The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 13, 2013, 07:11 AM   #26
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,232
Quote:
NBC is reporting that the NRA will support universal background .......
NBC is not telling the truth according to an ILA email I received last night from Chris W. Cox.
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NRA Special Alert.pdf (252.3 KB, 7 views)
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 07:38 AM   #27
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 07:43 AM   #28
overhead
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.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 07:51 AM   #29
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Whats wrong with a universal background check?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:03 AM   #30
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Quote:
Whats wrong with a universal background check?
My problem with it is that it is, IMO, a law which cannot be enforced with full registration of firearms. And, because of that, IMO, will just be a step toward full registration of firearms after the next major invent involving a gun crime and mass shooting.

There are many other problems with a law like this, they have already been mentioned in this thread.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:10 AM   #31
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
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.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:13 AM   #32
overhead
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.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:18 AM   #33
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
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.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:22 AM   #34
overhead
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.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:33 AM   #35
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
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.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 08:37 AM   #36
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Post number #19.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 09:07 AM   #37
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,103
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.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 09:40 AM   #38
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
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.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 10:46 AM   #39
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
Is a range by definition an organization duly incorporated to foster proficiency in firearms? Or would a for-profit range not qualify? And what is "at all times"? You and I, and probably mots reasonable people would consider that as "for the duration of the transfer". An activist prosecutor could determine that to literally be "At all times". Meaning you have to leave it behind. And if this duly incorporated range is not a Federal Firearms Licensee you've now broken the law with an illegal transfer.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 10:57 AM   #40
Come and take it.
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.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 11:14 AM   #41
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
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?
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 11:43 AM   #42
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
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.
While your view may very well be accurate I’ll bet you there were folks in Colorado saying similar things just a year ago. It is important that we stay vigilant and engaged or we’ll allow just a little more freedom to slip away.
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 12:23 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,626
Quote:
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.
That's my concern. I would need to carry around some sort of receipt or paperwork to prove I'd transferred the gun legally, turning ownership into something that requires an affirmative defense.

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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 12:24 PM   #44
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
How reduced in value is a 22LR you can't take out to a forest and plink with your kid?
How reduced in value is a 22LR you can't take out in the back yard of your property within city limits and plink with your kid? I am not confident that the takings clause will rescue us from police power regulations.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 12:47 PM   #45
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
That's my concern. I would need to carry around some sort of receipt or paperwork to prove I'd transferred the gun legally, turning ownership into something that requires an affirmative defense.

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?
I wondered about that. I would like to think if I am arrested for something like this and keep my mouth shut that the state would be required to actually prove I did something wrong. Having to prove my innocence sort of turns our justice system over on it's ear, doesn't it? The state going into this assuming a citizen is guilty of a crime without any evidence scares the crap out of me. The IRS does this and look at what a tyrannical mess of regulations and nonsense people have to go through with them.
overhead is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 12:48 PM   #46
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 12:59 PM   #47
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,048
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.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 01:39 PM   #48
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
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:
shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee
So the potential buyer may handle and evaluate the firearm as long as the potential buyer is physically present. Wonderful. Glad they made that legal. can only assume they mean in the presence of the Transferor.

Last edited by JimDandy; March 13, 2013 at 04:32 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 07:30 PM   #49
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
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?
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 09:48 PM   #50
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,756
ZincWarrior said:
Quote:
Whats wrong with a universal background check?
I'll refer you to my quick post at #18. And yes, I'm a lawyer and a gun owner. Spats McGee went into it a bit more in his post at #19. This bill will not simply control permanent or long term transfers between individuals. It goes much further. The problem is that the gun grabbers have managed to describe it as closing the "gun show loophole" and make sure there is a "sort of" exemption for transfers between some family members. The general public, even the general gun owner public, will never read the bill and will never know what it does unless there is some extensive publicity the other way.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

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 07:11 AM.


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 0.15879 seconds with 8 queries