Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

[kalel33]

Why is the government even involved in the personal choices people make? Until those choices infringing on someone else's rights, the .gov should keep their noses out it!

Glad to know there are people out there wanting drunk 12 year olds running around or think that heroine being legal is OK. Just glad you're in the very small minority.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Glad to know there are people out there wanting drunk 12 year olds running around or think that heroine being legal is OK. Just glad you're in the very small minority.

I'll bet you'd watch gun violence take a significant drop if you were to legalize and regulate drugs. Much less incentive for gang bangers to shoot each other over territory when anyone can go buy their smack from the local "drug" store.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Please provide a cite to this decision.

Printz v. United states which held that the interim provision requiring local law enforcement to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

What this meant was that between the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 and the go live date of NICS in 98, local law enforcement could not be compelled to do the checks. The law required the federal government to perform these checks and in 1998, NICS began and has been upheld since.

by the way, I'm still waiting for the "data" on NICS that you said I should examine. Please provide this so we can all get the straight dope.

 

[brboyer]

Printz v. United states which held that the interim provision requiring local law enforcement to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

What this meant was that between the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 and the go live date of NICS in 98, local law enforcement could not be compelled to do the checks. The law required the federal government to perform these checks and in 1998, NICS began and has been upheld since.

by the way, I'm still waiting for the "data" on NICS that you said I should examine. Please provide this so we can all get the straight dope.

Which had nothing at all to do with the background check itself.

 

[chipcom]

I absolutely agree with attacking the root causes.

Start by voting against republicans who do everything they can to keep drugs from being legalized and further the culture of gang violence that plagues our cities and keeps those gun murder rates high.

Way ahead of you on that...I dumped the GOP after they went bat-shiite freakin crazy after 9/11. Party affiliations mean squat, they're all big government toadies when comes right down to it.

 

[chipcom]

Apparently, you have not read the whole thread. Please, don't make baseless comments just to try to derail the discussion.

1- The "tags" would only be given to those that have been stripped of their right to own firearms via lawful court order

2- There would have to be an appeal/investigation process in place to address false positives

3- There is no oppression. Just a check of an already existing State database that included information regarding criminals that have ALREADY had their rights lawfully revoked.

There's no conspiracy here. There's no method to deny lawful purchase. There's no infringement.

I did my time in elected office and have seen what good intentions turn into once they become codified - bad laws.

But I wouldn't want to derail your fast train to doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result "this time". Idealism is great, had a little of it myself once...but idealism doesn't conquer hard realities...and the hard, sad reality is that our government can no longer be trusted to administer the important aspects of our lives...our means of self defense being one of them. You want to give your plan a shot in hell at credibility? Wave your wand to somehow restore trust in their governments to the American people. A good start would be to get them to function in a manner that breeds trust, rather than destroys it. Till that happens, you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

 

[chipcom]

If you are too lazy to look at your ID card and see that it is stamped "NO FIREARMS" before you walk into a gun store and get turned down for a firearms purchase, I don't really think you are justified in "not being happy" about it. That's just silly.

and of course nobody would EVAR change the rules in secret...for national security sake of course...and embed information in a mag stripe or rfid, would they? They'd never make an appeals process an exercise in hair-pulling futility, would they?

Serious question, have you been paying attention over the last decade?

 

[ngnrd]

Well, I think I've spent just a bit too much time wrestling with the pigs here. You guys seem to like it, and I feel just a little dirty for the effort. Before I adjourn, I would like to thank you for having this discussion with me. It was enlightening.

To summarize:

Citizens should be afraid of a corrupt government, so it's better to do nothing than to include them in the process. Criminal activity can't be curbed, so we shouldn't waste money trying. Either allow violent criminals and the clinically insane full access to guns, or lock them away forever, otherwise there's a risk that individual's rights could be infringed. And, a person doesn't have any responsibility, or duty to society, in regard to preventing gun violence, if doing so could infringe on individual rights. And, I'm sure I've missed another couple of big points. I'll have to go back and read this all again when I get a chance.

In this thread, I've heard all of these statements presented as reasons to oppose those who would try to force any more gun restrictions on the American People. A few of these arguments were well presented and logical, but lacked much substance; many were seething with as much emotion as the arguments of the anti-gun advocates. And several were either just simple and pure ad hominem attacks on the the messenger, or entirely off topic.

The point is that very few were actually effective in presenting the poster's positions, and fewer still were able to provide a reasonable expectation that somebody's mind could be changed. It's disappointing, really. I was hoping to see a more cohesive and united front, one that could actually make a strong voice heard, instead of a cacophony of voices all trying to be the loudest. In that regard, I think the pro-rights, pro-gun community needs to rethink its strategy, and pick a couple of really strong positions to build on. Because, the other side of this argument has already done just that. And the stakes for losing are so very, very high.

Think about it. Go back and read your posts. Dissect what happened, and pull the best parts of your arguments out from the rest. Then use these bits of truth to forge a stronger, more fluid attack strategy. This battle is far from over. We're going to need all the strength we can muster.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. My grandfather (rest his soul) was a decorated War Veteran. I own multiple revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt rifles, semi-auto rifles, single shot rifles, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, single shot shotguns, and some other stuff I probably shouldn't admit. I am also a Professional Engineer that likes to pick things apart just to see how they work. And, I absolutely believe that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on many fronts, not the least of which is its relentless battle on the 2nd Amendment; the only means by which the remainder of the Constitution can continue to stand.

Soldier on fellas.

And, thanks again for participating in the discussion.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Which had nothing at all to do with the background check itself.

it had everything to do with a background check. The background checks themselves were valid provided the federal gov didn't force state or local law enforcement to perform them.
You are going to have to accept that your legal opinion runs counter to that of the guys whose job it is to interpret the law.
put simply, you're wrong.

 

[VA27]

...And, wow... Do you actually think that the threat of violence (getting conked on the head) is really a valid justification to not check if a buyer might be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? Really?

I see by this post that you have no sense of humor. Had I known that, I would have left that part out of my post. My ex-wife had only a partial sense of humor, so I know how difficult it must be for you sometimes. Perhaps a tag in your sig line could have alerted me to this fact, and so have prevented me from intruding. I go in peace and wish you well in your quest.

 

[ngnrd]

Oh, I have a sense of humor. It may be a little twisted, and sometimes overpowered by an odd blend of sarcasm and cynicism, but it's definitely there.

Heck, I'm smiling just reading your post again. Seriously. There's even a faint chuckle to go with it.

 

[VA27]

The funny thing is, my idea was serious. A toll free number that anyone can call to run a check.

IIRC, when an FFL calls in a check, the buyers information is entered, the transaction type (purchase, picking up a pawn, etc.), firearm type ( handgun, long gun or other, i.e., AR lower) and that's it. I personally wouldn't have a problem doing that.

I WOULD have a problem with being required to go to an FFL and fill out a form and pay for the 'privilege' of making that transaction. Anyone who's ever bought or sold a house can understand this. I know, I know, real estate is different from a firearm, but you get the idea.

(And I did pick up on the sarcasm in that last line.)

 

[brboyer]

I see by this post that you have no sense of humor. Had I known that, I would have left that part out of my post. My ex-wife had only a partial sense of humor, so I know how difficult it must be for you sometimes. Perhaps a tag in your sig line could have alerted me to this fact, and so have prevented me from intruding. I go in peace and wish you well in your quest.

Sorry, quoted wrong post......

 

[Zoogster]

First off being able to prohibit people means the 2nd for its original intent is in essence destroyed. It may or may not be outdated, but it is still the reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
Anyone taking any hard stands against the government can become a prohibited person whether legitimately, or even if pursued for frivolous charges.
The GCA of 1968 creating prohibited persons essentially allowed just that, being able to disarm those in the civil rights movement, labor movement, various militant groups, etc And being able to arrest or charge them in the future just for having a gun after thier initial confict with authority that gave them a felony. (While it was some high profile assassinations that gave the public support.)
Even assaulting a police officer is typically a felony, which means even unarmed protestors clashing with police in a demonstration could then be disarmed for life.
The unarmed protestor then couldn't legally even have a firearm in thier home anymore. Making it even easier for government to bully them.
It is an authoritarian tool.
And one which we have seen is relatively ineffective against common criminals anyways.



So while there is certainly people I would like to see be prohibited and remain unarmed, I think it is unConstituional. It essentially gives government the tool to disarm the very people the 2nd was supposed to insure could remain armed. Having a law that disarms those who have ever had conflict with government diminishes the very check against tyranny the 2nd was meant to provide.




As for NICs being available to more people it would be abused.
If it is free then everyone will use NICs to screen even for unrelated things.
Not just firearm transfers, but everything. It would become the defacto way to check and see if anyone is a felon.
The resulting amount of callers would require many new employees to handle the calls. Millions of calls would be a common occurance. From parents trying to check on thier daughter's latest boyfriend, to employers using it as the initial background check. The level of traffic would be large and endless.

 

[brboyer]

Well, I think I've spent just a bit too much time wrestling with the pigs here. You guys seem to like it, and I feel just a little dirty for the effort. Before I adjourn, I would like to thank you for having this discussion with me. It was enlightening.

To summarize:

Citizens should be afraid of a corrupt government, so it's better to do nothing than to include them in the process. Criminal activity can't be curbed, so we shouldn't waste money trying. Either allow violent criminals and the clinically insane full access to guns, or lock them away forever, otherwise there's a risk that individual's rights could be infringed. And, a person doesn't have any responsibility, or duty to society, in regard to preventing gun violence, if doing so could infringe on individual rights. And, I'm sure I've missed another couple of big points. I'll have to go back and read this all again when I get a chance.

In this thread, I've heard all of these statements presented as reasons to oppose those who would try to force any more gun restrictions on the American People. A few of these arguments were well presented and logical, but lacked much substance; many were seething with as much emotion as the arguments of the anti-gun advocates. And several were either just simple and pure ad hominem attacks on the the messenger, or entirely off topic.

The point is that very few were actually effective in presenting the poster's positions, and fewer still were able to provide a reasonable expectation that somebody's mind could be changed. It's disappointing, really. I was hoping to see a more cohesive and united front, one that could actually make a strong voice heard, instead of a cacophony of voices all trying to be the loudest. In that regard, I think the pro-rights, pro-gun community needs to rethink its strategy, and pick a couple of really strong positions to build on. Because, the other side of this argument has already done just that. And the stakes for losing are so very, very high.

Think about it. Go back and read your posts. Dissect what happened, and pull the best parts of your arguments out from the rest. Then use these bits of truth to forge a stronger, more fluid attack strategy. This battle is far from over. We're going to need all the strength we can muster.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. My grandfather (rest his soul) was a decorated War Veteran. I own multiple revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt rifles, semi-auto rifles, single shot rifles, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, single shot shotguns, and some other stuff I probably shouldn't admit. I am also a Professional Engineer that likes to pick things apart just to see how they work. And, I absolutely believe that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on many fronts, not the least of which is its relentless battle on the 2nd Amendment; the only means by which the remainder of the Constitution can continue to stand.

Soldier on fellas.

And, thanks again for participating in the discussion.

I think many of us stated our positions quite clearly but perhaps you failed to comprehend.

I'll summarize it for you: No Compromise, No Concession, period!

Hope that's clear enough.

 

[brboyer]

it had everything to do with a background check. The background checks themselves were valid provided the federal gov didn't force state or local law enforcement to perform them.
You are going to have to accept that your legal opinion runs counter to that of the guys whose job it is to interpret the law.
put simply, you're wrong.

The only legal challenges in that case came from two CLEOs objecting to being forced to perform duties at the demand of the Federal Government, period. No other legal challenges were raised or addressed by the court.

You may need to go back and re-read it.

 

[Ivy Mike]

The only legal challenges in that case came from two CLEOs objecting to being forced to perform duties at the demand of the Federal Government, period. No other legal challenges were raised or addressed by the court.

You may need to go back and re-read it.

That is exactly the point. The background check itself went unchallenged because it does not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Nobody, including the plaintiffs had an issue with the checks. Merely who was telling them to perform these checks.
Even in DC v. Heller, the court stated "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The fact that a person can be disqualified via due process would assume that the government has the right (Necessary and Proper clause) to conduct these checks to ensure that a DQ'd person can't buy a gun.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I think many of us stated our positions quite clearly but perhaps you failed to comprehend.

I'll summarize it for you: No Compromise, No Concession, period!

Hope that's clear enough.

If you don't compromise, you will find your position unrepresented by anyone. They will ignore you because you refuse to involve yourself in the political system.
Good luck with that.

 

[brboyer]

That is exactly the point. The background check itself went unchallenged because it does not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Nobody, including the plaintiffs had an issue with the checks. Merely who was telling them to perform these checks.
Even in DC v. Heller, the court stated "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The fact that a person can be disqualified via due process would assume that the government has the right (Necessary and Proper clause) to conduct these checks to ensure that a DQ'd person can't buy a gun.

The background check went unchallenged simply because no one with standing challenged it. :banghead:

I feel you lack the basic knowledge necessary to understand the legal process.

 

[we are not amused]

I have a great idea! Let us brand felons and mentally dangerous people, or maybe just tattoo them. That would solve the problem!

 

[HankR]

I have a great idea! Let us brand felons and mentally dangerous people, or maybe just tattoo them. That would solve the problem!

If the "felon" is not to be trusted w/ a gun, I don't want to trust him/her with gasoline, matches, fertilizer, a dump truck full of gravel (especially in a school zone), etc. Howzabout we just get some big building's with bars on the windows and keep these people inside. If the "felon" is guilty of cable theft, or filling in a pothole in a wet driveway, then we don't lock him/her in the building with bars. When I want to sell my personal property (gun, dumptruck, chainsaw, etc), I just limit my potential buyers to those outside of the building with bars.

Hey, that would work!

If you don't compromise, you will find your position unrepresented by anyone. They will ignore you because you refuse to involve yourself in the political system.

Hate to disagree w/ the above, but I'm with brboyer on this one. "Compromise" means something different to the anti gunners. They give nothing, we give half. Next time we give half of what's left. Before you know it we're down to [strike]seven round mags and bans on certain shapes of plastic handles[/strike] pointy sticks. Therefore, I (and many others) will represent brboyer's position and the quote above is demonstrably false.

 

[Ivy Mike]

The background check went unchallenged simply because no one with standing challenged it. :banghead:

I feel you lack the basic knowledge necessary to understand the legal process.

The guys with standing didn't even bother to challenge it. In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional just not when the federal government tries to compel the states to perform them.

I would also suggest that the Necessary and Proper clause makes legislation requiring background checks constitutionally sound.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Hate to disagree w/ the above, but I'm with brboyer on this one. "Compromise" means something different to the anti gunners. They give nothing, we give half. Next time we give half of what's left. Before you know it we're down to [strike]seven round mags and bans on certain shapes of plastic handles[/strike] pointy sticks. Therefore, I (and many others) will represent brboyer's position and the quote above is demonstrably false.

Perhaps if you asked for something better, you might find yourself in a better spot.

as far as not compromising, you need only look at the American Civil War and what a refusal to compromise got the southern states. A long bloody war, their slaves taken from them forcibly and reconstruction policies that hammered the South for years and years.

If you don't try and work with the other side, you will always lose. History must progress and those who refuse to progress with it, are forgotten by it.

 

[brboyer]

The guys with standing didn't even bother to challenge it. In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional just not when the federal government tries to compel the states to perform them.

I would also suggest that the Necessary and Proper clause makes legislation requiring background checks constitutionally sound.

In this case, the legal process tells us that the background checks are constitutional

No, the legal process tells us no one with standing challenged the law so there it's constitutionality was not challenged, that's all.

 

[hogshead]

When I hear the word comprimise i always think of the tale of the hunter and the bear."A hunter raised his rifle and took careful aim at a large bear. When he was about to pull the trigger, the bear spoke in a soft soothing voice, “Isn’t it better to talk than to shoot? What do you want? Let’s negotiate the matter.” Lowering his rifle, the hunter replied, “I want a fur coat.”

“Good,” said the bear, “that is a negotiable question. I only want a full stomach, so let us negotiate a compromise.” They sat down to negotiate and after a time the bear walked away alone. The negotiations had been successful. The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had his fur coat!