Executive Powers & Mental Health

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Dandy,via presumption of innocence,I should not require any background check to excersize my 2nd ammendment rights.As it is,I am presumed a prohibited person until NICS proves othrerwise.

Better that we have a database of all felons and other prohibited persons that we can all access .

Would be handy on election day to prevent voter fraud,too
 
Jim Dandy,via presumption of innocence,I should not require any background check to excersize my 2nd ammendment rights.As it is,I am presumed a prohibited person until NICS proves othrerwise.
Click to expand...

I would dispute that. Giving the government an opportunity to confirm or deny eligibility is not a presumption of guilt- ESPECIALLY considering the correlation between Shall Issue laws, and NICS-

In both cases the government must provide a reason to deny or they "shall issue" approval.

Furthermore, if the NICS system does not reply in a given time, unless individual state law says otherwise, the FFL may proceed.
 
JimDandy, if the government has to approve a right, it is not a right.

The onus should be on government, in each specific case, to come in and prove that the right should be restricted or revoked.

You are happy giving government blanket authority to determine who gets to exercise a right via the "Mother May I?" method.

I am not. Many others are not.

Basically, your system turns rights into privileges. Please own that, if you wish to continue arguing for your checks. You can't have it both ways, that you think it's a right, but that it should require checks.
 
These days it seems any bill is at least several hundred pages,you have to pass it to find out what is in it,and HHS,EPA,DOE,BATFE,IRS,etc will be given regulatory power.

Then,of course,all his bureaucracy is really expensive so there must be fee revenue
-

How do you feel about more restrictions on the vote?

Proof of citizenship,NICS,and a fee to cover costs,approved ID,etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimDandy, if the government has to approve a right, it is not a right
Click to expand...

We have a fundamental disagreement on whether they're approving it or not.

I believe not denying is (technically) not the same as approving- in fact I even point to the language they use- proceed, delay, and deny.

Proceed does not, and should not convey approval. Merely a lack of denial.

There are a handful of specific reasons they may deny. Giving them an opportunity to announce if one of those reasons applies is not giving them an opportunity to pass judgement on the approval.
 
JimDandy, if the transaction is required to go through the NICS process; and if the transaction requires a positive response from the NICS sytem; then it is most definitely an approval process.

I don't understand how you can argue any other way.

Calling it a "specific denial process" is just double-speak.
 
Proof of citizenship,NICS,and a fee to cover costs,approved ID,etc.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with ID.

A NICS check to vote is a staggering idea though. We all know it's easier to get the franchise back than firearms. Many states return the franchise at the end of a sentence. Some states don't even disenfranchise local jail (misdemeanor) inmates like they do state prison (felony) inmates. For the ones that do, or don't, you've got to tell NICS which is the case- and they may not lose it in this state, but never had it returned in that state.. I don't think it would be unconstitutional, but Lord would it be a logistical nightmare.
 
JimDandy, if the transaction is required to go through the NICS process; and if the transaction requires a positive response from the NICS sytem; then it is most definitely an approval process.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. If NICS was defuneded today, and didn't answer a single call, people could still purchase firearms. In most states. Those states they couldn't would have state law at fault, not the NICS laws.
 
I fail to see why an NICS check is acceptable for acquiring firearms, but not for voting.

(I am NOT advocating using NICS for voting; I am saying if it is not acceptable for voting, then it should not be acceptable for exercising 2A rights, either.)
 
JimDandy said:
It doesn't. If NICS was defuneded today, and didn't answer a single call, people could still purchase firearms. In most states. Those states they couldn't would have state law at fault, not the NICS laws.
Click to expand...

You are arguing for Universal Background Checks, but you are saying the mandatory system would not be mandatory...

How would it be a UBC if it were optional?

"Gee, the system is down today - waived UBCs for everybody!"

I don't think that is how it would work.

Meanwhile, you mentioned that after a certain period, if no response is given by the system, the FFL can still complete the transaction. While this is true, most of them won't, because ATF will expect their assistance in recovering the firearm should the check ultimately come back with a denial.
 
You are arguing for Universal Background Checks, but you are saying the mandatory system would not be mandatory...
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not. While there is a loophole gray area if nobody answers the phone, is that a delay, can they proceed after three days, etc.-

The default action is to proceed if NICS does not answer back within their allotted time period.

I don't believe any of this would happen, I only use it as examples that the "presumption" is proceed, not deny.
 
In Colorado,I have had to wait over two weeks for a NICS approval before I could pick up a Krag.

And,due to system overload,the state instituted a fee .

Like a poll tax.

For a Constitutional Right that says"Shall not be infringed" I am required to get permission,and then I have to pay.

And it all only applies to law abiding people.
 
Last edited:
And,due to system overload,the state instituted a fee .
Click to expand...

That would be the problem with State Law I mentioned, which cannot be blamed on NICS laws. I have problems with how much state laws would interact with UBG's as well. So I'd push for changing the state law.
 
Proceed does not, and should not convey approval. Merely a lack of denial.
Click to expand...
I'm really having trouble seeing the distinction. We still have a government agency acting as a gatekeeper on exercise of a right. In fact, they'd have a monopoly on it.

How would this be even remotely acceptable for the exercise of any other enumerated right?
 
"I'm sorry Mr. Reporter I have to type your name into this government database to see if you have the right to write that article. We can't have the wrong sort of people reporting the news, you might have had some sort of mental problem at some point in your life."
All the reporters would be perfectly comfortable with that right, right?

(Insert sound of crickets here)
 
Or let's go one further, "I'm sorry Mr. Protester, I can't have you influencing public policy until we know more about you. I need you do this urine test, fill out this mental health questionnaire, and we are going to feed your name into a government database. There's no problem here is there? We can't have public policy being changed by someone with mind altering drugs in their system or a history of mental illness."

That's logical, right?

IMHO every part of the Bill of Rights is there for a reason and needs to be protected equally.
 
I'm sorry folks. The thread has been very cordial and everybody has treated each other with dignity and respect. I do commend everyone on this front.

However, the thread has veered to UBC's in such a manner, that the original purpose has been lost and can no longer be recovered.

Closed for the above reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top