You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Background checks - controversy
- Thread starter Kochman
- Start date
To be fair, the 3-6 week wait for the permit is not in any way altered by a private sale background check. Nor is the cost of the permit. Those would be the same with no background check, or a FFL vendor purchase. We're starting to make her situation more dire from things not related to the issue being discussed.
Was is a reasonable burden for this?
We don't HAVE to have a reasonable burden for a right or a privilege, we have to have a reasonable burden when INFRINGING a right.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Jim Dandy, the problem is that she can't afford the gun and ammunition, the problem is she can't afford the fees and taxes related to the purchase, or at least that they represent an undue burden. As pointed out the "taxes" are going to double or triple her cost.
I don't see how anyone could think that is not a burden.
I don't see how anyone could think that is not a burden.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
kochman said:I meant, what is acceptable?
How much $$ and how much time from the petitioner?
The minimum amount that serves the compelling government interest.
Since "permitless", unregulated, untrained, carry/acquisition of firearms can not be shown to increase crime or danger and since the compelling government interest (in this case) can be no other than reducing crime/danger, there is no compelling interest to be accomplished. Therefore, no such permit system or training or delay is acceptable.
This is ASSUMING that there's an ENUMERATED POWER that grants the national government the power in the first place, which there isn't.
Jim Dandy, the problem isn't that she can't afford the gun and ammunition, the problem is she can't afford the fees and taxes related to the purchase, or at least that they represent an undue burden. As pointed out the "taxes" are going to double or triple her cost.
I don't see how anyone could think that is not a burden.
Fixed your quote in what I believe you meant-if I got it wrong let me know, but I fixed it so you'd know the thought process I was assuming you meant and thus replying to-
Most of the fees and taxes MLeake has brought up are related to getting the carry permit. Which as I've said is in no way related to whether the background check applies to a second hand sale or not. Those taxes and fees would still be there if there were not a check, or if she bought new, and at retail.
Extending the check to second hand increased her costs by approximately $50 according to Mr. Leake. Not knowing Florida's economy I can't comment on the accuracy, or continued availability of that price- so I'll take it on faith, as a result of Mr. Leake's generally upstanding behavior on the forum.
While that is a dramatic "mark-up" of the firearm in the example, there are also other external factors involved. The state of Florida used FDLE which adds extra costs to that check for example. I do not believe the FFL's should be making money off of these checks, but they shouldn't have to pay for the check either. The guy on the phone for your check isn't waiting on other customers.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
kochman said:Specifically enumerated restrictions, rights, etc doesn't limit the gov to only those...
Um... yes... they do. Otherwise, what's the point? That's why the powers are enumerated. If the power don't have to be enumerated, they are limitless. The only limit is enumeration.
The power belongs to the people. The government borrows that power. It has only that power that is ceded to it by the people. It has no other power.
The very concept, enumeration, MEANS a COMPLETE list.
The very concept, enumeration, MEANS a COMPLETE list.
The ninth amendment not-withstanding? Which pretty much says the rights enumerated in the Constitution is not a complete list?
The same theory applied to the commerce clause, and the "dormant" commerce clause legal principle could be applied here.
Why is that exactly? Public Schools are organizations of the several States. There may be a federal Department of Education that may be heavily involved in the Public School system, but they are not "in charge" any more than the Department of Transportation is "in charge" of State Highways.Then we have to get rid of public schools, etc...
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
kochman said:BF, you're not being realistic here.
Then we have to get rid of public schools, etc...
Let's work within the reasonable/likely or even potential.
There are enumerated powers and implied powers.
If we limit it only to enumerated powers, then the COTUS actually rather sucks.
I'm sorry, sir, but you either don't understand or accept the purpose and limits of the COTUS.
The national government is supposed to be specifically and completely limited by the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
It is not supposed to be the limitless, monstrosity that it has become today. The average person going about the average day should have little or no interaction with the national level government.
It exists for the purpose of defending/protecting the nation as a whole, not the man on the street individually, the nation as a whole and negotiating on behalf of the nation as a whole, in other words, treaties and international commerce and regulating direct commerce between the states.
That's it.
The national government is not here to protect you on the streets of your home town or to stop you from buying milk from the farmer up the street or to keep you from cutting down trees in your back yard, or any of the other things that aren't ENUMERATED in the COTUS.
We have OTHER governments for those purposes. State, county, town, village governments. They ALSO have enumerated powers. Their jobs are not to negotiate international treaties. Their jobs are state and local.
The national government is not for state and local concerns. It's job is to protect the states so that THEY can be concerned with state and local things.
Listen, BF, I understand the strictest wording would have you believe that...
However, it's 2013, and that's nowhere near reality.
It doesn't really help to argue about it, as it is so deeply ingrained in our culture, society... the way you are reading it only amendments would make law changes possible... but you're reading it too strictly, or else the US Marshals Service, etc wouldn't exist... because not specifically called for...
Again, the implied stuff often comes from the wording of the Preamble, which some people don't want to accept because it is so vague... but that's the reality of the document. The preamble is the basis for the entire, incomplete document.
Anyhow, you're using "enumeration"... it wasn't used in the sense you are using it in the COTUS or BoR from what I can find.
In fact, it says, the enumeration within the COTUS will not be used limit people... it doesn't say it is limiting government.
It's a moot point, but if I am wrong on this last part I'd like to know, to be honest.
I just feel like, at this point, it's getting upset about something we have no control over... and that's a seriously frustrating feeling. You're trying to argue for us to go back in time and reset everything... including the Civil War.
However, it's 2013, and that's nowhere near reality.
It doesn't really help to argue about it, as it is so deeply ingrained in our culture, society... the way you are reading it only amendments would make law changes possible... but you're reading it too strictly, or else the US Marshals Service, etc wouldn't exist... because not specifically called for...
Again, the implied stuff often comes from the wording of the Preamble, which some people don't want to accept because it is so vague... but that's the reality of the document. The preamble is the basis for the entire, incomplete document.
Anyhow, you're using "enumeration"... it wasn't used in the sense you are using it in the COTUS or BoR from what I can find.
In fact, it says, the enumeration within the COTUS will not be used limit people... it doesn't say it is limiting government.
It's a moot point, but if I am wrong on this last part I'd like to know, to be honest.
I just feel like, at this point, it's getting upset about something we have no control over... and that's a seriously frustrating feeling. You're trying to argue for us to go back in time and reset everything... including the Civil War.
Kochman, there was no Federal Department of Education until the 1970s. To read what you write, one would think we would have no education system without the feds. Ironically, school performance has declined, generally, since the feds got into the education racket.
One of the reasons the framers wanted to limit federal power was their belief that most things are handled more efficiently at a more local level, where it is easier for citizens to communicate directly with government. A strong federal system negates much of that citizen ability.
I think you will find that most instances where the feds dictate to the states, with the exceptions of cases where the feds had to enforce civil rights, lead to inefficiencies and drops in performance.
JimDandy, the $50 fee I quoted was what I used to have to pay in the Gainesville - Ocala area, where my theoretical person (she's actually a relative) lives.
Around here, I pay $30. If you look at places like DC and NYC, though, where there is a captive market, FFL fees start out at $100 and go up from there, assuming you can find an FFL - for a while, the only FFL in DC had suspended operations, just check out Emily Miller's series of articles on her hurdles in obtaining a gun in DC post-Heller.
One of the reasons the framers wanted to limit federal power was their belief that most things are handled more efficiently at a more local level, where it is easier for citizens to communicate directly with government. A strong federal system negates much of that citizen ability.
I think you will find that most instances where the feds dictate to the states, with the exceptions of cases where the feds had to enforce civil rights, lead to inefficiencies and drops in performance.
JimDandy, the $50 fee I quoted was what I used to have to pay in the Gainesville - Ocala area, where my theoretical person (she's actually a relative) lives.
Around here, I pay $30. If you look at places like DC and NYC, though, where there is a captive market, FFL fees start out at $100 and go up from there, assuming you can find an FFL - for a while, the only FFL in DC had suspended operations, just check out Emily Miller's series of articles on her hurdles in obtaining a gun in DC post-Heller.