Universal Background Checks....

[manta49]

he second amendment's specific prohibition against infringement makes it crystal clear.

You are kidding yourself. There is already gun control in America is there not a 10 rd mag limit in some states they don't even have that in the uk.

I do have a right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to carry a concealed firearm do you just go ahead or do you have to have background checks. If you do have to have checks then you don't have a right to carry firearms. You are allowed to if the state says you can after the checks are made.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

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

Just as they are today with store sales. There is also a system in place to deal with defects in the system. I reckon there are probably no cases where a person was unjustly denied and the case was never resolved properly. At least I have never heard of any.

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?

I don't know. I do know if we don't discuss these issues there will not be the proper safeguards in the system. If we let the opposition choose the terms because we won't even consider alternate outcomes then we will likely end up with the worst terms and system possible. If you bury your head in the sand you will have no room to complain about it when you get run over.

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?

That is a different topic. There should be no reason why someone in possession of firearm should not be assumed to have obtained it lawfully if there is a system to validate the person is not prohibited when they buy one. In other words there should be no change to anything in that regard.

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.

Yet they do. If I want to broadcast on TV, the radio or open a newspaper before I do so there is all matter of red tape to go through. Your belief that it should not be this way does not change it. After I open my TV station I still have to deal with all matter of censorship and regulations to deal with (although it has gotten better in recent years) but I can pretty much broadcast at will.

An instant background check is only asking you to demonstrate your eligibility at one certain time and place. If you own a gun before you go buy one and certainly after you have one there should be no requirement to demonstrate anything. Keep and bear to your hearts content. This is actually way better than trying to run a TV station.

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.

I would be interested in seeing the source for this data.

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."

(Hypotheticals are dumb. People pose them and then try to change the conditions when they don't get the answers they are fishing for. I will play one round anyone, though I am sure I will regret it.)

You should be good to go. You will have complied with the law. Now that you mention it, it would be a good idea to have the law specifically written that way to avoid gaming by prosecutors.

However, if you advertise your gun for sale and you decide not to sell your gun to Frank because you don't trust him.... according to you; are you not violating his civil rights by not selling it to him if he is not a prohibited person? It seems an egregious violation of his civil rights.

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

Living in a free country is hard. People say things you don't like to hear. I on other hand like living in a free country, since you don't like it: you move.

ETA:

If you want to carry a concealed firearm do you just go ahead or do you have to have background checks. If you do have to have checks then you don't have a right to carry firearms. You are allowed to if the state says you can after the checks are made.

It varies. A few of the least populous states do not require anything at all. Some effectively don't allow it and some require checks. My state only requires a NICS check and $15 for my county. I renew my carry permit in five minutes or less every year.

 

[44 AMP]

The problem (as I see it) is creeping incrementalism...

Any of you fine folks remember what the law was before 1968? Do you care? Should you care?

Before 68, there were no prohibitied persons. There were also no Federal age limits on purchase of firearms. Also no Federal license for firearms dealers (it was a state matter, the same as any other business).

A convicted felon, released after serving all their time, could legally buy a gun.

Mail order sales, with delivery to your home were not just legal, but common.

And did we have nuts going on shooting rampages back then, like we do today? I don't recall such. One might just think something other than the ability to buy a gun might be at work here....

One of the reasons against a mandatory universal background check is the oft demonstrated creeping incrementalism. First, its is felons, and the adjudicated insane who are prohibited. Fine. Ok. Now, it is also anyone with a domestice violence misdemeanor. Ever. Even if it was decades before the law was passed. What's next? Late payment on a bill? or worse, non payment? Clearly this demonstrates you are not a responsible individual, and therefore, cannot be trusted to own a gun!

Give them an inch and they will take a mile, no matter how long it takes them to convice enough of us that it is needed? ITs not just a slogan, it is a proven fact. Lawdog's cake story is very apt. We give ground, over, and over, and they never stop demending more.

Leaving aside the arguments about how well the system will work, or even how it could be implemented, any requirement for everyone to go though a mandatory check is simplya bad idea, in practice, if not in theory. But it sounds soo good!

This, of course assumes that there is no other means for people to get guns, and assumes that no one will slip through the cracks, and assumes that the imposition of this on us is a worthwhile and useful thing. Lots of assumptions there....

We are being conditioned to accept that we must prove ourselves innocent each and every time....already we see this principle being used in other areas of our lives, how long do you think it will be before a cash strapped govt siezes your bank account and demands you "proove" you didn't get that money dealing drugs? OR firearms? or whatever else they want to demonize?

Never happen? so you say, today.

Motorcycle helmets and seat belts are good ideas. But the govt mandating them isn't. It is only an excuse for them to pick your pocket because you chose a socially unacceptable risk. Note that YOU are not responsible if you get injured, society is, society has to pay the cost. That's their argument, and some time ago, they won that particular argument.

I'd like to remind all that the Bill of Rights does NOT grant us anything, it is a list of restrictions on what the govt may do, concerning SOME of our rights. We have a lot of "natural rights" that are not covered, and the BOR specifically says so.

background checks are not a restriction of 2nd Amendment rights per se, they are a restriction on your right to do as you see fit with your personal property, which just happens to be a gun. Gun ownership is a civil right.

We are not being judged on the content of our character, we are being judged on the fact that we wish to have firearms. That single fact makes our character suspect to the anti-gun crowd. We have to proove our character (by way of nothing prohibited on a background check) each and every time? How is that NOT a presumption of guilt?

 

[arch308]

I remember 1968. My Father mail ordered a M1 Carbine thru the mail from an Army Surplus outfit. I totally agree with ya AMP, very well said.
Background checks are feel good legislation at best and do little to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and loonies. Also, not to be paranoid, but do you truly believe the records of your purchases are destroyed after your BGC?

 

[MLeake]

In order to prove effectiveness, folks should in theory be able to show a massive decrease in guns used in crimes by felons and mentally incompetent folks since 1968. If that data existed, antis would be quoting it left and right. After 45 years, if they can't cite such results, then I wonder what Alabama Shooter et al use to justify their position aside from unsupported theory?

They want us to give up something concrete: restrictions on federal infringement of our Second Amendment rights, which is exactly what the proposed, universal checks would be - a further infringement. They should at a minimum provide hard, cold fact showing that previous infringements had a measurably positive impact.

So far, they either cannot, or choose not to.

Supporting increased restrictions without providing any evidence of benefit is anti in character. If you think that is an insult, Alabama Shooter, then you have not paid much attention to anti tactics of the last several decades.

And, since you still haven't bothered to provide any factual basis for the benefits of increased federal regulation, I don't quite see how you think you are winning any argument.

manta49, you are incorrect in assuming all Americans must have background checks in order to carry. Several of our states have constitutional carry (no license required). In some cases, that may be restricted to either open carry or concealed carry; in some cases either mode is ok without a license.

 

[MLeake]

As far as claims of impact on the poor being bogus, in Alabama Shooter's opinion:

1. FFL transfer fees in my area run $25-$30 per gun. When I lived in the Atlanta area, they ran $30-$50 per gun. A single mom scraping the money together for a used $200 revolver might find a 15% increase in price a deterrent.

2. In some areas, there are not many FFLs. This may mean that in cases where face to face would have been possible, now a drive to another town becomes necessary. Aside from the cost of gas, not all people have cars, and in areas like that the odds are mass transit won't necessarily have routes near an FFL.

3. Some people work multiple jobs, and raise kids. Mandatory FFL transfers now take another bite of time out of a day that may have little if any spare time.

So, again, universal background checks are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the working poor.

 

[Spats McGee]

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

Just as they are today with store sales. There is also a system in place to deal with defects in the system. I reckon there are probably no cases where a person was unjustly denied and the case was never resolved properly. At least I have never heard of any.

So, is it your opinion that as long as a non-prohibited person gets their gun at some point, it's not an infringement? If so, how long can that delay continue before it becomes an infringement? A day? A week? Three weeks? . . .

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?

I don't know. I do know if we don't discuss these issues there will not be the proper safeguards in the system. If we let the opposition choose the terms because we won't even consider alternate outcomes then we will likely end up with the worst terms and system possible. If you bury your head in the sand you will have no room to complain about it when you get run over.

Well, these are all details that will have to be worked out, if universal background checks are to be the norm. Universal background checks are a fertile ground for abuse.

Over the decades, the anti-2A faction have repeatedly demonstrated that they are implacable. They are the proverbial "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." I'm not burying my head in the sand, but they'll have to take my rights over my objection. Appeasement does not work. Gun owners gave ground and "compromised" in 1934, 1968 and 1994, and never got one thing in return. Why should we believe that 2013 is any different?

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.

Yet they do. If I want to broadcast on TV, the radio or open a newspaper before I do so there is all matter of red tape to go through. Your belief that it should not be this way does not change it. After I open my TV station I still have to deal with all matter of censorship and regulations to deal with (although it has gotten better in recent years) but I can pretty much broadcast at will.

An instant background check is only asking you to demonstrate your eligibility at one certain time and place. If you own a gun before you go buy one and certainly after you have one there should be no requirement to demonstrate anything. Keep and bear to your hearts content. This is actually way better than trying to run a TV station.

Yes and no. I don't want to get off into First Amendment, prior restraints, and content-based vs. content-neutral restrictions, but the short story is that all of the censorship and regulations that you mention must be content-neutral. The publisher/broadcaster/etc does not have to show that he is publishing the "right" message (with exceptions for adult materials, obscenity, etc.) before broadcasting. My contention is that the background check among private individuals is just the opposite: the buyer must demonstrate that he is a "good guy" before he can exercise his 2A right.

And yet, if I want more than one gun, I have to go through this over, and prove my "good guy status" over and over.

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.

I would be interested in seeing the source for this data.

OK:

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

(Hypotheticals are dumb. People pose them and then try to change the conditions when they don't get the answers they are fishing for. I will play one round anyone, though I am sure I will regret it.)

You should be good to go. You will have complied with the law. Now that you mention it, it would be a good idea to have the law specifically written that way to avoid gaming by prosecutors.

However, if you advertise your gun for sale and you decide not to sell your gun to Frank because you don't trust him.... according to you; are you not violating his civil rights by not selling it to him if he is not a prohibited person? It seems an egregious violation of his civil rights.

Hypotheticals actually serve a very useful purpose. They let us fiddle with the variables without having to put the whole model in place. With that said, I'm not interested in playing Ring Around the Hypo with you. The point that I was trying to make is there is a feasible situation where I might have a very real reason to believe the Frank is a convicted felon, and still shield myself from liability. Whether that's desirable from a policy perspective, I leave for you to decide.

As for Frank's civil rights, I can't violate them while acting in my individual capacity. The Constitution defines the relationship between the government and individuals, but not as between two individuals. Only if I were acting my a governmental capacity (such as a police officer), would I be able to violate his civil rights.

 

[HiBC]

Currently the background check in Colorado is backed up about 10 days.I pass just fine,its only been days since I picked up my 30-40 Krag.

I have a far better proposal for making my grandchildren safe in the schools.Parents have the ultimate responsibilty for the safety of their children.If parents determine the kids are not safe at school,then they should keep their kids home until the school becomes a secure place.

IMO,the very best people to understand and provide that security are today's Greatest Generation of professionals who have been shot at,and shot back.

I think the men and women who have served as MP's in our current conflicts,for example,may know something about keeping an area secure.

Plainclothes,security cameras,monitors,communication devices,and a fewfolks on premises who are trained with arms who can be called upon

That is how you keep the kids safe.

Alabama Shooter,you are practicing Alynski.

You say I do not understand the role of government in our society.

I know enough about the founding of this nation,our Constitution,and the thoughts of our founders as expressed by the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence to know that Individual Liberty is the cornerstone of principle for our nation.

I know our founders were wisely and correctly concerned about the Federal Government itself not understanding the role of government in our society.I know they understood human weakness,corruption,lust for power,and the abuses of tyranny.

And so these great men crafted a document defining the role of government,and limiting the role of government ,in our society.The second Liberty they placed on our Bill of Rights,right after Freedom of Expression and Religion,was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,with the understanding,per Federalist Papers,those arms were to prevent tyranny of government.

You accuse me of tinfoil hattery.Cute,Dismissive.Alynski.

Myself,and others who recognise your position,stand as stewards of that Liberty defined by our founders and granted us by God.

Yes,our freedom has been eroded and corrupted by bad law .Benjamin Franklin said"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security shall have neither"(paraphrased)

He foresaw people like you,and Feinstein,and Biden...He warned us.

The line must stop here.No more!

No more shall we compromise the Liberty of ourselves,our children,our grandchildren,our nation.

Universal background check can only be enforced by universal inventory,registration,and audit.

History has shown where that goes.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

M Leake- If you are addressing your posts to me I have no apologies. I can no longer see them and do not wish to. I don't have discussions with people who call me a liar. The discussions tend to be short and uncivilized.

IMO,the very best people to understand and provide that security are today's Greatest Generation of professionals who have been shot at,and shot back.

Well thanks.

Alabama Shooter,you are practicing Alynski.

Thanks again, I think? You do realize that you are calling TFL a slum?

Myself,and others who recognize your position,stand as stewards of that Liberty defined by our founders and granted us by God.

I am pretty sure God was silent on background checks. I also think discussions on religion are against the forum rules.

Universal background check can only be enforced by universal inventory,registration,and audit.

Background checks are about the people not the guns. I don't think there should be any mention of what kind of gun is being purchased. Oh yeah I think I wrote that down a few times already. I can write it slower if you like. Use smaller words?

So, is it your opinion that as long as a non-prohibited person gets their gun at some point, it's not an infringement? If so, how long can that delay continue before it becomes an infringement? A day? A week? Three weeks? . . .

How long does it take to find and fix a leaky pipe? About that long.

Well, these are all details that will have to be worked out, if universal background checks are to be the norm. Universal background checks are a fertile ground for abuse.

Not worked out with you. You are not interested. Since you reject it in all forms than there is no point.

Over the decades, the anti-2A faction have repeatedly demonstrated that they are implacable. They are the proverbial "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." I'm not burying my head in the sand, but they'll have to take my rights over my objection. Appeasement does not work. Gun owners gave ground and "compromised" in 1934, 1968 and 1994, and never got one thing in return. Why should we believe that 2013 is any different?

Please tell me the current negative effect of the 1994 compromise? Especially now that it no longer exists that should be interesting. Sounds like a clear victory to me.

All of those are off topic in any case. Besides, if you think that I have indicated anything in any of my posts (any and all) that I want some kind of AWB or NFA you should take some kind of remedial reading course.

Yes and no. I don't want to get off into First Amendment, prior restraints, and content-based vs. content-neutral restrictions, but the short story is that all of the censorship and regulations that you mention must be content-neutral. The publisher/broadcaster/etc does not have to show that he is publishing the "right" message (with exceptions for adult materials, obscenity, etc.) before broadcasting. My contention is that the background check among private individuals is just the opposite: the buyer must demonstrate that he is a "good guy" before he can exercise his 2A right.

You don't want to get into it because it exposes the fallacy of your argument. If the right to free speech were unlimited as you claim it is there would be no obscenity laws. How about the 40 years we had the Fairness Doctrine?

And yet, if I want more than one gun, I have to go through this over, and prove my "good guy status" over and over.

No. You can plop down and buy a whole case of AK's with one check.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Wow really? You cite a 15+ year old survey asking criminals to be honest about their criminal behavior and want to call that valid? What is a street buy? Why is it lumped in with the 80%? Sounds like a private party sale to me. How many picked FTF from ads over the internet? 0%.

Horrible. Simply horrible. I know you can do better. Can you show some kind of valid research at least within the last five years? I could run down to the county lock up and ask a few guys and probably get better data.

The whole world of commerce in the US has changed. In 1997 Amazon barely existed and sold a bunch of books. Today they have $50,000,000,000 in revenue and 70,000 employees. There was no gun broker, arms list, guns America etc.... Horrible. Simply horrible.

As for Frank's civil rights, I can't violate them while acting in my individual capacity.

Bull.

Make Frank black and tell him he can't rent an apartment in the building you own. Tell Frank you won't sell him the gun because he is Hispanic or Muslim. Watch Frank sue you for whatever he thinks he can get.

background checks are not a restriction of 2nd Amendment rights per se, they are a restriction on your right to do as you see fit with your personal property

Completely agree. A restriction on selling to prohibited people and making you go through a process to ensure as best you can that you do not do that. One that retailers already have to follow.

We are not being judged on the content of our character, we are being judged on the fact that we wish to have firearms. That single fact makes our character suspect to the anti-gun crowd.

Absolutely. The only thing that changes that is education but it is a tough row to hoe. Until a couple of day ago I assumed most of the thick hardheadedness was one sided. I was wrong about that.

We are being conditioned to accept that we must prove ourselves innocent each and every time....already we see this principle being used in other areas of our lives, how long do you think it will be before a cash strapped govt seizes your bank account and demands you "prove" you didn't get that money dealing drugs? OR firearms? or whatever else they want to demonize?

They already do that. Although I don't see the relevance. This is not about going and seizing guns but from the kittens some of the forum members are having you might think it would be.

 

[nate45]

I'm constantly on facebook. I know, I know, but my friends and business associates are constantly on it. So in order to effectively network and schmooze customers, I have to too.

My life is an open book. My phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc, etc are all tied together. My smartphone syncs with my other devices. I post no gun pics on there though, strictly because of thieves. However, with my alarm system, insurance policy and safe, thats not really a worry either.

My point is, the days of having secret(unknown to the government) guns is nearly over. Its time to stop worrying about databases, etc. As long as the government doesn't pursue confiscation, or bans, databases are no threat.

Here is a threat, actually its a promise...if the law comes for my guns, I'll resist to the utmost of my abilities. If you knew me personally, that would sound very credible, trust me. The government can't afford the consequences of confiscation, its just that simple.

 

[lefteye]

On second thought, I'll not post.

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, these are all details that will have to be worked out, if universal background checks are to be the norm. Universal background checks are a fertile ground for abuse.

Not worked out with you. You are not interested. Since you reject it in all forms than there is no point.

Yes, I reject expanding BG checks to encompass all private sales. That doesn't mean the details will not have to be worked out, if universal BG checks become standard.

Over the decades, the anti-2A faction have repeatedly demonstrated that they are implacable. They are the proverbial "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." I'm not burying my head in the sand, but they'll have to take my rights over my objection. Appeasement does not work. Gun owners gave ground and "compromised" in 1934, 1968 and 1994, and never got one thing in return. Why should we believe that 2013 is any different?

Please tell me the current negative effect of the 1994 compromise? Especially now that it no longer exists that should be interesting. Sounds like a clear victory to me.

All of those are off topic in any case. Besides, if you think that I have indicated anything in any of my posts (any and all) that I want some kind of AWB or NFA you should take some kind of remedial reading course.

How about 10 years of higher magazine prices? The sunset clause was, as far as I know, the only thing that came close to being a "compromise" on that one.

I haven't accused you of wanting an AWB, nor have I suggested anything about the NFA.

And now that you've been pushed to show some evidence, I guess it's time for you to resort to personal attacks.

Yes and no. I don't want to get off into First Amendment, prior restraints, and content-based vs. content-neutral restrictions, but the short story is that all of the censorship and regulations that you mention must be content-neutral. The publisher/broadcaster/etc does not have to show that he is publishing the "right" message (with exceptions for adult materials, obscenity, etc.) before broadcasting. My contention is that the background check among private individuals is just the opposite: the buyer must demonstrate that he is a "good guy" before he can exercise his 2A right.

You don't want to get into it because it exposes the fallacy of your argument. If the right to free speech were unlimited as you claim it is there would be no obscenity laws. How about the 40 years we had the Fairness Doctrine?

I'm not the one that needs the remedial reading lesson here, AS. I specifically mentioned an exception for obscenity in my last post. At this point, I don't want to get into prior restraints, content-neutral & content-based regulation because: (1) most of it is off-topic; and (2) it has become obvious that you won't get it.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Wow really? You cite a 15+ year old survey asking criminals to be honest about their criminal behavior and want to call that valid? What is a street buy? Why is it lumped in with the 80%? Sounds like a private party sale to me. How many picked FTF from ads over the internet? 0%.

Horrible. Simply horrible. I know you can do better. Can you show some kind of valid research at least within the last five years? I could run down to the county lock up and ask a few guys and probably get better data.

The whole world of commerce in the US has changed. In 1997 Amazon barely existed and sold a bunch of books. Today they have $50,000,000,000 in revenue and 70,000 employees. There was no gun broker, arms list, guns America etc.... Horrible. Simply horrible.

Compared to the evidence you've provided, it's a gold mine. You're the one proposing to change the law to further restrict 2A rights, but you haven't shown anything other than your desire to "feel better" about transfers. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your proposal would actually do any good? If you've got better data, pony on up. I'd love to see it.

As for Frank's civil rights, I can't violate them while acting in my individual capacity.

Bull.

Make Frank black and tell him he can't rent an apartment in the building you own. Tell Frank you won't sell him the gun because he is Hispanic or Muslim. Watch Frank sue you for whatever he thinks he can get.

Wow. And you were worried about ME changing facts around in the hypo until I got the results I want?!? If I were renting him an apartment, or in the business of selling guns, I would not be acting as an individual. I'd be acting as an agent for a business. Google "individual capacity" and "official capacity." To be really precise, what I cannot violate are his constitutional rights. There are also statutory civil rights, but that's not what's really at issue here.

I've spent the majority of my career defending cities and police officers in civil rights lawsuits. The constitution does not regulate activities as between private individuals.

 

[Dragline45]

I have a far better proposal for making my grandchildren safe in the schools.Parents have the ultimate responsibilty for the safety of their children.If parents determine the kids are not safe at school,then they should keep their kids home until the school becomes a secure place.

+1 to this. When the day comes that I have children of my own, they will not be going to any school unless it has armed officers or guards. Maybe where I grew up was ahead of the game, but for the past 20 years or so the elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools in my hometown all had two assigned officers per school who had an office right next to the main office. When I was a kid school shootings weren't even an issue, but looking back I sure am glad we had officers in the building.

 

[Hal]

When I was a kid school shootings weren't even an issue, but looking back I sure am glad we had officers in the building.

LOL!
Looking back to when I was a kid, I'm thankful we didn't have to go to school in an "armed encampment".
{{sigh}} so much for that old out of date and old fashioned feeling of freedom....

 

[lcpiper]

Manta, regarding this exchange.

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.

Laws do two things, they provide guidance to the law abiding, and they establish a foundation for punishing those who break said laws.

There has been a law that covers prohibited possessors on the Federal Books for decades. So it's been established that certain people can't have firearms anymore. Why do you need "preventative laws", more laws on top of existing laws.

And moreover, on to the real meat of it. Why should we be bullied or coerced, or shamed into accepting and allowing the Federal Government to regulate that which they have not been granted the power to regulate.

 

[lcpiper]

When I was a kid something like Columbine never happened. That's why Columbine was such a big deal, it had never happened.

I remember my Ag Teacher, he had a rifle and a shotgun both in a gun rack in the window of his truck. He drove that truck to school every school-day and his guns were never touched by anyone but him.

I long for those days

 

[ScottRiqui]

I don't know when you were a kid, but there have been a metric ass-load of school shootings in the U.S. over the years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Columbine may have been the one with the most fatalities at a high school up to that point, but that's just a matter of scale - it wasn't fundamentally "new" or "unique".

Columbine probably sticks in our mind more for the news coverage than any other reason, since it happened in the era of the 24-hour news cycle AND the World Wide Web.

 

[MLeake]

I am not sure I would use such a superlative term to describe an average between one and two per year (based on your link).

 

[ScottRiqui]

I never said they happened frequently - just that they were nothing new by the time the Columbine shooting happened. In making that point, it's not the rate of shootings that's important, just the fact that there had already been 100+ of them.

Granted, most of those weren't mass shootings, but there had been several mass shootings before Columbine as well.

 

[MLeake]

You used the term,

a metric ass-load

. I would call that a superlative.