The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 17, 2013, 04:46 PM   #351
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
I agree, Jim.

And the most obvious and logical fallacy is that the gun is involved in IC when the dealer in a state sells it to a resident in that same state. That simply doesn't make sense to most people. It doesn't make sense if you substitute any other item for the gun.

In other words, federal background checks are unconstitutional.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 04:47 PM   #352
Vartarg
Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2007
Posts: 44
Put me down....

Put me down for "knee jerk" responses to resist each and every encroachment of our Second Amendment rights.....

Their goal is to confiscate guns.....not now, but down the road, and they won't give up, and neither should we.

Just say NO
__________________
Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11.
Vartarg is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 04:52 PM   #353
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Someone asked earlier about examples of giving up one right in exchange for keeping another. The best example I can come up with is: parolees. By contract (with the parole office), they effectively waive their A4 rights in return for freedom from confinement.

As far as the FTF transaction, Jim, don't focus on the firearm. Focus on the parties involved in the transaction.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 04:52 PM   #354
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Edited the previous post to more accurately reply to Spats Brian.

Quote:
In other words, federal background checks are unconstitutional.
Given the GOA, NRA, and SAF why haven't they been challenged yet? Honest question, not being smart-mouthed. I think they'd be good, but I'm also open to the idea that good as it might be, they'd be unconstitutional.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 04:55 PM   #355
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
A constitutional challenge has an awful lot of moving parts, all of which need to be in the right place, at the right time. You've got to have:
  • the right plaintiff(s)
  • the right set of facts
  • the right injuries/damages
  • the right venue
It may simply be that the particular constellation of stuff hasn't arisen for the folks who want to challenge it.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 04:55 PM   #356
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Someone asked earlier about examples of giving up one right in exchange for keeping another. The best example I can come up with is: parolees. By contract (with the parole office), they effectively waive their A4 rights in return for freedom from confinement.

As far as the FTF transaction, Jim, don't focus on the firearm. Focus on the parties involved in the transaction.
That was me. And Are they giving up one right for another? They don't have 4A rights in prison either. They just get one right restored before the rest of them.. i.e. Freedom before 4A.

I've focused on both. The FFL is not acting as an agent of the government except as required by the BG Check itself, so with that not-withstanding, they're no more government agent than a second hand seller.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 05:49 PM   #357
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
the right plaintiff(s)
Couldn't be found in 20 years?
Quote:
the right set of facts
the right injuries/damages
The facts are the same for nearly everyone, as are the injuries- To purchase a firearm one must undergo a background check
Quote:
the right venue
Which given the universal application of the law, can be chosen not? One can find a little old lady with a penchant for guns in all 50 states I would think.

So far, the only challenges I've seen/remember are the Printz case, and Schrader v Holder. I would think an Estelle Getty never convicted of anything type that doesn't want Uncle Sam getting in her business to overturn than Schrader for just a small section.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:08 PM   #358
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Jim,

How long was slavery upheld? Segregation? Take your pick.


Besides that, we'd have to roll-back the legal understanding of the Commerce Clause.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:19 PM   #359
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Application of law is probably not as universal as you'd think, even when it comes to federal law. Remember that federal law still has to interact with some state law. For example, a prisoner bringing a 42 USC 1983 civil rights case for unlawful arrest must make reference to the criminal laws of the state in which he was arrested.

In terms of injury damages, you've also got to remember that the right plaintiff probably has a clean criminal record. That probably also means that he or she will be cleared by the NICS check. Ideally, Betty White will be wrongfully denied.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 06:29 PM   #360
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
But if the check itself is unconstitutional, just having Betty White want a handgun without the check should be enough, not?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:33 PM   #361
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Does it matter that a person who voluntarily applies for a FFL accepts the regulations surrounding the license and implicitly waives the exercise of various constitutional rights? OTOH, private individuals have not entered into such a voluntary contractual arrangement with the government and retain the ability to exercise all of their constitutional rights.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:36 PM   #362
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Is it voluntary if it's required to do something?

There was a bill out here that if you had one of the EBR's the Sheriff could come inspect your house once a year to make sure you had a decent gun safe or other security storage plan.

That wasn't really "voluntary" either.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:37 PM   #363
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Yes, it's voluntary. No one forces firearms dealers to go into that line of work.

There's some sort of analogy here with people who volunteer to join the armed forces. By doing so, they agree to subject themselves to the UCMJ, and their constitutional rights, such as their First Amendment right to criticize the Commander-in-Chief, are circumscribed for the period of their enlistment.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:53 PM   #364
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
How is volunteering to be an FFL any different than volunteering to keep and bear arms?

Edit: I'm also not ready to stipulate everyone (ever)in the military and subject to the UCMJ volunteered.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:57 PM   #365
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
For starters, FFL is a profession. In theory, one earns a profit by being an FFL. As we all know, exercising the RKBA costs $.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 07:02 PM   #366
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
And yet, interference with someone's FFL profession was part of the complaint about the NY Safe Act. Is there a New York statute that allows this?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:16 PM   #367
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
I don't see background checks being an FFL issue, per say.

They're unconstitutional because the act of selling a gun to someone is no different than selling them a head of lettuce.

If the Feds said that you had to have an FFL to purchase firearms across state lines for resale, and you, the FFL holder, had to pass a background check, fine, that's interstate commerce.

Me buying the gun is not interstate commerce. You're in my state, I'm in your state, the gun is in our state. It's not interstate.

It's not really an interference to the FFL making a living, it's not even particularly an interference with the buyer if they're legal.

The issue is not if it's good or bad or hard or whatever to do background checks, it's do the Feds have the constitutional authority?

It doesn't matter how good the idea is if they don't have the authority.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:26 PM   #368
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
How is volunteering to be an FFL any different than volunteering to keep and bear arms?
The right to keep and bear arms is just that -- a right. There is no "right to have a job."
Quote:
Edit: I'm also not ready to stipulate everyone (ever)in the military and subject to the UCMJ volunteered.
I never claimed that -- it's a straw man argument. At the moment, we have, in principle, a volunteer military. (The subject of whether there's an "economic draft," in which the military becomes the job of last resort for poor, undereducated young people, is a subject for another time and another forum.)

When a draft has been in place, it has been either during a time of national emergency, or for a quite limited duration: two years, when we last had one in effect. Once that period is up, reenlistment is voluntary; the curtailment of rights during military service is one reason this is essential. And, (again in principle) a draft is meant to universal, hence fair.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:33 PM   #369
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms is just that -- a right. There is no "right to have a job."
This says differently. And if they have a right to a job for being a protected class, under P or I, I have to assume I sure as heck do too.

Now if you meant you don't have a right to be an FFL, I can see that distinction, but again ask why interference in a man's FFL business was a valid claim/part of the complaint against the NY Safe Act being discussed in other threads.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:01 PM   #370
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
This says differently. And if they have a right to a job for being a protected class, under P or I, I have to assume I sure as heck do too.
Well, I haven't read that in depth, but it starts with "If you have a right to work . . . " (emphasis supplied). As a general matter, no one has a right to a particular job. They do have a right not to be denied that particular job based on their membership in a protected class, but that's a different right. For example, let's say I want to go be a police officer. Presumably, I have the requisite legal knowledge and I'm a reasonably good shot (for a civilian). The local PD can deny membership in the incoming Academy class, because I'm also out of shape. It cannot deny me membership into the incoming Academy class based on my race or my gender. Technically, they can't deny me admission because of my age (over 40), either.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 08:06 PM   #371
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
The IF part was about legal immigration status
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:12 PM   #372
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Well, ok, but here's the last part:
Quote:
If you have been denied work or fired because of your nationality, appearance, or accent, you have the right to file a charge of discrimination with OSC. OSC can help you in getting the job you lost because of the discrimination. You can also receive pay for the days you missed work.

If an employer has denied you work or fired you because he/she will not accept your work authorization as proof of your legal right to work in the U.S., or only hires U.S. citizens or permanent residents, he/she is breaking the law. You need to show the employer the Lists of Legal Work Papers that appear on the back of the 1-9 form. If the employer still insists on seeing a particular document, or refuses to hire you, call OSC right away.

Visit the OSC web site at:
wwwjustice.gov!crt/osc
My point is that we do not start from the proposition that "X has a right to a particular job." Someone has the right not to be denied a job, or treated differently in the terms and conditions of his or her employment due to certain prohibited reasons (race, gender, age, etc.)

If you start from the idea that "X has a right to a job," then the employer is required to find reasons NOT to hire him or her, regardless of things like whether the employer has an open position, or whether X is actually qualified for the job.
__________________
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 April 17, 2013, 08:19 PM   #373
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Vanya, sorry for any veer, but several of my friends who have been affected by Stop-Loss might disagree with you about all reenlistments being voluntary.

Also, military personnel CAN criticize the President and other elected officials, but they must do so as private individuals (EG, not in uniform, signed Tom Murphy from Pennsylvania, not CPT Tom Murphy, 173rd Airborne, USA).
MLeake is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:43 PM   #374
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Vanya, sorry for any veer, but several of my friends who have been affected by Stop-Loss might disagree with you about all reenlistments being voluntary.
I'm well aware of that issue, hence my phrasing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
At the moment, we have, in principle, a volunteer military.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:52 PM   #375
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
If you start from the idea that "X has a right to a job," then the employer is required to find reasons NOT to hire him or her, regardless of things like whether the employer has an open position, or whether X is actually qualified for the job.
I don't believe that follows. First, because the constitution protects rights from the government, not private business - IN GENERAL, and Second, because other rights don't work that way. A right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean the FFL has to find a reason NOT to transfer a firearm to you regardless of whether you have the money, or are a qualified (as in not prohibited) to bear arms.
JimDandy 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 10:44 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 0.15854 seconds with 7 queries