The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30, 2013, 01:42 PM   #251
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
Quote:
Again, to date, I have not heard one persuasive argument from ANY figurehead against background checks.
Then sir - you're either not listening or support a large powerful central government.
It really is as simple as that.

Mandatory background checks, as proposed by the federal government, usurp the rights of a state to regulate intrastate commerce.
Hal, I don't believe in large central governments, in fact I can't stand them.

Perhaps I wasn't paying as much attention to this particular argument. Addressing it now... I don't think this argument is very strong... The Feds already do regulate intrastate commerce... they regulate Dr.'s writing prescriptions for their patients and pharmacies filling them, they regulate securities exchanges between the broker/seller and purchaser, they regulate local banks, etc....... I think we need a better argument.
win-lose is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 01:51 PM   #252
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Though I have no idea where they got this number, the anti-gun crowd is crowing that 40% of guns are purchased at gun shows without background checks.
GEM found the source of that number. Discussion here.

Unfortunately, that number has been co-opted by other "credible" sourcesmaking it difficult to sort out. That "source" was used a cite in this anti-document. If you look at both of them you see multiple problems. The anti-document says it's "fact", while the "source" says perhaps 40% yet provides no basis for that number.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 02:01 PM   #253
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
they regulate securities exchanges between the broker/seller and purchaser, they regulate local banks, etc.......
Those are interstate commerce(anything to do with banking or securities is interstate).
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 02:09 PM   #254
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
OK, maybe that's a bit loopy (and a bit snarky, sue me), but I'm not seeing the problem that universal checks are going to fix.
We get into a catch 22.... we say that we want better mental health controls/reporting and overall better State reporting into the system, but why if we don't think that we should have background checks?

I'm being a stubborn goat on this issue because I see this item as being the one item with the greatest chance of coming to fruition and the anti's are going to load it to the best of their ability. What makes me so sure of this prediction is MY OWN conviction that I PERSONALLY should do "due diligence" in ensuring that I don't sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This is going to ring very true to most "middle of the road people", as evidenced by the foxnews poll quoted earlier in this thread.

Now, if all that is going to be said has been said, then I will say "Uncle" and let this be....
win-lose is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 02:38 PM   #255
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Unfortunately, that number has been co-opted by other "credible" sourcesmaking it difficult to sort out.
Oh, so it's like Kellerman's data, but for the 21st century.

For those who don't remember, Arthur Kellerman did a study in the 1980's in which he claimed that someone was 43 times more likely to be a victim of gun violence if they kept a gun in the home. He never provided raw data, his methods of collection were suspect, and he later recanted to some extent. However, the media picked up on that number, and the horse was out of the barn.

I'm seeing a real parallel here.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 05:54 PM   #256
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Well then how about this link as a foundation.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774...d-2012-84-dead

This is a link to a news article listing all of 2012's mass shootings defined as
Quote:
multi-victim shootings where those killed were chosen indiscriminately.
Now I spent over 8 hours researching each one going right down the list to determine which ones actually qualified under the definition above and collected many little details as well, such as were the guns used legal purchased, or were the gunmen prohibited possessors, and of course would any of today's legislation like background checks for personal firearms sales have made a difference or even come into play.

I made many notes, I have a text file I have attached with the notes, but alas I was well into the document when I figured maybe I should have noted the links to the info. Alas, take it for what it is, unproven documentation from unproven sources but, it isn't that inaccurate.

Here are my analytic notes;
Quote:
16 Mass shootings resulting in at least one fatality in 2012.

Despite the articles claim that victims were selected randomly or indiscriminately it is obvious that 9 of the case were neither. The victims or target locations were selected for a specific reason.

6 of the 16 may have involved an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle but some reports had no evidence for certain.

9 of the cases involved legally owned firearms.
6 of the cases involved stolen firearms.
1 case involved a prohibited possessor who "legally" purchased his firearms before his status could be updated in NCIS so his check went through clean.

4 cases specifically involved a prohibited possessor, at least 3 others should have, but at least 3 cases were specifically gang or criminal in nature.

Of these 16 cases the Background Check system only failed once and a new Background Check requirement on private sales may have had an effect on one case[England/Watts]

The headlines read "leaving at least 88 dead". The numbers break down to;
Dead Assailants 10 with 6 killing themselves, 4 killed by Law Enforcement.
85 actual slain victims including slain Law Enforcement.

But if you tweak it down to only those events where the shooting might have been effected by background checks or a beefed up mental reporting system where troubled people are spotted and flagged more effectively, and rule out their ability to still obtain weapons illegally, the numbers are more like this(I left the Sandy Hook incident in as well);
Seven shooting incidents.
Dead Assailants 6 with 4 killing themselves, 2 killed by Law Enforcement.
45 actual slain victims including slain Law Enforcement.

Grand total of all fatalities is 51 and 27 are from Sandy Hook alone.

Of these seven cases, four might have been prevented by better mental health reporting procedures. One by faster NCIS updates of prohibited possessors and one perhaps by Private Sales background checks, and one I don't think could have been stopped at all, the laid off Accent Signage Systems employee.

So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting, three black people killed, randomly selected, but not truly random because the target selected was the entire black race.
Attached Files
File Type: txt guns finished.txt (6.4 KB, 1 views)
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:11 PM   #257
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Persuasive only by your standards Win_lose.

The Feds don't need to be pushing this because it's a State issue. When my State brings it up our people will deal with it our own way.

But assume it is proposed at the State level;

No one can show that a background check on personal sales of firearms would prevent a single crime and in fact the very concept is completely illogical.

I have explained this to you several times and you keep blowing it off never addressing it.

Laws have a purpose, they guide the law abiding, they form a justification to punish the law breaker. But laws can not prevent illegal actions.

My proof is simple, if laws themselves could prevent illegal actions then there would be no crime.

I say this is a perfectly valid argument though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Lastly I bridle at your dogged pursuit on this topic. I could have used the same 8 hours I spent screwing around about background checks actually researching something that actually has a chance to be an effective measure. **** I could have at least gone to bed early enough to have gotten some from my wife
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:17 PM   #258
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 726
@lcpiper,
Was the Ft Hood shooting included? If so, would the following also apply...

"So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting, three black people killed, randomly selected, but not truly random because the target selected was the entire black race."

..as the shooter was asian descent and all the victims were white.
2ndsojourn is online now  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:40 PM   #259
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
No, the Fort Hood shooting happened in 2009, not during the last year, 2012.

Quote:
..as the shooter was asian descent and all the victims were white.


If my understanding of the details are correct. Maj. Hassan is being charged by the Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). This system makes no distinction between murders motivated by hate from any other murder. For the Army, murder is just murder. What an outstanding concept.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 08:07 PM   #260
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
I'm on the Brady Campaign's mailing list. Long story, but nobody there has figured out that Pynchon Voltaire isn't my real name yet.

Anyhow, this went out today in response to the Senate hearings:

Quote:
We support President Obama's comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence. His legislative plan — which includes measures such as universal criminal background checks for all gun buyers — can immediately reduce gun injuries and deaths across America.
That's a pretty big promise to make.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 12:57 AM   #261
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by win-lose View Post
...if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for anarchy, which is the last thing our side needs to be doing. Like it or not, this is a very real fight...
This is a very real fight. So I really do *NOT* want this next comment to seem to be a nit-pick. If this weren't so important I would never bring it up.

What it sounds like to the unwashed masses is arguing for chaos in the streets. That's a long way from the political theory of Anarchism.

We do not want to look like we're supporting chaos in the streets, because we are not. At least I don't.

In this fight the Anarchist and the Conservatives are on the same side and marching in lockstep.

I just want verbiage correct. We don't need to alienate anyone at all. A real smart guy once said, and I paraphrase, we all hang together or we'll all hang separately.

Once this is over then the Conservatives and Anarchists can bicker again. At least that is if you can find any here who'll engage.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 08:15 AM   #262
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
He is also far from the mark suggesting that I am an Anarchist. Anarchists don't last to retirment in the Army

But I am strongly against piling useless laws on top of useless laws in a vain effort to legislate a utopean paradise.

In Floride as in every state I know of, it is illegal to deface highway signs and public property. And like most every state there are some people who still just have to shoot signs with paintball guns.

Now this was already an illegal act, but these fine Floridians passed a law making it unlawfull to have a loaded paintball gun anywhere in a car. Please keep in mind that the Federal Government does not classify paintball guns as weapons.

Now here is the situation, Dad, Susie and young Tom, are out playing paintball because Dad feels this is good for the kids. The kids want to hang around for the last big match and Dad knows that they will be pusing it to get back home in time for dinner. Mom has a big roast cooking. Dad does not want Mom angry because she has been busting it while all the kids are out having fun. But Dad wants to go another round too so they stay.

The last match is done, it was great, but the clock, oh my, throw that stuff in the trunk kids, we gota wheel. Down the road they go, Dad is pushing the speed limit a little, and you know what happens right? You have been down this road yourselves. Deputy DoRight is on your bumper and hits the lights. Hmmm, speeding, slow it down Dad. BTW, you all are dressed for the Paintball field, let's pop the trunk Dad. Ohh, what's this? Tom forgot to unload his paintball gun, Dad didn't check it, and now......

Dad is hauled in on a misdemeanor, Kids in tow, Mom's big meal is ruined, and for what?

Dad, Suzie and Tom didn't shoot any highway signs. But they broke the law that is supposed to "prevent" the other law from being broken. This is the kind of thing I am against. This is what I see as foolishness.

Sorry I had to lay out a book, but there it is in the best way I can explain it.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; January 31, 2013 at 08:29 AM.
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 09:23 AM   #263
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
I'm on the Brady Campaign's mailing list. Long story, but nobody there has figured out that Pynchon Voltaire isn't my real name yet.

Anyhow, this went out today in response to the Senate hearings:

Quote:
We support President Obama's comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence. His legislative plan — which includes measures such as universal criminal background checks for all gun buyers — can immediately reduce gun injuries and deaths across America.
That's a pretty big promise to make.
Last night I flipped to the Gun Control Channel and who does Piers Morgan have on but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (the mouth-piece of the DNC). Two of my least favorite people on the planet. Piers asked her what she thought was going to "actually" be done to stop gun violence. She walked EVERYTHING back except universal background checks. She stayed on universal background checks... " it's common sense", "it's supported by everyone including most members of the NRA", "the NRA doesn't support people just gun companies". Then, (and this is the kicker) they cut to a clip of a 1999 testimony by NRA VP Wayne LaPierre, where he states that "ALL TRANSACTIONS SHOULD GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK, THERE SHOULD BE NO LOOPHOLES". They then highlight the hypocrisy, call him some names and use this as proof he doesn't represent people.

I don't think they are going to risk 2014 with all the ban stuff. I do think they are going to build on top of the universal background checks. This is low risk for them. If they can sneak through national registration, this will be more than enough to move their agenda forward. Personally, I hope they push hard for the bans and make 2014 a one issue election. Otherwise, if they take the house and keep the senate in 2014, the very next tragedy we will be devastating to us.

Last edited by win-lose; January 31, 2013 at 09:56 AM.
win-lose is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 09:43 AM   #264
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
Persuasive only by your standards Win_lose.

The Feds don't need to be pushing this because it's a State issue. When my State brings it up our people will deal with it our own way.

But assume it is proposed at the State level;

No one can show that a background check on personal sales of firearms would prevent a single crime and in fact the very concept is completely illogical.

I have explained this to you several times and you keep blowing it off never addressing it.

Laws have a purpose, they guide the law abiding, they form a justification to punish the law breaker. But laws can not prevent illegal actions.

My proof is simple, if laws themselves could prevent illegal actions then there would be no crime.

I say this is a perfectly valid argument though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Lastly I bridle at your dogged pursuit on this topic. I could have used the same 8 hours I spent screwing around about background checks actually researching something that actually has a chance to be an effective measure. **** I could have at least gone to bed early enough to have gotten some from my wife
lcpiper,
Being a city-boy, I had to look up what you meant by "bridle". I'm sorry you feel this way. It is not my intent to make you upset. It is clear by your years of service and your love of individual liberty that you are a Patriot, and for these I sincerely thank you.

I completely agree that the negative, unintended consequences of some truly silly laws tend to far out way the benefits of the intended consequences (your paintball example is good).

I also agree that law does not block free will. However, as you said, it does guide it by defining expectations of behavior and consequences. The argument that "laws don't control behavior and therefore this should not be done" is just not a strong argument that people are going to listen to... I'm sorry.. again I agree, laws do not control free will, but they do influence it.

If I could buy you a beer, I would....
win-lose is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 09:51 AM   #265
Revolver1
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
These laws are relying an awful lot on the good faith of lawful gun owners to comply. Here in NY good faith went out the window when Emperor Cuomo and his cronies passed the SafeAct!
Revolver1 is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 10:32 AM   #266
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
LOL Revolver1.

Win-Lose, Thank You for your comments. Keep on looking for your top argument. I have offered the best I have to offer. I'll leave this one to others more capable then I.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 10:51 AM   #267
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Less than 1% of crime guns are acquired at gun shows, whereas 13% of crime guns are purchased at retailers. By that logic, the NICS system makes us less safe.
I would say that with the data being as old and as flawed as it is there is really no telling if that is true today or not.

Quote:
Not really. Like I said, we went for over 200 years without background checks. Society didn't crumble. There's no proof that the NICS system reduced crime.
There is no proof it did not either. This is not about society crumbling. It is about trying to improve things. The date from that time period indicates a significant shift away from retailers after background checks were put in place. Putting barriers in place between criminals and guns has overall net positive effect and there is no significant down side in of itself.



Quote:
We support President Obama's comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence. His legislative plan — which includes measures such as universal criminal background checks for all gun buyers — can immediately reduce gun injuries and deaths across America.
Not only will it not do that it flies in the face of their sketchy "evidence" on time of purchase to time of crime.


Quote:
The 2A right, on the other hand, was enumerated at the end of the 18th century, but that right, RKBA, is not listed in the CRA. So it's not covered by that. Bear in mind, though, that the 2A wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010, IIRC. In other words, SCOTUS hadn't even told states that the 2A applied to them until 2A. Just because a provision is in the US Constitution does not automatically mean that it applies to the States. As it stands now, though, it has finally been incorporated, which means that States must comply with it. That means that State are now limited in what laws they may enact in restricting the RKBA. It does not mean that private individuals may be forced to sell their private property to other private individuals.
Thanks for your long, detailed and well reasoned answer. While the courts have not yet caught up with this as a civil right I am guessing that:
- Sooner or later they will
- It is long overdue.

Quote:
The CRA was enacted in 1968 to protect minorities from discrimination in matters made available to the public at large, and state or governmental matters. Voting, housing, public facilities. (I seem to recall a case invovling the Howard Johnson's line of hotels and restaurants, for example.) In discrimination law, there are several protected classes (race, religion, gender, age, for example) and protected activities (voting, public facilities, education, housing, and employment for example). The private purchase of firearms, from private individuals, is not included in the list. If we were talking about the purchase of a firearm from a store, held out to the public for public business, that would be a different story. The CRA was not enacted in such a way that it protects from purely private discrimination. Whether or not it should have been is an entirely separate question. Whether I believe the 2A is an "essential right," does not enter into the equation.
So if you accept that the private party purchase of a firearm is not legally a civil right then the discussion is essentially over. It is merely the disposal of private property which you can do with as you see fit and the federal government believes that they can regulate under the ICC (Wickard v. Filburn). Private arms sales travel in interstate commerce and (especially recently) make up a signifcant portion of the market. Even giving away guns as gifts affects commerce.

While I find the abuse of the ICC abhorent we are stuck with it until it is defanged in some way.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

Last edited by Alabama Shooter; January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 11:20 AM   #268
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
There is no proof it did not either. This is not about society crumbling. It is about trying to improve things. The date from that time period indicates a significant shift away from retailers after background checks were put in place. Putting barriers in place between criminals and guns has overall net positive effect and there is no significant down side in of itself.
Are you certain gun theft didn't increase as well?

Would be worth looking into wouldn't it.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 11:25 AM   #269
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Are you certain gun theft didn't increase as well?
There is no way of telling that either since numbers are not kept, all thefts are not reported etc...

I don't know of any historical research that shows where thieves target a place becuase they know there are guns inside. That would be interesting I imagine.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 12:17 PM   #270
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
No, but this is close and along those lines.

Quote:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub...shbopc0510.pdf
Victimizations involving the theft of firearms declined from 283,600 in 1994 to
145,300 in 2010.
And at least from 2005 to 2010;

Quote:
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/ffl-th...-update-ii.pdf

FFLs filed more than 7,500 theft/loss reports with ATF in calendar years 2008, 2009, and 2010 reporting more than 74,000 firearms as lost or stolen.
Now these stats on firearms thefts are two separate things so no overlap, but at least I see something like 74,000 stolen from FFLs and an approximate 450,000 for the same time frame from home thefts.

At least we can say that the majority of gun thefts are from homes, and home thefts decreased steadily over the years from 1994 to 2010. And that brings to light this;

Quote:
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998.
The NICS didn't actually go into effect until '98 and thefts of firearms from the home had already been in steady decline since '94 and through 2010. Make what you will of it but it looks either inconclusive or ineffective. But it sure makes NICS checks look good if you forget that they didn't go into effect in '93 with the passing of the Brady bill.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 12:24 PM   #271
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
While I find the abuse of the ICC abhorent we are stuck with it until it is defanged in some way.
Then why pile more on top of what's already a mess?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

It's like saying if I might as well swill beer since I'm already fat...

You're not going to lose any weight with that type of thinking.
Hal is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 12:36 PM   #272
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
The NICS didn't actually go into effect until '98 and thefts of firearms from the home had already been in steady decline since '94 and through 2010. Make what you will of it but it looks either inconclusive or ineffective. But it sure makes NICS checks look good if you forget that they didn't go into effect in '93 with the passing of the Brady bill.
Yes on NICS, not actually on background checks.

Background checks went into effect in most states in 1994. Many sherriffs and other law officials filed lawsuits on tenth ammendment grounds due to the unfair burden and cost that the Brady Bill imposed upon them. This was overturned in the court conviently about the same time NICS came on line in Printz v. United States.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 01:39 PM   #273
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
The 2A right, . . . . blah, blah . . . .Spats drones on . . . blah, blah. . . . That means that State are now limited in what laws they may enact in restricting the RKBA. It does not mean that private individuals may be forced to sell their private property to other private individuals.
Thanks for your long, detailed and well reasoned answer. While the courts have not yet caught up with this as a civil right I am guessing that:
- Sooner or later they will
- It is long overdue.
This may seem awfully nitpicky, and for that I apologize in advance. However, a more correct statement might be that Congress has not caught up with SCOTUS in this case. I'll explain more fully below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
. . . Spats drones on some more . . . blah, blah . . . The CRA was not enacted in such a way that it protects from purely private discrimination. . . . .
So if you accept that the private party purchase of a firearm is not legally a civil right then the discussion is essentially over. It is merely the disposal of private property which you can do with as you see fit and the federal government believes that they can regulate under the ICC (Wickard v. Filburn). Private arms sales travel in interstate commerce and (especially recently) make up a signifcant portion of the market. Even giving away guns as gifts affects commerce.
Hold the phone a second. I didn't say that the 2A right wasn't a civil right. I said that I, acting solely as an invididual, do not violate my potential buyer's right by declining to sell, based solely on membership in a protected class. When government begins regulating it, though, some other stuff crops up.

We've looked at the issue of individual sales. Government regulation is a horse of a different color, though. For looking at that issue, I'd suggest shifting away from the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Let's go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In particular, take a look at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the CRA of 1871 is codified:
Quote:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
Here's the Spats' Notes version:
Quote:
Any person who, under color of law, deprives another of their federal constitutional or statutory rights, can be sued.
I've looked the Heller v. DC decision, and it (oddly) does not specifically mention 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it was brought under that statute. It's a civil rights statute, filed in federal court. That's the statute that you use to get to those. McDonald v. Chicago makes reference to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 in declaring that the 2A is applicable to the states.

I said earlier that Congress has not caught up with SCOTUS. SCOTUS has declared that the RKBA is a fundamental, individual civil right. SCOTUS has said that the protections of the 2A are applicable to the States. The CRA of 1968 has not been amended to include "purchase of firearms" as a protected activity, to be protected, regardless of whether or not the actor (alleged violator of the right) is acting in an individual or public or governmental role.

The CRA of 1968 does prohibit members of the protected classes from being discriminated against in public facilities (i.e. stores which hold themselves out for public business), but it does not protect against purely private discrimination. If I worked for a chain of gun stores, "Spats' Shootin' Irons," and I declined to sell to members of a protected class, or more clearly yet, to employ members of a protected class, that's no longer purely private. Then we'd be off to the races in a civil suit under the CRA of 1968.

The CRA of 1871, on the other hand, protects the federal constitutional and civil rights from governmental action. That's what the "color of law" language means. If one of my officers, on duty, in his patrol car, wearing uniform and badge, etc., arrests someone, he's acting "under color of law." If someone sues him for excessive force for making an arrest under those conditions, it'd be under 42 USC 1983. If he were not acting under color of law, 42 usc 1983 wouldn't apply. (Think bar fight on his own time.)

That's why Heller and McDonald are so important. They tell us something about the extent and boundaries of the 2A right. They tell us that the RKBA is a civil right. Not only that, it's a fundamental, individual right. They tell us that the 2A also applies to the states, so it's limits apply to your local city council, as well as Congress. They tell us that your local city council cannot impose an outright prohibition on handguns, for example.

The RKBA is a constitutional right. It's a civil right. It's a fundamental, individual right. It's just not subject to being violated in the way that you supposed.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 02:05 PM   #274
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting,
lcpiper, what is it about this case which leads you to this possible conclusion?
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 04:23 PM   #275
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
AH.74 I My thinking was that I had remembered reading something about England having a criminal history and that if background checks had been required of personal firearms sales at that time, then maybe he wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun used in the killings.

Here is all I could find looking back, it's not as significant as I had thought at the time.
Quote:
A check of England's criminal history shows his race was revised from white to "American Indian" after a driving under suspension arrest in May 2011.
This would not have warranted flagging as a prohibited possessor as I had originally thought.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18033 seconds with 10 queries