|
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 |
January 27, 2013, 10:19 AM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Universal background checks will be just another farce....
1. There is no way to enforce it accross the board, meaning both dealer sales, and person to person sales. The person to person sales are private now, and would likely continue as such in the future, since there is no way to detect them, until typically later, if ever, when a firearm is recovered after a crime. 2. The universal background checks mean absolutely nothing without a solid strong enforcement of the law. Which would mean alot of charges for those who violate the various state/federal laws, dealing with purchases....I dont see this happening, since it requires long term funding, for law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and detention facilities. Without the 2 above, universal background checks are doomed to fail, which, if enacted, they surely will... |
January 27, 2013, 11:01 AM | #152 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,453
|
Quote:
I don't have a constitutional right to drive drunk, steal cars or set fires. Your argument is invalid. I do have a right to keep and bear arms.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
|
January 27, 2013, 11:06 AM | #153 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Based on the same arguments I've made here, the courts have stricken prior restraints as unconstitutional. Had the PRs been allowed to stand, I suspect that there are a great many things that would not have been published. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
January 27, 2013, 11:35 AM | #154 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Well Spats since you are not denigrating yourself by calling me a liar I guess I will continue our discussion apart. You seem to have the most reasoned and educated arguments of the group anyway. The rest who have self identified I have nothing for you.
I believe that this is an important discussion to have; but am rapidly running out of patience. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|||||||
January 27, 2013, 12:06 PM | #155 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let me ask you a few questions about how you'd like to see this work: How do you propose to allow for universal background checks? Do you propose to require all transfers to go through FFLs, or do you propose opening NICS up to the public? If you plan on opening it to the public, how do you plan to prevent employers from running background checks on applicants? Husbands from running checks on the wives they're divorcing? What about possession? What if a person is found to be in possession of a firearm, but cannot verify that he or she had a background check done when the firearm was acquired? Quote:
This is the comparison that I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to convince you of. First Amendment rights are fundamental, individual rights. The government cannot (generally) force a person to demonstrate their eligibility to have those rights prior to exercise. The 2A right has been held to be fundamental and individual, and I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force persons to demonstrate eligibility prior to exercising the right. Quote:
If you'll indulge me in that for a moment, let me put a hypothetical in front of you. Let's say that I have a friend, Frank Felony. Frank has made several statements to me about having a felony record. I sell Frank a gun. Under current law, I'm criminally liable, because I have reasonable cause to believe that Frank is prohibited. In fact, it doesn't even matter if Frank has an actual felony record because I have reasonable cause to believe he does. Under the universal background check system, assume that Frank and I go to an FFL and get a check. His record comes back clean. If I'm later charged with selling a firearm to a prohibited person, don't you think I'll raise that as a defense to the charge? Frank could have "convicted murderer" tattooed on his forehead, but if his record comes back clean, I at least have an arguable defense. "But your honor, NICS said he was clean."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
January 27, 2013, 12:19 PM | #156 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
edit: One other thing. This may be true for you today, but will likely not be for your children or grandchildren. They won't remember how it is today. They probably won't have as sympathetic a judiciary as we have today. That's why we have to resist these small erosions each and every time they happen. Last edited by RockSmoot; January 27, 2013 at 12:24 PM. |
|
January 27, 2013, 12:34 PM | #157 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
Hey Alabama, why don't you go live with Manta. Sounds like you would fit right in over there.
|
January 27, 2013, 01:30 PM | #158 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
I said i have no problems with background checks. Its up to others if they have a problem or not. Are you not happy unless everyone has the same view as you. Last edited by manta49; January 27, 2013 at 01:43 PM. |
|
January 27, 2013, 04:41 PM | #159 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
Mantra, you are welcome to your own view as is every other free person. But your opinion of what we need in America is totally irrevellent.
|
January 27, 2013, 05:27 PM | #160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
January 27, 2013, 05:36 PM | #161 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; January 27, 2013 at 05:52 PM. |
||
January 27, 2013, 06:08 PM | #162 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
An instant background check is only asking you to demonstrate your eligibility at one certain time and place. If you own a gun before you go buy one and certainly after you have one there should be no requirement to demonstrate anything. Keep and bear to your hearts content. This is actually way better than trying to run a TV station. Quote:
Quote:
You should be good to go. You will have complied with the law. Now that you mention it, it would be a good idea to have the law specifically written that way to avoid gaming by prosecutors. However, if you advertise your gun for sale and you decide not to sell your gun to Frank because you don't trust him.... according to you; are you not violating his civil rights by not selling it to him if he is not a prohibited person? It seems an egregious violation of his civil rights. Quote:
ETA: Quote:
__________________
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. |
||||||||
January 27, 2013, 06:35 PM | #163 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
|
The problem (as I see it) is creeping incrementalism...
Any of you fine folks remember what the law was before 1968? Do you care? Should you care?
Before 68, there were no prohibitied persons. There were also no Federal age limits on purchase of firearms. Also no Federal license for firearms dealers (it was a state matter, the same as any other business). A convicted felon, released after serving all their time, could legally buy a gun. Mail order sales, with delivery to your home were not just legal, but common. And did we have nuts going on shooting rampages back then, like we do today? I don't recall such. One might just think something other than the ability to buy a gun might be at work here.... One of the reasons against a mandatory universal background check is the oft demonstrated creeping incrementalism. First, its is felons, and the adjudicated insane who are prohibited. Fine. Ok. Now, it is also anyone with a domestice violence misdemeanor. Ever. Even if it was decades before the law was passed. What's next? Late payment on a bill? or worse, non payment? Clearly this demonstrates you are not a responsible individual, and therefore, cannot be trusted to own a gun! Give them an inch and they will take a mile, no matter how long it takes them to convice enough of us that it is needed? ITs not just a slogan, it is a proven fact. Lawdog's cake story is very apt. We give ground, over, and over, and they never stop demending more. Leaving aside the arguments about how well the system will work, or even how it could be implemented, any requirement for everyone to go though a mandatory check is simplya bad idea, in practice, if not in theory. But it sounds soo good! This, of course assumes that there is no other means for people to get guns, and assumes that no one will slip through the cracks, and assumes that the imposition of this on us is a worthwhile and useful thing. Lots of assumptions there.... We are being conditioned to accept that we must prove ourselves innocent each and every time....already we see this principle being used in other areas of our lives, how long do you think it will be before a cash strapped govt siezes your bank account and demands you "proove" you didn't get that money dealing drugs? OR firearms? or whatever else they want to demonize? Never happen? so you say, today. Motorcycle helmets and seat belts are good ideas. But the govt mandating them isn't. It is only an excuse for them to pick your pocket because you chose a socially unacceptable risk. Note that YOU are not responsible if you get injured, society is, society has to pay the cost. That's their argument, and some time ago, they won that particular argument. I'd like to remind all that the Bill of Rights does NOT grant us anything, it is a list of restrictions on what the govt may do, concerning SOME of our rights. We have a lot of "natural rights" that are not covered, and the BOR specifically says so. background checks are not a restriction of 2nd Amendment rights per se, they are a restriction on your right to do as you see fit with your personal property, which just happens to be a gun. Gun ownership is a civil right. We are not being judged on the content of our character, we are being judged on the fact that we wish to have firearms. That single fact makes our character suspect to the anti-gun crowd. We have to proove our character (by way of nothing prohibited on a background check) each and every time? How is that NOT a presumption of guilt?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 27, 2013, 06:50 PM | #164 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
I remember 1968. My Father mail ordered a M1 Carbine thru the mail from an Army Surplus outfit. I totally agree with ya AMP, very well said.
Background checks are feel good legislation at best and do little to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and loonies. Also, not to be paranoid, but do you truly believe the records of your purchases are destroyed after your BGC? |
January 27, 2013, 08:20 PM | #165 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
In order to prove effectiveness, folks should in theory be able to show a massive decrease in guns used in crimes by felons and mentally incompetent folks since 1968. If that data existed, antis would be quoting it left and right. After 45 years, if they can't cite such results, then I wonder what Alabama Shooter et al use to justify their position aside from unsupported theory?
They want us to give up something concrete: restrictions on federal infringement of our Second Amendment rights, which is exactly what the proposed, universal checks would be - a further infringement. They should at a minimum provide hard, cold fact showing that previous infringements had a measurably positive impact. So far, they either cannot, or choose not to. Supporting increased restrictions without providing any evidence of benefit is anti in character. If you think that is an insult, Alabama Shooter, then you have not paid much attention to anti tactics of the last several decades. And, since you still haven't bothered to provide any factual basis for the benefits of increased federal regulation, I don't quite see how you think you are winning any argument. manta49, you are incorrect in assuming all Americans must have background checks in order to carry. Several of our states have constitutional carry (no license required). In some cases, that may be restricted to either open carry or concealed carry; in some cases either mode is ok without a license. |
January 27, 2013, 08:27 PM | #166 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
As far as claims of impact on the poor being bogus, in Alabama Shooter's opinion:
1. FFL transfer fees in my area run $25-$30 per gun. When I lived in the Atlanta area, they ran $30-$50 per gun. A single mom scraping the money together for a used $200 revolver might find a 15% increase in price a deterrent. 2. In some areas, there are not many FFLs. This may mean that in cases where face to face would have been possible, now a drive to another town becomes necessary. Aside from the cost of gas, not all people have cars, and in areas like that the odds are mass transit won't necessarily have routes near an FFL. 3. Some people work multiple jobs, and raise kids. Mandatory FFL transfers now take another bite of time out of a day that may have little if any spare time. So, again, universal background checks are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the working poor. |
January 27, 2013, 08:45 PM | #167 | ||||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
Over the decades, the anti-2A faction have repeatedly demonstrated that they are implacable. They are the proverbial "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." I'm not burying my head in the sand, but they'll have to take my rights over my objection. Appeasement does not work. Gun owners gave ground and "compromised" in 1934, 1968 and 1994, and never got one thing in return. Why should we believe that 2013 is any different? Quote:
And yet, if I want more than one gun, I have to go through this over, and prove my "good guy status" over and over. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for Frank's civil rights, I can't violate them while acting in my individual capacity. The Constitution defines the relationship between the government and individuals, but not as between two individuals. Only if I were acting my a governmental capacity (such as a police officer), would I be able to violate his civil rights.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||||||
January 27, 2013, 09:43 PM | #168 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,276
|
Currently the background check in Colorado is backed up about 10 days.I pass just fine,its only been days since I picked up my 30-40 Krag.
I have a far better proposal for making my grandchildren safe in the schools.Parents have the ultimate responsibilty for the safety of their children.If parents determine the kids are not safe at school,then they should keep their kids home until the school becomes a secure place. IMO,the very best people to understand and provide that security are today's Greatest Generation of professionals who have been shot at,and shot back. I think the men and women who have served as MP's in our current conflicts,for example,may know something about keeping an area secure. Plainclothes,security cameras,monitors,communication devices,and a fewfolks on premises who are trained with arms who can be called upon That is how you keep the kids safe. Alabama Shooter,you are practicing Alynski. You say I do not understand the role of government in our society. I know enough about the founding of this nation,our Constitution,and the thoughts of our founders as expressed by the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence to know that Individual Liberty is the cornerstone of principle for our nation. I know our founders were wisely and correctly concerned about the Federal Government itself not understanding the role of government in our society.I know they understood human weakness,corruption,lust for power,and the abuses of tyranny. And so these great men crafted a document defining the role of government,and limiting the role of government ,in our society.The second Liberty they placed on our Bill of Rights,right after Freedom of Expression and Religion,was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,with the understanding,per Federalist Papers,those arms were to prevent tyranny of government. You accuse me of tinfoil hattery.Cute,Dismissive.Alynski. Myself,and others who recognise your position,stand as stewards of that Liberty defined by our founders and granted us by God. Yes,our freedom has been eroded and corrupted by bad law .Benjamin Franklin said"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security shall have neither"(paraphrased) He foresaw people like you,and Feinstein,and Biden...He warned us. The line must stop here.No more! No more shall we compromise the Liberty of ourselves,our children,our grandchildren,our nation. Universal background check can only be enforced by universal inventory,registration,and audit. History has shown where that goes. |
January 27, 2013, 10:58 PM | #169 | ||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
M Leake- If you are addressing your posts to me I have no apologies. I can no longer see them and do not wish to. I don't have discussions with people who call me a liar. The discussions tend to be short and uncivilized.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All of those are off topic in any case. Besides, if you think that I have indicated anything in any of my posts (any and all) that I want some kind of AWB or NFA you should take some kind of remedial reading course. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Horrible. Simply horrible. I know you can do better. Can you show some kind of valid research at least within the last five years? I could run down to the county lock up and ask a few guys and probably get better data. The whole world of commerce in the US has changed. In 1997 Amazon barely existed and sold a bunch of books. Today they have $50,000,000,000 in revenue and 70,000 employees. There was no gun broker, arms list, guns America etc.... Horrible. Simply horrible. Quote:
Make Frank black and tell him he can't rent an apartment in the building you own. Tell Frank you won't sell him the gun because he is Hispanic or Muslim. Watch Frank sue you for whatever he thinks he can get. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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. |
||||||||||||||
January 27, 2013, 11:13 PM | #170 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
I'm constantly on facebook. I know, I know, but my friends and business associates are constantly on it. So in order to effectively network and schmooze customers, I have to too.
My life is an open book. My phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc, etc are all tied together. My smartphone syncs with my other devices. I post no gun pics on there though, strictly because of thieves. However, with my alarm system, insurance policy and safe, thats not really a worry either. My point is, the days of having secret(unknown to the government) guns is nearly over. Its time to stop worrying about databases, etc. As long as the government doesn't pursue confiscation, or bans, databases are no threat. Here is a threat, actually its a promise...if the law comes for my guns, I'll resist to the utmost of my abilities. If you knew me personally, that would sound very credible, trust me. The government can't afford the consequences of confiscation, its just that simple.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
January 27, 2013, 11:17 PM | #171 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
On second thought, I'll not post.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
January 27, 2013, 11:31 PM | #172 | ||||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
I haven't accused you of wanting an AWB, nor have I suggested anything about the NFA. And now that you've been pushed to show some evidence, I guess it's time for you to resort to personal attacks. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've spent the majority of my career defending cities and police officers in civil rights lawsuits. The constitution does not regulate activities as between private individuals.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; January 27, 2013 at 11:50 PM. |
||||||||||
January 27, 2013, 11:45 PM | #173 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
Quote:
|
|
January 28, 2013, 08:48 AM | #174 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
Looking back to when I was a kid, I'm thankful we didn't have to go to school in an "armed encampment". {{sigh}} so much for that old out of date and old fashioned feeling of freedom.... |
|
January 28, 2013, 10:42 AM | #175 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Manta, regarding this exchange.
Quote:
Laws do two things, they provide guidance to the law abiding, and they establish a foundation for punishing those who break said laws. There has been a law that covers prohibited possessors on the Federal Books for decades. So it's been established that certain people can't have firearms anymore. Why do you need "preventative laws", more laws on top of existing laws. And moreover, on to the real meat of it. Why should we be bullied or coerced, or shamed into accepting and allowing the Federal Government to regulate that which they have not been granted the power to regulate.
__________________
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 Last edited by lcpiper; January 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|