johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Haven't there been similar decision placing pretty much the same "reasonable restrictions" limit on all of the rights? "Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre," permits for assembly, etc.
Hillary Clinton Supports Closing "Gun Show Loophole" By Executive Order
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
The problem with "reasonable restrictions" is what is considered "reasonable", and, by whom...
The "reasonable" restriction of not yelling fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire!) is generally agreed upon by most of us. Inciting a riot or panic is felt to be a bad thing.
Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose. Again, agreed to by nearly everyone. Reasonable.
These, and the "reasonable" restrictions on all our other rights, rely on the idea of someone being harmed as a result of unrestricted actions, even though they are a right, harm to others makes the restriction "reasonable"
BUT NOT WITH GUNS!!!!!
FIREARMS are the only enumerated or non enumerated right, where we are restricted NOT because of actual harm to others, but because of what ever political line in the sand the anti gun rights crowd draws TODAY. Tommorow, if they get what they want today, the line will be moved to another, more restrictive place.
NOT DUE TO ACTUAL HARM, DUE TO THEIR FEAR OF HARM.
Note how NONE of the gun control laws cover ANYTHING other than what allows one to legally own a gun. NONE of them cover USING a gun to cause harm, other laws cover that. SO, since other laws cover doing harm to people (with, or without using a gun to do it) WHAT DO GUN CONTROL LAWS DO???
NOTHING, except regulate who can own what, where, and when.
Reduced to basics, as I see it, OWNING ANY GUN harms NO ONE. Shooting someone does, but if you aren't doing that, WHAT is the moral, and ethical justification for not allowing something that doesn't hurt anyone???
Their argument is, literally, "because you could hurt someone, if you wanted to".
They are nothing but bullies, forcing their will on everyone, and no justification they have ever given has proven true. Other than "because we feel its a good idea", which has been the justification of every tyrant, everywhere, throughout time.
The "reasonable" restriction of not yelling fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire!) is generally agreed upon by most of us. Inciting a riot or panic is felt to be a bad thing.
Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose. Again, agreed to by nearly everyone. Reasonable.
These, and the "reasonable" restrictions on all our other rights, rely on the idea of someone being harmed as a result of unrestricted actions, even though they are a right, harm to others makes the restriction "reasonable"
BUT NOT WITH GUNS!!!!!
FIREARMS are the only enumerated or non enumerated right, where we are restricted NOT because of actual harm to others, but because of what ever political line in the sand the anti gun rights crowd draws TODAY. Tommorow, if they get what they want today, the line will be moved to another, more restrictive place.
NOT DUE TO ACTUAL HARM, DUE TO THEIR FEAR OF HARM.
Note how NONE of the gun control laws cover ANYTHING other than what allows one to legally own a gun. NONE of them cover USING a gun to cause harm, other laws cover that. SO, since other laws cover doing harm to people (with, or without using a gun to do it) WHAT DO GUN CONTROL LAWS DO???
NOTHING, except regulate who can own what, where, and when.
Reduced to basics, as I see it, OWNING ANY GUN harms NO ONE. Shooting someone does, but if you aren't doing that, WHAT is the moral, and ethical justification for not allowing something that doesn't hurt anyone???
Their argument is, literally, "because you could hurt someone, if you wanted to".
They are nothing but bullies, forcing their will on everyone, and no justification they have ever given has proven true. Other than "because we feel its a good idea", which has been the justification of every tyrant, everywhere, throughout time.
AMP, you cannot compare using a fist to do harm to using a firearm. Firearms are regulated due to their potential lethality upon irresponsible use. We try to regulate who can own a gun because we cannot prevent them from using it once they have it, the same way no one can prevent a random stranger from punching you on the street if he liked. All laws are made to solve a problem. In this case, the problem is lethal violence caused by emotionally disturbed, malicious, or irresponsible people who have access to firearms. Using analogies about other equally dangerous but less regulated potential weapons (knives, cars, bludgeons,) to support an argument that firearms should not be regulated is flawed, as firearms laws concern problems surrounding firearms, and just because one problem isn't addressed doesn't mean another can't be.
Increased vetting of a person before purchasing a firearm is a good thing. Not only does it keep the public safer, but it makes makes our community seem more reasonable to the general public. Requiring that a background check be done on every firearm transfer is not going to hurt anyone that should be allowed to posses a firearm. We should focus our efforts more on ineffective measures to counter the problem, such as registries, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans, rather than just automatically going against anything our political opposites say or propose.
The shooting community is hanging itself by setting itself up to be painted as uncompromising, extreme, uniform in membership, and deaf. We're making ourselves open to attack when our current allies are no longer in power, and I've a feeling we'll be regretting the rhetoric we've put out, and actions we've taken, within the next decade or two.
The old die and younger voters replace them everyday. What will they see when they head to the polls? Will they see a constitutional right, worthy of preserving, and a hobby they may want to take part in? Or will they see extremists and "gun nuts", a closed community, a community which being a part of would render them labeled an extremist and outcast as well?
Increased vetting of a person before purchasing a firearm is a good thing. Not only does it keep the public safer, but it makes makes our community seem more reasonable to the general public. Requiring that a background check be done on every firearm transfer is not going to hurt anyone that should be allowed to posses a firearm. We should focus our efforts more on ineffective measures to counter the problem, such as registries, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans, rather than just automatically going against anything our political opposites say or propose.
The shooting community is hanging itself by setting itself up to be painted as uncompromising, extreme, uniform in membership, and deaf. We're making ourselves open to attack when our current allies are no longer in power, and I've a feeling we'll be regretting the rhetoric we've put out, and actions we've taken, within the next decade or two.
The old die and younger voters replace them everyday. What will they see when they head to the polls? Will they see a constitutional right, worthy of preserving, and a hobby they may want to take part in? Or will they see extremists and "gun nuts", a closed community, a community which being a part of would render them labeled an extremist and outcast as well?
Last edited:
Armorer-at-Law
New member
This is satire, right? There are many false positives in NICS that prevent someone who has a right to purchase a self defense tool from doing so for at least many months, or years.
Anti-liberty advocates say "If it saves just one life . . ." But what if it costs a life? How many lives are they willing for their gun control law to cost?
here, this might explain it so Natekirk can understand.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
carguychris
New member
Arguably true, but the underlying issue is that in order for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) to be anything close to realistically enforceable, there would need to be a fairly accurate registry of all lawfully owned firearms. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to prosecute anyone who owns a firearm made prior to the UBC provision, unless the prosecution has direct evidence that an actual transfer took place after that date.NateKirk said:
Anti-gun forces realize this. UBC requirements are a Trojan horse for universal registration, which is a prelude to confiscation.
Keep in mind that universal registration in the USA wouldn't necessarily work to keep firearms out of criminal's hands like it does in other countries, because of the 5A. Requiring a criminal to register an illegally possessed firearm amounts to self-incrimination, so the authorities cannot bust a criminal for failure to register – they can only bust her for simple possession, which is the reason federal gun laws are written to address possession by prohibited classes of people, rather than being written around a registry. Ergo, a registry would ONLY affect the law-abiding.
Voluntarily allowing a comprehensive registry to go into effect doesn't amount to a reasonable compromise – it amounts to voluntarily standing on the gallows with a noose around our collective necks, patiently hoping that someone doesn't come along and pull the lever.
To quote the great thespian Bill Paxton: It's game over, man!! 
Last edited:
It is sad that one political part has made a calculated decision to abandon gun owners. If you are a political representative of this party you are expected to march in lock step or you don’t get the goodies for your state/district and you lose your seat. This results in many gun owners feeling no choice, but to support the other party because they realize the loss of a Constitutional right is a pretty big deal and realize that once we lose it it’s gone for good. This isn’t tax reform or some other constantly changing program that can easily be fixed, but something that will be lost forever.
I wish there were a significant number of strong supporters of the Second amendment in both parties and then maybe we could have a rational debate, but alas that isn’t the case and the Party of Clinton has made it quite clear what their goals are. No, I don’t believe the firearms community is “hanging itself”, but has been betrayed by the very people who constantly squawk about freedom and tolerance then refuse to offer either.
I wish there were a significant number of strong supporters of the Second amendment in both parties and then maybe we could have a rational debate, but alas that isn’t the case and the Party of Clinton has made it quite clear what their goals are. No, I don’t believe the firearms community is “hanging itself”, but has been betrayed by the very people who constantly squawk about freedom and tolerance then refuse to offer either.
Another problem that arises is now causing problems in some states. If every transfer requires a background check I can not hand you my gun to look at it, shoot it at the range, or go hunting with me. If I do and you hand it back we have both broken the law a number of times. Maybe law enforcement will be reasonable and not enforce it, if they get the chance. But do you want to risk jail and the loss of many of your rights? I do not.
EDIT: I think the "gun show loop hole" is more of a political fiction than reality anyway. I have not bought a firearm at a gun show without a background check in around 20 years.
carguychris
New member
Absolutely.Chaz88 said:
To reiterate my paraphrasing of computer terminology as applied to federal gun laws, private gun-show transfers are a feature, NOT a bug!
Why not???
Deadly Force is deadly force, no matter what delivers it.
Lots of people say that, but I don't see concrete proof, and really doubt how much "good" it does when high government officials admit that they "don't have time" to prosecute people who break the law by making false statements on the 4473 form...
I disagree with this, and the underlying concept stated.
(working backwards...)
The concept that only approved people should be allowed to posses a firearm is the prohibitionist's stance.
It is "guilty until proven innocent".
We don't accept this in the rest of our legal system, why is it ok when it involves firearms?
We have a natural right to arms (as well as all other property), which is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
We allow that the government has a compelling interest to deny the exercise of that right to certain individuals, for public safety. These cases should be individual judgments, with evidence presented under the rule of law. Not blanket prohibitions of entire classes of people.
However, blanket prohibition is easier, and much, much cheaper, so that's what we got.
Hurt can be a wide range of things. A false positive, resulting in the denial of a firearm could range from the inconvenience of wasted time and the irritation of additional costs on the low end up to the potential inability to effectively defend against a life threatening attack.
The classic extreme example is the murdered spouse, ex, girlfriend, etc., who might have survived had they not been denied/delayed legal possession of a firearm. The prohibitionists constantly say "if it saves just one life" but never seem to ask "what if it costs just one life?"...
Again, another reasonable sounding statement, but the real world complications are tremendous!
What, specifically, is a firearm transfer?????
and, no, that's not just a snarky question. Depending on how the law is worded AND interpreted, a transfer could be a purchase only, or it could be an inheritance, a loan, or any time the gun physically changes hands.
again, I ask why??
Why not just new owners?? First time buyers??
For me, this is one of the bigger holes in the claim that background checks each and every time are needed. If someone already owns a gun, or a dozen, it seems rather pointless to me. The oft stated purpose is to keep guns out of the hands of people who would do harm with them. Checking someone who already has guns seems like a waste of resources in regard to that.
Background checks can, at best, only stop those people who have something in their background, those who don't will ALWAYS get through, except, of course for the false positives....
Unfortunately those measures are the only thing the prohibitionists propose, or will accept. (no matter what side they are on, on other issues...)
Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it isn't helpful. You can always appeal the result of your background check.
If you read my post, I stated that the shooting community should concede universal background checks (the things that actually help,) and continue to fight against ineffective measures such as AWB's. Restricting who can own a gun is effective, not what type of gun it is.
That is true, but I'm talking about preventing the issues in the first place, not prosecuting them after the damage is done. Universal registries are harmful. However, background checks are a mere inconvenience for anyone who should be able to lawfully posses a firearm, and they help to weed out the bad apples. They cost nothing to us, can help prevent crime in the first place, make our community appear more responsible, and put salesmen (such as myself) at ease.
I understand your point about how UBC's are an invitation for universal registration, however one can be done without the other, and just because we have one doesn't mean we can't fight the other as well. You're right in saying it's not nearly as enforceable without the registry, but it would save face, and many people will follow the system to not get in trouble, just as they sit at red lights at three in the morning.
Handing a buddy a gun so he can go shooting or hunting with you for the day isn't a transfer. You still own the firearm.
If I hit you in the face you most likely wouldn't die. If I shot you in the face there's a good chance you would.
If someone comes up to my counter saying they want a gun to kill their ex wife, or implies as such, am I assuming they are guilty before being proven innocent? They haven't done anything yet, but any reasonable person wouldn't go handing them deadly weapons. Why should the public have to hand out firearms to someone with felonies on their record, just because you say I should give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't have to do anything. I can refuse a sale for any reason, and the background check system gives me just a little more peace of mind that the gun I'm selling isn't going to be used for nefarious purposes.
Inconvenience and irritation are childish reasons for not doing the right thing. Firearms are not the only manner of defending yourself. Mankind has found ways to make itself dangerous throughout existence, and there are other ways of avoiding/ solving conflict, such as enlisting police help, staying with friends or relatives, taking safer routes to and from work, etc.
It's whatever your elected officials have deemed it to be. Keep voting.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
NateKirk said:
FBI NICS denials referred to the ATF Denials Branch in 2010: 76,142
ATF referrals to field offices for investigations: 4,732
ATF investigations declined by field offices: 4,184
Cases referred for prosecution: 62
Pled guilty or convicted in 2010: 13
Source
That's how effective background checks are now, as only applied to FFLs. The only logical conclusion is either false denials are much higher than you think (and I'll note that in 2010, of the cases ATF did refer for investigation, 11.9% of them were declined because the person was not a prohibited person) OR we simply let prohibited people keep trying until they succeed with no consequences (or both).
ATF can't even adequately investigate a fraction of denials now; a not insignificant percentage of which are false denials, and you want to expand this system why?
And yet several of the state laws are vague enough to include that as a transfer requiring a background check, even after gun rights groups suggested language to correct the problem. Why do you think that is?
I'd suggest you keep voting for elected officials who aren't going to open the door to registration by expanding the current flawed system to private sales, as you seem to be advocating.
They won't see any opportunity to shoot at all following your advice; because the increased bureaucracy in owning a firearm will reduce the number of gunowners and render them politically powerless. You seem to think that the laws will stop once we've expanded the current unenforced laws to cover private sales - yet in every state and country where much more severe laws were passed years and even decades ago, not one of them has yet found enough gun control for their liking. Instead, as the population of legal shooters declines in response to more gun control, these locales continue to add even more gun control.
Where exactly is your counter?
Last edited:
Bart, I believe the numbers provided above are reference to convictions based on follow up investigations to answering wrong on the 4473. Obviously not every case is going to be followed up on. There were still over 76,000 denials for legitimate reasons, and even though every denial is not followed up by the ATF, a firearm was still prevented from being transferred to an unqualified person. As I stated before, one can always appeal a delay or denial if they choose, so if someone actually has a false denial the problem can be solved and a firearm transferred.
I've never had a customer give up and cancel a transaction due to bureaucratic nonsense, over-complicated paperwork or the speed at which it is filled out. On the contrary, many people, especially new shooters, are surprised at how little paperwork they have to do on their end.
A large outdoor retailer in the general metro Detroit area.
I intend to. However part of the point of my first post in this thread is that we need to concede effective measures that will improve the image of our community, and help to lower crime, while still fighting against ineffective laws that only hinder law abiding people.
We are already labeled extremists by many in society. An NRA endorsement of universal background checks would be a step in the right direction toward improving our tarnished image. We had best start soon, because if/ when we lose congress, we'll be doomed. The public will be against us, politicians will be against us, 2-3 liberal supreme court justices will have been appointed, and all the while we will still be a minority without enough voting power to preserve our rights.
I've never had a customer give up and cancel a transaction due to bureaucratic nonsense, over-complicated paperwork or the speed at which it is filled out. On the contrary, many people, especially new shooters, are surprised at how little paperwork they have to do on their end.
A large outdoor retailer in the general metro Detroit area.
I intend to. However part of the point of my first post in this thread is that we need to concede effective measures that will improve the image of our community, and help to lower crime, while still fighting against ineffective laws that only hinder law abiding people.
We are already labeled extremists by many in society. An NRA endorsement of universal background checks would be a step in the right direction toward improving our tarnished image. We had best start soon, because if/ when we lose congress, we'll be doomed. The public will be against us, politicians will be against us, 2-3 liberal supreme court justices will have been appointed, and all the while we will still be a minority without enough voting power to preserve our rights.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
NateKirk said:
Are you not reading what I wrote or not understanding the implications? Of the tiny fraction of cases that were actually referred to field offices for investigation (4,732 cases), 11.5% were false denials. That is an 11.5% rate after FBI referal and vetting by ATF Denials. We have no clue what the general rate is because that statistic is not tracked.
On top of that, the rate of error in firearms retrieval cases was 29.5% (That's where the ATF shows up at your house and says you're a prohibited person who unlawfully was approved by NICS; but you aren't).
Tell me what other fundamental right expressly written into the Bill of Rights that we accept those kind of error rights and prior restrictions on?
Yeah? Are your customers having to fill out transfers to let a friend look at their rifle? Not in Michigan - at least not yet. How many customers are already being scared off by false denials? There were 409 denials ATF investigated where the customer just accepted it and walked away - even though they weren't a prohibited person.
And you either missed or ignored the larger point, expansion of the current background check system to private sales REQUIRES registration to work. The loss in customers will come in the future as the paperwork burdens of gun ownership increase (see: pre-McDonald Chicago, pre-Heller D.C., and current NYC). And there will be more gun control because expanding the current system of UBCs to private sales will not placate the gun control crowd. How long has California had no private sales? Where are they today?
Last edited:
Like I said, you have the right to appeal.
That we accept, there are none. However the right to peacefully gather often requires a permit, there are limits to what you can say or print in libel or slander, and police seize property all the time that is never heard from again.
There are reasonable limitations on all rights and imperfections in the practice of others.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I'm going to stop now before I say something I regret. Suffice it to say I think the strategy of agreeing to walk waist deep in the water in order to placate someone who wants to drown you in the ocean is pure folly. You keep using words like "effective" even when the numbers clearly show the program is anything but.
I show you at least 11.5% of denials wrongly made and ATF agents directing 29.5% of their investigations of approved sales at non-prohibited persons. And your answer is "Well, you can appeal..."
And if a government wrongfully denies 11.5% of your permits to gather peacefully, I guess you can appeal right?
You're right. We're not on the same side.
I show you at least 11.5% of denials wrongly made and ATF agents directing 29.5% of their investigations of approved sales at non-prohibited persons. And your answer is "Well, you can appeal..."
And if a government wrongfully denies 11.5% of your permits to gather peacefully, I guess you can appeal right?
You're right. We're not on the same side.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Do you have any legal support for this proposition? It's been a while since I read other states' laws on the issue, but I recall several of them (WA and CO come to mind) that were so vague that "handing a buddy a gun so he can go shooting or hunting for the day" could very well have been included.NateKirk said:
I disagree with your assessment of UBCs wholeheartedly, and for reasons already explained by others.
Why, exactly, should I be willing to compromise on my rights?NateKirk said:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Because otherwise you'll be an extremist and people who own newspapers will write mean things about you.
- Status