[Alabama Shooter]

Less than 1% of crime guns are acquired at gun shows, whereas 13% of crime guns are purchased at retailers. By that logic, the NICS system makes us less safe.

I would say that with the data being as old and as flawed as it is there is really no telling if that is true today or not.

Not really. Like I said, we went for over 200 years without background checks. Society didn't crumble. There's no proof that the NICS system reduced crime.

There is no proof it did not either. This is not about society crumbling. It is about trying to improve things. The date from that time period indicates a significant shift away from retailers after background checks were put in place. Putting barriers in place between criminals and guns has overall net positive effect and there is no significant down side in of itself.

We support President Obama's comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence. His legislative plan — which includes measures such as universal criminal background checks for all gun buyers — can immediately reduce gun injuries and deaths across America.

Not only will it not do that it flies in the face of their sketchy "evidence" on time of purchase to time of crime.

The 2A right, on the other hand, was enumerated at the end of the 18th century, but that right, RKBA, is not listed in the CRA. So it's not covered by that. Bear in mind, though, that the 2A wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010, IIRC. In other words, SCOTUS hadn't even told states that the 2A applied to them until 2A. Just because a provision is in the US Constitution does not automatically mean that it applies to the States. As it stands now, though, it has finally been incorporated, which means that States must comply with it. That means that State are now limited in what laws they may enact in restricting the RKBA. It does not mean that private individuals may be forced to sell their private property to other private individuals.

Thanks for your long, detailed and well reasoned answer. While the courts have not yet caught up with this as a civil right I am guessing that:
- Sooner or later they will
- It is long overdue.

The CRA was enacted in 1968 to protect minorities from discrimination in matters made available to the public at large, and state or governmental matters. Voting, housing, public facilities. (I seem to recall a case invovling the Howard Johnson's line of hotels and restaurants, for example.) In discrimination law, there are several protected classes (race, religion, gender, age, for example) and protected activities (voting, public facilities, education, housing, and employment for example). The private purchase of firearms, from private individuals, is not included in the list. If we were talking about the purchase of a firearm from a store, held out to the public for public business, that would be a different story. The CRA was not enacted in such a way that it protects from purely private discrimination. Whether or not it should have been is an entirely separate question. Whether I believe the 2A is an "essential right," does not enter into the equation.

So if you accept that the private party purchase of a firearm is not legally a civil right then the discussion is essentially over. It is merely the disposal of private property which you can do with as you see fit and the federal government believes that they can regulate under the ICC (Wickard v. Filburn). Private arms sales travel in interstate commerce and (especially recently) make up a signifcant portion of the market. Even giving away guns as gifts affects commerce.

While I find the abuse of the ICC abhorent we are stuck with it until it is defanged in some way.