Background checks - controversy

JimDandy, under which enumerated power do you think this falls?
Click to expand...

It is justified by the commerce clause. And while I stipulate it's not much of a limitation, it is limited by that clause. It does specifically state
in interstate or foreign commerce
Click to expand...
numerous times.

While I am open to the idea that this would be overturned on a challenge, it hasn't been so yet, so without that successful challenge, it is presumptively legal and constitutional, and within the Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.
 
I am utterly certain that Congress thinks it can do UBCs under its Commerce Clause power. Whether or not such a law will stand up to a Constitutional challenge is a separate question.
 
I have no doubt that the courts would construe the Commerce Clause broadly enough to require UBCs, even for intrastate sales. The case for legitimate gifts, especially intrastate, would be weaker but I wouldn't bet any money on it.
 
A gift is still commerce, KyJim. In fact, mere transportation is commerce. That's why Miller got picked up. He took the short barrelled shotgun across state lines.
 
JimDandy said:
It is justified by the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

The flour (and several other products) I buy for my pizza comes from out of state. Do the Feds have the power to dictate my pizza sales? Could they legally require that I run background checks on my customers and not sell pizza to anyone convicted of a crime punishable by 3 or more years in prison?

JimDandy said:
In fact, mere transportation is commerce. That's why Miller got picked up. He took the short barrelled shotgun across state lines.
Click to expand...

While jurisprudence may agree with you, you can't honestly tell me that such a definition makes any logical sense. "Commerce" is buying and selling. Transporting is not commerce. NOT selling is NOT commerce.

com·merce [kom-ers]
noun
1.
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.
 
Aren't we discussing the legal definition, though?

interstate commerce

n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Theoretically commerce is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Act, first enacted by Congress in 1887. This authority has been diffused among various federal agencies, and the I.C.C. may soon be history.
Click to expand...
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1008
 
JimDandy said:
So what's your argument to make what should be what is?
Click to expand...

We convince people. Easier said than done, unfortunately.

The SCOTUS upheld slavery and segregation at one time so just because they interpret it one way, doesn't make it right. The 14th, for example, they gutted intentionally and with malice.

People need to learn history and hermeneutics.

The start is simple. Ask yourself one question... "Were the writers of the constitution trying to be cryptic and confusing or were they educated men who knew what they meant to say and said it?"

Then, read it.

Read each piece, each sentence or paragraph and ask yourself, "What does it say?"

When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

That's the start.
 
That's how you convince the other guy at the bar. To convince SCOTUS to disturb a prior decision and contradict itself will take more than that.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
It's not going to happen unless and until people who think like that get into SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices. :D
 
Despite excellent marketing to the contrary, the US military is not volunteer. It is professional.
When signing the papers you agree to a term of service with AND in the fine print it says the government can extend this term unilaterally. Now, you could easily convince me that any private company getting an 18 year old who received straight Ds through four years of HS English to sign such a contract would lose handily in court on the grounds the contract is abusive, but that obviously isn't going to happen with the military. Of course, an E1 is in the 87th percentile of yearly income globally. Yes, I put my asbestos suit on before posting.
 
Last edited:
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices.
Click to expand...

It's a deal!

Seriously though, that's what it will take. "Originalists" getting into office, elected and appointed.
 
I have read through nearly all of the current pages of this thread. This subject, and the subject of rights in general interests me greatly, as I fought for them, and do not enjoy seeing them given away so freely for promises of compromise that either doesn't come, or isn't really compromise to begin with. As I have read this thread, and others it seems to me that there are two basic sides to this argument that keep popping up over and over.

One side feels that it is okay if a few "good" people are occasionally hindered, or restricted, or outright denied in some way, from exercising their Constitutional rights, as long as some "bad" people are stopped somewhere along the line.

The other side feels that it is never okay to hinder, restrict, or otherwise deny a Constitutional right from a person who is lawfully exercising that right, on the presumption that it "might" hinder a few bad guys along the way.

That about it?

Seems a very smart man once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And this by another: "Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."
 
Last edited:
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices.
Click to expand...

Hey, I want in too! I'm a better choice than Feinstein.
One side feels that it is okay if a few "good" people are occasionally hindered, or restricted, or outright denied in some way, from exercising their Constitutional rights, as long as some "bad" people are stopped somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

I don't feel it's "okay", I feel it's inevitable given the fact that the system is designed and managed by human beings, subject to the foibles that define the human condition- and judge those hindrances in the spirit they happen in- and try to make the best of a bad situation.
 
So it's inevitable that some people's God given rights must be crushed or hampered in order that some perceived measure of safety for someone else might be achieved?

That's just an easy way of saying it's okay to trample the rights of some as long as you are doing good for some others.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. The only thing that is inevitable is that rights will continue to be stripped to the benefit of those in power, if good, honest men continue to allow it to happen.

There is no "making the best of a bad situation" when it comes to losing MY rights. (or anyone else's for that matter, that myself and many others shed blood for) That is simply not acceptable.
 
So it's inevitable that some people's God given rights must be crushed or hampered in order that some perceived measure of safety for someone else might be achieved?

That's just an easy way of saying it's okay to trample the rights of some as long as you are doing good for some others.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. The only thing that is inevitable is that rights will continue to be stripped to the benefit of those in power, if good, honest men continue to allow it to happen.

There is no "making the best of a bad situation" when it comes to losing MY rights. (or anyone else's for that matter, that myself and many others shed blood for) That is simply not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's inevitable.

Eventually the LEO's will get bad information.

Eventually someone will transpose two digits on a search warrant, mix up
street, avenue, boulevard, etc.

Eventually while apprehending one criminal that's a danger for society, bystanders wlll be shot, by one side or the other.

Eventually, the deaf man walking down the street will be tackled, assaulted, and detained when he doesn't respond in any way to the challenge of the law enforcement officer- because he was literally deaf to those orders.

We can argue theory all day long. Eventually theory has to be applied to reality. People make mistakes. It's in the nature of people. Being forcibly detained because you couldn't hear the LEO over the music in your earbuds doesn't rise to anywhere NEAR the same level of "mens rea" as using a phone book in an interrogation room to beat a confession out of someone.
 
This subject, and the subject of rights in general interests me greatly, as I fought for them, and do not enjoy seeing them given away so freely for promises of compromise that either doesn't come, or isn't really compromise to begin with.
Click to expand...
Who exactly did you fight that was threatening the BoR in the USA?
Or, do you mean, you served in the military, in combat, for some President's most likely ill-advised and even questionably ethical war(s) like I did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top