Universal Background Checks....

[HiBC]

The folks quoting poll numbers do not get it.They are ignorant or intentionally practicing fraud and deception.The poll response is manipulated by those who craft the questions.Does that need explanation?

The Constitution defines SOME,but not all,of my INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

I do not give a rats hiney what anyones poll or opinion says otherwise,the 2nd Ammendment says what it says and not you or anyone else has the right to bargain my Constitutionally defined Liberty away.
Its not yours to give away.Its mine,and God,not the government gave it to me.

Democracy(including polls)is a lynch mob.If 92% of the folks asked say you should be lynched,how does that work for you?.You going to shrug and stick your neck out?Compromise?

No.We have a Constitution.It defines your Rights,too.

Once again,the 2nd Ammendment says what it says.

Each and every lawmaker attacking it is violating an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.They SHOULD pay the consequenses.

There IS a path to change the 2nd Ammendment.It takes 2/3 the House,2/3 the Senate and 3/4 the States to ratify.Until then,"Shall not be infringed" is what the law says.

You leave MY Constitutional Rights alone.They are not yours to touch.

Even the proponents of this barn carpet acknowledge it will be ineffective.

"Never let a crisis go to waste" Heard that?All this is cold blooded manipulation of the deaths of those kids and teachers.It is to advance an agenda.The agenda includes,among other things,disarming us.Incrementally.

Some of you people truly disgust me.

 

[nate45]

I have to get DHS background checks all the time. One has to get a background check to have a CCW.

What are you guys afraid of? Are some of you afraid you won't pass?

 

[Spats McGee]

nate45, I had to get background checks when I:
took the bar;
got sworn in as a prosecutor;
got my ccw.

I have this feeling that I've had other background checks, but I can't recall when they were. I'm not afraid of the background check. I don't think it's the government's business to run my background every time I buy a firearm, though. I think it's a hurdle that some folks (not necessarily folks on this board) want to put up for the sole purpose of deterring gun ownership. I think universal background checks will be ineffective at deterring crime without full registration.

 

[Sarge]

HiBC saved me a bunch of typing in post 141. I second everything he said. I was and remain against background checks of any kind.

First, they rang the death knell of a legal principle known as 'presumption of innocence'. You should not have to preemptively and repeatedly confirm your innocence to exercise a constitutional right.

Second, they are a nuisance only to the law abiding and they are a tool of infringement the second amendment prohibits.

Third, they are completely ineffective. Hardcore criminals, terrorists and (other) crazies and not going to stand around, waiting to buy a gun, while somebody runs a background check on them. They will get guns and they won't give a rat's ass if it's suddenly MORE illegal for them to obtain them.

Did you miss that? Hardcore criminals and crazies don't give a damn about ANY of your glorious laws. They laugh at them and they laugh at you for being stupid enough to think such a thing. They rejoice at any legal mechanism that inhibits their victims' ability to defend themselves.

Whose side are you on?

 

[nate45]

I don't think it's the government's business to run my background every time I buy a firearm, though.

Yep, especially when you trade a working firearm in, you shouldn't have to wait to get the one you traded for. I have just got used to the checks though, its really not that big a deal.

I'm not worried about turning mine in though, my guns or my FOID card. Its not going to happen. If it does I'll become an outlaw again, because I'm keeping my guns, till they take them away by force.

The Sheriff and local state police can verify that it would be a chore getting my firearms by force. Multiply me times a few million and its stupid to even suggest it. So lets forget that when we talk about stricter checks, its not happening.

 

[Bud Helms]

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, ...

I was completely unaware of that, jimbo. That's what assuming will get you.

 

[arch308]

Very well stated HiBC and Sarge!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!

Background checks are feel good laws. They do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring guns. They do make the sheeple feel safer.

 

[manta49]

Did you miss that? Hardcore criminals and crazies don't give a damn about ANY of your glorious laws. They laugh at them and they laugh at you for being stupid enough to think such a thing. They rejoice at any legal mechanism that inhibits their victims' ability to defend themselves

Follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some will brake them.

 

[win-lose]

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.

I'm not saying I support background checks so I can feel better. I'm saying I support background checks because criminals/psychos should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. They should be limited to black markets which could then be targeted by law-enforcement. I only mentioned what I do and why I do it as demonstration that I practice what I preach and why I do it. The "feel" argument is exactly the argument being used against us "We have a right to feel safe", to which I say no, you do not have the right to restrict my rights so you can possibly feel a certain way. By this type of logic, the 1st A would be gone to spare feelings.

I understand how incrementalism works and what was done in NY and am sickened by it. However, if today was 12/1/2012, I would still have the same position on background checks. I think that much of the analysis on background checks is not seeing the tree through the forest.

BTW, Morgan, thank you for your service!

 

[Alabama Shooter]

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.

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

Spin that.

I have answered every question directly and to the point as it pertains to universal background checks. You have not demonstrated anywhere where I have not done so. If you want to drift around and discuss other things there are other threads for that.

I think that you are like most people that when losing a rational argument that challenges your beliefs you then assume that there must be something wrong with the arguer.

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

Really? I'd like to hear and explanation of that... Never mind, see below.

The folks quoting poll numbers do not get it.They are ignorant or intentionally practicing fraud and deception.The poll response is manipulated by those who craft the questions.Does that need explanation?

The Constitution defines SOME,but not all,of my INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

So Fox News is crafting an anti-gun fraud on the American people? I can suspend disbelief for only so much. This type of tin hattery is not only absurd but counter productive.

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.

Very sadly the ICC. Would if could go back 200 years and rewrite it or get rid of it.

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

I would be very much in favor of a voluntary system. I don't know the particulars in NE but it would have to crafted carefully to avoid abuse.

Are you familiar with Lawdog's Cake Anologyhttp://http://thelawdogfiles.blogspo.../a-repost.html?

Your link goes to advertisements on hiring truckers, prostate cancer treatments and grants for single mothers. While ironic I don't think that is what you were trying to say.

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 you are 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.

(and others)

Well that is a position I can respect.

Since you have agreed not to negotiate with the 91% of whom likely compose about 75% of all gun owners (or moles as you would have it ) you will have absolutely no room to complain when something really awful happens because of your stand on principles. Because if you really believe that the congress is going to make a stand against an overwhelming majority than you have child-like naivete that displays a huge ignorance of politics and the functioning of the US Government.

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.

The hassle will not keep a single non-prohibited person from acquiring the legally allowed firearm of their choice. Based on your arguments people would never publish books or newspapers because of all the red tape they have to go through.

I'm not the one that used the phrase "Armageddon of gun rights" here.

You don't seem to think that raising costs amounts to a restriction. That's just not correct.

Lets revisit what you wrote:

I keep bothering because, in part, it's MY MONEY that you're proposing to spend. The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. -- John Marshall. The other reason that I keep bothering the argument that "oh, it's only 5 dollars" puts us on a slippery slope. First, it's $5, then we adjust for inflation, then just a little more. Pretty soon, that background check will cost $100, and at some point before that happens, it starts preventing some lower-income folks from being able to exercise their RKBA at all.

Elimination of the rights for the poor sounds a little self indulgent and without basis in fact to me. Since there have historically been no cost increases your assumption that increases would then be used as a control is a poor one at best.

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?

1- As I noted earlier it would place a barrier. How effective that barrier would be is a matter for speculation as it does not exist yet. Clearly I am in the camp that thinks it would have a net positive effect.
2- Yes. And I don't think you ever purposely would either. What you intend to do and what you actually do are likely different at times.

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.

As I have shown several times in this thread not everyone who wants universal background checks is an anti. Just because group A wants a certain result on issue 4 and Group B wants the same result on issue 4 does not mean that A=B on all issues. When I said "some people" I was not really referring to you but the others who posted them.



The hilarious irony that some people think that I am a anti-mole is way more amusing than any of you can imagine. However since people are now coloring their arguments with personal attacks I have reluctantly lost interest in this topic as such discussions tend to degenerate rapidly. A sad day it is when people who are supposed to be logical and pro freedom jump to erroneous conclusions and can not hold down a reasonable conversation without casting aspersions.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - by Rousseau, Jean Jacques.

I stand behind everything I have written in this thread and if you agree or disagree I still respect your opinion on the matter. If you choose not to respect mine than that is an issue for you to deal with.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Universal background checks will be just another farce....

1. There is no way to enforce it accross the board, meaning both dealer sales, and person to person sales. The person to person sales are private now, and would likely continue as such in the future, since there is no way to detect them, until typically later, if ever, when a firearm is recovered after a crime.

2. The universal background checks mean absolutely nothing without a solid strong enforcement of the law. Which would mean alot of charges for those who violate the various state/federal laws, dealing with purchases....I dont see this happening, since it requires long term funding, for law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and detention facilities.

Without the 2 above, universal background checks are doomed to fail, which, if enacted, they surely will...

 

[Sarge]

Quote:
Did you miss that? Hardcore criminals and crazies don't give a damn about ANY of your glorious laws. They laugh at them and they laugh at you for being stupid enough to think such a thing. They rejoice at any legal mechanism that inhibits their victims' ability to defend themselves


Follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some will brake them.

Actually, we have a Bill of Rights here which are considered inalienable and by extension 'untouchable' by subsequent laws, or government actions, that violate them. The second amendment's specific prohibition against infringement makes it crystal clear.

I don't have a constitutional right to drive drunk, steal cars or set fires. Your argument is invalid. I do have a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Spats McGee]

Your link goes to advertisements on hiring truckers, prostate cancer treatments and grants for single mothers. While ironic I don't think that is what you were trying to say.

Here's the LawDog's "Ok, I'll Play" to which the other poster refers: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

Since you have agreed not to negotiate with the 91% of whom likely compose about 75% of all gun owners (or moles as you would have it ) you will have absolutely no room to complain when something really awful happens because of your stand on principles. Because if you really believe that the congress is going to make a stand against an overwhelming majority than you have child-like naivete that displays a huge ignorance of politics and the functioning of the US Government.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else on this issue, but there's a reason for my position. I will not compromise because I will not pretend that a loss of my rights was part of a bargain. I will not allow those who would strip me of my rights to honestly say, "he agreed to it."

The hassle will not keep a single non-prohibited person from acquiring the legally allowed firearm of their choice. Based on your arguments people would never publish books or newspapers because of all the red tape they have to go through.

Not a single non-prohibited person? Are you telling me that, as things stand now, with BG checks required only at FFLs (& private transactions in a few states), not a single non-prohibited person has ever been denied? For those folks who live out of town, the nearest FFL may be 30-45 minutes away. Are you telling me that the hassle of driving 30-45 minutes will not deter any of them from buying the firearm of their choice? Or do you simply believe that they will choose to engage in felonious behavior.

Based on the same arguments I've made here, the courts have stricken prior restraints as unconstitutional. Had the PRs been allowed to stand, I suspect that there are a great many things that would not have been published.

Elimination of the rights for the poor sounds a little self indulgent and without basis in fact to me. Since there have historically been no cost increases your assumption that increases would then be used as a control is a poor one at best.

I'll grant you that the cost of the NICS check has not increased in the past. But you're talking about (potentially) dramatically increasing the NICS workload, and the extra people and hours have to be paid for somehow.

1- As I noted earlier it would place a barrier. How effective that barrier would be is a matter for speculation as it does not exist yet. Clearly I am in the camp that thinks it would have a net positive effect.

But it only provides a barrier for those that would follow the law. Given the miniscule number of folks that have actually been prosecuted for violation of the straw purchaser laws and lying on the 4473 (See Joe Biden: "We don't have time for that."), it's not a barrier for the folks we'd really like to see kept away from guns.

2- Yes. And I don't think you ever purposely would either. What you intend to do and what you actually do are likely different at times.

As it stands, if I (or any other law abiding) citizen has "reasonable cause to believe" that the purchaser is a prohibited person, that's a violation of federal law, and punishable by (IIRC) 10 years in prison. So if Mikey Methhead shows up at the buy with jailhouse tats, I really need to ask him if he's prohibited. I just don't see any reason to take it further than that.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Well Spats since you are not denigrating yourself by calling me a liar I guess I will continue our discussion apart. You seem to have the most reasoned and educated arguments of the group anyway. The rest who have self identified I have nothing for you.

I believe that this is an important discussion to have; but am rapidly running out of patience.

Here's the LawDog's "Ok, I'll Play" to which the other poster refers: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

So Law Dog does not benefit from criminals and insane people from having more difficult access to guns? I find that impossible to believe.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else on this issue, but there's a reason for my position. I will not compromise because I will not pretend that a loss of my rights was part of a bargain. I will not allow those who would strip me of my rights to honestly say, "he agreed to it."

This is old ground. I see no infringement.

Not a single non-prohibited person? Are you telling me that, as things stand now, with BG checks required only at FFLs (& private transactions in a few states), not a single non-prohibited person has ever been denied? For those folks who live out of town, the nearest FFL may be 30-45 minutes away. Are you telling me that the hassle of driving 30-45 minutes will not deter any of them from buying the firearm of their choice? Or do you simply believe that they will choose to engage in felonious behavior.

This is also old ground. As noted there is a process. The process is not overly onerous or insurmountable. There will be defects in any process. The defects can be overcome.

Based on the same arguments I've made here, the courts have stricken prior restraints as unconstitutional. Had the PRs been allowed to stand, I suspect that there are a great many things that would not have been published.

The courts found something unconstitutional because someone had to drive 30 minutes somewhere to exercise a right? I am not a lawyer so I guess it is possible. I am incredulous however; please show.

I'll grant you that the cost of the NICS check has not increased in the past. But you're talking about (potentially) dramatically increasing the NICS workload, and the extra people and hours have to be paid for somehow.

The workload has dramatically increased in the last five years. The cost is still $0.00.

But it only provides a barrier for those that would follow the law. Given the miniscule number of folks that have actually been prosecuted for violation of the straw purchaser laws and lying on the 4473 (See Joe Biden: "We don't have time for that."), it's not a barrier for the folks we'd really like to see kept away from guns.

Gun shops are already a barrier because most criminals know they can not buy a gun there. If they knew they could not buy them from in a private party sale from an honest seller that would be another barrier. Unless you think most are not going to follow the law.

As it stands, if I (or any other law abiding) citizen has "reasonable cause to believe" that the purchaser is a prohibited person, that's a violation of federal law, and punishable by (IIRC) 10 years in prison. So if Mikey Methhead shows up at the buy with jailhouse tats, I really need to ask him if he's prohibited. I just don't see any reason to take it further than that.

This is also old ground. As noted I have no magic wand to determine if someone is prohibited. I have a feeling Mikey is just going to lie when you ask him. Ask NICS and his answer does not matter. A check would remove any reasonable doubt.

 

[Spats McGee]

So Law Dog does not benefit from criminals and insane people from having more difficult access to guns? I find that impossible to believe.

Well, I don't speak for LawDog, but as for myself, I'll agree that we would all benefit if criminals and the criminally insane were prevented from gaining access to guns.

Not a single non-prohibited person? Are you telling me that, as things stand now, with BG checks required only at FFLs (& private transactions in a few states), not a single non-prohibited person has ever been denied? For those folks who live out of town, the nearest FFL may be 30-45 minutes away. Are you telling me that the hassle of driving 30-45 minutes will not deter any of them from buying the firearm of their choice? Or do you simply believe that they will choose to engage in felonious behavior.

This is also old ground. As noted there is a process. The process is not overly onerous or insurmountable. There will be defects in any process. The defects can be overcome.

Then you'll agree that at least a few non-prohibited persons may be denied?

Let me ask you a few questions about how you'd like to see this work: How do you propose to allow for universal background checks?
Do you propose to require all transfers to go through FFLs, or do you propose opening NICS up to the public?
If you plan on opening it to the public, how do you plan to prevent employers from running background checks on applicants? Husbands from running checks on the wives they're divorcing?
What about possession?
What if a person is found to be in possession of a firearm, but cannot verify that he or she had a background check done when the firearm was acquired?

The courts found something unconstitutional because someone had to drive 30 minutes somewhere to exercise a right? I am not a lawyer so I guess it is possible. I am incredulous however; please show.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the court found a prior restraint in the A1 context. Specifically, when a statute in question requires the publisher to get governmental approval prior to publication, that infringes on the First Amendment rights, and has been held unconstitutional. See e.g., Near v. State of Minnesota, 283 U.S. 637 (1931).

This is the comparison that I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to convince you of. First Amendment rights are fundamental, individual rights. The government cannot (generally) force a person to demonstrate their eligibility to have those rights prior to exercise. The 2A right has been held to be fundamental and individual, and I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force persons to demonstrate eligibility prior to exercising the right.

Gun shops are already a barrier because most criminals know they can not buy a gun there. If they knew they could not buy them from in a private party sale from an honest seller that would be another barrier. Unless you think most are not going to follow the law. . . . .
This is also old ground. As noted I have no magic wand to determine if someone is prohibited. I have a feeling Mikey is just going to lie when you ask him. Ask NICS and his answer does not matter. A check would remove any reasonable doubt.

I agree that Mikey Meth's not going to a gun shop. Unfortunately, even if he does, the federal government is prosecuting a ridiculously low number of 4473 falsifications and straw purchases. I also agree that if I ask Mikey if he's prohibited, he's probably going to lie. What I strongly suspect, though, is that very few criminals get their firearms from strangers. I'll have to dig around for statistics, but I seem to recall reading that most criminals get their guns: (a) by stealing them; or (b) through family or close acquaintances.

If you'll indulge me in that for a moment, let me put a hypothetical in front of you. Let's say that I have a friend, Frank Felony. Frank has made several statements to me about having a felony record. I sell Frank a gun. Under current law, I'm criminally liable, because I have reasonable cause to believe that Frank is prohibited. In fact, it doesn't even matter if Frank has an actual felony record because I have reasonable cause to believe he does.

Under the universal background check system, assume that Frank and I go to an FFL and get a check. His record comes back clean. If I'm later charged with selling a firearm to a prohibited person, don't you think I'll raise that as a defense to the charge? Frank could have "convicted murderer" tattooed on his forehead, but if his record comes back clean, I at least have an arguable defense. "But your honor, NICS said he was clean."

 

[RockSmoot]

The Sheriff and local state police can verify that it would be a chore getting my firearms by force. Multiply me times a few million and its stupid to even suggest it. So lets forget that when we talk about stricter checks, its not happening.

This presupposes that people will rally to your defense if/when it happens. By the time it does, I suspect that the people will be so thoroughly cowed by years of incremental erosion of their rights that most folks will simply shrug when the cops do a Waco on your compound. They won't have to take everyone on, they will be able to roll 'em up one at a time.

edit: One other thing. This may be true for you today, but will likely not be for your children or grandchildren. They won't remember how it is today. They probably won't have as sympathetic a judiciary as we have today. That's why we have to resist these small erosions each and every time they happen.

 

[arch308]

Hey Alabama, why don't you go live with Manta. Sounds like you would fit right in over there.

 

[manta49]

Hey Alabama, why don't you go live with Manta. Sounds like you would fit right in over there.

I said i have no problems with background checks. Its up to others if they have a problem or not. Are you not happy unless everyone has the same view as you.

 

[arch308]

Mantra, you are welcome to your own view as is every other free person. But your opinion of what we need in America is totally irrevellent.

 

[manta49]

But your opinion of what we need in America is totally irrevellent.

I don't see were i posted what is needed in America perhaps you could show me. I have already said that i think further gun control in America will not achieve anything one way or another.