NICS is constitutional (I defy anyone to show me, with citations, how it is not), licenses are iffy and probably not
Is it unconstitutional?
I reckon that Maryland can call Virginia and ask if a person is restricted ... but he might have a background which doesn't restrict him in Virginia but does restrict him in Maryland, or vice versa, so it might appear that a national standard is what is needed ... but that is not our frame of government.But what about the people who aren't your citizens? Cho (for example) could have gone to Maryland or another state, which would have no idea what your state is doing with regards to him. A national system for such reportings makes state-to-non-state transfers possible from a block-the-bad-guys standpoint.
Yes. It is none of the government's business if you have a firearm. They have no constitutional or moral authority to regulate whether you can or cannot "keep and bear" arms. This means owning a gun and carrying a gun as far as I and the Founding Fathers are concerned.
Owning or carrying a gun is a RIGHT not a privilege to be given or taken away by the government.
I believe that background checks are one of those things that would be constitutional at the State level but unconstitutional at the national level. I don't think that Virginia needs the US to tell us which of our Citizens are dangerous and need to have their RKBA denied, I think we are the better judge of such things.
It would be one thing to have a national database where a State can check and see if a person has anything that, in that State's judgment, disqualifies him ... but it seems to be quite a different affair when the US assumes the role of telling the States which of their Citizens, in the federal government's judgement, are disqualified.
Apples and Oranges, In the Military, you are not Purchasing your firearm, it is issued to you, it doesnt belong to you, it belongs to the USG. In LE, in some places it is the same way. You can bevome a cop at 18 in NJ, you can carry on and off duty, your ISSUED weapon, but you cannot PURCHASE your own until 21.
Could one also conclude from the BOR, that government has no moral authority to regulate the press or media? But the government levels fines on broadcasters and in the past has shut down various forms of speech - as for example in the past when foks argued against a war
or presented sexual acts as media representations.
Also, by extension - where did the moral authority to control sex acts between consenting adults come from? Would the poster of the proposition argue that the airways and press should be totally free and there be no control of adults' sexual acts. That hasn't been the position of the selfproclaimed conservatives in the USA.