The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 25, 2009, 04:21 PM   #201
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime.
No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights.
The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 25, 2009 at 04:52 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 04:42 PM   #202
orchidhunter
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2008
Posts: 320
If you go to the Official White House website: www.whitehouse.gov then to agenda then Urban Policy and scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement, you will see where it says that "They (Obama & Biden) support closing the Gun Show Loophole". It's just a matter of when it comes up on the agenda. orchidhunter

Last edited by orchidhunter; January 25, 2009 at 04:53 PM.
orchidhunter is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 04:59 PM   #203
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
They can't sign anything that both houses of congress don't first approve. I hope to help make sure that doesn't happen.

Curiously, Orchid Hunter, What is it about this site that appeals to you? I'm glad you're here, but your ideas of what will make us safer are at odds with most gun owners. Have you read the law review recently posted here?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=333419

It (comprehensively, I think) outlines the utter futility of the supply side approach to gun control, which the misnamed, 'gun show loophole', IS.

What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.
As such, any face to face restriction is impotent to prevent gun crime. Once again, the only group affected will be the law abiding, and valuable time, energy and political capitol will have been squandered on a futile effort.

As is typical of gun control schemes, like the 'assault weapon ban', it is described in a misleading fashion, because it depends on an uniformed public to be passed.

Having to mislead the public about proposed legislation is almost always a clue that it shouldn't be passed in the first place. Another example would be the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which in fact, was a gun ban.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; January 25, 2009 at 05:05 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 05:41 PM   #204
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

It's perfectly relevant. I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes. There are thousands of felons convicted of non-violent crimes who are prohibited from owning guns. Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?

Quote:
The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you

Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.
There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.
While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 06:08 PM   #205
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes.
What I see is that they both are felons. I am not prepared to raise a thief or an extortionist (both who can absolutely destroy people's lives) above a murderer in some type of moral equivilency. As I said before, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It bothers me not a whit that the former CEO of TYCO or Worldcom cannot own a firearm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?
They are however, prohibited from voting, sitting on a jury, holding public office, and may face legal job discrimination in some cases and not be allowed state licenses and be barred from some professions. Earlier, you mentioned being tough on criminals, well there it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.
No not really, prohibitions against polygamy is a limitation on freedom of religion, many municipalities require permits and bonds for groups to assemble and protest legally, voters have to register and provide ID when they vote, free speech is limited for those who serve in the military. The list goes on and on.

Anyway, a nut or a crook with a gun can certainly violate my rights as a law-abiding citizen and he/she has no right to a firearm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.
Because their is no compelling reason or interest to do so. There is, however, a compelling reason for a nut or crook not to be able to buy a firearm. The NIC simply IDs those who have lost the right to own a firearm to those who wouldn't know otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.
Don, I don't think anyone is asking you to apologize for anything. Your opinion is as valid as mine (maybe more) but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 25, 2009 at 06:08 PM. Reason: spelling
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 06:12 PM   #206
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.
No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 06:18 PM   #207
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.
It further limits an individual right.


As for being tough on criminals. If they are dangerous enough that they can't own a gun; they should still be incarcerated or dead. IMHO, if they have paid their debt in full i.e served full sentence, parole etc. They should have the same rights as any other citizen. I didn't always feel this way, but after watching the sham that is taking place in DC over the last two years and what is on the White House agenda web page I said screw it. If every other degenerate can get special treatment, released felons should get at least the minimum that every other citizen gets.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 06:35 PM   #208
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,654
Quote:
No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.
Not having a problem locking someone up merely for not having jumped through a bureaucratic hoop does not reflect an instinctive valuation of people's rights.

Quote:
What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.
If you effectively must apply for and receive a license to engage in an activity, it looks less like a right than a privilege. We have to obtain a driver's license to drive a car, but not a license to travel because that is a fundamental right. We need to register to vote, but not obtain a license to vote. We do not need a license from the government to speak publicly, though this right is arguably used to the general detriment on occassion.

To require government approval before one can purchase from anyone (not just a federal licensee) effectively translates into the requirement of a government license to obtain and own an arm. This is inconsistent with describing it as a right.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 06:49 PM   #209
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.
To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.

I've went through the NFA process a half dozen times now, and some people say it is no great hassle if I want to own machineguns. So, why don't we equal the playing field and require all firearm transfers on a Form 4?

You might say that is a little overkill for a normal transfer. That is the same thing I say about NCIC checks for all FTF transfers.
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 07:40 PM   #210
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.
If they didnt tax it or require a CLEO signoff, whats the problem?

Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one, they take it away when you get indicted or convicted..... call it a Militia Eligibility card

WildwouldntthatbetheanswerAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 08:06 PM   #211
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 08:27 PM   #212
HuntAndFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO.
Posts: 580
Quote:
Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one,...[snipped]
Yeah, that's the answer. Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date. Then "poof", everyone after that date is ineligible.

I don't like it. You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.
__________________
NRA Benefactor
MSSA Life Member

Last edited by HuntAndFish; January 25, 2009 at 08:37 PM.
HuntAndFish is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 08:58 PM   #213
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date.
How is that any different from just a flat ban?

All the card does is say you have no impendiment to buy or own

Quote:
If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it.
The card...or implant a chip

Quote:
Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.
Doin my part to keep the signal to noise ratio up

Wildcodsintheoven!Alaska TM

Last edited by Wildalaska; January 25, 2009 at 09:06 PM.
Wildalaska is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:22 PM   #214
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.
Exactly.

This system would essential make you guilty until proven innocent. I don't like it.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:33 PM   #215
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
So does NICs.....

You are stuck with it, constituion wise. Now make it better.

WilditsnottheifitsthewhenAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:42 PM   #216
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
It further limits an individual right.
That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:53 PM   #217
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers?
Gosh, don't give 'em any more ideas! I guess they could do that. I would then say what is the compelling state reason for that? NFA has a broader restriction based on the weapon type than the NICS whose only really job is to id those who should not have firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntAndFish
You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't.
Which is what the NICS does.

As to the technology I agree it can and should be better. I think it could be and easily so. They would just need the funds.

Again I ask, why should FTF sales be any different than FFL ones regarding the NICS check? Please don't say the NICs is unconstitutional because it isn't but just tell me what makes the FTF sales so much more sacrosanct than FFL sales.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:55 PM   #218
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.

You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.

Quote:
Which is what the NICS does.

By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 09:57 PM   #219
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.
Nor would I, if the seller had any reason to suspect that the buyer was ineligible. I hope my meaning wasn't misunderstood. In Nevada it is not required. Unless you know the buyer is disqualified, you can make the sale.

However, I don't think that using some form of NICS for sales to persons unknown to you is a bad idea. If I am to sell a firearm to someone I don't know, which I can do here in Nevada, I like to call local LE and just ask, is this guy a felon? Is this person prohibited from legally owning a firearm?

LE here in Nevada is cooperative with such requests. It is voluntary, but it feels like the responsible thing to do. And it doesn't create a gun registration or a record of any sale. If the buyer has a problem with that due diligence on my part, then maybe I don't need to make the sale.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 10:01 PM   #220
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
I actually don't have a problem with the NFA and the CGA of 1968 has been modified a bit by the FOPA of 1986 and is more reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.
That's why I post here I guess to sanity check my own views.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonR101395
By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.
Reminds me of the IRS. Now THERE'S somebody to hate!
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 10:03 PM   #221
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If I am to sell a firearm to someone I don't know, which I can do here in Nevada, I like to call local LE and just ask, is this guy a felon? Is this person prohibited from legally owning a firearm?
Because you are a responsible ethical gun owner. I commend you and I am the same way. If all were like you we wouldn't need this crap. As I said several posts back, the honest often suffer because of the dishonest. Sad but true.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 10:04 PM   #222
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.
By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.
For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will alwys need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

WildimwatchingmendocinoweedAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 10:10 PM   #223
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will alwys need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality

Nahhh, I'm just gonna fence off the front of my property, secede from the union and no longer accept U.S. passports. When I need stuff I'll just jump across the border.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old January 25, 2009, 10:16 PM   #224
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works
Agreed. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem requiring NICS for face to face, with certain exceptions: Law enforcement, current CCW holders, immediate family known to be eligible, legally inherited firearms, active military, etc.

If it creates a registration, I've got a problem. We know what that can enable down the road.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 26, 2009, 05:53 PM   #225
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Are you with us on this?

No!!! Any legal product should be able to be sold by it legal owner with jumping through government hoops.
thallub 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 09:24 PM.


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 0.17267 seconds with 7 queries