|
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, 07:03 PM | #226 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Depending on the product, That DOES happen however. Try looking up "real milk" and "raw milk" for something similar but not exact. And I reiterate, just because there is not currently a regulation, does not mean the government does not have the authority to create it later- if for example there were a rash of illness from garden grown vegetables. |
|
April 16, 2013, 07:17 PM | #227 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
There are two reasons. Actual prosecutions for violations are few and far between, and laws that aren't prosecuted generally lack teeth. Second, criminals don't generally buy their guns from FFL's, at least not directly. They're simply not affected. It's like attributing the AWB to a crime reduction that was already happening before it was implemented and which continued after it expired.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 16, 2013, 07:18 PM | #228 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
JD, what principled limits, if any, do you think there are on federal authority?
Or is it your sense that federal authority can be extended into any area if that extension seems warranted?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
April 16, 2013, 07:24 PM | #229 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 16, 2013, 07:40 PM | #230 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 07:52 PM | #231 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 16, 2013, 07:52 PM | #232 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
For those that were here when this decision came out, I opined that the feds could now control most any aspect of your life. This was also the point of the plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius. People guffawed at the broccoli hyperbole, Yet that very argument was from O'Conner's dissent in Raich. If Sebelius says anything, it says that if the Government cannot get you with the Commerce Clause, it will get you with punitive taxes. There is nothing that has occurred between then and now that disuades me from the belief that allowing the Government, yet another power grab, will not be harmful to our liberties. A power grab that the Court will likely uphold. If we grant that the federal power extends, through the commerce clause, to federally licensed firearms dealers, then such regulation can include not only the 4473, but also the NICS check. But to assume that such federal power extends to private intrastate transactions is to give authority where there is no constitutional grant. For all of the above reasons, I am against allowing any such power. |
||
April 16, 2013, 08:04 PM | #233 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 08:19 PM | #234 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Can't walk away from this thread for a minute it is going so fast.
Quote:
Quote:
ON prohibited persons: Have you looked at the variance state to state on what a prohibited person is? Just the state to state difference in how drug crime is punished is IMMENSE. Some states possession is a non-criminal fine and some it qualifies for "long-term" internment. How can one have a federal law piling penalties on top of state laws that vary widely. Not to mention the fact that removing this right was likely never considered when those laws were written or the absolute embarrassment that is public defenders in many jurisdictions. Look at the thousands who have been cleared by DNA evidence in the last decade. Quote:
JD, I have read some great arguments from you for removing regulation from licensed dealers. What I have not read is a reason to extend those burdens to private sellers. Instead you seem resigned that the burdens are there, the activity is no different, so the burden should be extended to all. DO you work for a lobby like the FFLs of America or something? If this law passes FFLs will stop doing transfers. Many in my area already have. Instead they will make you sell used guns to them for a deep discount and resell them for a larger profit than the transfer offers. |
|||
April 17, 2013, 07:27 AM | #235 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, so if you're selling it to someone it doesn't matter if they are a maniac... because you no longer own it. Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 17, 2013 at 09:06 AM. Reason: removed antagonistic comments. |
||
April 17, 2013, 07:39 AM | #236 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
Why do folks tend to compare apples to oranges when someone disagrees with them?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
April 17, 2013, 07:54 AM | #237 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
Let me suggest that you have conflated two very different scenarios; 1. You sell your Anschutz biathlon rifle to your neighbor who says he is interested in the sport. Unbeknownst to you, he committed vehicular manslaughter as a kid and is legally barred from owning firearms. In this instance, it is unlikely that you have broken current law in your state because you have not knowingly transferred your rifle to a prohibited individual. 2. The person who sells you cocaine and brags about all the people he has killed since emerging from federal prison requests firearms for himself and his gang. You accommodate this request. In this instance, you have knowingly trafficked in arms to a prohibited person. Without going to the trouble of any research, my sense is that this is already a crime in most states even in the absence of a universal background check.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 17, 2013 at 08:43 AM. Reason: correct quote attribution. |
|
April 17, 2013, 07:56 AM | #238 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
If they don't, and things go downhill, they get in trouble... it encourages doing the right thing.
|
April 17, 2013, 08:10 AM | #239 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
"Encouraging the right thing" is not a sufficient basis for a new federal law that expands federal authority.
Imposing criminal liability on every individual everywhere who otherwise legally transfers a firearm, the transfer by which the right described in the Second Amendment is exercised, imposes a criminal liability on the exercise a valid and fundamental constitutional right. The proposal is not narrowly tailored; on the contrary it is so broad that the word universal is the common description for its scope.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
April 17, 2013, 08:35 AM | #240 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Actually, it is. It's the reason for most criminal laws, to discourage people from being criminals/engaging in bad/irresponsible behavior (like selling guns to strangers without knowing a thing about them and assuming they are legit)... I thought this common knowledge.
|
April 17, 2013, 08:45 AM | #241 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
The federal Constitution sets forth a system of enumerated federal powers and a Bill of Rights detailing specific rights held by individuals against the federal government. There is no provision of the federal Constitution or federal case law indicating that "encouraging the right thing" suffices as an independent basis for federal authority. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to reproduce that portion of the Constitution or federal case law.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 17, 2013, 08:45 AM | #242 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Questions: 1)Has there been a rash (or even 1 major incident) of shootings with guns that were intentionally and irresponsibly transferred to a prohibited person? I'll answer that for you. No. 2)Would this "universal" background check system have prevented the shooting at Newtown or any of the other mass shootings? I'll answer that for you too.... No. You propose a change in law that: 1)Is demonstrably outside the constitutional powers of the national government. 2)Addresses a "problem" that does not exist. 3)Purports to arise from incidents which it would not prevent. 4)Expands on a system that is currently violated with impunity. One might "look past" some minor flaw in a system, were the benefits profound. This system is rife with flaws, AT BEST constitutionally questionable and provides no significant or even measurable benefit. I worry greatly for the future of our republic.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 17, 2013, 08:57 AM | #243 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
@Z
You're seriously telling me that laws don't exist to encourage good behavior by discouraging bad behavior? Federal, state, or local? @BF 1) You are completely wrong. Are you really trying to say no bad guy ever used a "gun show" purchase to kill anyone?! 2) Without seeing all the facts, I can't answer that accurately, nor can you. Under my system, Laughtner would have been forbidden already, because he was nutso... it wasn't reported. Etc. That's generally been the case. It didn't happen under the current system because the current system is so weak. As for your 4 points... 1) Demonstrate how it is? Are you a knee-jerk "shall not be infringed" guy? I suggest you look up the definition of infringe. Infringe is not the same as regulate. 2) You'd be laughed out of the room in most serious circles stating there isn't any problem with criminals buying guns from legal sources. 3) 120k preventions in 2 years... it arises from that documented proof, actually. Your outlying events not withstanding. No system is perfect, if someone suddenly snaps there is really no way to prevent it. However, preventing known wackjobs from getting guns is something we ought to pursue dilligently... since it doesn't stop law abiding people from getting a gun. 4) And needs to be strengthened so as not to be violated so easily... I'm all for pursuing people who falsify on 4473s. |
April 17, 2013, 09:09 AM | #244 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
Words have meaning. If you would like to have a conversation about what you have proposed, it would help if you observe the meaning of the words you read. Asking me if I am "telling" you something I have nowhere and in no way told you does not indicate due attention to the text of our discussion. Moreover, it is not responsive to the invitation you have been provided. Quote:
Quote:
I challenge you to provide a provision of the federal Constitution or federal case law indicating that "encouraging the right thing" suffices as an independent basis for federal authority.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
April 17, 2013, 09:11 AM | #245 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Z, I really am not going to debate this point.
It is clear that nearly all criminal law is based in the desire to encourage better behavior, and has led to the creation of a lot of federal power. To go right back to 1789, a pretty important year I'm sure you'd agree, the creation of the US Marshals Service... created to enforce laws on the books, as well as discourage the attacking of courthouses/judges/etc. We don't have to look far to see when it happened. This supreme hair splitting... I won't entertain it. |
April 17, 2013, 09:13 AM | #246 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
These proposed restrictions only stop or hinder law abiding people. People who follow the law. People who, by definition, are not the people we worry about stopping. That, in itself, should end any serious discussion. What's the point in stopping people who aren't dangerous? If that's not enough, there are the constitutional issues. If that's not enough, nothing will be. This is the very definition of a circular argument and I've said all I can say. This "is not!", "is too!" is pointless.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||||
April 17, 2013, 09:15 AM | #247 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Would you rather the next news report mention that the next wacko got his gun legally or bought it via the black market?
It's basically the core of the debate here, BF. |
April 17, 2013, 09:20 AM | #248 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
Alleging a malevolent preference to those who do not concur in your position is is not primarily about what you've proposed. Quote:
You are not obligated to address any part of your proposal or the problems with it, but to be clear, you have chosen not to discuss the constitutional shortcomings of your proposal that have been brought to your attention.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 17, 2013, 09:24 AM | #249 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
April 17, 2013, 09:30 AM | #250 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
Knowledge and intent are common elements in criminal code. Quote:
He notes that when an American contemplates the legality of an act, he checks the law to see if it is prohibited. He describes the German mindset differently: when a German contemplates the legality of an act, he checks the law to see if it is allowed. That is a gross generalization, but it speaks to a difference in vision.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|