80-90% in favor of expanded background checks
- Thread starter mayosligo
- Start date
Plumbnut said:
People don't have to be anti-gun to be influenced by the incessant media presentation of false all-or-nothing choices.
While you have only been registered on TFL for a few days, I don't know how long you might have been reading on TFL. If you were not previously reading the posts about background checks in the General and Legal forums, the content in the last several months contains an absolute wealth of information, as well as a healthy diversity of opinion on the topic.
Magnum Mike
New member
Plumbnut
We do not really need a lawyer. I've seen some of your posts and know you have no clue. Comments about buying full autos, missile launchers, et. because of our current laws is BS.
Also STRAW PURCHASES ARE ILLEGAL NOW. Why do we need another law for that?
Buying guns from FFLs at gunshows without background checks. If so what show and who were the dealers.
I really hate to tell you this but you are being sucked into the Anti's myths.
We do not really need a lawyer. I've seen some of your posts and know you have no clue. Comments about buying full autos, missile launchers, et. because of our current laws is BS.
Also STRAW PURCHASES ARE ILLEGAL NOW. Why do we need another law for that?
Buying guns from FFLs at gunshows without background checks. If so what show and who were the dealers.
I really hate to tell you this but you are being sucked into the Anti's myths.
Magnum Mike,
You must not have read enough of my posts because I asked one guy how far the 2nd ammendment reaches and he claims he should be able to buy a f16 if he could afford it under the 2nd ammendment.
I know plenty of people are buying guns used through our newspaper and on craigslist that shouldn't be buying guns.
A background check would help prevent a law abiding citizen from making that sale in the parking lot up the street.
It would make the original gun owner get a background check on that buyer.
You must not have read enough of my posts because I asked one guy how far the 2nd ammendment reaches and he claims he should be able to buy a f16 if he could afford it under the 2nd ammendment.
I know plenty of people are buying guns used through our newspaper and on craigslist that shouldn't be buying guns.
A background check would help prevent a law abiding citizen from making that sale in the parking lot up the street.
It would make the original gun owner get a background check on that buyer.
This is a classic example of what's going on right now in two different ways.
1. What you are describing is not a strawman sale, it is dealing without a license and it is a federal crime.
2. Strawman sales (buying from a dealer on behalf of the actual purchaser) are also already a federal crime.
What I'm seeing, more often than not is that people who think they want additional laws passed find that the things they think should be illegal are already illegal when they get the facts.
I think that the reason for the disconnect is the widespread ignorance/misinformation about what is currently legal and what is currently illegal in terms of firearm transfers.
Background check laws, as already implemented, mandate that any commercial sales, regardless of location, require a form 4473 and a background check.
Here are the main problems with expanding background checks to private sales in my opinion.
1. The current proposed plan is to implement a law at the federal level. Private sales always involve used firearms. There is no way for a new firearm to be legally sold without a background check and a form 4473. That means that private sales do not change the overall gun supply and therefore the SCOTUS precedent that allows the federal government to regulate intRAstate issues does not apply. Therefore the federal government really has no business passing laws that regulate the otherwise legal private sale of firearms between two residents of the same state. Such laws should be passed at the state level if the state deems it wise/necessary/reasonable.
2. Enforcing background checks on private sales is problematic for a number of reasons. The obvious solution to all of these problems is to implement registration. That would allow the government to prove in the general case that a firearm now in citizen B's hands used to belong to citizen A at a time in the past which would demonstrate that a transfer without the mandated background check took place. In other words, passing an expanded background check law provides strong leverage to pass additional recordkeeping/registration laws down the road. Many, if not most, firearm owners agree that such registration/recordkeeping is highly undesirable.
Let me ask you a few questions.....
Who makes the laws in the federal government? Where do these law makers live?
Possibly in the states?
All thats going to happen is funding for everything will be pulled for any state that dosn't get on board.
You wanna make up the difference with 30% more of your tax money to help fund you state?
Its already been done with the sale of alcohol. The federal government said if you (the states) do not raise the drinking age to 21 then you get no more hiway funding.
Background checks are going to happen wether I like it or you like it or not.
They are happening right now and they are not going away.
Who makes the laws in the federal government? Where do these law makers live?
Possibly in the states?
All thats going to happen is funding for everything will be pulled for any state that dosn't get on board.
You wanna make up the difference with 30% more of your tax money to help fund you state?
Its already been done with the sale of alcohol. The federal government said if you (the states) do not raise the drinking age to 21 then you get no more hiway funding.
Background checks are going to happen wether I like it or you like it or not.
They are happening right now and they are not going away.
Not sure where you're going with this. If enough states send legislators to DC who will vote against these laws (which is where we are at this moment in time) then there won't be any laws like this passed.
1. Even if they are inevitable (which is not at all a given at the current time) that doesn't make them right, nor does it mean that we shouldn't fight against them.
2. The UBC law died in the senate. So no, they are not happening right now and they have gone away, at least for the moment.
Plumbnut said:
Read point #1 in JohnKSA's post #45 again. There is a serious constitutional law question about background checks for private transactions that does not exist for gun store transactions. It does not matter what laws the states or the federal government might pass if the courts find the laws to be unconstitutional.
Ok it is unconstitutional....many here say that regulation of arms in any way is unconstitutional. But that arguement gets them nothing in return.
I'd like to stand and watch the guy argue his right to buy a F16 in front of congress based on the 2nd ammendment.
I know thats extreme but I'm not the one that made the initial arguement.
Background checks I do not believe infringe on the right the bear arms unless they take more than a few minutes. Mine never have in recent history.
Thats includes private and ffl sales/transfers.
If you dont agree then thats fine,we have a fundemental difference in opinion of the law. People who study law all their life dont always agree on the law.
Fair?
I'd like to stand and watch the guy argue his right to buy a F16 in front of congress based on the 2nd ammendment.
I know thats extreme but I'm not the one that made the initial arguement.
Background checks I do not believe infringe on the right the bear arms unless they take more than a few minutes. Mine never have in recent history.
Thats includes private and ffl sales/transfers.
If you dont agree then thats fine,we have a fundemental difference in opinion of the law. People who study law all their life dont always agree on the law.
Fair?
If they can demonstrate that it's unconstitutional then it does buy them something. The law will likely be invalidated if it is challenged in that case.
We're not talking about F16s, this discussion is about items that millions of law-abiding people already own and use legally on a daily basis.
How long they take is not really an issue unless they are so long that they morph into a defacto waiting period.
If background checks on private sales are implemented in such a way as to violate the constitution, then they are a problem. As they are currently implemented, there's sort of a loophole that might stand up to challenge. If the federal government implements a law mandating background checks on private sales between residents of the same state, then that isn't constitutional.
If a state wants to implement a law like that then, in my opinion, that would be within its rights. It wouldn't be within the right of the federal government to impose a law like that.
Here is where I'm going with it.
If background checks on private sales are ruled unconstitutional when the federal goverment trys to pass the law then if the majority of law makers get together and pull funding from states where it is constitutional to have background checks on private sales.
The federal goverment has a way round everything. You do realize they are all lawyers right?
A state doesn't do what he majority wants and they pull the money. That makes the state have to raise tax. People dont like to pay more tax so they give in.
Dont blame me for it,,,I'm just explaining how it works.
They already did this with the drinking age.....
If background checks on private sales are ruled unconstitutional when the federal goverment trys to pass the law then if the majority of law makers get together and pull funding from states where it is constitutional to have background checks on private sales.
The federal goverment has a way round everything. You do realize they are all lawyers right?
A state doesn't do what he majority wants and they pull the money. That makes the state have to raise tax. People dont like to pay more tax so they give in.
Dont blame me for it,,,I'm just explaining how it works.
They already did this with the drinking age.....
If the law is declared unconstitutional, it would be very difficult to garner support to try to end-around the law. The funding approach you describe would not avoid a constitutionality challenge.
Because they are lawywers, they understand this and are not going to waste their time on a dry well.
At any rate, the point is currently moot. There is not sufficient support in congress at this moment to pass a law expanding background checks.
What proof can you provide for that? There has never been any decrease in crime directly attributable to the NICS system.
Nope. I can buy a gun right now and give it immediately to someone as a gift. A straw purchase is when he gives me the money and I act as a proxy buyer.
Again, can you prove this?
It might, but if he's law-abiding in the first place, where's the problem? It will do absolutely nothing to stem the flow of illicit guns.
I've never figured out why, but mine get the full 3-day delay every time. By your logic, I would be more aggrieved. What's the relief?
The 2nd Amendment enumerates an individual right, the same as the right to freedom of the press or protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Any regulation or law infringing on those rights is subject to strict scrutiny. If I were to argue that those rights are not violated by being deferred, I'd be laughed out of the room by any audience of educated people.
I know it seems like a good idea on a certain level, but when you think through the concept, it's incredibly and dangerously flawed.
Tom servo.
I dont have to prove everything.
If you guys are so right then why do we have the current laws on the books and the failures to eliminate them?
You claim these laws will never pass because they are unconstitutional but yet there are so many laws already and no one seems to be able to get them taken off the books.
Why is that?
Saying there unconstitutional and finding a court to agree with you are not one in the same.
I dont have to prove everything.
If you guys are so right then why do we have the current laws on the books and the failures to eliminate them?
You claim these laws will never pass because they are unconstitutional but yet there are so many laws already and no one seems to be able to get them taken off the books.
Why is that?
Saying there unconstitutional and finding a court to agree with you are not one in the same.
I never asked you to accept anything. I just stated what my opinion is and what position I have.
The past bill had alot of stuff hidden in it.....thats why it failed to pass.
I'm glad it didn't too because I dont support that hidden crap.
Many people share my opinion and in time we shall see what comes down the pike.
I certainly dont want anyones guns taken away thats not a convicted felon or is certified insane.
The past bill had alot of stuff hidden in it.....thats why it failed to pass.
I'm glad it didn't too because I dont support that hidden crap.
Many people share my opinion and in time we shall see what comes down the pike.
I certainly dont want anyones guns taken away thats not a convicted felon or is certified insane.
Watch em !!!
First and foremost, I do not appreciate politicians who make claims that most gun owners, hunters and sportsman, are on board with background checks. Clearly, that is not the case. They present all flawed legislation and claim we like it.
Why is it that they feel the 2A needs interpretation or that we can pick and choose what suits us? ...
This man says it well and truthful ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xklgDF6fz3s&feature=player_embedded#!
Be Safe !!!
First and foremost, I do not appreciate politicians who make claims that most gun owners, hunters and sportsman, are on board with background checks. Clearly, that is not the case. They present all flawed legislation and claim we like it.
Why is it that they feel the 2A needs interpretation or that we can pick and choose what suits us? ...
This man says it well and truthful ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xklgDF6fz3s&feature=player_embedded#!
Be Safe !!!
Once laws are on the books, it can be very difficult to eliminate them.
As to why they're on the books, it's because at one point or another, there was sufficient support in congress to pass them and there was not sufficient grounds to overturn them.
No, I'm claiming that they should not be passed because they are unconstitutional. Being unconstitutional doesn't prevent a law from being passed, it just means that it is likely to be overturned in the future.
I'm further claiming that if they are passed and subsequently overturned as unconstitutional, that there will not be any way for the federal government to work some sort of end around to implement substantially similar restrictions by with holding funding from the states.
The drinking age analogy is not a good analogy to support your contention that the feds can get anything they want by manipulating funding to the states because there has never been a ruling that drinking age laws are unconstitutional.
Finally, I'm pointing out that at the current time, there does not appear to be sufficient support within congress to pass laws expanding background checks.
Backgrounds checks are not effective. Just how is it we are safer now than before we had backgrounds checks at all ( a fairly recent law BTW)? I grew up before most of these pernicious gun laws, and there was not a problem. None of these laws have done a dang thing to reduce violence.
Also, additional BC are NOT going to be passed this year or next at the national level. Didn't even make it out if the senate, soundly defeated there. Even less chance in the House. Get over it.
Gun grabbers believe their own hype and some gun owners who listen to them more often than doing their own critical thinking buy into their hype, too. We need to focus law enforcement on criminal BEHAVIOR, not possession or transfer of legal items.
Also, additional BC are NOT going to be passed this year or next at the national level. Didn't even make it out if the senate, soundly defeated there. Even less chance in the House. Get over it.
Gun grabbers believe their own hype and some gun owners who listen to them more often than doing their own critical thinking buy into their hype, too. We need to focus law enforcement on criminal BEHAVIOR, not possession or transfer of legal items.