Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[BULLDOG]

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech.

Because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, just like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

What makes you think I'm against ownership of guns? I'm for reasonable regulation of the sale of guns. A crook will always go for the easiest way to get one, and if a law abiding citizen can sell him one without a background check, and there is no obligation for the seller to even know the buyer, it gets a lot easier for the crooks.

 

[RKMBrown]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

That's your federal licence. State licensing might be a bit more restrictive.

14th amendment - the states are restricted by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government.

No sir. Not yet anyways. That's why we have state CC laws but no federal CC laws. Incorporation of the 2nd amendment by the 14th to the States, has not been done... not yet anyways.

The federal laws on machine guns and silencers can't be over-ridden by the states per the 14th.
Clearly these federal laws should be ruled unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment, but that is another matter.

 

[kaz]

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

 

[kaz]

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

 

[M14 Shooter]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

That's your federal licence. State licensing might be a bit more restrictive.

14th amendment - the states are restricted by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government.

No sir. Not yet anyways.

Yes, always. The states many never violate the protections of the 2nd.

That's why we have state CC laws but no federal CC laws.

That's a 10th amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

Incorporation of the 2nd amendment by the 14th to the States, has not been done... not yet anyways.

It was, in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[BULLDOG]

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

 

[BULLDOG]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

 

[danielpalos]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Another lie.

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

 

[2aguy]

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech.

Because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, just like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

What makes you think I'm against ownership of guns? I'm for reasonable regulation of the sale of guns. A crook will always go for the easiest way to get one, and if a law abiding citizen can sell him one without a background check, and there is no obligation for the seller to even know the buyer, it gets a lot easier for the crooks.

And since they easily get around all existing attempts to stop them? Background checks....they get someone with a clean record to buy for them or simply steal the guns.......and it is already against the law to knowingly sell to a felon....so I will go this far for the ani-gun nuts.....we can keep our current background checks......that way honest people can always test the person they are selling a gun to go with them to get a background check at the local gun store....but not mandating it....that is simply setting up innocent, law abiding citizens to be arrested for a lack of knowledge of the law......especially if the want to sell a gun to a friend.....

 

[2aguy]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

 

[BULLDOG]

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller...

Universal background checkls are unenforceable as there is no way for the state to prove the law requiring the check was broken.

 

[2aguy]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Universal Background checks are as useless as the background checks we have now.....the criminal will either get a straw purchaser, or steal them.....and that makes "universal" background checks pointless from the minute they go on line......so we don't need them....

Best gun control.....catch a criminal using a gun...lock them up.....catch a convicted felon in possession of a gun....lock them up....no muss, no fuss, no new laws needed....those two things are already against the law.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Another lie.

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

 

[2aguy]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

 

[RKMBrown]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

That's your federal licence. State licensing might be a bit more restrictive.

14th amendment - the states are restricted by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government.

No sir. Not yet anyways.

Yes, always. The states many never violate the protections of the 2nd.

That's why we have state CC laws but no federal CC laws.

That's a 10th amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

Incorporation of the 2nd amendment by the 14th to the States, has not been done... not yet anyways.

It was, in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's not "full" incorporation. That is "selective" incorporation. Thus CC is not selectively incorporated, as I stated. Incorporation and/or selective incorporation on an issue regarding the 10th is that the 10th does not apply or does apply selectively. Saying it's a 10th issue ... well duh.. they are all 10th issues. To get a ruling on each and every single 10th issue for selective incorporation (thus throwing said restriction out by selective incorporation of the 2nd) you have to bring it up and have it heard separately.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Another lie.

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.