The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 18, 2013, 11:54 AM   #401
TX Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2010
Location: East Texas USA
Posts: 1,776
I am against any form of Gun Control. I also am against Gun Free Zones. I am however in favor of Swift Justice, and The Death Penalty ! Its time to punish the Criminal and Not blame the Weapons used !
TX Hunter is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 11:55 AM   #402
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both. I realize arguing with me is akin to letting a guy on a Rec league softball team play with the College World Series champs, so I appreciate you guys "batting off handed" and throwing me some slow pitch so I can keep up. You've made this a lot of fun, as well as educational.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 12:08 PM   #403
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
Criminals get firearms, ergo background checks failed is post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't it? And isn't that the gist of at least part of your opposition?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an allegation of causation based merely on the sequence of events, and is therefore poor reasoning. The sun rises after I have breakfast, therefore the sun rises because I have breakfast is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

The observation here is different. "Criminals get firearms, therefore background checks do not [and will not ] prevent criminals from getting firearms" is much closer to the observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both.
You are entirely welcome. This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence would serve no purpose here, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 12:19 PM   #404
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence would serve no purpose here, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
Oh, my. This is very fine.

Zukiphile, may we quote you?
__________________
"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 18, 2013, 12:20 PM   #405
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by kochman
...get as close as we can.
"As we can" means in line with enumerated powers, inline with fundamental rights and inline with other jurisprudence.

Universal background checks are "none of the above".
__________________
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 18, 2013, 12:20 PM   #406
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
The CMP is very special and unique. They don't run NICS checks from what I understand, through some assumption of you already passing one by joining approved firearms groups.
The COO of the Civilian Marksmanship Program has stated on the CMP Forum that NICS checks are run on CMP purchasers.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 12:27 PM   #407
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Woo hoo!

Quote:
The statute under consideration defines these localities and forbids slaughtering in any other. It does not, as has been asserted, prevent the butcher from doing his own slaughtering. On the contrary, the Slaughter-House Company is required, under a heavy penalty, to permit any person who wishes to do so to slaughter in their houses, and they are bound to make ample provision for the convenience of all the slaughtering for the entire city. The butcher then is still permitted to slaughter, to prepare, and to sell his own meats; but he is required to slaughter at a specified place, and to pay a reasonable compensation for the use of the accommodations furnished him at that place.

The wisdom of the monopoly granted by the legislature may be open to question, but it is difficult to see a justification for the assertion that the butchers are deprived of the right to labor in their occupation, or the people of their daily service in preparing food, or how this statute, with the [p62] duties and guards imposed upon the company, can be said to destroy the business of the butcher, or seriously interfere with its pursuit.
This section of the Slaughterhouse cases does seem to imply, though I may be reading it wrong given the formal language of the period and legalese, that while affirming the right of the State of Louisiana to regulate where a butcher may engage in his chosen profession, they do stipulate that a butcher DOES still have a right to engage in his chosen profession.

Now the obvious counter point is that a drug dealer does not have the right to sell illicit drugs... but that is a criminal act, and no criminal act gets protections- while a pharmaceutical company rep would likely have these protections to sell their wares to various hospitals, pharmacies, apothecaries, and so on, as allowed by the states exercising their police power?

Edit to add: I realize I'm also a long ways away from where I am/was going. But you have to set this stuff up like building blocks right?

Last edited by JimDandy; April 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 12:54 PM   #408
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
Zukiphile, may we quote you?
Certainly, though when I read my own writing quoted in other posts, I see all the warts. On revision, I would have removed a redundnant phrase:

This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 01:51 PM   #409
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
So I have this PDF from the Justice Department that includes in the third sentence "Each had the right to work in the United States..." And the quoted section of The Slaughterhouse Cases that said
Quote:
but it is difficult to see a justification for the assertion that the butchers are deprived of the right to labor in their occupation
holding that the right to work suggested but not authoritatively proven in the PDF includes the "right to labor in their occupation". This may not be authoritative, but I believe it makes the beginnings of a decent case that such a right exists in the 9th amendment much like neither the fourth nor the fifth amendment explicitly enshrine a right to privacy, but taken together suggest there is such a right also in the 9th amendment.

To further define this argument, we can incorporate the thoughts of
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
The Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not that of private persons or entities. Nothing the corner store, your [non-governmental] landlord or your [non-governmental] employer might do (even if illegal for other reasons) can be unconstitutional, because their conduct is not subject to the Constitution.
to say that all of this is suggestive that there is some narrowly tailored version of a right to attempt to labor in one's chosen profession.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:10 PM   #410
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
"As we can" means in line with enumerated powers, inline with fundamental rights and inline with other jurisprudence.

Universal background checks are "none of the above" IMO.
Fixed that for you. Many would disagree.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:11 PM   #411
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
No Kochman, none would disagree, not even you.

Your disagreement has been whether the feds should only have enumerated powers, not that UBCs fall under currently enumerated powers, unless you are suddenly changing your argument.

So, "Fixing" it was both presumptuous and erroneous.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:16 PM   #412
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Ummm, thanks for telling me what to think.
Has that technique worked well for you in the past?
Kochman is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:19 PM   #413
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Other than his tone and presumption to "fix it" appearing to be a bit churlish, I have to side with Kochman on this one.

Many would disagree- meaning many would feel background checks are in some fashion inline with enumerated powers, fundamental rights, and jurisprudence. The fact that we're having this debate here, and across the nation proves that. Some many be uneducated, some may be lawyers. There will even be some who don't even care if they meet that test, and just want them, or oppose them for being what they are, constitutional or not.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:24 PM   #414
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Funny, JD, I've seen you do that in this very thread yourself.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:28 PM   #415
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
When I did it, it was to fix what I assumed was a typo, I explained why I did it, and apologized in advance if I was incorrect.

Edit: And then only because without doing so my reply wouldn't have made much sense.

And Edit Again To get us Back on track, Spats or Zukiphile, any response to the jumbled right to work argument i was making? Is there something on point the other way I'm missing? Or something more on point in my favor I'm missing? I assume the Justice Department PDF got it's "had a right to work in the United States" from somewhere?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:44 PM   #416
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Fixed that for you. Many would disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Ummm, thanks for telling me what to think.
Has that technique worked well for you in the past?
I have read that "fixed that for you" maneuver on other boards and it always strikes me as coarse, lazy and rude. Pretending that someone else wrote something he did not actually write does not indicate goodwill or good faith.


JD, I have not followed your right to work argument.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:45 PM   #417
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, under which enumerated power do you think this falls?

So far, I have only seen the Commerce Clause or the Preamble cited. If you think it falls under an enumerated power, please specify which.

Kochman, I won't tell you what to think, but I will point out when you change arguments midstream, and then pretend it is what you have been saying all along.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:52 PM   #418
cvc944
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
Quote:
How is it any different from people in some states being able to use their carry permits in lieu of a NICS check now?
Good point, ATW525. I forgot there are states where you can avoid a NICs check with a CCW. Here in Pennsylvania we can't. We have to use our own version of NICS that we know as PICS. It must be nice to lay down a card and buy a firearm without waiting an hour or better to do it.
cvc944 is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:53 PM   #419
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
MLeake, I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to explain my entire political philosophy, but I figured it would be a "tl;dr" type of thing.

I do go on tangents... often unannounced, that's just how my mind works, and I do realize that isn't condusive to internets discussions.
And am amazed that this thread has stayed more or less on topic for so many pages, and is filled with great comments and thoughts.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 02:58 PM   #420
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Quote:
I am against any form of Gun Control. I also am against Gun Free Zones. I am however in favor of Swift Justice, and The Death Penalty ! Its time to punish the Criminal and Not blame the Weapons used !
Punish criminals and keep the mentally unstable away from the innocents.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 03:07 PM   #421
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
JimDandy, under which enumerated power do you think this falls?
It is justified by the commerce clause. And while I stipulate it's not much of a limitation, it is limited by that clause. It does specifically state
Quote:
in interstate or foreign commerce
numerous times.

While I am open to the idea that this would be overturned on a challenge, it hasn't been so yet, so without that successful challenge, it is presumptively legal and constitutional, and within the Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 03:15 PM   #422
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
I am utterly certain that Congress thinks it can do UBCs under its Commerce Clause power. Whether or not such a law will stand up to a Constitutional challenge is a separate question.
__________________
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 18, 2013, 03:38 PM   #423
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,663
I have no doubt that the courts would construe the Commerce Clause broadly enough to require UBCs, even for intrastate sales. The case for legitimate gifts, especially intrastate, would be weaker but I wouldn't bet any money on it.
__________________
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  
Old April 18, 2013, 04:18 PM   #424
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
A gift is still commerce, KyJim. In fact, mere transportation is commerce. That's why Miller got picked up. He took the short barrelled shotgun across state lines.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 06:29 PM   #425
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
It is justified by the commerce clause.
The flour (and several other products) I buy for my pizza comes from out of state. Do the Feds have the power to dictate my pizza sales? Could they legally require that I run background checks on my customers and not sell pizza to anyone convicted of a crime punishable by 3 or more years in prison?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
In fact, mere transportation is commerce. That's why Miller got picked up. He took the short barrelled shotgun across state lines.
While jurisprudence may agree with you, you can't honestly tell me that such a definition makes any logical sense. "Commerce" is buying and selling. Transporting is not commerce. NOT selling is NOT commerce.

comĀ·merce [kom-ers]
noun
1.
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.
__________________
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  
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 11:53 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 0.14154 seconds with 7 queries