Background checks - controversy

@Webleymkv
I mainly agree with you. Very well thought out post.
4473 is a necessary evil... expansion of it isn't a bad thing, because, as you said, it is necessary. I would expand it to all stranger-stranger sales...

@Al Norris
I'll take on that clip.
Driving is not a right, we all know this. Just because it was unregulated once doesn't mean it should have been. It was never a right simply because it wasn't regulated.
Travel is a right, per the Constitution.
Whatever your mode of transport, once you hit a national border, there were checks in place. Not throughout history, but within any of ours lives.

"Crying over spilled milk" is unproductive. We live within the reality we live in, and it can be adjusted, but it's a process, just like it was a process to get it where it is now.
Things get regulated. We can regulate smartly, from our side... or, when we fail to self-regulate, and repeated cases of it are made clear, there will be support for the other side which will regulate much more draconically.

@johnwilliamson062
Yes, those checks could have made someone safer. How do you know none of your sales were to felons who then committed crimes?
I have cited examples of 120k plus interventions that prevented felons from getting guns.
Yes, it does put a burden on you, but it isn't undue.
I agree that it should be made easier, and refined.

@Z
If they were stopped from an FFL, and we expanded the FFL system to nearly everyone, it would be... stopping them.

Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Click to expand...
Yes, pay attention to the 3rd specific charge... illegal purchase... that's different than illegal possession...

I've documented that 120k plus cases of stopping people had occured in that 2 year period, but you're saying it didn't stop anything?

How does one document that a crime which never occured was prevented? You can't prove a negative.

The burden is minimal. I've done this 4473 so many times, I walk in and out within 20 minutes, every single time. That's nothing compared to a lifetime of gun ownership with that particular weapon.
 
If FFLs were required to do a transfer of a private transfer free I might go for it, but the gun shops aren't going to like that.
Click to expand...

I vacillate on that topic quite a bit. I don't believe they should be making money off of a service provided by the government. But they do pay the guy that sits there on the phone for you. If they were limited to strictly recouping the cost of paying that guy to sit there on the phone servicing you- that's the middle ground I wouldn't mind.

If I could walk into any Sheriffs office 24 hours a day and have someone run the background check I might think about supporting this legislation. As it is now this bill WILL put a burden on me AND many others.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't want that. At that point one of two things happens. The Sheriff keeps the 4473, which is bad, or the stranger keeps the 4473, which is bad. Let's not enable registries or identity theft any more than we have to. Keep the 4473's in the brick and mortar bound book.

Additionally, lets not stick someone who just lost their parent with the onerous task of going through their papers for a 4473 form to mail to the ATF, assuming they even know there IS a 4473 form to mail, or that they would have to do so.
 
Apples and Oranges Jim.

You may travel by any means you can pay for, as opposed to traveling in your own vehicle.

As for your open v. concealed carry? It didn't come first. The vehicle thing was first.

And ... You have just proved my point.
 
Kochamn said:
@Z
If they were stopped from an FFL, and we expanded the FFL system to nearly everyone, it would be... Itopping them.
Click to expand...
Your second premise does not work. Simply passing a criminal prohibition cannot put "nearly" everyone through that system.

If criminal prohibition were the remedy, we already would not have a problem of prohibited persons with firearms, correct?

Kochamn said:
Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Click to expand...

Yes, pay attention to the 3rd specific charge... illegal purchase... that's different than illegal possession...
Click to expand...

Your extra charge did not escape my attention.

It really is not different. Where ever you find a prohibited person illegally possessing a firearm, you already have a charge. The manner by which he came by the item will already have been a crime.

What you would like to add to this formula is criminal liability for the seller, effectively drafting other individuals into the task of enforcing state prohibitions.

Kochamn said:
I've documented that 120k plus cases of stopping people had occured in that 2 year period, but you're saying it didn't stop anything?
Click to expand...

It would be easy to determine what I have written by scrolling up and reading it. I did not write that "it didn't stop anything"; I wrote that it denied an FFL transfer.

Kochamn said:
How does one document that a crime which never occured was prevented? You can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is a significant problem with the argument for your proposal.

Kochamn said:
The burden is minimal. I've done this 4473 so many times, I walk in and out within 20 minutes, every single time. That's nothing compared to a lifetime of gun ownership with that particular weapon.
Click to expand...

That you consider a purchase from an FFL minimal does not bind anyone else to the same conclusion.

As a practical matter and under your proposal, if I, an unlicensed individual, would like to purchase an item from an individual across the street from me, do I now have to participate in a three party transaction at somewhere other than one of our homes?

What if I would like to purchase from someone 200 miles away from me, but I am delayed, not denied. Do I now have to make that trip twice?
 
It only stopped 49,450 felons according to the cited information on the subject not 120,000. Although the rest were justly stopped. :rolleyes:

Please continue with the debate. I am enjoying the back and forth. While I have a firm opinion that lines up with spats and others I cannot formulate it as well as them through my text. I'll let them do the heavy lifting on this one. Thanks!
 
Sorry Kochman, but driving is a right. There are plenty of court cases to back that up. Simply because you fail to exercise that right.....

If you have a right to travel, there is the ancillary right to travel by means of your own property. Regulation of that right, to the point where such regulation makes it a privilege, does not make such regulation constitutional.
 
Kochman,

My questions for you; Where does it stop? When is there enough regulation? What happens to all of these new laws and registrations you want when they fail? Are they repealed? Are more laws then laid over these laws to complicate things? You said this about more laws, "Absolutely, because it makes it extra super double more expensive, at a minimum, and is yet another charge you can throw at them during the commission of a crime if they use their illegal gun..." however, you seem okay with burdening ordinary citizens for a basic right. In your zeal to make things impossible for criminals to get, you are doing the exact same thing to citizens. That doesn't seem problematic to you?
 
There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of universal background checks that is all too often ignored.

Simple, most basic, first question...

Does the concept arise from an enumerated power granted to the national government?

No.

End of concept.

Any other arguments are moot. Doesn't matter if it's a "good idea". It's unconstitutional on it's face. The national government does not have the power. Period.
 
@Z
You're putting words in my mouth.
If a seller wittingly sells to an illegal person, there is liability.
But, that's not what I am saying, I said the illegal person would get charged with 3 crimes, rather than two. This technique is used all the time in law and order...
Indeed, that is a significant problem with the argument for your proposal.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was more the fallicy of your point...

That you consider a purchase from an FFL minimal does not bind anyone else to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
OK, prove the undue burden.


@Al
Driving is not a right per the Constitution, it is a privilege.
Travel is a right... driving privileges can be revoked for repeated DUIs, etc...
So, it's still a bad analogy either way.
 
There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of universal background checks that is all too often ignored.

Simple, most basic, first question...

Does the concept arise from an enumerated power granted to the national government?

No.

End of concept.

Any other arguments are moot. Doesn't matter if it's a "good idea". It's unconstitutional on it's face. The national government does not have the power. Period.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, read the preamble. The connection is quite obviously there.
 
Originally posted by Kochman
@Webleymkv
I mainly agree with you. Very well thought out post.
4473 is a necessary evil... expansion of it isn't a bad thing, because, as you said, it is necessary. I would expand it to all stranger-stranger sales...
Click to expand...

I said that it was a necessary evil for FFL's, I do not feel that it would be necessary, effective, or prudent for private party sales. As I've stated before, the problem with UBC's is that they are unenforceable without registration, and even that isn't fool proof.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that UBC's were made law without registration. Now, let's further suppose that you've got two unscrupulous people who do not respect said law and wish to transfer a gun illegally, what would stop them from doing so? The only two reasons for someone to obey a law is that they either respect the law or they fear the punishment for breaking the law. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country and, because firearms are durable goods, the vast majority of them will still be functional for decades, if not centuries, more. So, without some sort of registration, what would prevent these two unscrupulous people from conducting their illegal transfer and simply claiming that it took place before the law was in effect?

Let's take this a step further and assume that, because UBC's are so easily skirted, that we move into full-on registration. In such a case, what would prevent an unscrupulous seller from simply reporting the gun that he sold stolen? Since an unregistered gun would already be illegal, what difference would it make to the buyer that his contraban is "double illegal?" Even if the buyer were caught with the gun and told the authorities where he got the gun, it would be a known criminal's word (afterall, he is at the very least guilty of posessing an unregistered gun) against that of someone whose guilt is unproven. Who would you believe in such a case?

Now, I should probably explain why I am so against registration. Registration opens the door for even more harassment and illegal actions against lawful gun owners that what we're already forced to put up with. A good example is what The Journal News did to NY gun owners recently, that would have been impossible if NY did not have registration. Furthermore, if there is a centralized registry of gun owners, what would stop an overly zealous government official from conducting confiscation raids given an excuse such as a natural disaster. Think that can't happen? It already did in New Orleans during and after Hurrican Katrina in 2005. Now, would this be illegal and unconstitutional, you bet. Would the courts rule against this action after the fact, almost certainly. Would the proceeding two facts be of any comfort to the people who've had their guns confiscated when they need them most, I very much doubt it. Let's stop and remember that everything is Constitutional until the courts say otherwise. We know now that Lincoln's declaration of martial law in New York and Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans were both illegal and unconstitutional, but that didn't stop them from happening.
 
however, you seem okay with burdening ordinary citizens for a basic right. In your zeal to make things impossible for criminals to get, you are doing the exact same thing to citizens. That doesn't seem problematic to you?
Click to expand...
My God man...
Look, the 4473 doesn't make it "impossible" for citizens to get guns. That's absurd.
 
Let's suppose, for a moment, that UBC's were made law without registration. Now, let's further suppose that you've got two unscrupulous people who do not respect said law and wish to transfer a gun illegally, what would stop them from doing so?
Click to expand...
The follow on investigation on the tracing of the weapon... where the paper trail stops, we have a problem.
 
Originally posted by Kochman
Quote:
Let's suppose, for a moment, that UBC's were made law without registration. Now, let's further suppose that you've got two unscrupulous people who do not respect said law and wish to transfer a gun illegally, what would stop them from doing so?

The follow on investigation on the tracing of the weapon... where the paper trail stops, we have a problem.
Click to expand...

How about quoting the rest of that paragraph and then responding. The end of the paper trail would not necessarily prove anything.
 
I've got a job to work at too...
I think I'm doing a fair job of defending a simple process.

We can what if it all day, but if the what if isn't really very relavent I'm not going to address it.
 
Originally posted by Kochman
Quote:
Can you cite a single Supreme Court case in which the preamble was used in the rationale for the ruling?

Is this a serious question?
I won't dignify it with further response.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, it's very serious. Since you keep citing the preamble as basis for constitutional law, I think it's reasonable for you to show us when and how SCOTUS, which is the final authority on constitutional law, has applied the preamble. If you cannot or will not, then I'm afraid that citing the preamble won't carry much weight.

I've got a job to work at too...
I think I'm doing a fair job of defending a simple process.

We can what if it all day, but if the what if isn't really very relavent I'm not going to address it.
Click to expand...

My friend, it was you that opened this can of worms. You cannot very well start a debate like this and not expect to have to defend specifics.
 
kochman said:
Yes, actually, read the preamble. The connection is quite obviously there.
Click to expand...

The Preamble is not law and has never been used as justification of any law or right. In fact, in the only case that directly addressed the issue, JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASS (1905), SCOTUS specifically said "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..."
 
Apples and Oranges Jim.

You may travel by any means you can pay for, as opposed to traveling in your own vehicle.

As for your open v. concealed carry? It didn't come first. The vehicle thing was first.

And ... You have just proved my point.
Click to expand...

How did I prove your point with apples and oranges?

Not that comparing apples and oranges is necessarily bad. Many cases do it over and over. Citing free speech cases in religion cases, and so on.

You had to pay for your own vehicle. You can do that. Or you can pay for a taxi to convey you. Neither infringes the right of travel. When someone loses their "right" to drive via numerous and repeated DUI convictions, they still retain their right to travel.

And I was under the impression, at least according to the Kachalsky case I was reading in another post, that bans on concealed carry were far older than the horseless carriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top