Why I have NO problem with background checks...

[BADUNAME13]

What Alex said.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

why are you dancing about the issue? We already have the "instant background check", so being in favor or not is a moot point. It exists. Deal with it.

Okay. The IBC is reasonable if it verifies your ability to buy a gun; I'd like to see language that short circuits the govt. kill switch mentioned in the thread - i.e. the system fails-open and deal with the fallout later.

That said, I do like the fact that an active restraining order bars you from buying a gun - if you have one, a judge thinks you're presently a threat to someone. Buying a gun is credibly furtherance of that threat. I also like barring violent felons from gun ownership - if you've demonstrated that level of poor judgement, perhaps you shouldn't have a gun. Violent felons aren't really the sort of people you'd want armed in a SHTF scenario, anyway.

Every license you have to get, everything you have to ask the govt for permission to do is an affront to the free citizen.

If you're rural, sure. Just trying building something ramshackle in the city and see how far that gets. Your examples fail to consider that poor building practices from allowing anyone to just build something endangers your neighbors far more than if they were 300 feet away.

One report I saw years back (from the Clinton admin) stated much the same, xxx thousand purchases denied. 44 prosecutions!

I wonder how many of these denials were because the person didn't know they didn't qualify - as someone else mentioned, lots of bull**** gets classed as a felony. Rip a DVD to an mpeg to play on your laptop? Felony - don't get caught.

If they are a threat, do not release them.

Gotta - due process seemse to frown on open ended/post facto sentencing.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Change the law to make sexual battery a capital offense

Yeah, that works so well with murderers. By the way, does statutory count as sexual battery?

 

[RealGun]

That said, I do like the fact that an active restraining order bars you from buying a gun - if you have one, a judge thinks you're presently a threat to someone. Buying a gun is credibly furtherance of that threat. I also like barring violent felons from gun ownership - if you've demonstrated that level of poor judgement, perhaps you shouldn't have a gun. Violent felons aren't really the sort of people you'd want armed in a SHTF scenario, anyway.

The right of self defense and rights in general are undermined just so society does not have to keep all its misfits in jail. A free man deserves the ability to legally exercise his right of self defense. Either keep him in jail, stripped of certain rights, or allow him a gun (or weapon of choice).

 

[TEDDY]

statement

amendment 14 seems to be an answer.however mere possesion of a gun is a felony if it is not licensed in many states.so all thats needed to disarm everyone is to make a law that know one could avoid violating.voila instant felon instant ban.also when you think of "felons"you think of violent people.many did not do violent crime and would not."be careful what you ask for because YOU may get it"

 

[TEDDY]

statement

amendment 14 seems to be an answer.however mere possesion of a gun is a felony if it is not licensed in many states.so all thats needed to disarm everyone is to make a law that know one could avoid violating.voila instant felon instant ban.also when you think of "felons"you think of violent people.many did not do violent crime and would not."be careful what you ask for because YOU may get it"

 

[wjustinen]

Background Check Prevents Who?? from being armed?

If the argument is that limiting your, or my, rights will prevent a bad guy from being armed, that argument is bogus. Assume that the bad guy is armed and you will never be surprised. The only thing that any gun law has ever accomplished is to ensure that an armed criminal is dealing with an unarmed victim.

If it were up to me, the only laws in Canada and the United States applicable to carriage of sidearms would be those that deal with improper use. Murder, rape, robbery, assault have always been unlawful.

I can almost hear the cries of "yeah, but" from both sides of the border. Bad law is always the result of some otherwise nice person with an axe to grind and a limited appreciation of the other person's rights. Pity.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The right of self defense and rights in general are undermined just so society does not have to keep all its misfits in jail. A free man deserves the ability to legally exercise his right of self defense. Either keep him in jail, stripped of certain rights, or allow him a gun (or weapon of choice).

Dont' be so absolutist. You can't pop someone in jail because someone said they're a threat - TROs have a lower burden of proof than full trials and they take less time (because they're temporary). It sucks if you've got someone getting them to mess with you, but that's hardly the common case. It's perfectly plausible (expected, even) that someone who's been beating an ex girlfriend may view the TRO as a challenge and go get a gun to take care of things permanently. What about the girl's right to live in peace? It's not like you're going to get a TRO and decide that you're suddenly unsafe.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't have a problem with them either. At least when I don't have to do them.

 

[pacodelahoya]

It sucks if you've got someone getting them to mess with you, but that's hardly the common case. It's perfectly plausible (expected, even) that someone who's been beating an ex girlfriend may view the TRO as a challenge and go get a gun to take care of things permanently.

Where is the study data to support this statement.?

When you are talking about limiting rights, then I think there needs to be a higher burden of proof other than someones pissed off SO claiming he said this and that.!

Besides the fact that if they are that mad at their SO, chances are they don't need a gun to inflict permanent harm unless he is Pee Wee Herman and she is Zena the warrior princess.

 

[RealGun]

A temporary restraining order is the law pretending to solve a problem. If a guy is really judged dangerous, he should be locked up. TROs declare one guilty without a trial and are an admission that the law is overburdened to really deal with the situation appropriately. Either you lock someone up or provide temporary protective shelter for the person supposedly threatened. Denying the RKBA crosses a line that should not be crossed.

It would be the socialists on one end and statists on the other who want the freedom to rationalize a justification for any law they desire, never mind any Constitution or pesky rights. It's about control. A Constitution is there to limit their nonsense.

Without the ability to legally protect himself, this threatening person needs to be in jail where society can "protect" HIM. The right of self defense is absolute. If you can fabricate all sorts of instances where it doesn't apply, then it is not truly a right. Well, you can't just explain away instinctive behaviors, one of which is to protect oneself from harm. That is an unalienable right. The ability to possess a weapon as a suitable response to the threat is part of the right.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I think that it's a great idea to require criminals to undergo background checks.

 

[JCF]

Change the law to make sexual battery a capital offense

What Alex said.

The right of self defense and rights in general are undermined just so society does not have to keep all its misfits in jail. A free man deserves the ability to legally exercise his right of self defense. Either keep him in jail, stripped of certain rights, or allow him a gun (or weapon of choice).

Just like that huh?

So how do we change the law?
What other offenses do we execute for?
What do we not execute for?
If we do not execute, do we imprison indefinitely?
What if we are wrong?
What if we are wrong and the offender kills someone? Whose fault is it?
How do we keep all these people in jail?
What jails do we keep them in?
How do we build and pay for the jails?
How do we identify all the people who should not be let out of jail? How/where do we draw the line as to what constitutes too much threat to society?
Whose interpretation of normativity do we adopt when deciding what should be felonious conduct requiring prison or execution?
What about the fact that a very large portion of this nation feels very strongly that carrying a firearm on your hip should be considered felonious conduct?
Etc., etc., etc.

Like I said... many people repeating this mantra have no conception whatsoever as to how the criminal justice system actually works.

 

[plexreticle]

I don't agree with background checks. All it is is a way for someone to track who is buying guns. I dont like that.

If a felon isn't suppose to have a gun and they get one. When they are caught they should go to jail for a very long time.