Universal background checks

[Vandalshandle]

That is like saying that we should do away with automobile registrations, because it is unenforceable. If I were to argue the oppositions point of view, I would point out that I, myself, sold a car once, and the buyer never regisitered it under his name, and his parking tickets came to me. The counter argument is that every time he drove that car with an expired tag, he risked getting fined.

Universal gun registration is something that we need.

And BTW, not all criminals get their guns illegally. The guy who killed 8 people, and shot Gabby Giffords, bought his weapon legally.

What do cars and guns have in common, other than the fact that people can buy both? Why mention cars in a dicussion about universal background checks, and then delve into taxation, as some sort of argument in favor of registering guns? Is you bias on this issue so severe that you confuse the issues?

It is not necessary to register a car unless you intend to use it on a public road. In other words, if I own a car that never leaves my property, I don't have to register it. On the other hand, what you are proposing is a requirement that everyone register their guns, no matter what it is they intend to do with it. Yet, for some reason, you have no problem with htis, probably because you are afraid of guns.
By the way, the fact that Jarrod Loughner bought his guns legally, and sill used them to commit a crime, is actually an argument against backgrounds checks, not for them. He actually passed the background checks, so they didn't prevent the attack.

Please do not make assumptions about me. You know absolutely nothing about me. I am on active duty with the Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteers, and I patrol the streets in a patrol car, wearing a uniform. I am trained in the use of weapons, although I patrol with nothing but a radio, which is, incidently, what Zimmerman should have been doing.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Registration is the first step that every country that has confiscated weapons has taken. I do not wish to repeat that history. We are even being warned by those in the UK and Australia not to give in - they did, at least in part and the process didn't work to reduce violent crime in England - in fact it has steadily risen to the point where there is more violent crime in the UK than in the US and they have completely bannedgun ownership."

From Wiki:

"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).[3]"
Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might want to rething that post, Paul.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have no problem with registration. Registration is not a restriction of freedom.

Registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right that is not iinherent to same, and is thus an infringement.

Presuming that you disagree with that, you would then be OK with forcing Muslims to register with the government before they could practice their religion, correct?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Allow me to eliminate your confusion:

Been thinking about [universal background checks], above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

But even then, it isn't a form of restraint for legal gun owners. You are allowed to get the gun if you are legal.

You dont understand.

Prior restraint is when the government prevents you from exercising a right until such a time that it determines that said exercise does not violate the law - you are restrained BEFORE you commit an illegal act on the grounds that you MIGHT be comitting an illegal act. This violates the constitution.

The fact that you get to eventually get to exercise your right is inherently irrelevant.

Prior restraint refers to First Amendment jurisprudence, where the government seeks to restrict speech or another form of protected free expression before it has taken place.

Gun registration would more be of an issue concerning an undue burden to the exercising of a Constitutional right, absent a compelling interest by the state. There may also be 4th Amendment concerns with regard to privacy rights.

As we all know, however, there has never been a successful challenge to a given gun registration law, and gun registration is currently Constitutional:

We have found no post-McDonald court case that has considered registration requirements. But post-Heller courts have upheld such requirements. For example, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that mandatory firearm registration is constitutional (Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009). According to the court, even if Heller applied to the states and local governments, the town's mandatory registration requirement would still be constitutional because, unlike the law struck down in Heller, the Cicero ordinance merely regulates, but does not prohibit, gun possession. And in 2010 a federal district court upheld the District's registration requirements, concluding that “there is at least a substantial nexus between the registration requirements and the important governmental interest underlying those requirements (Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179, 193 (D.D.C. 2010)). We found no court case that has considered Connecticut's machine gun or asault weapon registration provisions.

FIREARM REGISTRATION

Given the current case law, then, it would seem a Federal registration requirement would withstand a court challenge.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no problem with registration. Registration is not a restriction of freedom.

Registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right that is not iinherent to same, and is thus an infringement.

Presuming that you disagree with that, you would then be OK with forcing Muslims to register with the government before they could practice their religion, correct?

Requiring only Muslims to ‘register’ based on their faith would be a potential First Amendment Free Exercise Clause violation and potential 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clause violations, as a particular class of persons is being singled out for a subjective punitive measure.

That would have nothing to do with a Second Amendment restriction challenge, as registration requirements would be applied to all persons equally.

Again, a registration challenge would be predicated on an undue burden to the exercising of a Constitutional right absent justification. The state would be required to defend such a measure, demonstrate that its rationally based, exhibits a compelling governmental interest, and supported with objective, documented evidence.

 

[Underhill]

Specifically, what laws?

Here is an article for you...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/u...y-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And I asked for specific laws. You may proceed.
Note that you also have to show that the effect of the laws is as you say.


More hogwash, What you said here is not what you said originally.
Gun manufacturers do -not- sell to individuals, and so I accept your concession of the point to that effect.

More hogwash; the reason we have the NICS at all is because the NRA supported it.

Read the artical and get back to me. These things are not really up for debate.

You are right -- you have an example where the NRA does support restrictions on gun ownership. and the falseness of your claim that the NRA opposes all rewstrictionson guns is not up for debate at all.

Alright then. Name for me which of the proposals put forth the NRA has gotten behind.

Because the only thing I've heard from them is we need more guns in schools.

 

[Underhill]

I've owned somewhere around 2 dozen different guns at one time or another spread out over the years.....

I have had one background check........And that was on my most recent purchase....

I have no problem with background checks if they would actually work....

.

A voice of reason...

 

[SFC Ollie]

"Registration is the first step that every country that has confiscated weapons has taken. I do not wish to repeat that history. We are even being warned by those in the UK and Australia not to give in - they did, at least in part and the process didn't work to reduce violent crime in England - in fact it has steadily risen to the point where there is more violent crime in the UK than in the US and they have completely bannedgun ownership."

From Wiki:

"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).[3]"
Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might want to rething that post, Paul.

Gun related homicides and violent crime are not the same thing.......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is an article for you...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/u...y-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And I asked for specific laws. You may proceed.
Note that you also have to show that the effect of the laws is as you say.


More hogwash, What you said here is not what you said originally.
Gun manufacturers do -not- sell to individuals, and so I accept your concession of the point to that effect.

Read the artical and get back to me. These things are not really up for debate.

You are right -- you have an example where the NRA does support restrictions on gun ownership. and the falseness of your claim that the NRA opposes all rewstrictionson guns is not up for debate at all.

Alright then. Name for me which of the proposals put forth the NRA has gotten behind.
Because the only thing I've heard from them is we need more guns in schools.

Your response here indicates that you have abandoned all the points you tried to make.
Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But even then, it isn't a form of restraint for legal gun owners. You are allowed to get the gun if you are legal.

You dont understand.

Prior restraint is when the government prevents you from exercising a right until such a time that it determines that said exercise does not violate the law - you are restrained BEFORE you commit an illegal act on the grounds that you MIGHT be comitting an illegal act. This violates the constitution.

The fact that you get to eventually get to exercise your right is inherently irrelevant.

Prior restraint refers to First Amendment jurisprudence, where the government seeks to restrict speech or another form of protected free expression before it has taken place.

Uh huh. And thus, background checks are a form of prior restraint.

 

[Katzndogz]

Unless there is a data base somewhere of the mentally ill, background checks will be useless. But there can't be a data base for the mentally ill. There isn't even a method of reporting someone clearly insane. It violates their rights to be clearly insane.

That puts two dangerous classes outside of a background checks. The insane and criminals who won't buy a gun legally in the first place.

 

[Underhill]

And I asked for specific laws. You may proceed.
Note that you also have to show that the effect of the laws is as you say.


More hogwash, What you said here is not what you said originally.
Gun manufacturers do -not- sell to individuals, and so I accept your concession of the point to that effect.


You are right -- you have an example where the NRA does support restrictions on gun ownership. and the falseness of your claim that the NRA opposes all rewstrictionson guns is not up for debate at all.

Alright then. Name for me which of the proposals put forth the NRA has gotten behind.
Because the only thing I've heard from them is we need more guns in schools.

Your response here indicates that you have abandoned all the points you tried to make.
Thank you.

No, my response indicated that you didn't bother to read what I posted, which is an article from a respected source. Two of them actually.

So I moved on, to another tact. Which you seem to be ignoring for some reason.

Maybe it has something to do with the lack of cooperation from the NRA on any new regulations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alright then. Name for me which of the proposals put forth the NRA has gotten behind.
Because the only thing I've heard from them is we need more guns in schools.

Your response here indicates that you have abandoned all the points you tried to make.
Thank you.

No, my response indicated that you didn't bother to read what I posted...

I did. And that's exactly why I responded as I did.
But, you've conceded the points, so thee's no need to go back.

 

[Underhill]

Unless there is a data base somewhere of the mentally ill, background checks will be useless. But there can't be a data base for the mentally ill. There isn't even a method of reporting someone clearly insane. It violates their rights to be clearly insane.

That puts two dangerous classes outside of a background checks. The insane and criminals who won't buy a gun legally in the first place.

This is why tracking of sales is so important. It keeps sellers honest. You sell a gun without the background check, you can be held responsible if something bad happens with that gun.

And as I pointed out in the link provided, most guns come from legal sources, either they are stolen (in which case police need to be notified) they are bought by a friend (in which case the friend would be held liable if you use the gun for illegal activities) or bought by a unscrupulous dealer (who hopefully won't be willing to take the chance if their are consequences)

In the short term it won't accomplish a whole lot as there are so many weapons already out there, but as time goes on, it will become an effective tool.

This does nothing about the mental health issue, but that is a separate, and more difficult, issue to deal with.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

I have no idea why you want to make it easy for felons and the insane to obtain weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

I have no idea why you want to make it easy for felons and the insane to obtain weapons.

I have a very good idea that you have no idea what non-sequitur means, even though your response is a perfect example.

 

[Bigfoot]

The last background check I went through was just before Christmas and I had to stay at the store for just over four hours to complete the check. That sucked big time. I wish my state did not require back ground checks at Gun Shows or that's the only place I would purchase firearms from now on.

 

[Spoonman]

The last background check I went through was just before Christmas and I had to stay at the store for just over four hours to complete the check. That sucked big time. I wish my state did not require back ground checks at Gun Shows or that's the only place I would purchase firearms from now on.

for rifles, if you have purchased before and are on record, it goes pretty quick. pistols takes a few days. you can't go in anywhere and walk out with a pistol. you fill out the paperwork, it goes for review. If you are approved it goes to the permit division. they update your permit and calll you when it is ready. then you take the document ot the gun shop and can pick up the gun.

 

[Spoonman]

Been thinking about these, above and beyond their unconstitutionality as a form of prior restraint.

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

Once I reached that conclusion, I realized that’s the plan.
In fact, it's been the plan since before background checks became federal law in 1993.

Give an inch, they take a mile. Don't give an inch.

I have no idea why you want to make it easy for felons and the insane to obtain weapons.

so now when we get this list of all the criminals and insane, what do we do with it? is it only to keep them from getting a gun or do we try to be more proactive and use it to prevent them from commiting other crimes or murdering someone anyway? I mean after all we have only stopped them from obtaining a gun legally. Now remember, Adam Lanza failed his background check as was denied from obtaining a gun legally. so it prevented nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The last background check I went through was just before Christmas and I had to stay at the store for just over four hours to complete the check. That sucked big time. I wish my state did not require back ground checks at Gun Shows or that's the only place I would purchase firearms from now on.

for rifles, if you have purchased before and are on record, it goes pretty quick. pistols takes a few days. you can't go in anywhere and walk out with a pistol. you fill out the paperwork, it goes for review. If you are approved it goes to the permit division. they update your permit and calll you when it is ready. then you take the document ot the gun shop and can pick up the gun.

In your state.
In mine, I wait 5-10 minutes for the check and I walk out w/ the gun, regardless of kind.