Changed my mind on universal background checks.

[Webleymkv]

The issue with the universal checks is that it plays into the flawed thought process: "why wont the gun owners/NRA compromise."

I would add that there has been no compromise offered. In a compromise, neither side gets all of what they want but both sides get something. For example, if UBC's were offered up in exchange for getting rid of the Hughes Amendment or gun-free-school-zones, that would be a compromise. Instead, our side of the debate is being told that because UBC's are "common sense" and "reasonable," we should all just sit down, shut up, and be thankful that they didn't want more. That's not a compromise, that's extortion.

[lcpiper]

TDL I am right there with you.

I can pass a background check and don't per se object it is that the current government and the anti second amendment lobby are selling this as a solution to a problem that isn't being address.

The problem is when universal background checks turn out to be utterly ineffective, the logical next step is more gun control

I do see problems, I do want to see these killings stop. But I don't want them to waste time and effort chasing a policies that will not work while they ignore real threats.


EDIT: And as for compromises, lol. A compromise is another word for deal. Everyone makes deals, some are better at it then others. But the person that manages to force an unwilling participant to the table has already won because anything he gets is more then what he had before, the other guy can only lose because they are not offering us anything.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...5.html?hp=t2_3

Universals are sinking the gun control whole package esp. as the antis want a Federal permanent reporting and gun registry.

So stop buying all the ammo up - the apockeelips ain't happening!!

[22-rimfire]

I hope you are right Glenn. FFL dealers have to retain their 4473's but a private citizen is not necessarily required to save anything. And if they did, how would the enforce it? .... must of lost it. sorry. Hence the registry concept which no pro gun person is going to support. What does it matter if a particular rifle was bought and sold 10 times. I think they watch too much NCIS. Or they simply require private sellers to only transfer through a FFL dealer for a fee. That is the easy call and where they are headed eventually.

If the UBC's are implemented, why not have the federal government send you a check for $20 for using their system?

[rickstanleyactivist]

The 2d Amendment has been compromised for over 100 years. It started with the first compromise. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't those who own guns understand? If those who own guns will not stand up without compromise, why should anyone else? Politicians compromise. America slides closer to socialism and fascism. Gun owners comprosmise and we slide closer to tyranny. Just a thought...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For the previous post - we have pretty well established that the BOR is more complex than absolute. Look at freedom of the press and speech - so can we move beyond cliches?

Limits on rights do exist but need strict scrutiny.

That being said, the Washington Post has a take on background checks that reports that industry types and retailers are more favorable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

It breaks down support and suggests mayors threaten Glock and the NSSF, for example.

[lcpiper]

I still stick to my guns on this one. While these proposed Universal Back Ground Checks will make some people feel better and make some politicians look better, and make the anti's and gun grabbers feel like they have won a victory. The result will be the same.

Legal gun owners will still sometimes lose their minds and misuse their guns hurting or killing themselves and others. Those who can't legally own guns will still steal them and perform horrible acts to try and outdo the last posted "Top Score". And true criminals will still get guns, if they can't find one for sale that they can buy easily then they will either buy a stolen gun or they will rob peoples' homes to get them.

All I see is more of the same gun violence in the news as we do nothing tangible to mitigate it and an increase in home burglaries and home invasions as a result of our failed efforts to prevent actions with laws which never actually ever prevent anything.

In the mean time big city Law Enforcement continues to support the band-aid policies while at the same time refusing to enforce them.

The gun owners will be forced to pay for the country's newest false security blanket.

[TDL]

For the previous post - we have pretty well established that the BOR is more complex than absolute. Look at freedom of the press and speech - so can we move beyond cliches?

Glenn I agree that the poster you are referring to is both behind the times and slipping into clichés.

On the other hand virtually all limits/actions on speech/press are after use has caused harm, and target specifically and only the individual or entity who/which caused the harm.

We don't regulate computers hardware on illegal speech/press use because some hundreds of users are using that hardware to display child pr 0n.

Courts might hold firingline or the NYT liable for copyright or libel, but the federal and state governments cannot require firingline to maintain liability insurance in order to have website and forum. They cant require you to prescreen comments (say equivent to requiring locks) and they cant require you to submit any material to a government agency for pre approval. You may exercise your own prudence in editing, moderating, and even if need be insuring, but it cant be required ahead of any harm.

Pre exercise infringement, prior restraint, of speech is extraordinarily limited in the US. Essentially you have schematics for atomic weapons subject in the past to prior restraint and that is it (beyond mutual contract obligations like sec. clearance, and contractual obligations on IP.)

Essentially it is correct to look at a lot existing gun control and certainly many of the suggestions as prior restraint against a class where demonstrably almost no one in the class causes any harm.

So I agree with the fourth amend, it has "moved beyond" absolutes. But
I don't think we can escape the fact that suggested and existing popular, academic and even judicial rationals for infringing the second amendment can be applied to quite shockingly and frighteningly to many other rights in the bill of rights. In that sense it is always good at some levels to step back and assert of starting point of "shall not be infringed."

In the early part of this century free speech laws had been massively infringed including by the supreme court with the absurd fire in a theater BS surrounding the infamous sedition act.

later supreme courts and speech rights activists did not say: "well that is where we are now" No they said the whole body around the sedition act and the absurd rulings was wrong and forced it back. And that was hardly a "clean case" since it involved the KKK.

I do agree with you if you mean that practicalities right now and the near future are more conducive to a defense fight on the Second because of social and political reasons. So in that sense we have a more complex discussion and tactics than asserting soley: "shall not be infringed." On the other hand we should not fall for the idea that the existing infringements are written in stone

[Rifleman1952]

mack59

Just keep in mind that your definition and Dianne Fienstien's definition of a "universal background check" are going to be quite different. You think of it as something minimally intrusive. Senator Feinstein thinks of a universal background check (UBC) as a huge stepping stone towards eventual gun confiscation. If you see the likes of Senator Feinstein proposing "common sense" UBC legislation; don't be surprised if it is 2,000 pages long with very little common sense in it. And always remember "the devil is in the details."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TDL - good post. I was simply pointing out that the 'infringed' statement isn't enough argument nowadays for the battle for public opinion. We should remember that the 2nd could be washed out with another amendment. Then kiss 'shall...' bye bye.

It's like in another thread when we were discussing whether buying ammo to flip it and whether such practices were hurting the RKBA - in terms of inhibiting competitions and training. A poster said what part of 'shall..." didn't we understand. Wasn't relevant.

[Armorer-at-Law]

We don't regulate computers hardware on illegal speech/press use because some hundreds of users are using that hardware to display child pr 0n.

Courts might hold firingline or the NYT liable for copyright or libel, but the federal and state governments cannot require firingline to maintain liability insurance in order to have website and forum. They cant require you to prescreen comments (say equivent to requiring locks) and they cant require you to submit any material to a government agency for pre approval. You may exercise your own prudence in editing, moderating, and even if need be insuring, but it cant be required ahead of any harm.

The opposition will argue that "guns are different. They can be used to take a life (or lives) in an instant" and therefore justify greater prior restraint. The trouble with that argument is, they can be used to save a life (or lives) in an instant, too. Prior restraint sacrifices the potential benefit along with the potential harm, probably to a greater extent.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...6.html?ml=po_r

Interesting take on how the WH is managing the gun control debate. Basically, individual groups and legislators have to toe the line from the WH. The more extreme groups have to be happy with background checks.

However, the use of such for a registry will sink it. I think it is a setup to use the issue in 2014.

Also, Sen. Manchin is frantically trying to get some support for his view as his progun credentials have been washed away by his support for gun control. The Atlantic had a pretty good progun article awhile ago. He just wrote a letter to the editor praising that view. He didn't realize at first what he did and now is caught between pro and anti views. Stupid.

[Kreyzhorse]

Criminals will not obey a universal back ground check.

Additionally, even the anti gun folks are admitting a universal back ground check would not have prevented any of the recent shootings.

Bottom line, no more laws meant to punish law abiding citizens.