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.
Hillary Clinton Supports Closing "Gun Show Loophole" By Executive Order
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
In related news, this link summarizes several oh the Wikileaks revelations concerning Hillary's position on guns: http://freebeacon.com/politics/emai...un-position-democrat-caucus-members-freaking/
Sadly, unlike many of her banking and trade positions where she has wildly different policy positions when addressing Goldman Sachs privately vs.a public meeting in rural Iowa, her position on guns is extremely consistent both in public and private.
In fact, it looks like she toned down her public remarks (which are so far supportive of banning normal magazines, semi-autos, and Australian-style gun control) in order to appease her advisers who were worried she was taking too hard a line.
Sadly, unlike many of her banking and trade positions where she has wildly different policy positions when addressing Goldman Sachs privately vs.a public meeting in rural Iowa, her position on guns is extremely consistent both in public and private.
In fact, it looks like she toned down her public remarks (which are so far supportive of banning normal magazines, semi-autos, and Australian-style gun control) in order to appease her advisers who were worried she was taking too hard a line.
Glenn E Meyer said:I said from the getgo that Heller was flawed with the reasonable restriction blather. I recall some onetime visitor to TFL arguing that Scalia was a wily old bird who planned to use it to expand gun rights in later decision. Guy was a moron as we see by results. Lower courts used it to uphold bans and the full court wouldn't take a case as Scalia and Thomas sputtered in rage.
Of course, the "reasonable restriction blather" wasn't that. Quoting the decision:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
It is unlikely that an opinion holding all existing restrictions of every kind to be prohibited would have been a majority opinion.
Last edited:
barnbwt said:Can UBCs even withstand review with proper passage by congress, let alone mere fiat? The reason for the 'loophole' is even the tortured Commerce Clause interpretations couldn't plausibly be applied to intra-state gun sales by private citizens of the same state when the GCA and NICS were set up. For all the desire for federal (not state) UBCs, it's a rather basic question that hasn't seemed to be answered. State UBCs maybe, but not federally.
I can agree that a fair reading of the commerce clause would deprive Congress of the authority to regulate intrastate transfers. However that is far from the current state of constitutional law on that point.
Any confidence that the commerce clause is an effective protection against UBCs under current constitutional law is misplaced. Look at the majority opinion in Raich, which permitted congressional regulation of local cultivation of MJ even if it is not in the stream of local commerce.
I prefer Thomas' dissent in Raich as a matter of constitutional philosophy, but Scalia's concurrence gives a better summary of the law.
It is misleading because, unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone. Rather, as this Court has acknowledged since at least United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72 (1838), Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause. Id., at 78; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 301—302 (1964); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119 (1942); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342, 353 (1914); United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 39—40 (1895) (Harlan, J., dissenting).1 And the category of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
There are few intrastate activities that couldn't be regulated by that standard.
carguychris said: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.
Anti-gun forces realize this. UBC requirements are a Trojan horse for universal registration, which is a prelude to confiscation.
To ease its passage at the Federal level, Universal Background Checks (UBC) may come first and then registration later. I suspect the UBC will be far easier to pass than registration, so registration may be incremental; first all "assault weapons" will have to be registered, then all semi-auto rifles, etc. Enforcement will be done through as a condition for being in a government program, such as Obamacare which you are required to be in, with heavy fines and/or prison for those who lie or omit information about their firearms.
rwilson452
New member
making me be part of O-care might be interesting> I'm retired military and 100% disabled. If necessary I can use the VA for all my health needs but I don't at this time. O-care I don't touch.
rwilson452 said:making me be part of O-care might be interesting> I'm retired military and 100% disabled. If necessary I can use the VA for all my health needs but I don't at this time. O-care I don't touch.
If one Federal program or mandate doesn't apply to someone, chances are another will. Very few people can afford to live without some kind of government program as the government took their money to fund it. Let's say, for example, Obamacare doesn't apply to you. What about Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, VA benefits, etc.? Anything that Federal money funds, partially or fully, can include anti-gun stuff like gun registration. So, for the privilege of getting some of your money back, you get some of your rights taken away...
A couple of points not mentioned before someone took their toys and went home...
The "long standing" prohibition against felons and the mentally ill (on the Federal level) was enacted in 1968. Prior to that, there were no blanket prohibitions on felons owning firearms AFTER THEY SERVED THEIR TIME, and all other conditions met (parole, probation, etc.)
A mentally ill person is (and always has been) prohibited, on an individual basis, and only AFTER due process. Even the 68 law recognized this, and requires adjudication by a court, before firearms rights are denied to the mentally ill. A doctor's opinion alone is not enough. All your family saying you are crazy is not enough. It takes a court hearing, where both sides testify under the rules of evidence, and a court decision.
This is NOT the case with convicted felons today. Denial of the fundamental right to arms is now a blanket prohibition FOR LIFE, if you are convicted of a felony or "domestic violence" misdemeanor.
Lots of people in this country have done something (usually in their youth) they shouldn't have, and got convicted of "felony stupid". (meaning something that resulted in little or no serious harm, but was classified as a felony). Those people are automatically banned for life. Some of them, perhaps, should be, but there are a lot of people who straightened up their lives and have spend decades, even several decades without any legal troubles at all. Yet, despite 20,30, 40 or more years being good citizens, they are still banned for life.
There is, technically, an appeals process. However, on the federal level, at least, somehow, the government has neglected to FUND that process for many, many years, so while it technically exists, in practical terms, it does not.
The other point is one brought up several times, about how a UBC system cannot be enforced without comprehensive registration.
This is not entirely true. It could be done. It won't be, because the people pushing UBCs don't want it done, and won't accept a system that doesn't need full gun registration.
The way to do it is deceptively simple. Take the gun out of the equation.
There is no need for it at all. You simply check the PERSON, not the gun.
There is no valid need to check the gun at all. The stated point of the background check is to verify if the potential buyer is, or is not a prohibited person. (right???)
IF that is actually the case, as the prohibitionists say it is, then the specific gun doesn't matter at all. CLASS of gun matters a tiny bit, because of Federal age restrictions, but the actual gun by ser# is useless information in determining prohibited status, or not.
UNLESS your goal is to create a registration system, then, it is vital information.
One could, (and probably with less effort than the current and proposed UBCs) check every adult in the country for prohibited status, and mark it on their driver's license or ID card. Then, all that would be needed for purchase of a gun, ANY GUY, is a check on the PERSON to see if the status on their ID has changed since it was issued.
So far, everytime something like that has been proposed, the prohibitionists have flatly rejected it. Since it would do the same thing (prevent prohibited persons from purchase) as their systems, but without any kind of gun registration data, one does have to wonder, WHY they oppose it so strongly.
Could it be that their true intentions are not what they publically claim them to be??
Or that they don't like to admit what their true intentions actually are??
The "long standing" prohibition against felons and the mentally ill (on the Federal level) was enacted in 1968. Prior to that, there were no blanket prohibitions on felons owning firearms AFTER THEY SERVED THEIR TIME, and all other conditions met (parole, probation, etc.)
A mentally ill person is (and always has been) prohibited, on an individual basis, and only AFTER due process. Even the 68 law recognized this, and requires adjudication by a court, before firearms rights are denied to the mentally ill. A doctor's opinion alone is not enough. All your family saying you are crazy is not enough. It takes a court hearing, where both sides testify under the rules of evidence, and a court decision.
This is NOT the case with convicted felons today. Denial of the fundamental right to arms is now a blanket prohibition FOR LIFE, if you are convicted of a felony or "domestic violence" misdemeanor.
Lots of people in this country have done something (usually in their youth) they shouldn't have, and got convicted of "felony stupid". (meaning something that resulted in little or no serious harm, but was classified as a felony). Those people are automatically banned for life. Some of them, perhaps, should be, but there are a lot of people who straightened up their lives and have spend decades, even several decades without any legal troubles at all. Yet, despite 20,30, 40 or more years being good citizens, they are still banned for life.
There is, technically, an appeals process. However, on the federal level, at least, somehow, the government has neglected to FUND that process for many, many years, so while it technically exists, in practical terms, it does not.
The other point is one brought up several times, about how a UBC system cannot be enforced without comprehensive registration.
This is not entirely true. It could be done. It won't be, because the people pushing UBCs don't want it done, and won't accept a system that doesn't need full gun registration.
The way to do it is deceptively simple. Take the gun out of the equation.
There is no need for it at all. You simply check the PERSON, not the gun.
There is no valid need to check the gun at all. The stated point of the background check is to verify if the potential buyer is, or is not a prohibited person. (right???)
IF that is actually the case, as the prohibitionists say it is, then the specific gun doesn't matter at all. CLASS of gun matters a tiny bit, because of Federal age restrictions, but the actual gun by ser# is useless information in determining prohibited status, or not.
UNLESS your goal is to create a registration system, then, it is vital information.
One could, (and probably with less effort than the current and proposed UBCs) check every adult in the country for prohibited status, and mark it on their driver's license or ID card. Then, all that would be needed for purchase of a gun, ANY GUY, is a check on the PERSON to see if the status on their ID has changed since it was issued.
So far, everytime something like that has been proposed, the prohibitionists have flatly rejected it. Since it would do the same thing (prevent prohibited persons from purchase) as their systems, but without any kind of gun registration data, one does have to wonder, WHY they oppose it so strongly.
Could it be that their true intentions are not what they publically claim them to be??
Or that they don't like to admit what their true intentions actually are??
Bill DeShivs
New member
Nate Kirk-
It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Non-thinkers like you are what is wrong with our country today.
For one thing- "universal" background checks are nothing more than de facto gun registration.
It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Non-thinkers like you are what is wrong with our country today.
For one thing- "universal" background checks are nothing more than de facto gun registration.
44 AMP said:The other point is one brought up several times, about how a UBC system cannot be enforced without comprehensive registration.
This is not entirely true. It could be done. It won't be, because the people pushing UBCs don't want it done, and won't accept a system that doesn't need full gun registration.
The way to do it is deceptively simple. Take the gun out of the equation.
There is no need for it at all. You simply check the PERSON, not the gun.
There is no valid need to check the gun at all. The stated point of the background check is to verify if the potential buyer is, or is not a prohibited person. (right???)
I don't think you can really take the gun out of the equation because that would be the reason to perform a background check in the first place. Under the current system, background checks are done at the time of sale but under your proposal, they could apply at any time of possession.
This thread should have been closed much earlier, due to an ad hominem attack. I didn't catch it until now however. Now a second person has done the same. Since one person seems to have gotten away with it, I can't in good conscious infract the second person.
Closed.
Closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.