Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I don't see any "restriction" by showing you are not prohibited. There is absolutely nothing to keep you from keeping and bearing arms if you are not a prohibited person.
|
There's a First Amendment doctrine called the
prior restraint. I have likened the universal background check to a prior restraint in that you don't really have the right until you get gov't approval. Rights are something you have until the government can prove sufficient grounds to take them away. Privileges are what you get after you've jumped through the hoops to show the government that you are deserving of the privilege. If you don't believe that having to ask for government permission to exercise a right is any restriction at all, then you don't understand the term.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The gun shop "knows" he is not prohibited either. I don't understand this argument that you "knowing" he is not a prohibited person should make a sale ok without checking first? If it is not special privilege than what is it?
|
See
Rights and Privileges, above. If you choose to treat your RKBA as a privilege, feel free to do so. What you've suggested though, is that the rest of us should be required to, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The gun shop "knows" he is not prohibited either. I don't understand this argument that you "knowing" he is not a prohibited person should make a sale ok without checking first? If it is not special privilege than what is it?
|
Private sales without background checks have been OK for about the last 237 years. It's the exercise of a right, rather than being given special permission by the gov't. It's not a special privilege. It's the power to deal with one's own private property without undue governmental meddling.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
. . . .I don't want to people to sell guns to criminals and other prohibited unintentionally. I understand that some people will be willing to break the law and do it anyway but most people are law abiding and won't. I believe the inconvenience to us will be minimal, possibly even beneficial in other ways.
|
Given the admission that "some people will be willing to break the law" and sell to prohibited persons anyways, please tell me what benefits you see to mandating that every private sale have a background check to go with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I am not mandating a high cost so I don't know why you keep bothering. Free or very low cost is much more reasonable. Free really makes the most sense since a lot of gun owners oppose the measure. No sense in making them pay extra for it if they don't want it.
|
I keep bothering because, in part, it's MY MONEY that you're proposing to spend.
The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. -- John Marshall. The other reason that I keep bothering the argument that "oh, it's only 5 dollars" puts us on a slippery slope. First, it's $5, then we adjust for inflation, then just a little more. Pretty soon, that background check will cost $100, and at some point before that happens, it starts preventing some lower-income folks from being able to exercise their RKBA at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Why are you waiting 3-5 years? Turn on the TV and you can hear the calls right now. The only point of a check is to place another barrier for criminals to an easy gun supply. If people mostly comply with the law then that is one less way for prohibited people to get guns. Non-prohibited people will still be able to get them. It will be less convenient though.
|
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move? Instituting universal checks will be a much larger inconvenience than it will be for felons.