Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole - Page 8

Al Norris · January 25, 2009, 12:34 AM

Actually Tennessee, if you were to search the L&P archives in the Heller mega thread, I argued quite well exactly how the NICS check will meet strict scrutiny.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that it is and will be legal.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Actually Tennessee, if you were to search the L&P archives in the Heller mega thread, I argued quite well exactly how the NICS check will meet strict scrutiny.
Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that it is and will be legal.

Actually, you said it in this very thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Here

How 'bout that!

Al Norris · January 25, 2009, 01:08 AM

Oh Boy... Give some people a little knowledge...

Glad to see you understood that "How to quote" thread.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Oh Boy... Give some people a little knowledge... Glad to see you understood that "How to quote" thread.

Now you know how Dr. Frankenstein felt.

Thanks for the assistance.

nocrosstalk4u · January 25, 2009, 01:24 AM

Leave private sales alone. Just enforce the laws we have already thank you.

Playboypenguin · January 25, 2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:

They are different words with different meanings. Those differences are not dependent on your view of human behaviour.

Yes, the meanings do matter when you are trying to use an absolute to quantify the effectiveness of an action that includes the human variable. You are misusing language to try and support a weak argument.

nocrosstalk4u · January 25, 2009, 01:29 AM

How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?

Playboypenguin · January 25, 2009, 01:36 AM

You would still have to call in and verify the validity of the licenses. You would still be doing pretty much the same thing that is done now.

IronEagle318 · January 25, 2009, 02:53 AM

Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business. NO!

By the way, I had to wikipedia the "Gun Show Loophole" to see exactly what some anti-gunners THOUGHT it meant. It was still full of holes, like so many gun control arguments are.

nocrosstalk4u · January 25, 2009, 02:59 AM

Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

Al Norris · January 25, 2009, 08:29 AM

Several off topic posts and responses to those posts, deleted.

Please folks, if a person posts something off topic, report the post, but do not respond to it. That's feeding the troll!

DonR101395 · January 25, 2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

A few folks including myself would argue they have no right to know about those things either.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nocrosstalk4u

Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

Also, if you are mentally incompetent or have a order of protection against you for domestic abuse. Again, its not "the government knowing about it" because if you are on the NICS as a prohibited party they already know about it. It is a way for the seller to know that he can't sell to this person. This is no different from registering to vote. It is a reasonable way to protect the seller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronEagle318

Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business.

Also, I suspect you know your friends and wouldn't sell to them if you knew they it was illegal for them to own firearms. If everybody who traded and sold did as you do then I believe this wouldn't be an issue but because of greedy and unscrupulous folks we have to do stuff like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

A few folks including myself would argue they have no right to know about those things either

I am afraid the majority wants them to know and the courts have upheld it.

DonR101395 · January 25, 2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

I am afraid the majority wants them to know and the courts have upheld it.

And there lies the crux of the problem, what right does the majority or the court have to infringe upon a person's god given rights? Both laws came about as sell out compromises.
I will admit I'm torn on felons, but the older I get the more I don't have a problem with it.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

what right does the majority or the court have to infringe upon a person's god given rights?

If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement. You or I may think it is but our way of government will prevail.

Every single right in the BOR is limited or regulated in some way.

My view is that are no absolute rights without restriction except in an Anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce it.

Anyway, a nut or a crook doesn't have a right IMO to own a firearm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

I will admit I'm torn on felons, but the older I get the more I don't have a problem with it.

What about lunatics? As to felons my standard response comes from one of my favorite songs from the '70s. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

DonR101395 · January 25, 2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement. You or I may think it is but our way of government will prevail.

Every single right in the BOR is limited or regulated in some way.

My view is that are no absolute rights without restriction except in an Anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce it.

Anyway, a nut or a crook doesn't have a right IMO to own a firearm.

Some of the regulators are lunatics and tyrants who should be felons.

Quote:

What about lunatics? As to felons my standard response comes from one of my favorite songs from the '70s. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

What about lunatics? Do you think that gun laws prevent lunatics or crooks from owning guns? Pick any city you like that has stringent gun laws. I'll bet you that they have a higher percentage of gun and violent crime than their surrounding areas.
My point being I'm for putting everyone on equal ground instead of hamstringing or making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding person.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

Some of the regulators are lunatics and tyrants who should be felons.

I have to chuckle at that a bit for you have a point. However, not sure that is the topic we are discussing. Maybe in politics one man's savior is another man's lunatic/felon. Marion Barry comes to mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

Do you think that gun laws prevent lunatics or crooks from owning guns?

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we shouldn't make something illegal if there are some who won't obey the law?

But to your question, yes I think gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nuts but not all of them all the time. However, that is true with any law, but that is not why we make things illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

My point being I'm for putting everyone on equal ground instead of hamstringing or making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding person.

I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

DonR101395 · January 25, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we shouldn't make something illegal if there are some who won't obey the law?

What I'm saying is enforce the laws already written. Enforce them harshly. Murder, rape, robbery etc. should have a zero recidivism rate; not because the offenders were rehabilitated, but because they aren't given another chance.

Quote:

But to your question, yes I think gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nuts but not all of them all the time. However, that is true with any law, but that is not why we make things illegal.

Chicago, DC, NYC, LA all have draconian gun laws and they have done nothing to curb violence or keep guns from criminals who want them.

Quote:

I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

Do you also support getting federal approval to sell your car, house, maybe to buy a phone?

FWIW: I haven't always felt this way, but my beliefs are becoming this way rapidly. I've simply grown tired of govt. intervention where it has no place.

Al Norris · January 25, 2009, 02:04 PM

Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

Hkmp5sd · January 25, 2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement.

Once was a time when the government and the courts considered slavery to be Constitutional. Depending on which side you happen to be born on, that decision could really suck.

How many people, for public safety, agree with the government calling US citizens "terrorists" and holding them without charge?

Quote:

I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.

Why don't we just pass a law where a convicted felon with a gun gets a mandatory life without parole? Would probably have a lot more affect on public safety and it won't hassle me in my chosen hobby of collecting firearms.

Of course, I consider the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and everything since to be unconstitutional.

Wildalaska · January 25, 2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

But thats a necessary part of a scrutiny analysis

WildjustsayingandheyalsofarshilenistheonlyoneAlaska TM

Hkmp5sd · January 25, 2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

or change minds that are already closed.

How exactly, does one tell between a person with a "closed mind" and a person that has merely made the correct decision and is sticking to it?

There are some in this country that consider anyone not agreeing with an "assault weapon" ban to be a closed minded gun fanatic that cannot understand the need to ban these guns for public safety.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 25, 2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

Chicago, DC, NYC, LA all have draconian gun laws and they have done nothing to curb violence or keep guns from criminals who want them.

Don, I never said that gun control laws reduce crime. The issue is whether we should require FTF sales to include a background check the same as sales from an FFL. Should lunatics and crooks be allowed to legally own firearms? I think not and I think most would agree with me. The NRA does.

NICS is a tool to help enforce that ban. It is not perfect and no system would be but many (me included) feel it is better than nothing.

I don't think we should expand the discussion to crime because I believe that violent crime is caused by a variety of reasons and certainly not just easy access to guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antipitas

Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....

Al, you are right and great care must be exercised in regulating the BOR but it is a role of government to protect the public when it is necessary and within the contraints of our COTUS. And as Ken said that is a necessary part of the analysis but can't be the ONLY criteria or I would not be allowed out of the house! But as you have indicated before the NICS check passes muster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

Do you also support getting federal approval to sell your car, house, maybe to buy a phone?

I think if you look closely you'll see that they are to varying degrees involved in those transactions you mention. Like a HUD statement, title and registration, safety and pollution inspections AND the FCC? They are there and have constitutional reasons to be there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR101395

Of course, I consider the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and everything since to be unconstitutional.

I think you should work to repeal them through the legislature as no court will strike them down I'm afraid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

Would probably have a lot more affect on public safety and it won't hassle me in my chosen hobby of collecting firearms.

I collect firearms to as a hobby too and the NICS system doesn't hamper my ability to engage in that hobby.

gc70 · January 25, 2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?

NC already requires a permit or CHL, even for private handgun transactions. A NICS check is run before the permits/licenses are issued, but the permits/licenses are then good for five years. It would be very practical, at least in NC, to encode firearms permit/license information on drivers' licenses.

DonR101395 · January 25, 2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Don, I never said that gun control laws reduce crime. The issue is whether we should require FTF sales to include a background check the same as sales from an FFL. Should lunatics and crooks be allowed to legally own firearms? I think not and I think most would agree with me. The NRA does.

NICS is a tool to help enforce that ban. It is not perfect and no system would be but many (me included) feel it is better than nothing.

I don't think we should expand the discussion to crime because I believe that violent crime is caused by a variety of reasons and certainly not just easy access to guns.

Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime. Can't have one without the other. I do agree that guns aren't needed to have crooks or crime though.

Quote:

I think if you look closely you'll see that they are to varying degrees involved in those transactions you mention. Like a HUD statement, title and registration, safety and pollution inspections AND the FCC? They are there and have constitutional reasons to be there.

I knew you would bite on that one. The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights. Thanks for playing.

Quote:

I think you should work to repeal them through the legislature as no court will strike them down I'm afraid.

I can agree with you on both points.

January 25, 2009, 02:53 AM	#184
IronEagle318 Junior Member Join Date: December 30, 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 2	"Loophole", HA! Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business. NO! By the way, I had to wikipedia the "Gun Show Loophole" to see exactly what some anti-gunners THOUGHT it meant. It was still full of holes, like so many gun control arguments are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 25, 2009, 12:34 AM	#176
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Actually Tennessee, if you were to search the L&P archives in the Heller mega thread, I argued quite well exactly how the NICS check will meet strict scrutiny. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that it is and will be legal.

January 25, 2009, 01:08 AM	#178
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Oh Boy... Give some people a little knowledge... Glad to see you understood that "How to quote" thread.

January 25, 2009, 01:24 AM	#180
nocrosstalk4u Junior member Join Date: January 15, 2009 Location: pensacola fl. Posts: 5	Leave private sales alone. Just enforce the laws we have already thank you.

January 25, 2009, 01:29 AM	#182
nocrosstalk4u Junior member Join Date: January 15, 2009 Location: pensacola fl. Posts: 5	How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?

January 25, 2009, 01:36 AM	#183
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	You would still have to call in and verify the validity of the licenses. You would still be doing pretty much the same thing that is done now.

January 25, 2009, 02:59 AM	#185
nocrosstalk4u Junior member Join Date: January 15, 2009 Location: pensacola fl. Posts: 5	Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.

January 25, 2009, 08:29 AM	#186
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Several off topic posts and responses to those posts, deleted. Please folks, if a person posts something off topic, report the post, but do not respond to it. That's feeding the troll!

January 25, 2009, 02:04 PM	#194
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Be careful about relying upon "the public safety" as a wedge to curtail rights. Such a thing can and will come back to haunt you. Just saying....