Civil disobedience and gun control...protest against stupid background checks....

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

The law is more than that though, that's how it was sold. You, to stupid voters. The Dept. of Licensing will keep a data base of all transactions, which sounds like the first step in a registration list. And simply loaning a gun to a friend, even at the range, or a son, etc. makes you are criminal without going through a FFL.

PS - The feds keep NO such database. The DEALERS must keep records in case a gun is used in a crime.

SOME states do keep a database.

 

[Iceweasel]

Voting is a constititionally enumerated right, therefor laws should be passed restricting such..... Oh, except that NO right is absolute.

Of course the reverse is also true for the morons who believe in background checks for guns but not voter id laws.

You see, this is why we have so much strife in this country. People who don't think logically.

You analogy would be correct if you are talking about an illegal alien walking into a gun store and buying guns. I can't do that without ID.

 

[2aguy]

Clayton...you should go back to the television room...your favorite My Little Pony episode is on...

 

[Iceweasel]

PS - The feds keep NO such database. The DEALERS must keep records in case a gun is used in a crime.

SOME states do keep a database.

I'm talking about the state, there's a national department of licensing? We didn't have one here before this law so it is not just about background checks. Or saving lives.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

PS - The feds keep NO such database. The DEALERS must keep records in case a gun is used in a crime.

SOME states do keep a database.

I'm talking about the state, there's a national department of licensing?????

Also:
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts
Firearm Sales Records: Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to maintain records of gun sales indefinitely, including informathttp://smartgunlaws.org/maintaining-gun-sales-background-check-records-policy-summary/ion about the firearm(s) being purchased, as well as the purchaser.2 Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however.

Correct, so go cry to your state

 

[Iceweasel]

Correct, so go cry to your state

Cry to the state? You asked about the objection, brought up strawman arguments then tell people to go cry to the state? **** you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense.

A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.

Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

Why would you be worried about doing so?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nonsense.

A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.

Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

If you know him personally then you already did a check on him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, Washington State residents are at liberty to repeal the background check law through the political process or challenge it in court through the legal process, but until such time as the measure is either repealed or struck down by the courts, the measure remains both valid and Constitutional, where 'civil disobedience' is both inane and unwarranted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

Why would you be worried about doing so?

You said:
I think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun
That includes me selling a gun to my cousin.
So, why should I have to run that check??

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, Washington State residents are at liberty to repeal the background check law through the political process or challenge it in court through the legal process, but until such time as the measure is either repealed or struck down by the courts, the measure remains both valid and Constitutional, where 'civil disobedience' is both inane and unwarranted.

Here's something that is Constitutional unlike your opinion
This is Constitutional
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense.
A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.
Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

Why would you be worried about doing so?

You said:
I think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun
That includes me selling a gun to my cousin.
So, why should I have to run that check??

You did a personal background check no paperwork needed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

Why would you be worried about doing so?

You said:
I think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun
That includes me selling a gun to my cousin.
So, why should I have to run that check??

You did a personal background check no paperwork needed.

According to the relevant WA law, or any other state law that requires universal background checks, that's not sufficient.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nonsense.
A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.
Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY. Do you agree with voter ID laws? Yes or no?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense.
A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.
Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY. Do you agree with voter ID laws? Yes or no?

Of course I do.
Now you;re going to ask me why I oppose background checks.
Voter registration and voter ID laws are necessary so that the right to vote can be meaningfully exercised - as such, registration and ID are the least restrictive means for the state to act on its compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters.
No such parallel exists regarding background checks; background checks presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nonsense.
A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.
Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY. Do you agree with voter ID laws? Yes or no?

Of course I do.
Now you;re going to ask me why I oppose background checks.
Voter registration and voter ID laws are necessary so that the right to vote can be meaningfully exercised - as such, registration and ID are the least restrictive means for the state to act on its compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters.
No such parallel exists regarding background checks; background checks presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right

Same exact issue moron.
If the state can require you to prove you are who you say you are to exercise one right, they can do so about any right.