that they can't do it because it's illegal. They may not be legally able to kill you, but you won't be any less dead for the fact that the murderer had to step outside the law to end your life. In that situation, you would likely have been better off if you could have convinced the bystanders why it was a good idea for them to come to your rescue rather than simply pointing out to them that it would be against the law for the bad guy to kill you.
Same with this case. If we can convince people why universal background checks are a bad idea vs. simply repeating that Congress can't/shouldn't do it, it could save everyone a lot of trouble.
Last edited: