Quote:
I do not agree entirely. This harkens back to our discussions of the commerce clause in this thread. It should not take nine distinguished justices to define "interstate" and "commerce", or misdefine those terms.
No universal background check has previously been found constitutional or withstood constitutional challenge. Any such system that infringes the right described in the Second Amendment should run afoul of that amendment.
|
But the background check itself has been. I would not have objected to a characterization of Mr. Pfleuger's objection as personal belief it is outside the powers of the federal government. I objected to the characterization of it being "demonstrably" out implying precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
4) No system will ever be omnipotent. A system that does the most it can, while intruding as little as possible is a goal worth aiming for, however.
|
Quote:
|
Emphasis added. The bolded portion is part of the problem with universal background checks.
|
Have you an idea for efficiently restricting the flow of firearms to prohibited persons that is less intrusive, yet still not defeated by a color copier and a pickpocket?