The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2013, 10:36 AM   #76
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, I don't think you answered the actual question, or else I misunderstood your answer.

To clarify, the question was how would ACTUAL USE of the NICS system be enforced, if there were no registry?
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 10:47 AM   #77
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
In that case, the same way the actual use of the NICS system for FFL's- They find the firearm, and trace it to the last 4473 indicating transfer. If the last 4473 was before enactment date, the government has the burden to prove the transfer occurred after the transfer date.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 11:37 AM   #78
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
There's no requirement to perform an audit now on those firearms sold by FFL's.
No, but the ATF has the option of auditing the inventory of an FFL at will.

Quote:
If the last 4473 was before enactment date, the government has the burden to prove the transfer occurred after the transfer date.
How long will they leave the system that way? The government won't want the burden of proof, and they'll get this changed to shift it to the owner.

Whatever "proof" I may have of a background check will become an affirmative defense, much like Form 4's for NFA items. If you can't provide proof, or if the proof somehow doesn't satisfy an investigator, charges will be pressed.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 12:18 PM   #79
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
How long will they leave the system that way?
As long as lawyers, courts, and the people require an innocent until proven guilty premise. If they're going to convict for an illegal transfer, don't they have to prove you made an illegal transfer?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 01:56 PM   #80
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
One would think, JimDandy, and yet dealings with courts can make one think things could easily go otherwise.

I still maintain it's better not to give the government additional tools with which they can infringe on our rights, rather than to give the government tools, and then try to force it to use the new tools in the manner we hope.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:05 PM   #81
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,822
Jim Dandy,via presumption of innocence,I should not require any background check to excersize my 2nd ammendment rights.As it is,I am presumed a prohibited person until NICS proves othrerwise.

Better that we have a database of all felons and other prohibited persons that we can all access .

Would be handy on election day to prevent voter fraud,too
HiBC is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:15 PM   #82
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Jim Dandy,via presumption of innocence,I should not require any background check to excersize my 2nd ammendment rights.As it is,I am presumed a prohibited person until NICS proves othrerwise.
I would dispute that. Giving the government an opportunity to confirm or deny eligibility is not a presumption of guilt- ESPECIALLY considering the correlation between Shall Issue laws, and NICS-

In both cases the government must provide a reason to deny or they "shall issue" approval.

Furthermore, if the NICS system does not reply in a given time, unless individual state law says otherwise, the FFL may proceed.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:55 PM   #83
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, if the government has to approve a right, it is not a right.

The onus should be on government, in each specific case, to come in and prove that the right should be restricted or revoked.

You are happy giving government blanket authority to determine who gets to exercise a right via the "Mother May I?" method.

I am not. Many others are not.

Basically, your system turns rights into privileges. Please own that, if you wish to continue arguing for your checks. You can't have it both ways, that you think it's a right, but that it should require checks.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:14 PM   #84
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,822
These days it seems any bill is at least several hundred pages,you have to pass it to find out what is in it,and HHS,EPA,DOE,BATFE,IRS,etc will be given regulatory power.

Then,of course,all his bureaucracy is really expensive so there must be fee revenue
-

How do you feel about more restrictions on the vote?

Proof of citizenship,NICS,and a fee to cover costs,approved ID,etc.

Last edited by Vanya; April 22, 2013 at 04:53 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:16 PM   #85
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
JimDandy, if the government has to approve a right, it is not a right
We have a fundamental disagreement on whether they're approving it or not.

I believe not denying is (technically) not the same as approving- in fact I even point to the language they use- proceed, delay, and deny.

Proceed does not, and should not convey approval. Merely a lack of denial.

There are a handful of specific reasons they may deny. Giving them an opportunity to announce if one of those reasons applies is not giving them an opportunity to pass judgement on the approval.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:19 PM   #86
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, if the transaction is required to go through the NICS process; and if the transaction requires a positive response from the NICS sytem; then it is most definitely an approval process.

I don't understand how you can argue any other way.

Calling it a "specific denial process" is just double-speak.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:21 PM   #87
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Proof of citizenship,NICS,and a fee to cover costs,approved ID,etc.
I'm fine with ID.

A NICS check to vote is a staggering idea though. We all know it's easier to get the franchise back than firearms. Many states return the franchise at the end of a sentence. Some states don't even disenfranchise local jail (misdemeanor) inmates like they do state prison (felony) inmates. For the ones that do, or don't, you've got to tell NICS which is the case- and they may not lose it in this state, but never had it returned in that state.. I don't think it would be unconstitutional, but Lord would it be a logistical nightmare.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:22 PM   #88
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
JimDandy, if the transaction is required to go through the NICS process; and if the transaction requires a positive response from the NICS sytem; then it is most definitely an approval process.
It doesn't. If NICS was defuneded today, and didn't answer a single call, people could still purchase firearms. In most states. Those states they couldn't would have state law at fault, not the NICS laws.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:24 PM   #89
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I fail to see why an NICS check is acceptable for acquiring firearms, but not for voting.

(I am NOT advocating using NICS for voting; I am saying if it is not acceptable for voting, then it should not be acceptable for exercising 2A rights, either.)
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:26 PM   #90
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy said:
Quote:
It doesn't. If NICS was defuneded today, and didn't answer a single call, people could still purchase firearms. In most states. Those states they couldn't would have state law at fault, not the NICS laws.
You are arguing for Universal Background Checks, but you are saying the mandatory system would not be mandatory...

How would it be a UBC if it were optional?

"Gee, the system is down today - waived UBCs for everybody!"

I don't think that is how it would work.

Meanwhile, you mentioned that after a certain period, if no response is given by the system, the FFL can still complete the transaction. While this is true, most of them won't, because ATF will expect their assistance in recovering the firearm should the check ultimately come back with a denial.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 03:56 PM   #91
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
You are arguing for Universal Background Checks, but you are saying the mandatory system would not be mandatory...
Actually I'm not. While there is a loophole gray area if nobody answers the phone, is that a delay, can they proceed after three days, etc.-

The default action is to proceed if NICS does not answer back within their allotted time period.

I don't believe any of this would happen, I only use it as examples that the "presumption" is proceed, not deny.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 04:03 PM   #92
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,822
In Colorado,I have had to wait over two weeks for a NICS approval before I could pick up a Krag.

And,due to system overload,the state instituted a fee .

Like a poll tax.

For a Constitutional Right that says"Shall not be infringed" I am required to get permission,and then I have to pay.

And it all only applies to law abiding people.

Last edited by HiBC; April 22, 2013 at 04:12 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 04:20 PM   #93
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
And,due to system overload,the state instituted a fee .
That would be the problem with State Law I mentioned, which cannot be blamed on NICS laws. I have problems with how much state laws would interact with UBG's as well. So I'd push for changing the state law.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 05:53 PM   #94
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
Proceed does not, and should not convey approval. Merely a lack of denial.
I'm really having trouble seeing the distinction. We still have a government agency acting as a gatekeeper on exercise of a right. In fact, they'd have a monopoly on it.

How would this be even remotely acceptable for the exercise of any other enumerated right?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 06:13 PM   #95
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
"I'm sorry Mr. Reporter I have to type your name into this government database to see if you have the right to write that article. We can't have the wrong sort of people reporting the news, you might have had some sort of mental problem at some point in your life."
All the reporters would be perfectly comfortable with that right, right?

(Insert sound of crickets here)
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 06:38 PM   #96
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Or let's go one further, "I'm sorry Mr. Protester, I can't have you influencing public policy until we know more about you. I need you do this urine test, fill out this mental health questionnaire, and we are going to feed your name into a government database. There's no problem here is there? We can't have public policy being changed by someone with mind altering drugs in their system or a history of mental illness."

That's logical, right?

IMHO every part of the Bill of Rights is there for a reason and needs to be protected equally.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 07:54 PM   #97
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
I'm sorry folks. The thread has been very cordial and everybody has treated each other with dignity and respect. I do commend everyone on this front.

However, the thread has veered to UBC's in such a manner, that the original purpose has been lost and can no longer be recovered.

Closed for the above reason.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:40 AM.


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 0.11908 seconds with 9 queries