June 26, 2014, 08:48 AM | #1 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
UBC's and Spats
The beginning of this discussion started here and it was closed for wandering off topic of the original post, but Spats offered to continue the discussion in a new one, so here is the next part-
Quote:
Though I did open the door to using the recently proposed and failed S.649 as something of a roadmap. And reading it, it does again provide direction. In 649, the private sales were to have an FFL take possession of the firearm, and proceed as if it were their inventory. (Firearms Transfers, 122 (t)1) Quote:
I'm also not entirely sure it could, because then we DO have 5th amendment issues revolving around the takings clause not? If Due Process didn't take their property as contraband, they have to still be able to legally dispose of it without being deprived of it's fair market value, correct? Quote:
Likewise, the background check system, universal or current, has a stated or implied purpose that is designed to benefit society as a whole, not the firearms purchaser - that purpose being to attempt to insure that firearms are not getting into the hands of people with a firearms disability- and as such the cost for this background check service, universal or current, should properly be billed to society as a whole through tax appropriations should it not? |
|||
June 26, 2014, 09:21 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I've had this one percolating in the back of my mind for a while now, so I may be replying to myself if Spats or others haven't chimed in yet but here goes:
First we should establish some level of success to define working: Is "working" a judgement of the electorate and courts? I.e. do they have the final say(s) on what is and is not "working" as a law? Is the existence of corrupt FFL's and straw purchases enough that most of the electorate would categorize the current background check system for retail sales as too flawed (only as applied to those transactions required to use the system) to be categorized as "working" and in need of being scrapped? Drawing on your knowledge and experience as a legal professional, do you believe the current background check system has or would pass judicial review in our previous, current, or any likely successive Supreme Court panel if challenged? As most of the conversation on the subject revolves around extending that system to the secondary market, I'm going to proceed assuming you'll stipulate the current system is classifiable as working, while conceding you may not. Therefore moving right along: One of the changes that may alter the landscape is applying that background check system to all sales- analogous to the right to carry does not mean open or concealed just that one way must be allowed to satisfy the right- thus that a private sale without a background check somehow protects a fundamental right that a background check system does not. Do you believe the Court would find this to be the case, and if so, how? Another change that may alter the landscape is the compulsory seeking out of an FFL to facilitate the transfer. This could be violative to the Constitution on property rights, Second Amendment, or other grounds I haven't even thought of yet. Do you feel this is the case? If so, how and would the Court likely agree with this? |
June 26, 2014, 09:39 AM | #3 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you check on that link I provided in the other thread about the DOJ's admission that UBCs won't work without registration? What's more important to me is that I don't care if it will prevent another 100, or even another 1000 prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms (which I think is a stretch), because I'm not willing to lay more requirements on the millions of gun owners, at least not until the federal government actually starts enforcing the laws on the books. Remember, Shotgun Joe even said that "we don't have time to prosecute paper crimes," or something like that. Quote:
Quote:
Stopping here so that I can respond to your 2nd post in a somewhat orderly fashion.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
June 26, 2014, 09:40 AM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
We really have not seen much of a benefit from it. Quote:
It's not just rural areas. Consider Washington DC. For a while, there was only one FFL willing to do business with civilians. Assuming he's willing to take on the burden of FTF transfers, we can assume his backlog and wait times would skyrocket.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
June 26, 2014, 09:52 AM | #5 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
June 26, 2014, 10:01 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
June 26, 2014, 10:17 AM | #7 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not currently being a member of any protected class I'm aware of does not entitle me to a refund on the tax burden imposed on me to support the HUD Discrimination Hotline, because I benefit from a society without discrimination. Why shouldn't a tax burden be applied to non-gun owners to finance the NICS hotline because they benefit from a society where it is more difficult for criminals to gain firearms? As an aside, and this could be a question in and of itself, I'm curious why you believe even the current system, regardless of it's value and effective worth, should be billed to a gun purchaser alone when it's effect, real or imagined, is to society at large. Quote:
John Dillinger: I'd like a big gun. FFL: Are you a prohibited person? John Dillinger: No, not at all, can I pay cash? It's even still wrapped from my recent trip to the bank. I haven't seen any numbers for legitimate means. I've seen some numbers for definitely illegitimate means, definitely legitimate means, with a too large block of leftovers to categorically determine either or. We can make something of an educated guess, but it's still a guess that only gets us in a very big ballpark. The numbers for the upper limits of the ballpark are here. The lower limit is about 48K, so between 48K and 108K criminal victimizations. In addition to the fact that that's criminal victimizations and not criminals themselves, there are other problems like assuming none of those surveyed were first-timers actually allowed legitimate means, but it's about the best we can get that I can find. Quote:
|
||||
June 26, 2014, 10:32 AM | #8 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
I believe that whether it's an inventory retail sale, a voluntary private sale, or a mandatory second hand sale background check, the burden of financing this check should be on the government, and the FFL should get some stipend per check to offset those costs. Just like, no matter how disenchanted with the quality of the candidates enough to stay home, the government should cover the costs of elections, not the people who are excited enough about one to vote. Quote:
|
|||
June 26, 2014, 12:52 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
I must stress: these people had done nothing wrong. Their denials and subsequent hassles were due to someone else's mistake, yet the burden of proof falls on the appellant. Over half the denials I see are overturned on appeal. About three times a year, I'll get a denial and send the customer home, only to get a call back from the NICS center a few hours later changing the result to a proceed. Quote:
Where does that leave people?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
June 26, 2014, 01:00 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
And additionally, as you're an FFL I gather- if someone brings in a firearm to your shop for a voluntary transfer, how does that process work? What do you have to do to accept the firearm before transfer? Last edited by JimDandy; June 26, 2014 at 01:07 PM. |
|
June 26, 2014, 01:36 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Not because the system doesn't work, but because too many recent mass shooters were able to buy their guns legally, and all most of the public knows is that crazy people bought guns from gun dealers. Most of them weren't even corrupt, although the post-Sandy Hook investigation ultimately led to the closing of the store that sold the shooter's mother the AR-15. That's what most of the public have latched onto. The fact that the particular sale to Nancy Lanza was completely by-the-books and squeaky clean is either not understood or ignored. The VA Tech shooter bought his guns legally. Major Hassan bought his guns legally. I believe the Aurora shooter bought his guns legally. Don't remember about the guy who shot Gabby Giffords. |
|
June 26, 2014, 01:57 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Really? You think if Gallup were to poll America, and ask "Should we stop conducting background checks on retail firearms purchases?" the majority of those polled will say yes, because it didn't stop spree shooters? Or did one of us misunderstand the other?
|
June 26, 2014, 02:05 PM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
June 26, 2014, 02:14 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
June 26, 2014, 02:57 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 26, 2014, 05:50 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
No SSN? How much of the ID do you write down? Name and address?
|
|
|