|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 13, 2013, 07:11 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
From the message: "An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers." The NRA-ILA's website has not yet been updated with the message. I have attached a PDF version.
__________________
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 |
|
March 13, 2013, 07:38 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
CowTowner, you beat me to it. I suggest, though, that you also start this as its own thread if you have not already done so.
|
March 13, 2013, 07:43 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
I am certainly not in favor of forced UBC of any type. If I were in favor, my question would be how is this law enforceable? Like many of you, I own many guns today. None of those guns are registered and even if a law enforcement agency tracked the serial number through the system back to the dealer or individual that sold them to me they would then have to prove I did not transfer the firearm prior to the date a UBC law was enacted. If I hand my neighbor a gun and he were caught with that gun doing something illegal, assuming he would not testify against me, how would the government meet their burden of proof with evidence that an illegal transfer took place?
That question is why I always assumed any UBC law would quickly be modified to include full registration of all firearms. If some UBC law passes that does not include forced record keeping requirements then the government would have the same issue with proving an illegal transfer took place going forward. My concern is that the federal law, if passed without registration, would either be modified to include registration or record keeping via executive order or through further legislation at some point in the near future. |
March 13, 2013, 07:51 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Whats wrong with a universal background check?
|
March 13, 2013, 08:03 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
There are many other problems with a law like this, they have already been mentioned in this thread. |
|
March 13, 2013, 08:10 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
While I agree with your concern about the registration aspects, unfortunately thats not a protected right.
It would be interesting to have an attorney (and gun owner) review and see what the real issues of this particular bill are. |
March 13, 2013, 08:13 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
I did not realize my issue with a law may only be justified as a violation of my natural rights. I refuse to call them protected because I do not believe the government has any interest in protecting them.
|
March 13, 2013, 08:18 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Calm. Thats not what I said. I said that its not a protected right under the Second Amendment. I also said that I have a concern about registration as well, as did Coburn in this particular bill, which is why he didn't support it (translation it will be filibustered).
I still would like to see what a qualified attorney who reasearches the bill would say the problems are - if any - related to real life other than that. |
March 13, 2013, 08:22 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
I am calm, sorry if I did not come across that way.
I do not think Harry Reid will bring it to a vote exposing his fellow senators from rural states (or other gun rights supporting states) if he does not believe it will pass the senate and the house. It would not make sense for him to do it. If I am not mistaken, a member here that is a lawyer and gun owner commented earlier in the thread. |
March 13, 2013, 08:33 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Agreed. I'd proffer it was capital thinking for Boehner to get out front and say the House would consider anything the Senate passed first.
EDIT: which post? (Edit edit - thanks!) Last edited by zincwarrior; March 13, 2013 at 08:47 AM. |
March 13, 2013, 08:37 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
Post number #19.
|
March 13, 2013, 09:07 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Really, besides a means of keeping score on who is voting for what why does this matter? It'll never make it passed the House, and stands a good chance of not getting the 60 votes it would need in the senate.
|
March 13, 2013, 09:40 AM | #38 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
There are several members here who are both attorneys and gun owners. I am one of them, and I did a cursory review of issues with this bill in Post #19.
I didn't even get into the "UBC will never work without full registration" aspect. However, I do believe that to be the case, and that if UBCs pass, in a few years, we'll see calls for registration. A "the last law didn't work, so we need more laws to make it work" situation.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 13, 2013, 10:46 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
March 13, 2013, 10:57 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
That the media spits out a lie like that could cause damage as those who are not NRA members who respect the NRAs opinion would be misled to think that the universal background check is okay as long as the NRA said it was.
How could you correct such a lie if the mainstream media gives the NRA a hard time contradicting the claim. |
March 13, 2013, 11:14 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Spats, Tom, Al et. al?
Given Al's reading of possessory interest, and the fifth amendment's taking clause, and the exemptions list does it all get enhanced by Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon 260 US 393 (1922) It's legalese to me, being a case from the 20's. Looking at the layman's translation on Wikipedia, the court ruled the difference between a regulation, and a taking, is a fine line shaped by the dimunition of value of the property being regulated. How reduced in value is a 22LR you can't take out to a forest and plink with your kid? |
March 13, 2013, 11:43 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Quote:
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
March 13, 2013, 12:23 PM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Let's say I'm approached by someone about a gun I have in my possession. "Where'd you get that?" "This? Man...I bought it from a friend of mine back around...1991 or so." "So you've had it for awhile?" "Yep. Got it in college. Shoots like a..." "But you have no proof of that?" "No, why would I?" "Well, without proof of lawful transfer, it's illegal." "But..." "I'll need you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, sir." The burden of proving compliance now falls to the defendant. Furthermore, what sort of "proof" will be considered acceptable? A handwritten bill of sale? Something on the letterhead of a gun shop (that might not even be in business)? A standardized government form?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 13, 2013, 12:24 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:47 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:48 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Its already established that cities can regulate the discharge of firearms within city limits. That is not the case with currently legal shooting areas like a National Forest.
|
March 13, 2013, 12:59 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Isn't there a USSC case which stated that to license or register someone before they exercise a fundamental right turns the right into a government privilege, or something to that effect? I tried several phrases in Google and Yahoo but didn't come up with anything.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
March 13, 2013, 01:39 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
it was a post in this forum for licensing. Kachalsky v. Cacase
Edit: By the way noone's mentioned it yet, but I think my favorite part of this bill is the typo. Quote:
Last edited by JimDandy; March 13, 2013 at 04:32 PM. |
|
March 13, 2013, 07:30 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Ok I'm posting again, but with new thoughts. Having read through the text of the bill again I came up with this gem:
If Andy Taylor takes 12 year old Opie Taylor out to the woods to sight in his hunting rifle the week before Deer Season opens, Andy has to GIFT the rifle to Opie, who then owns the rifle- and can haul it all around Mayberry if he so desires. Luckily Mayberry is in North Carolina, which has no state minimum for possession of a long gun. Had Andy and Opie settled in Florida, poor Andy would have to choose between breaking the illegal transfer law, or the minimum age of possession State Law. Is this really the way the gun control advocates want this to go? |
March 13, 2013, 09:48 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
ZincWarrior said:
Quote:
|
|
|
|