Universal Background Checks....

[MLeake]

And what if they did not dispose of your transaction info, and next year Massachusetts passes a capacity ban with no grandfathering, and uses the info they were not supposed to keep in an attempt to confiscate some of your guns or magazines, Dragline45?

Will you care then?

Honestly, I am sick of idiots who say, "Well, I have nothing to hide... maybe you do."

FYI, I am a retired Navy officer. I held a TS/SCI, and in my current civilian gig I still hold a TS. I have had firearms training from instructors ranging from Drill Instructors to 18B to Combat Controllers on the military side, and from Mas Ayoob on my own time. I get periodic SSBI investigations.

I do not have anything to hide. (BTW, unlike some of you - Dragline, manta, Alabama, Apom, etc - I use my name as a screen name here. M Leake. Who is hiding things, again?)

I have seen what happened in the UK, Australia, and Canada; I have followed the quotes and legislative gestures of major gun control advocates in the US; and I think Dragline45, AlabamaShooter, et al are either extremely naive or else in denial as to the potential threat.

 

[Twisted99]

By my reading of it, the 10th Amendment is the problem. It would require a constitutional amendment.

I wasn't referring to the legal side, just a common sense view.

The age to purchase tobacco is not federally mandated and is not 18 in all places.

I should have said AT LEAST 18.

Neither is the drinking age, the drinking age was strong armed by the feds in the 80's by threat of withholding funds from states that do not set the age at 21.

I was not trying to argue HOW the drinking age law came to be, just that it is THE SAME in all states.

The problem? See everything above in the thread.

There is more than one POV in this thread, so you mean I should just see ONE side in the "above in this thread"

Interstate transfers with limited exceptions already require an FFL and as such a background check. Furthermore, they(the feds) already fail to prosecute many firearms offenses, it would not make it any easier as they choose not to already.

I agree that not near enough is being done to prosecute illegal (interstate or otherwise) firearm transfers, but the point, which you missed , of my post was not about the good or bad of each things I noted but the general understanding of those laws as being "universal" in the US

 

[Spats McGee]

Background checks are supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Source?

I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule.

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

"A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction."

Maybe you can explain it a little further how it meets that definition?

It is akin (meaning related, but not identical) to a prior restraint in that it requires me and other law abiding citizens to gain governmental permission before we're allowed to exercise a fundamental, individual right. I will never regain the time I lose going through the hassle, and I will never be refunded whatever fee I must pay for the privilege.

It is a right only because you say it is. It says "to keep and bear" not "unrestrained right to trade as you see fit".

No, it's a right because the 2A says so. See "shall not be infringed. If a right is to mean anything, we must have the tools necessary to exercise the right: ink, paper, firearms, etc.

I would feel better knowing that it was unlikely that the gun I had sold was not to a prohibited person. For me that is enough.

Great! Go use an FFL, then. That doesn't explain your suggestion that everyone be required to use them, though. Will you really feel better about your sales if I have to do a background check?

We have had NICS for nearly 20 years. Cost to the dealer was and is still $0.00.

Yes, and we pay for it in taxes. So?

And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move? Instituting universal checks will be a much larger inconvenience than it will be for felons.

A big part of the problem in this thread is a very mistaken assumption from some that everyone who wants background checks is an anti.

I have made no such assumption.

 

[MLeake]

Cost to the dealer from the Feds is zero. The dealer still has to spend time, and assume liability, and where I live the standard dealer charge for a transfer is $30.

Edit: I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses.

 

[BigD_in_FL]

It sure would be nice if every person of voting age had to pass a basic civics class in order to vote.......how are so many on here so naive about government, the Constitution, and their rights that they are willing to cede even more power to a central fascist government?

Have we learned nothing over the last 20 years, let alone the last 50?

 

[ScottRiqui]

It sure would be nice if every person of voting age had to pass a basic civics class in order to vote

Be careful what you wish for (having to pass a government-mandated 'test' in order to exercise a basic Constitutional right). Remember that at any given moment, it's not just the 2nd Amendment ox that's in danger of being gored.

 

[Sarge]

For a long time, MO had a law that required individuals to obtain a 'permit to purchase' (from the high sheriff) any handgun, regardless of whether it was being purchased from a dealer or individual.

It was soundly ignored by folks who knew each other, knew the other guy wasn't a nut/robber/doper, etc. The law existed for decades and I saw exactly two people prosecuted for violating it. Both were suspects in homicides.

 

[sigcurious]

but the point, which you missed , of my post was not about the good or bad of each things I noted but the general understanding of those laws as being "universal" in the US

The correct understanding of what you pointed out is that the states have the authority to regulate everything you noted not that they are "universal". Speed limits? set by states, drinking age...set by states(albeit strong armed by the Fed), smoking age...set by states. See the pattern there?

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting. In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

 

[RockSmoot]

By my reading of it, the 10th Amendment is the problem. It would require a constitutional amendment.

I wasn't referring to the legal side, just a common sense view.

Actually, so was I. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights is full of common sense.

Look, if you really want to effectively reduce violent crime, we could just monkey around with the rules of evidence and just go ahead and convict bad guys for crimes, even if the police obtained evidence illegally, if everyone "just knows" the guy is guilty. I mean, if you're going to trample constitutional rights, at least pick ones that will actually produce results.

 

[Dragline45]

And what if they did not dispose of your transaction info, and next year Massachusetts passes a capacity ban with no grandfathering, and uses the info they were not supposed to keep in an attempt to confiscate some of your guns or magazines, Dragline45?

Will you care then?

Honestly I could care less if someone has records of transactions for my firearm purchases. They were bought legally, and I don't intend on using them illegally. As for the proposed capacity ban, if it passes I am moving north. And even if the ban passes, what makes you so sure there is going to be a mass confiscation of weapons throughout the state? The day the Government starts taking peoples guns is the day they spark the starts of a revolution in this country.

Honestly, I am sick of idiots who say, "Well, I have nothing to hide... maybe you do."

FYI, I am a retired Navy officer. I held a TS/SCI, and in my current civilian gig I still hold a TS. I have had firearms training from instructors ranging from Drill Instructors to 18B to Combat Controllers on the military side, and from Mas Ayoob on my own time. I get periodic SSBI investigations.

I do not have anything to hide. (BTW, unlike some of you - Dragline, manta, Alabama, Apom, etc - I use my name as a screen name here. M Leake. Who is hiding things, again?)

Never remember accusing you of having something to hide, nor does choosing a non de plume for a gun forum imply I have anything to hide. I was simply stating I have to jump through the hoops and it's not the end of the world. Sure it would be nice if I didn't have to go through the hassle of passing a background check or having to register my guns, but at the end of the day I could really care less and I have far more important things to worry about. Bottom line is if I want to own a gun in this state, I need to pass the background check and register my guns. Until I am in the position to up and move, I really have no other choice.

And just as simply as you can call me an idiot for my statement, I can make the generalization based on your comment and call you a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I didn't choose to be born in this state, and currently, not only is it not in my best interest to move out of the state (gun issues aside), but I am in no position to just up and move because I don't like the gun laws here.

 

[MLeake]

Dragline45, Apom is the one who directly accused others of being closet criminals, but he uses comments such as yours to buttress those claims.

It is not about having something to hide.

It is about intrusions by government into the rights of the individual, and it is about potential future confiscation.

Seriously, take a look at the bill passed in NY last week, then look at Deval Patrick's proposals in your state, and tell me again that this should not be a concern.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses.

It is what you assumed about me. You can spin it however you want now but it does not change anything.

I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule.

Then why ask if you don't care? But since I asserted and you did ask how many sources did you want me to cite? I imagine I could throw out there about a dozen if I had the energy. Here is a current one:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales

Favor 91%

91% seems overwhelming to me.

It is akin (meaning related, but not identical) to a prior restraint in that it requires me and other law abiding citizens to gain governmental permission before we're allowed to exercise a fundamental, individual right. I will never regain the time I lose going through the hassle, and I will never be refunded whatever fee I must pay for the privilege.

If that is your argument than you have completely misunderstood prior restraint. It is not about going through a hassle to get the same result. It is about getting a different result because of the hassle. You are still going to end up with your gun. If the check is free it does not even cost you a dime.

Here I will help: A better analogy would be if background checks cost $200 and instead of buying a Glock you bought a HiPoint due to the onerous cost. That would be a much less effective means of defense. However I am not arguing for a $200 fee so there is no basis for the comparison; but it would make a better analogy.

No, it's a right because the 2A says so. See "shall not be infringed. If a right is to mean anything, we must have the tools necessary to exercise the right: ink, paper, firearms, etc.

And you still get your firearm and you can still sell it if you want to. The SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. If you think waiting a couple of minutes or driving to a gun shop to buy a gun is overly onerous you must be one impatient person.

Yes, and we pay for it in taxes. So?

You were indulging your straw man fantasy about runaway background check fees leading to Armageddon of gun rights. It isn't there.

Great! Go use an FFL, then. That doesn't explain your suggestion that everyone be required to use them, though. Will you really feel better about your sales if I have to do a background check?

I would also feel even much better if you did not sell a gun to my meth head neighbor whom you don't know is a meth head. That is very helpful to me.

I have made no such assumption.

Haven't you?

Originally Posted by Spats McGee
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move?

You just said background checks are giving the antis the first move. You are lumping everyone together.

 

[MLeake]

Alabama Shooter, I am not spinning anything. I am getting specific.

In your case, I do suspect you of anti tendencies. You keep choosing not to address issues, and redirect arguments to try and make those who defend a Constitutional right justify their defense.

You act like an anti. If you are not one, then I will be surprised.

Had you even addressed past history with Feinstein, Cuomo, et al rather than glossing it over, I might think otherwise.

Spin that.

 

[Spats McGee]

Then why ask if you don't care? But since I asserted and you did ask how many sources did you want me to cite? I imagine I could throw out there about a dozen if I had the energy. Here is a current one:

Because I was curious. I've seen several polls lately that claimed that a "majority" of people supported X or Y. I was curious as to which you followed, and where you got your numbers.

If that is your argument than you have completely misunderstood prior restraint.

No, I'm pretty sure that after 3 years of law school and 10 years of practice, I understand prior restraint. The hassle factor is introduced to keep one from going through with the sale. The fact that the hassle doesn't bother you, personally, doesn't mean it's not a hassle. You do understand what "akin" means, right?

You were indulging your straw man fantasy about runaway background check fees leading to Armageddon of gun rights. It isn't there.

I'm not the one that used the phrase "Armageddon of gun rights" here. You have said that background checks are free. Perhaps they are, counting from dealer to FFL. Transfers are not always free, though. You don't seem to think that raising costs amounts to a restriction. That's just not correct.

I would also feel even much better if you did not sell a gun to my meth head neighbor whom you don't know is a meth head. That is very helpful to me.

That's a little odd. So, you'll "feel better" in spite of the fact that there's no evidence to support either: (1) the notion that such a restriction would even slow down your neighbor from getting a gun; or (2) any claim that I have ever sold a firearm to a prohibited person, or will ever do so?

And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move?

You just said background checks are giving the antis the first move. You are lumping everyone together.

That's not quite the same as "assuming that" you are an anti. What I am stating is that you are more than willing to allow the antis to take the first step that they're looking for (universal background checks), in spite of the clear lack of any logical support for such a move.

 

[Twisted99]

The correct understanding of what you pointed out is that the states have the authority to regulate everything you noted not that they are "universal". Speed limits? set by states, drinking age...set by states(albeit strong armed by the Fed), smoking age...set by states. See the pattern there?

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting.

My point was not weather the federal government CAN make a law for all 50 states, just that if there was SOME continuity among ALL 50 states the average person would not have to waste their time to know if they can (fill in a state firearm law here) across a state line that might be 5 minutes from there house.

I spent more than a year reading here before I purchased my first firearm, so I think I am a little more educated than John Q Public.
The first time my wife and I traveled out of state she was adamant we not have a gun in the car because she thought it was illegal.
Ask your non-gun owning friends, family or co-workers about interstate gun laws, and see what they "know". Then ask about the drinking age, or what a speed limit sign means from state to state, or even buying a car from a different state mad: DMV)

One of the reasons people jump on the "gun control" bandwagon is because they are uninformed. One or the reasons they are uniformed is because there is little or no continuity in laws from state to state.

In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

I was not saying they could. My only thought was I should not need to spend hours to learn another states laws to sell a gun. If they were at least SIMILAR, like the drinking age per se, The chances of unknowingly breaking a STATE law would be a whole lot less.

 

[win-lose]

I'm as pro 2A as the next guy. My views on the 2A has recently cost me a few friendships. As stated earlier in this thread, I believe in universal back ground checks. I've now read through 6 pages on the subject in this thread and have not been convinced otherwise.

I don't find the incrementalism argument to be persuasive. I also don't think the prior restraint argument holds up against a "reasonable person" standard.

Please understand, I hate to give these Progressive Anti's anything! But I do believe that criminals and severely mentally ill people should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. Arguing otherwise, plays into the Anti's hands as it allows us to be painted into the "gun nut" narrative unfolding before us.

I do not buy/sell without going through an FFL. At a minimum, it establishes clear custody dates so if a gun is used in a crime, either before or after I own it, I can easily demonstrate it "wasn't me". Lastly, I never want to have to explain why I sold a firearm to a person who later did something terrible with it and I definitely don't want to live with the guilt of it.

 

[MLeake]

So, Twisted99, your argument is that so you will not be confused, we should let the states with the strictest laws set national policy? If not, please clarify.

Similarly, win-lose, you are saying that so you can be comfortable, you not only choose to conduct sales via FFL (with which I have no issue, and which I typically do, myself), but you feel you should support forcing others to do the same? If so, I definitely have issues with that.

Edit: win-lose, if you do not find the incrementalism argument persuasive, please in your own words explain what just happened in New York. You know, that little thing where the earlier, ten-round capacity limit just became a seven-round limit; magazines are only grandfathered for one year; all that.

Also, check out the thread (with links) on Feinstein's AWB bill, and tell me again how you don't find an incrementalism argument compelling. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=514086

 

[jimbob86]

Once and for all, it is a poor comparison. We don't have a renewable license good for five years that shows we passed a background check. The closest thing is a security clearance for gov't employees.

Speak for yourself. We have that in Nebraska, and I like it. The NRA tried to trade getting reid of it for an institution of a de facto AWB, but grass roots efforsts killed it in the nick of time.

For a long time, MO had a law that required individuals to obtain a 'permit to purchase' (from the high sheriff) any handgun, regardless of whether it was being purchased from a dealer or individual.

It was soundly ignored by folks who knew each other, knew the other guy wasn't a nut/robber/doper, etc. The law existed for decades and I saw exactly two people prosecuted for violating it. Both were suspects in homicides.

Ours is similar..... though it was not required for private sales, most still ask to see one, and a picture ID ... I do.

It's shall issue and provides everyone buying a handgun with an "I'm not a felon card." Our CHP works, as well.

I'm okay with universal checks, I live in Illinois and the FOID card doesn't suck that bad.

So you admit that it sucks (just not that bad!) and are advocating that the rest us should embrace the the suck that you do?

"Do it to Julia!"

A big part of the problem in this thread is a very mistaken assumption from some that everyone who wants background checks is an anti. -Alabama Shooter

Are you familiar with Lawdog's Cake Anology?

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

What you are doing, in effect, is standing there while the Anti's have 3/4 of our cake, wailing for more, and telling me, "Just give them a slice..... you still have some cake."

NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO!

Not only no, but I want some of that cake they have defrauded me out of, under the bad faith "compromises" of the past.

I don't know if youare a "mole", AS, but you are certainly not helping our side to keep our cake!

If you are one of those who think we should give some to keep some ...... that is the road no cake at all.

You want my cake? Molon Labe.

 

[jimbob86]

Please understand, I hate to give these Progressive Anti's anything! But I do believe that criminals and severely mentally ill people should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. Arguing otherwise, plays into the Anti's hands as it allows us to be painted into the "gun nut" narrative unfolding before us.

If just half of the 80+ million gun owners in this country stood their ground and said NO! like they meant it, and voted likewise, there would be no mention of gun control. Instead we have 70+ milillion of them worrying about being called "gun nuts" and doling out my cake a slice at a time, so as to appear "reasonable".


Enough!

 

[sigcurious]

My only thought was I should not need to spend hours to learn another states laws to sell a gun. If they were at least SIMILAR, like the drinking age per se, The chances of unknowingly breaking a STATE law would be a whole lot less.

This statement indicates a lack of understanding of interstate firearms transfers. Your first sentence implies that your concern is with interstate firearms transfers, ie you a resident of one state wish to sell or transfer to a second party of another state. These transactions while affected by various state laws, are also governed by federal law. As a side effect, if you follow federal law, you will find it hard, although not impossible(certain situations of a long gun transfer could go awry of state law), to break state law. Interstate firearms transfers, with few exceptions, must go through a FFL. One law to know that will protect you from accidentally breaking the law a majority of the time. It's really not that complicated.

However, this thread is about universal background checks forced by the federal government, which primarily affects private party transfers in one state, so your concern of "needing to know multiple states laws" is moot. Which brings us back to...

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting. In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.