In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Universal Background Check v 2nd Amendment
MBK
Member Posts: 2,918 ✭✭✭
The Bloomberg-Obama-Reid background check provides for BGCs for any handling or passing a gun from the owner to another person...even without a sale. Even just borrowing.
( there is a prowler in my yard couple times a week.....ok...borrow my shotgun )
Well, the 2nd provides for protection against oppresive governments. The suppliers of firearms in the Well a Regulated Militia would be existing gun owners and collectors. There would not be any government run background checks. Actual gun stores would be shut down and prohibited from supplying either by lockdown or the government allowing no background checks.
Now add the Universal feature just passed in Colorado CT and NY and the Militia all become chargable, prisionable, and their firearms all seized.
( there is a prowler in my yard couple times a week.....ok...borrow my shotgun )
Well, the 2nd provides for protection against oppresive governments. The suppliers of firearms in the Well a Regulated Militia would be existing gun owners and collectors. There would not be any government run background checks. Actual gun stores would be shut down and prohibited from supplying either by lockdown or the government allowing no background checks.
Now add the Universal feature just passed in Colorado CT and NY and the Militia all become chargable, prisionable, and their firearms all seized.
Comments
It would be like requiring a license to publish a newspaper.
Here's the problem...The current and recent Courts have been able to ignore the precedent because the USG wants them to and no attorney that is certified to bring cases before the USSC will even try to use it because they want to continue to argue before the SSSC.
Terry
Those are two most recent and most important precedents.
We have a solid 10th Amendment argument disallowing these powers to the Federal Government,and if UBCs are enacted by Congress, there will be a challenge from a disenfranchised individual in a States that allows FTF sales.
Scalia, the mythical 'Constitutional Lion' has publicly stated that he believes that these governmental powers exist, though I am unsure if he believes that they are reserved to the States. Given recent decisions regarding the power of the Federal Government (the Affordable Care Act decision, for example) there is little hope that Roberts or even Kennedy would vote to deny this power to the Feds. Thomas and Alito might, Scalia is a wild card, but the rest will sell out our freedom in a heartbeat.
The case must and will be brought, though I fear it will result in the same disappointment that thinking 2nd Amendment advocates realized upon reading Heller and McDonald.
Brad Steele
1. We already have background checks for sales from dealers - We should continue this and INVESTIGATE those who attempt to buy but can't pass.
2. If you straw purchase for someone you know can't legally possess a firearm - you get the hammer! Stop screwing it up for the rest of us!
3. Make the background check something a private citizen can phone in himself.
4. No records kept of who gets a back ground check.
5. No information on the firearm required to process the BGC.
6. FREE. (It's for safety right?)
I would gladly call in a BGC on anyone I sold a firearm too as a private sale under those conditions.
BUT - It requires the honor system from us Law - Abiders. And it still doesn't guarantee that criminals won't by-pass the system.
BUT - If it makes the libtards feel better....
We chose to un-fund lots of mental health programs in the 1970s. The excuse for not looking out for the mentally ill (and, consequentially the general public) was called 'mainstreaming'. It was simply a cost saving issue.
Engineer88, you are probably someone who cares deeply about others and shares my horror and loss when confronted with senseless violence. Our survivor guilt is not a reason to hand over our God-given rights for no reason. The 1st AWB did not work. Background Checks do not work. Normal-capacity magazine bans do not work. Why? The only people that comply are honest citizens and incredibly stoopid zombies.
Guns did not cause the mass shootings, crazy people did. Handing over a list of law-abiding gun owners and a list of their guns to the USG will not help.
Just in case you feel moved by the 'If only one child can be saved...' mantra, think about all of the other ways 'one child' could be saved and why nothing gets done about it. Maybe we could actually address mental health issues and keep 'one child' from being beaten to death by a known abusive parent...
Thanks, I feel better now.
Terry
I always enjoy seeing your thoughtful and informed opinions. They are a good counterpoint to my rants.
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has not been the voice of the Constitution for a long time. It seems that the Court exists simply to provide some validity to USG encroachment. Witness the so-called Affordable Care Act where the Justices went out of their way to find an interpretation of the case that would allow the USG to go forward. Also in evidence was the White House threats and warnings to the Court, of what would happen should they rule against the ACA.
Some might call those statements an attempt to improperly influence the Court.
Some, or many, legislators have no concern for the constitutionality of their proposed laws. Senator Feinstein, comes to mind. She says that she is not worried about the constitutionality of her proposals. The implied attitude is that, if it passes, it's law. End of story.
Terry
WASHINGTON (AP) - A bipartisan deal seems imminent on expanding background checks to more gun buyers, an agreement that could build support for President Barack Obama's drive to curb firearms violence.
Meanwhile, the Senate is ready for an opening vote on restricting guns as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set a roll call for Thursday on starting consideration of the firearms legislation. Odds are growing that Democrats will win enough Republican support to thwart an effort by conservatives and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to block consideration from even starting.
"I hope Republicans will stop trying to shut down debate and start engaging in the tough issues we were sent to Washington to tackle," Reid said.
Together, the developments were a boost for gun control advocates battling for restrictions in the wake of December's shootings that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Even so, the ultimate fate of gun legislation remains unclear, clouded by opposition from many Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-run House. Many critics say the proposal would violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms and burden law-abiding gun owners.
"We should focus law enforcement resources on the bad guys," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., were expected to announce a background check compromise on Wednesday. Subjecting more firearms purchases to federal background checks has been the chief goal of Obama and gun control supporters, who promote the system as a way to prevent criminals and other risky people from getting the weapons.
After weeks of negotiations, Manchin and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters late Tuesday that a gun control agreement was close.
The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.
Though many details of the emerging agreement were unclear, Manchin and Toomey are among their parties' most conservative members and a deal could make it easier for some hesitant senators to support the background check measure, at least for now.
Some Republicans might vote to begin debate on the legislation but eventually oppose the measure on final passage. Other parts of Obama's gun effort already seem likely to face defeat, including proposed bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Assuming the deal between Manchin and Toomey is completed, Reid would try to replace that language with their agreement once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.
The overall gun bill also tightens federal laws against illegal gun sales and slightly increases federal aid for school safety.
Thirteen conservatives have signed a letter saying they will block consideration of the measure, and McConnell said he will back that move. That will force Democrats to round up 60 votes to overcome the conservatives.
At least eight Republicans have said they want to begin debate or have indicated a willingness to consider it, a number that would be expected to grow if the background check agreement proves successful.
The eight are Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Susan Collins of Maine, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Some moderate Democrats were remaining noncommittal and could oppose opening the gun debate. They include Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who are seeking re-election next year. There are 53 Senate Democrats and two independents who lean Democratic.
Amid the maneuvering, relatives of some Newtown victims are lobbying to support gun curbs. And Obama has been calling senators from both parties to push for the gun bill.
"People should listen to what we have to say and move the debate forward," said Mark Barden, who lost his 7-year-old son, Daniel. "It's not just about our tragedy. Lots of kids are killed every day in this nation. We have to help lead the change."
The National Rifle Association opposes Obama's effort and is urging its members - it claims nearly 5 million - to tell lawmakers of their opposition.
In GOP-heavy Louisiana, the NRA asked members to contact Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who is seeking re-election next year. "The future of our Second Amendment rights are at stake," the mailing said.
Counteracting that has been an effort by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, one of whose leaders is billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It said it will keep track of key gun-related congressional roll calls and make the information available to voters and contributors - a tactic long used by the NRA and other groups.
___
Associated Press writers Nedra Pickler, Jim Abrams, Andrew Miga and Henry C. Jackson contributed to this report.
http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form
Do we require a background check to vote? Do we require a background check before we speak out or protest? Do we require a background check before we go to church?
We do not need a background check to exercise ANY of our rights. The current background checks are infringements![:(!]
Hi Don,
I always enjoy seeing your thoughtful and informed opinions. They are a good counterpoint to my rants.
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has not been the voice of the Constitution for a long time. It seems that the Court exists simply to provide some validity to USG encroachment. Witness the so-called Affordable Care Act where the Justices went out of their way to find an interpretation of the case that would allow the USG to go forward. Also in evidence was the White House threats and warnings to the Court, of what would happen should they rule against the ACA.
Some might call those statements an attempt to improperly influence the Court.
Some, or many, legislators have no concern for the constitutionality of their proposed laws. Senator Feinstein, comes to mind. She says that she is not worried about the constitutionality of her proposals. The implied attitude is that, if it passes, it's law. End of story.
Terry
The Supreme Court is an extremely political body. In a perfect world, we would not be able to predict how any individual justice would decide on an issue. The fact that 6 or 7 of the 9 are quite predictable proves that they view the Constitution through a political lens.
I am unsure of the answer, but the Supreme Court, by virtue how it is so obviously tainted by ideology, should be disbanded and replaced with a politically neutral body.
All precedent should be tossed and all decisions should be based solely on the words written in the U.S. Constitution. Not perceived intent, not historical assumptions based upon God's Law or Natural Law, not the opinions expressed in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and not the scattered views of the founders as twisted by various histories.
The Law of the Land is a written document. Assuming it provides a governmental power that is not noted requires that it be Amended as proscribed in Article 5. As recently as 1971, Article 5 was used to grant voting privileges to all Americans above the age of 18. Today any Congress and any President would simply pass legislation. It is called representative mob rule, and SCOTUS is an all too willing player in this abrogation of our founding principles.
Brad Steele
How could a "Well armed Militia" operate if the oppresive government has to agree to run background checks first?
The oppresive government controls the armory. It would suspend the checks, and then arrest those who became armed by direct means. The arms in possession of legal gun owners would become bound to their original owners and family....Grampa age 75, will have to go defend the Constitution by himself using his 10 gun collection.... while the 20-30 somethings fashion slingshots from tree branches.
Go back and look at Lexington and Concord. The Revolutionists couldn't have gone to Boston to ask King George's brigades for either the guns or the permission to distribute them. ie. BGC
quote:"A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
And earlier in the decision, Scalia correctly defined "militia":
quote:"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, ? 8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," ? 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."
Since militia has now been legally (and correctly) defined by our highest court, it is clear that ANY act by Congress or the States that hinder either the militia's ability to serve its function, or the ability of (law-abiding) individuals to defend themselves, their families, or their property, should be deemed as infringement and therefore unconstitutional.
In fact, the argument should be taken further to declare ALL Congressional restrictions on military-grade firearms as unconstitutional. One example would be the Federal requirement to purchase a stamp for so-called "Call 3 weapons" since this class would be the type any invading army would be equipped with. My point is that we could go on and on. The problem is, few in the government WANT TO allow the Constitution to function as it was intended. Where they cannot misinterpret it, they ignore it. The task of remedying this fact is ours.
Fitz
www.PatriotMusic.com
He is a typical political hack. Talks out of both sides of his mouth, pretends to support his oath to the Constitution, yet purposely goes out of his way to dismiss what it stands for.
Scalia is no friend of liberty, and is every bit the judicial tyrant as is any on the left. He is just less honest about it.
Brad Steele
I'm sure you knew, but my point was that Scalia's own (the Court's own) decision and writings in Heller logically conclude this fact and can and should be used to remove all existing infringements.
Fitz
I agree, Don. The problem is that anyone who researches the intent of the 2nd Amendment even cursively will be left with the fact that ALL regulations are unconstitutional. And that scares the hell out of them (as it should).
I'm sure you knew, but my point was that Scalia's own (the Court's own) decision and writings in Heller logically conclude this fact and can and should be used to remove all existing infringements.
Fitz
I would agree with you had Scalia not included the provisions for infringement within his decision. One cannot logically pick and decide which part of a decision one gets to use as precedent, even if there are a number of directly conflicting statements within that decision.
Scalia also stated, in addition to defining militia, that it, in effect did not matter, as the prefatory clause does not expand, nor does it restrict the operative clause of the 2nd.
I do not pretend to understand why these justices think the way they do, although I have become more and more convinced that 90% of what they write is for themselves and their posterity, and has nothing what-so-ever to do with jurisprudence.
Brad Steele
Bottom line: the decision conflicts with itself and leaves all types of decisions open to the interpretation of future judges, despite the fact that he claims that is not the case. You're right: either he's just not that intelligent or he's dishonest.
He also didn't clarify the huge error made in Miller that failed to include sawed-off shotguns as weapons the U.S. military was trained on and issued with in WWI and WWII. The SCOTUS is a bunch of amateurs. You and I would make far better justices than most of them do.
But hey, if nothing else, at least he didn't side with D.C.
Fitz
It seems that the Court exists simply to provide some validity to USG encroachment.
That is te BEST explanation of the purpose of the court.
The court does not exist to protect the constitution, but is there to decide how much infringement on the contitution is permissable.
"Shall not be infringed" doesnt REALLY mean shall not be infringed. It means "shall BE infringed" as much as the court deems is permissable.
I read the decision as being quite specific as to what infringements are permisseable. "Common use" guns are protected. Automatics would be out- but AR types, magazines would be protected, because it would be hard to claim that these weapons are not in common use, or commonly owned.
Heller says that "dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected. This seems to be an invitation to restrict just about any firearm- but I do not think so.
Heller does not say "dangerous OR unusual", it does not say "dangerous and/or unusual". It says "dangerous AND unusual".
A BB gun is dangerous, but not unusual.
A bolt action deer rifle is dangerous, but not unusual
An AR rifle is dangerous, but not unusual.
A boomerang is dangerous, AND unusual.
You would have an easier time banning a boomerang under heller than an AR rifle.
In common use of language, this might be considered splitting hairs; but Scalia is a lawyer, and lawyers regularly argue over such word splitting..
I also see Heller prohibiting universal background checks. I am paraphrasing, but heller says it is Kosher for the feds to place requirements on COMMERCIAL sales. It does not say "sales" it says "Commercial" sales.
I do not have Heller in front of me, but I think it is pretty specific as to what infringements are allowed; granted I think there are too many allowances, but I do not think there is a lot of wiggle room for the govt.
Scalias opinion with respect to the 2nd was that the feds have to stay out of the business of guns all together, but the states could regulate- he "changed" , and he acknowledges in McDonald that he changed his earlier opinion.
I think you're seeing the "glass half full" view. I wish I could share your optimism but the Heller decision should have been based on, and should be taken against, the wording and intention of the Second Amendment and its meaning is clear. If the SCOTUS can interpret such an eclectic set of parameters for "shall not be infringed", why would I put faith in what another SCOTUS would do to the words in the Heller decision?
Fitz
Sad to say you are probably right.
I cringed when I read in Heller that, paraphrased, "The second amendment, like other rights,, has limitations and is not absolute".I agree with that statement, but constitutionally speaking, what is absolute, is that th federal government government does not have the authority to decide what limitations can be placed on the right to bear arms, or any other rights for that matter.I would have prefered th "Old Scalia" wrote the decision, in which he would have said the DC ban was unconstitutinal, because the feds ar to stay out of the business of guns, and opined AGAINST McDonald, becase the states have the authority to restrict gun rights. Granted, I think restrictig gun rights is a bad idea, but it would be easier on a state or local level to change such laws, and lets face it, some states just love gun control, and I think the constitution allows them to decide to keep themselves in shackles. The "whats good for one is good for all" policy of allowin the feds to dictate what rights we can and cannot enjoy is the most constitutionally offensive.