jeepstrapped
New member
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.
Has there ever been a consititonal challenge to NICS?
- Thread starter jeepstrapped
- Start date
Nickel Plated
New member
Problem is you don't get your gun until after the appeal has been approved. In essence guilty until proven innocent.
I'm hoping you mean that as an optional thing for whoever feels like doing it. Making mandatory FTF NICS checks work would involve some very serious infringements.
What exactly does that do? Let them hang around their criminal buddies that much longer.
Perhaps the "rehabilitation" system should be more focused on actually rehabilitating people and not just leaving them to rot in a cell for 6 or 7 years.
When you pull someone out of normal society for near a decade and then kick them back in again with nothing to their name and no way of reintegrating again, it's surprising the recidivism rate isn't 100%.
Guilty of what? Innocent of what? There is no guilt or innocence associated with a NICS check. Are you incarcerated if your NICS check comes back as denied? Do you have to pay a fine? Are you now a felon (if you weren't one before)? All it's doing is seeing if you are a prohibited possessor or not. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Some people who should be prohibited are going to be cleared by NICS. Some people who have never committed so much as a traffic violation are going to get denied. That's why there is an appeal process. And I for one, am glad there is an appeal process.
If you can find a better solution to keep prohibited possessors from buying firearms from an FFL, I'm all ears. Personally, I'm ok with the system. It helps keep (it won't stop, of course) people who shouldn't have guns from getting guns. If you don't want a check, and are in a state where you can get one relatively easily, get your CCW permit. I know pf at least one person that got it just to keep them from getting "NICS'd" every time they add to their collection.
I really wish people would stop using the guilty until proven innocent cliche in places where it really doesn't apply.
Strictly speaking I don't think the founding fathers ever intended for felons in general to still be breathing after a felony conviction. I would argue that if your not in prison and you are mentally competent to be on the street that you have a right to a firearm. (I am not a lawyer and what I am giving here is my opinion on a constitutional issue. This is not in any way advice for anyone to violate the law.)
I would argue that any delay in a lawful person being able to purchase a gun is unconstitutional. The federal government exist to preserve freedom, defend the nation and ensure fair trade. I do not believe the founders ever intended the federal government to be in the business of regulating guns and gun usage.
Freedom didn't come with a guarantee of protection from all harm what it came with was the guaranteed right to bear arms so you could protect yourself and your family. I don't think that as a matter of rights that felons permanently loose rights just because of a conviction. If they have the right to live among the rest of us then there rights must have been in some way restored, either that or we need a lot more prison capacity.
Yes, I know I'm an idealist but those that came before us lived and died to fight for ideals that often IMHO get walked upon today.
I would argue that any delay in a lawful person being able to purchase a gun is unconstitutional. The federal government exist to preserve freedom, defend the nation and ensure fair trade. I do not believe the founders ever intended the federal government to be in the business of regulating guns and gun usage.
Freedom didn't come with a guarantee of protection from all harm what it came with was the guaranteed right to bear arms so you could protect yourself and your family. I don't think that as a matter of rights that felons permanently loose rights just because of a conviction. If they have the right to live among the rest of us then there rights must have been in some way restored, either that or we need a lot more prison capacity.
Yes, I know I'm an idealist but those that came before us lived and died to fight for ideals that often IMHO get walked upon today.
I would say I mostly agree with you here (what part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians not understand?). I won't nitpick what I don't agree with, since that would most likely be off topic. Unfortunately, we have what we have, and it's very likely it won't go away. Having said that, my point was merely that the poster I quoted should be glad that there is a process to appeal. NICS does a good job at what it's intended to do. Whether we should have the system at all? Well, that's another discussion altogether.
kilimanjaro
New member
OK, just come up with another system that will deny firearms purchases to prohibited persons, and get it through Congress. Until then, live with NICS.