Admitting drug use = no guns?

[The Rabbi]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb. It is no such thing. Certain classes of people are ineligible to buy guns from dealers. Anyone under 21 cannot purchase a handgun. A person who ahs renounced his U.S. citizenship cannot buy a firearm. A person under indictment cannot buy a firearm. In no case was there a judicial proceeding but the person is disqualified in every one of them.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

Would you submit to the above tests to get a driver's licsence?

I would. Why not? If, as the mantra goes, you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Huh? The reason Loughner was denied military service was because he failed a drug test. Looks like the military must be guilty of "prior retraint."

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

Would you submit to the above tests to get a driver's licsence?

I would. Why not? If, as the mantra goes, you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem.

One must wonder if you think the same thing about tapping your cell phone.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am betting that the Republicans are praying that the dems start focusing on Gun Control again, as it is an instant loser for them in 90% of the country.

True, it worked for the republicans this last election where the democrats were more focused on healthcare that the majority didn't want along with Cap and Trade, Immigration, Stimulus spending, regulating businesses, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell....again not focusing on jobs and the economy.

You also have to remember that in the 2000 election Gore lost his own freaking state, and that his gun control agenda was probably a big part of that.

As I recall, Gore simply wanted the Brady Bill to remain permanent, but it was allowed to expire anyway. How quickly people forgot that the attempted assassination of the beloved Ronald Reagan was the purpose behind that bill.

No, Gore lost his home state because Tennesseans were too shallow-minded to realize that Gore had nothing to do with Clinton's sex scandal. To believe in the old adage "You're judged by the company you keep" hardly applied to that situation.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

Back ground checks come with cwp , the bill of sale asks about judgment due to mental status.

Is it a multiple choice question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Huh? The reason Loughner was denied military service was because he failed a drug test. Looks like the military must be guilty of "prior retraint."

You dont have a constitutinally protected, fundamental right to join the military.
If admision of a crime to a fedeal official is sufficient, w/o any trial or conviction, to lose your right to arms, it is then also sufficient to be jailed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True, it worked for the republicans this last election where the democrats were more focused on healthcare that the majority didn't want along with Cap and Trade, Immigration, Stimulus spending, regulating businesses, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell....again not focusing on jobs and the economy.

You also have to remember that in the 2000 election Gore lost his own freaking state, and that his gun control agenda was probably a big part of that.

As I recall, Gore simply wanted the Brady Bill to remain permanent, but it was allowed to expire anyway. How quickly people forgot that the attempted assassination of the beloved Ronald Reagan was the purpose behind that bill.

The "Brady Bill"? You mean the 1994 'Assault weapon' ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good luck getting a court to apply prior restraint to gun purchases, it would be an interesting argument from both sides, to be sure.

There is no sound argument against the application of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

Actually I gave several that are very sound arguments, you not liking them doesnt make them invalid. Just dismissing them out of hand does not make them sound.

No, you didn't. Each of the arguments you gave were defeated in detail or left with points undefended - indeed, the only attempt you made to show the difference between the rights was, at best, superficial, and you made no attempt to show how that difference negates the application of the concept of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

The biggest problem you face is creating a sound argument as to why or how such a protection shoudl not be applied to ALL constitutionally-protected fundamenbtal rights, which necessitates that you show how/why some fundamental rights are more worthy of protection than others.

 

[MaggieMae]

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

I'm sorry -- your response doesn't address what I said.
The prohibition against criminals, etc, buying guns isn't a form of prior restraint, the background check on someone to see if they are a criminal, etc, is.
Please try again.

Well then "prior restraint" must currently use a very broad stroke, since an employer can now deny employment based on a background check not just for criminal activity but for credit history. Why should the private sector get a pass on "prior restraint" and only the government be bound by the Constitutional restrictions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

So you wouldn't mind infringing on the Second Amendment? Having to take a drug test and a mental health evaluation puts an undue burden on someone's right to bear arms. Not going to happen.

Once again, I'm sure the framers of the Constitution hadn't the slightest idea that the extremely broad language of the Second Amendment would be creating a monster to be dealt with in the modern world.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

So you wouldn't mind infringing on the Second Amendment? Having to take a drug test and a mental health evaluation puts an undue burden on someone's right to bear arms. Not going to happen.

Once again, I'm sure the framers of the Constitution hadn't the slightest idea that the extremely broad language of the Second Amendment would be creating a monster to be dealt with in the modern world.

How are you sure of that? There's absolutely nothing to support this.
The Framers intended the 2nd to protect the weapons necessary for the militia to remain effective - why do you suppose the framers held the belief that the progression of firearms technology would negate this principle?

 

[The Rabbi]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. That is the Lautenburg Amendment.
I didnt see the details so can't comment on it. But it appears that he is simply fixing on a method of enforcing what is already law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. That is the Lautenburg Amendment.

Yes. Someone petitions a court with cause, and the court (possibly) issues a temporary restriction of your rights. That's exceptionally different than the idea presented here.

But it appears that he is simply fixing on a method of enforcing what is already law

Except for the due process clause.
if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, then you can be jailed in this manner.

 

[martybegan]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

I do agree that Schumer's proposal fails to meet the requirements of due process. While I wont call the prior restraint argument dumb I do call it a serious stretch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

I do agree that Schumer's proposal fails to meet the requirements of due process. While I wont call the prior restraint argument dumb I do call it a serious stretch.

That's cool. Thx.

 

[martybegan]

There is no sound argument against the application of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

Actually I gave several that are very sound arguments, you not liking them doesnt make them invalid. Just dismissing them out of hand does not make them sound.

No, you didn't. Each of the arguments you gave were defeated in detail or left with points undefended - indeed, the only attempt you made to show the difference between the rights was, at best, superficial, and you made no attempt to show how that difference negates the application of the concept of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

The biggest problem you face is creating a sound argument as to why or how such a protection shoudl not be applied to ALL constitutionally-protected fundamenbtal rights, which necessitates that you show how/why some fundamental rights are more worthy of protection than others.

In your mind maybe, but lets ask people who have been following this thread. I wonder whos position they find more sound.

Neither of us can judge whos points were won or lost as we are both vested parties, although I find myself able to see where my points may be weak, and in the positions I have stated I dont see that.

As far as certain rights having differing levels of protection, that is a function of the document itself, which has been intepreted ad nauseum over the course of 200+ years. It would be alot easier if the second amendment stated: "Everyone can own a 9mm glock with a 17 round clip and keep it on thier persons as long as they arent a crook or a nutter"

If one went with the strictest interpretation of the constitution child porn would be legal, however it is not. That is an infringement of the 1st amendment that has survived numerous challenges.

 

[The Rabbi]

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. That is the Lautenburg Amendment.

Yes. Someone petitions a court with cause, and the court (possibly) issues a temporary restriction of your rights. That's exceptionally different than the idea presented here.

But it appears that he is simply fixing on a method of enforcing what is already law

Except for the due process clause.
if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, then you can be jailed in this manner.

That's called the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" for a reason.
But I wonder how you get your rights back afterwards.

 

[martybegan]

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

I'm sorry -- your response doesn't address what I said.
The prohibition against criminals, etc, buying guns isn't a form of prior restraint, the background check on someone to see if they are a criminal, etc, is.
Please try again.

Well then "prior restraint" must currently use a very broad stroke, since an employer can now deny employment based on a background check not just for criminal activity but for credit history. Why should the private sector get a pass on "prior restraint" and only the government be bound by the Constitutional restrictions?

IF (and its a big if) prior restraint is applied to all constitutional rights then gun ownership would fall under its protection. A job, however is a contract between two parties, and since it is a contract would not fall under consitutional protection, but legislative protection.

This bring the interesting case of IF (again big IF) you can use prior restraint to prevent background checks being required what would prevent the government making a gun SELLER liable criminally for selling a weapon to a restricted party? If the seller then did his own check prior to the sale to protect his own ass would that fall under the whole prior restraint line of logic?