|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 16, 2013, 11:33 AM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
UBC can be argued here all day and night, but the gov is still going to to try to add more and more restrictions until they succeed in eliminating your 2nd amendment right all together. Their goal is to disarm the citizenry.
|
April 16, 2013, 11:33 AM | #152 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
In my area the NICS check is going to average about 7% of the price of used guns sold assuming average price is about $400. FOr individuals with a lower income buying cheaper guns it will be more like 15%. In my exchanges were several Mosin Nagants and Nagant 1895 Revolvers. FOr those firearms it would have added almost 50% to the cost of transfer.
For a law, that like the initial NICs check, actually accomplishes NOTHING. If cartels can import MILLIONS of pounds of drugs across the Southern border, what in the world is going to stop them from bringing in guns to sell to the criminal organizations they already supply with drugs? they already do business in countries where full auto weapons are widely available as there is a large overlap with countries manufacturing drugs. THe distribution network is set-up from country of origin to end user. These laws have never worked and will not work now. At best they will limit gun ownership to organized crime empowering them to terrorize law abiding citizens as was done in Chicago and New York in the past. |
April 16, 2013, 11:40 AM | #153 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Let us assume that every single last one of those 120,000 applicants were correctly denied. Each of those 120,000 applicants was dealing with the federal licensee, and the federal government regulates those licensees and their transfers. I am not a federal licensee. My civil rights should not evaporate simply because someone thinks they have a better idea.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2013, 11:48 AM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
We lost the commerce clause argument a long time ago.
The fact remains that if a firearm constructed in New York uses metal mined in Nevada, and is sold in Iowa, it's in interstate commerce. If you, yourself make in Oklahoma, with aluminum you mined yourself and carry it concealed to your sister's brother-in-law's cousins family BBQ 60 miles south in Texas, it's interstate commerce. Whether you buy from a store in Tallahassee or your neighbor in Montpelier, it's a private transaction. And if the firearm is in interstate trade, the Feds have the authority to regulate it. |
April 16, 2013, 11:51 AM | #155 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
csmsss, maybe I was thinking about Andrew Jackson forcing the Cherokee onto the Trail of Tears. Ask any Native American, they can tell you the US government never overreaches, nor reneges on promises about future behavior.
JimDandy, sure, some probably fall into those categories. The question is, how many? And of those, how many truly should have been in those categories, as opposed to just being lumped in there due to outdated records or improper rulings? Kochman, on your idea of battered women being smarter, and leaving abusive relationships sooner... Him: If you only acted like you should, this would not happen Her: I am trying. What am I doing wrong? Him: You know! Her: No, I don't, how should I act? Him: I am sorry, I love you, I will never do that again. Her: Really? I hope that is true. Him: I had to hit you, you just kept nagging! Her: How can I make you happy? Now, go back and substitute "Gun Controllers" for him, and "Gun Owners" for her, and tell me about learning to leave the situation, Kochman. |
April 16, 2013, 11:52 AM | #156 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
We've lost some very disheartening Commerce Clause battles. We need to keep fighting. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most abused power in the entire COTUS.
Just like we've lost some very disheartening RKBA battle, but we kept fighting and we are now on the verge of significant break-throughs. The Commerce Clause is not an acceptable argument for background checks and never will be. We must fight.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 16, 2013, 11:56 AM | #157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Given the- Right to travel general purpose of the Feds to mediate, broker, and buffer the sovereign states in our dual sovereignty system How do you propose the State of Hawaii know if the resident of Maine know is a prohibited person without background checks? |
|
April 16, 2013, 12:03 PM | #158 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Though my list of "prohibited persons" would be much shorter than current law, but yes.
However, it is a state issue. The states have no trouble cooperating on driver's licenses/registrations and they'd have no trouble cooperating here either, should they so choose.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 16, 2013, 12:07 PM | #159 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
The federal government is not granted the plenary authority under the Constitution to regulate individual exercise of Second Amendment rights. Newspapers are in interstate commerce. The federal government has authority to regulate newspapers within limits. They can regulate the processes by which paper is manufactured, and they can regulate the wages and pensions and medical benefits of the people who make the paper and print it. The federal government is not granted the plenary authority under the Constitution to regulate individual exercise of the right of free speech.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 16, 2013, 12:09 PM | #160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 1,210
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 12:11 PM | #161 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
I find it amazing that people are throwing out the Preamble to the COTUS.
Picking and choosing is hardly a solid way to debate... you can't just pick and choose the parts of the COTUS you like, folks. If you think the Preamble is irrelevant to the Constituion, then you're really off the mark. Review the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution Most of the article is regarding its judicial relevance. |
April 16, 2013, 12:14 PM | #162 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Oh, and a firearm that's being sold by a dealer in NY to a person in NY is not involved in "interstate commerce".
It WAS involved in interstate commerce when it came from the distributor in GA to the dealer in NY and the national government could constitutionally create a law that says "Firearms in transit from one state to another must be stored such that blah blah blah..." That would be "regulating interstate commerce". Once it's IN state and the commerce is IN state, it is not, by the very definition of the word, INTERstate commerce.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 16, 2013, 12:18 PM | #163 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
kochman,
from your own link: Quote:
What you're arguing is, in fact, the opposite of elsewhere enumerated powers. The 2A specifically PROHIBITS national level regulation of firearms but you want to use the Preamble to override that SPECIFIC prohibition. Sorry sir, it just doesn't work that way. You can't have a forgone conclusion and then search for justification all the while ignoring the specific and straight-forward, plain language prohibition against your goal.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 16, 2013, 12:19 PM | #164 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
Quote:
***edit*** sorry for the dup, Brian bet me to it**** |
||
April 16, 2013, 12:22 PM | #165 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 17, 2013 at 08:07 AM. |
|||
April 16, 2013, 12:24 PM | #166 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
The Preamble is the basis of many aspects of our society... like public school, for example.
Again, those throwing out the preamble, you've lost me. There were specific court cases listed. Someone said, show me one court case, so I did. My point, the preamble isn't irrelevant and it has been used in judicial review. Anything beyond that statement I can't necessarily stand behind. Now... @Mleake Quote:
I think, and if this insults you that's unfortunate because it isn't the point, but I stand by this statement because I genuinely believe it to be morally correct... If you sell guns to unknown people, without a check, in this day and age, you are an irresponsible gun owner. I don't care what you used to do for work, what you do now, if you go to church every day, etc... if you're selling guns to unknown people based on your whim, it is irresponsible. You aren't the issue. The unknown nature of the potential purchaser is the issue. You find that offensive, that's your prerogative. I find it offensive that some folks believe they are so special they shouldn't have to worry about society and the general safety of the people around them. 45,000 felons. The other rejections stemmed from other reasons they shouldn't have guns. Why do I have to repeat what the article already says? Since that is being asked, I will post the article's numbers so they aren't overlooked. Those other reasons are listed as: Felony, Domestic Violence, Drug Addict, Fugitive, Mentally Ill, and "Other" (defined as "Other" includes aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, persons who have renounced their citizenship, and persons who are prohibited by a state from possessing a firearm.) That means... they may not have been felons, but they were adjudicated away for a number of reasons. Granted, I would prefer we reduce what is considered a "felon", etc, but until that happens... And if you're going to advise someone to tone it down, maybe do it without your own uncalled for vitriole. |
|
April 16, 2013, 12:26 PM | #167 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, see Brian Pfleuger's post re: your Preamble link.
Meanwhile, you say picking and choosing is no way to debate, yet you dislike my cars points because, as you put it, cars have other uses and are nothing like firearms, which are designed to launch a projectile at lethal speeds. Of course, firearms can be used (and are used) for hunting, target shooting, and sporting competitions, as well as for lethal purposes. And cars (and motorcycles), while they can carry people or goods, virtually ALWAYS have lethal potential, every single time they are used. Even at low speeds, they run over kids in driveways, and kill them. So you can say "apples and oranges" all you like, but IMO, lethal is lethal. The only difference, again IMO, is that firearms are Constitutionally protected, whereas automobiles are not. If anything, firearms should be LESS regulated than automobiles, and until 1968, that was so. I think, when you say "don't pick and choose," you mean that in a one-sided way. |
April 16, 2013, 12:28 PM | #168 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
And people have to get licenses to own cars, and register their ownership.
I'm not going anywhere near that... I'm just saying, be responsible and take a minute to ensure you aren't selling to the next mass murdering jerk. How unreasonable of me, I know. |
April 16, 2013, 12:32 PM | #169 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, you said most people who oppose checks are probably prohibited. Now you are revising your claim. Revisionism does not change what you said before.
Meanwhile, you are only looking at risk from one side: Use of firearms in crime by prohibited persons. Is that a risk? Yes. But you ignore another risk: the risk that government will continue to grow, in increments, and that individual rights will continue to recede, in increments. Is that a risk? Yes. Which is the greater risk? Arguably, the latter. If you don't think so, do a google search for what happened to the Kulak class in the USSR in the 30s and 40s; then cross-reference to the Ukraine famine which followed (when the government kills off its educated farmers, agriculture suffers). See how many people were killed, net, and then compare that to all homicides committed in the United States, ever. Then tell me about risk, and responsibility. The government concerns me much more than random thugs do. Before you tell me "that was the USSR, this is the US!" do a look-up on the Banana Wars; the manner in which Panama became a nation; government activities against unions in New England in 1919-1920; the Yellow Peril; the Red Scare; Wounded Knee. Yes, it can happen here. It becomes more likely to happen here when citizens willingly bend their knee. |
April 16, 2013, 12:33 PM | #170 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2013, 12:35 PM | #171 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A transaction in one state between residents of two separate states has been held interstate commerce, as has any transaction that might AFFECT interstate commerce- i.e. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 |
|||
April 16, 2013, 12:38 PM | #172 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
MLeake,
I didn't revise my statement at all. I said you aren't necessarily "most" people. You're comparing the USSR under Stalin to the USA in 2013? I can't even begin to want to talk on such lines. Submitting to a background check is hardly bending to your knees. @Z You're exaggerating the situation. You're checking an already established status with a 4473. I think that is warranted for guns... You'd not rent your apartment to someone, I would hope, without doing some sort of check either. It's 2013, there are a ton of bad people out there and a system that lets them walk amongst us... a lot. They can look and act like anyone. Ok, I've enjoyed this. I apologize if I've stepped over the line here at times. I'm going to bow out of it... with my parting words. The 4473 doesn't deprive you of your rights, it just checks to see your status and if you've already been deprived of your rights. Selling guns to strangers should require a check of such sort. The current system isn't ideal, but it's what we have. It can be vastly improved on. Just in this thread several viable alternatives have come up, but, we're stuck with what we have. |
April 16, 2013, 12:40 PM | #173 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
An individual adjudicated incompetent, or a convicted felon, both were afforded an opportunity to have the facts pertaining to their individual situations examined by some kind of judicial authority. That due process under the Fifth Amendment is not a matter of Congress enacting legislation by which everyone with brown hair is a legal incompetent, and everyone with glasses is a felon. Under your analysis legislative "due process" would be sufficient to abridge the right to speak or vote, but we know that is not how our system works.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2013, 12:41 PM | #174 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Even then, it won't stop the next mass murdering jerk. Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all passed the background check without issue. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 16, 2013, 12:42 PM | #175 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
As to the Preamble, here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia article you cited: On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.[21] is an example of this. In that case, the defendants were a car manufacturer and dealership indicted for a criminal violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Congress passed the statute in order to cope with the Great Depression, and one of its provisions purported to give to the President authority to fix "the prices at which new cars may be sold".[22] The dealership, located in Oklahoma City, had sold an automobile to a customer (also from Oklahoma City) for less than the price for new cars fixed pursuant to the Act. Substantively, the case was about whether the transaction in question constituted "interstate commerce" that Congress could regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[23] Although the government argued that the scope of the Commerce Clause included this transaction, it also argued that the Preamble's statement that the Constitution was created to "promote the general Welfare" should be understood to permit Congress to regulate transactions such as the one in this case, particularly in the face of an obvious national emergency like the Great Depression. The court, however, dismissed this argument as erroneous[24] and insisted that the only relevant issue was whether the transaction that prompted the indictment actually constituted "interstate commerce" under the Supreme Court's precedents that interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause.[25]So it would seem that there is already a precedent to the effect that the Preamble does not give Congress the right to regulate commercial transactions.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|