Sarah Brady has died

[Kondor3]

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).

So, ANY law upheld citing US v Tot or Cases v US or their illegitimate children, will certainly fall.

And yes, that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

Where in 'Heller v DC' or 'MacDonald v Chicago' does it say that the States cannot require handguns to be registered and their owners licensed?

I did not read that in the decision summaries found online in the past few minutes.

Those decisions focus largely upon BANS (de jure or de facto) and NOT upon Registration and Licensure et al, insofar as I've been able to discern from a quick drive-by.

Do those decision either (1) explicitly prohibit or substantively limit such Registration or Licensure or (2) reasonably imply or infer such prohibitions on Registration or Licensing?

If they do, I completely missed those.

 

[Kondor3]

...You have proven here you haven't the foggiest notion of what a "right" is.

Rubbish.

However, Rights... and most especially Rights, in matters affecting the safety and well-being of others, carry Responsibilities.

The idea of devising and implementing National Standards related to Gun Registration and Owner Licensing, etc., is nothing more than a fresh defining of the Responsibilities and Accountability that our Republic may choose to assign to those amongst us who wish to exercise that Right-Affecting-the-General-Safety.

Nothing more.

The Rights of a citizen are often accompanied by an articulation of the Responsibilities of a citizen.

Nothing more.

I missed this earlier because you mis-quoted . . .

You capitalize "National Standards" and "Gun Registration and Owner Licensing, etc.," as if they are government powers that exist. What you fail to understand is that the government cannot grant itself new powers to freshly define "the Responsibilities and Accountability" of citizens.

A SCOTUS decision that you wouldn't care about even if I cited it said:

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

No, I capitalized those because they struck me as worth objects of such a focus, not because I was implying a Government Right, in this context.

 

[Abatis]

Understandable.

Does this hold true in the narrow and specific context of Gun Ownership?

SCOTUS doesn't make any distinction between original / pre-existing / fundamental rights. There is no "narrow and specific context" staked out just for the right to arms because the right to arms is indisputably among the "rational continuum" of liberty embodied and intended to be forever protected by the Bill of Rights.

Here are two examples of SCOTUS opinion, one before the 14th Amendment and one after:

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)

"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​

Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) has been employed in Griswold and Roe and has since been elevated to the opinion of the Court and stands as the foundational premise for the legal reasoning for penumbral rights from which the right to privacy and ancillary rights to abortion and other reproductive rights are recognized and protected.

Justice O'Connor's exposition on the principle dismisses any thought that the right to arms can be singled out for special treatment as you suggest, in fact it is the bare minimum to be recognized:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
​

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)​

How can the right to abortion which is recognized to exist in the emanations and penumbra of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (including the right to keep and bear arms), be more vital, more respected and more unquestionable than the right to arms, which is specifically recognized in the Bill of Rights?

And, if so, how does this square with the various State -level firearms registration and gun-owner licensing laws that have withstood such legal challenges?
Personally, I'm at a loss to explain how both states of affairs can simultaneously exist, but that's just me.

Asked and answered in post 294:

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).

So, ANY law upheld citing US v Tot or Cases v US or their illegitimate children, will certainly fall.

And yes, that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.​

 

[Abatis]

Where in 'Heller v DC' or 'MacDonald v Chicago' does it say that the States cannot require handguns to be registered and their owners licensed?

Neither Heller or McDonald say that outright but as I said, where those gun control schemes have been challenged and upheld citing the post 1942 lower federal case law (the "militia right" or "state's right" or whatever permutations of the "collective right" interpretation you care to cite), or the now reversed constitutional truism that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states, those laws will fall.

States that have no right to arms provisions in their state constitutions are especially vulnerable because they lazily relied on those lower federal court decisions (now invalidated) as the single prop legitimizing their laws. Specifically you could look at New Jersey and its draconian permitting / registration scheme and it being propped up by a single state supreme court case from 1968, Burton v Sills. which rests on Cases v US and US v Tot and the non-incorporation of the 2nd.

No legal reasoning remains that supports Burton v Sills so it is abrogated and its holding is infirm and suspect at best, ripe for re-challenge. upon that re-challenge the entirety of New Jersey's gun control could be out.

 

[2aguy]

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).

So, ANY law upheld citing US v Tot or Cases v US or their illegitimate children, will certainly fall.

And yes, that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

Where in 'Heller v DC' or 'MacDonald v Chicago' does it say that the States cannot require handguns to be registered and their owners licensed?

I did not read that in the decision summaries found online in the past few minutes.

Those decisions focus largely upon BANS (de jure or de facto) and NOT upon Registration and Licensure et al, insofar as I've been able to discern from a quick drive-by.

Do those decision either (1) explicitly prohibit or substantively limit such Registration or Licensure or (2) reasonably imply or infer such prohibitions on Registration or Licensing?

If they do, I completely missed those.

guy....registration and licensing isn't going to fly with us....1) they do nothing to stop crime...at all....and most important 2) our employees in the government don't need to know which good guys have what guns.......they can't even control the bad guys with guns....

And I could give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court says if they are wrong on an issue......

 

[2aguy]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ABATIS SAID:

“How can the right to abortion which is recognized to exist in the emanations and penumbra of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (including the right to keep and bear arms), be more vital, more respected and more unquestionable than the right to arms, which is specifically recognized in the Bill of Rights?"

Actually there's no 'right to abortion,' there's a right to privacy where state measures seeking to ban abortion would violate the right to privacy. And the states are at liberty to place restrictions on the privacy right with regard to abortion, provided those restrictions don't manifest an undue burden to the privacy right.

Likewise states are at liberty to place restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, where Federal and state courts have also used an undue burden standard to determine the Constitutionality of such measures.

Moreover, unlike 14th Amendment, substantive due process jurisprudence, Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy, still evolving – it could be another 50 years before we have a clear, accepted, settled, and comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment, similar to the understanding with regard to 14th Amendment, substantive due process jurisprudence today.

Consequently it's not a matter of privacy rights being “more vital, more respected and more unquestionable” than the rights codified by the Second Amendment – rather, the former has a longer, more comprehensive and robust jurisprudence than the latter.

ABATIS SAID:

“The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).”

And many of the challenges have been post Heller/McDonald, New York's Safe Act and Colorado's magazine capacity and background check measure being recent examples. There have also been challenges to licensing fees and requirements, concealed carry restrictions, and the prohibition of persons aged 18 to 20 years from purchasing handguns.

As U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger observed in her ruling upholding Colorado's magazine capacity and background check measure in June of last year:

“The Supreme Court did not specify in Heller what analytical framework should be used in testing laws challenged under the Second Amendment. This was, in part, because it found that[...]the ban it was considering (a law effectively prohibiting the possession of functional handguns inside or outside of the home) would fail all recognized tests for constitutionality. Id. at 628. Since Heller, Second Amendment jurisprudence has continued to evolve, particularly with regard to the analytical standards to be applied.”

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li..._032508_062614-Krieger-Opinion-Outfitters.pdf

In the coming decades this and similar issues will likely make their way to the Supreme Court, and as the Court rules over the coming decades a consistent jurisprudence will materialize affording lower courts guidance allowing them to determine what is an appropriate restriction of the Second Amendment right and what is not.

 

[rightwinger]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

OK private gun owner

How do you know the guy buying your AR-15 with cash doesn't have a felony conviction?

 

[2aguy]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

OK private gun owner

How do you know the guy buying your AR-15 with cash doesn't have a felony conviction?

You can ask him to go through a background check at the local guns store before you give him the gun. If he refuses, you don't sell him the gun.

and you know what.....you can do that right now....with no new laws, or registration or licensing........all on your little lonesome.....

 

[rightwinger]

What are you afraid of?

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

That you will not qualify if you have to buy your guns legally and not sell them to criminals?

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

Criminals and crazies would not have the required license to buy a gun from you.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

Wouldn't you sleep better knowing you didn't sell your gun to a criminal?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

OK private gun owner

How do you know the guy buying your AR-15 with cash doesn't have a felony conviction?

You can ask him to go through a background check at the local guns store before you give him the gun. If he refuses, you don't sell him the gun.

and you know what.....you can do that right now....with no new laws, or registration or licensing........all on your little lonesome.....

Not can......must

Sell a gun to a criminal, go to jail

Then watch gun owners demand licenses

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

OK private gun owner

How do you know the guy buying your AR-15 with cash doesn't have a felony conviction?

You can ask him to go through a background check at the local guns store before you give him the gun. If he refuses, you don't sell him the gun.

and you know what.....you can do that right now....with no new laws, or registration or licensing........all on your little lonesome.....

Not can......must

Sell a gun to a criminal, go to jail

Then watch gun owners demand licenses

Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit......

Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

With me so far....

Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.....

Just like they do already...with the current background check system.....

And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special........

and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't........

We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use......

So......we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment......

 

[Kondor3]

Otherwise, the myriad of State gun-registration and owner-licensing laws already on the books, and alive-and-well after many challenges, would not exist.

The challenges you speak of happened before Heller and those challenged laws were upheld citing 20th century legal reasoning invalidated by Heller (that the 2ndA was not ratified to secure individual rights but to secure a state's right / militia right from federal impact) and a longstanding legal holding reversed by McDonald (that the 2nd Amendment did not impede state and local legislatures).

So, ANY law upheld citing US v Tot or Cases v US or their illegitimate children, will certainly fall.

And yes, that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

Where in 'Heller v DC' or 'MacDonald v Chicago' does it say that the States cannot require handguns to be registered and their owners licensed?

I did not read that in the decision summaries found online in the past few minutes.

Those decisions focus largely upon BANS (de jure or de facto) and NOT upon Registration and Licensure et al, insofar as I've been able to discern from a quick drive-by.

Do those decision either (1) explicitly prohibit or substantively limit such Registration or Licensure or (2) reasonably imply or infer such prohibitions on Registration or Licensing?

If they do, I completely missed those.

guy....registration and licensing isn't going to fly with us....1) they do nothing to stop crime...at all....and most important 2) our employees in the government don't need to know which good guys have what guns.......they can't even control the bad guys with guns.... And I could give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court says if they are wrong on an issue......

This is a matter for The People as a whole to decide, and I will be content to let it rest with them.

 

[Abatis]

Actually there's no 'right to abortion,' there's a right to privacy where state measures seeking to ban abortion would violate the right to privacy. And the states are at liberty to place restrictions on the privacy right with regard to abortion, provided those restrictions don't manifest an undue burden to the privacy right.

You are quoting the rhetorical challenge I posed for the left; it wasn't a definitive statement as to the origin of the "right to abortion", it was worded for familiarity to the left's lexicon. A more legally substantive statement as to my belief occurs earlier in that message where I recognize that abortion and other reproductive choice rights are a derivative of the penumbral privacy right as set out in Griswold.

Likewise states are at liberty to place restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, where Federal and state courts have also used an undue burden standard to determine the Constitutionality of such measures.

And amazingly I have seen those lower court recognize the statutes in question do burden the right and somehow choose to allow the law to stand.

Moreover, unlike 14th Amendment, substantive due process jurisprudence, Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy, still evolving – it could be another 50 years before we have a clear, accepted, settled, and comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment, similar to the understanding with regard to 14th Amendment, substantive due process jurisprudence today.

That confusion is self-imposed and intended only to perpetuate unconstitutional law.

Consequently it's not a matter of privacy rights being “more vital, more respected and more unquestionable” than the rights codified by the Second Amendment

Really? Again, the question was a rhetorical challenge for those on the left who hold up abortion "rights" as absolute, inviolate, beyond question without any understanding that the legal invention of penumbral rights (upon which abortion "rights" are entirely dependent) is itself, entirely dependent on the inviolate and unquestionable nature of ALL the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- including the right to arms.

– rather, the former has a longer, more comprehensive and robust jurisprudence than the latter.

LOL

And many of the challenges have been post Heller/McDonald, New York's Safe Act and Colorado's magazine capacity and background check measure being recent examples. There have also been challenges to licensing fees and requirements, concealed carry restrictions, and the prohibition of persons aged 18 to 20 years from purchasing handguns.

My statements were legally very narrow speaking to the invalidation of the various "collective right" interpretations and the infirmity of any decision grounded on that legal fiction. I haven't been following every case but the effect of Heller that I speak of has been noted but hasn't yet (AFAIK) been permitted to come to full decision (Nordyke v. King comes to mind).

". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King, pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009)​

Of course the 9th set aside that decision and subsequent hearings and out of court settlements have frustrated the enforcement of that undeniable legal truth, that Heller abrogated Hickman . . . What would happen to many of California's gun control schemes if the 9th definitively tosses Hickman?

As U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger observed in her ruling upholding Colorado's magazine capacity and background check measure in June of last year:

“The Supreme Court did not specify in Heller what analytical framework should be used in testing laws challenged under the Second Amendment. This was, in part, because it found that[...]the ban it was considering (a law effectively prohibiting the possession of functional handguns inside or outside of the home) would fail all recognized tests for constitutionality. Id. at 628. Since Heller, Second Amendment jurisprudence has continued to evolve, particularly with regard to the analytical standards to be applied.”

Again, that confusion is cultivated and nurtured . . . Because the Court spoke in Heller doesn't mean that everything the Court said before is moot. The simple application of all three prongs of the Miller protection criteria would remedy all the confusion these subordinate courts are suffering specifically for hi-cap mags and assault weapons in general.
.

In the coming decades this and similar issues will likely make their way to the Supreme Court, and as the Court rules over the coming decades a consistent jurisprudence will materialize affording lower courts guidance allowing them to determine what is an appropriate restriction of the Second Amendment right and what is not.

Interesting choice of words. The question is not "what is an appropriate restriction of the Second Amendment right"; the question is, is this challenged law within the powers delegated to government?

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant people driven by demagoguery.

Because no matter what you say they are impervious to reason.

I find it funny that you trust that the government can maintain a database of 90 million law-abiding people who have no record at all when the government fails to keep good records of 20 or so million prohibited persons with disqualifying records.

The current database (National Instant Check System -- NICS) is a joke. Only 13 million people are on it and half are illegal aliens (11kb pdf). Do you really believe that there are less than 2 million people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?

Why do you want a list of people who haven't committed a crime and can legally possess guns when the list of criminals who are prohibited from owning is so piss-poor?

I don't sell my guns or PM's.

Can the government keep records of fellows and crazies who should not be able to buy guns? Of Course they can


Will the NRA do everything in their power to keep those records from being used? Of course they will

No...we already have them...it is called a felony conviction....get caught as a felon in possession of a gun or use one for another crime...and you get arrested....no muss, no fuss, no bothering lawful gun owners......

OK private gun owner

How do you know the guy buying your AR-15 with cash doesn't have a felony conviction?

You can ask him to go through a background check at the local guns store before you give him the gun. If he refuses, you don't sell him the gun.

and you know what.....you can do that right now....with no new laws, or registration or licensing........all on your little lonesome.....

Not can......must

Sell a gun to a criminal, go to jail

Then watch gun owners demand licenses

It is already against the law to knowingly sell a gun to a felon....and that isn't what you want is it.....you don't want the felon....you want the lawful gun owner arrested and thrown in jail because you don't like him.....you can't control criminals.....because you already know you can't keep them from ignoring your gun laws....but you can put an honest, law abiding citizen who may not be aware of all the byzantine laws on the sale of guns in jail.....and that is what you are really after.........isn't it................you want to trip up and send as many normal people as possible so you can scare people out of buying guns in the first place.....

 

[Kondor3]

...Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit...

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

...Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

...With me so far...

Yep.

...Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.... Just like they do already...with the current background check system....

And now that there's a paper-trail of who owned and possessed the gun last, before it came into the possession of the criminal, both the criminal and the re-seller (the guy who bought it from you on eBay) are both crucified.

...And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special....

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

...and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't...

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

...We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use...

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

...So....we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...

Nobody is proposing that you do.

Unless The People decide that Registration and Licensing are in the best interests of society, and should they then codify that as law, and should the law withstand challenges.

If all those things come to pass, you will comply with the Nation's laws.. registering your guns and obtaining a license.

Guaranteed.

 

[2aguy]

...Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit...

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

...Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

...With me so far...

Yep.

...Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.... Just like they do already...with the current background check system....

And now that there's a paper-trail of who owned and possessed the gun last, before it came into the possession of the criminal, both the criminal and the re-seller (the guy who bought it from you on eBay) are both crucified.

...And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special....

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

...and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't...

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

...We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use...

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

...So....we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...

Nobody is proposing that you do.

Unless The People decide that Registration and Licensing are in the best interests of society, and should they then codify that as law, and should the law withstand challenges.

If all those things come to pass, you will comply with the Nation's laws.. registering your guns and obtaining a license.

Guaranteed.

You just don't get it...do you Scott.......

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

So...having committed no crime, not being criminals and in order to exercise a right....they have to find the time to go in together and pre license...which so far is not anywhere on the table for anti-gun nut universal background checks....and 2...the man is into guns, convinces the wife to get her permit and wants to lend her one of his guns when she goes out with her friends....he can't...because he needs to get a background check on his own wife....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

this one....I don't know how it doesn't get through your brain.....

I have a gun and you made me register it to me.......the guy I sold it to has a legal license........reports his cache of legally purchased arms stolen...which he actually sold to a criminal....

So again.....your whole scheme makes no ******* sense no matter how many time you try to sell it........

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

So......I sold the registered gun legally to another person who has a license to buy the gun...and he breaks the law and sells it to a criminal....who sells it to another criminal who sells it for drugs to another criminal.....so...not one of the criminals in the process was licensed beyond the first guy...you catch the last guy in the chain and then you can roll him up for where he got his gun......and it still doesn't need the first 2 guys to be registered....and you still put the last guy in jail and the guy who sold him the gun in jail.....and no registration was needed...

Now.....I sell the gun you made me register to another person who was also made to get a background check and register the gun.....as just happened in the news...he goes on vacation and criminals break into his home and his gun safe and steal all of his guns....rifles and pistols........we have obeyed all your nutty registration crap......and now those guns are on the loose and the criminals are not required by Supreme Court decision to register their newly stolen guns....

Gosh.........we can do all of that without registering those guns in the first place.........

So your entire desire to register guns is just stupid and pointless.........

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

My above 2 examples show how wrong you are and how stupid your scheme is.......since both people can jump through your hoops and not be responsible for felons getting guns....this method is about 40 percent of the illegal gun market....people who can pass checks buying guns for criminals, and the other 40 from theft.......

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

You are delusional and not a deep thinker..............all you have done is made it more difficult and time consuming for law abiding people to buy guns....while not stopping criminals in any way from getting guns...and they can get them faster than the law abiding people jumping through all of your stupid hoops.....

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

You know...we didn't pull that idea out of our ass....you pulled registration out of your collective asses but we have seen that registration leads to eventual forced turn ins, bans of certain weapons and eventual bans on all firearms....Britain, Australia, Canada.....and in our own country...New York, Connecticut, California, Chicago, Washinton D.C...

So again.....we didn't ******* make up the process....we know the process because we have seen it done.....it happened in Germany in the 1920s....and 20 years later the nazis used that scheme to disarm the Jews and other enemies....

We know how it works....you are too delusional to understand that......

Nobody is proposing that you do.

I have a gun that can't be sold in California....

standard capacity magazines can't be sold in California, or Colorado, until recently you couldn't register hand guns in Chicago...which was a de facto gun ban......

The 15 round magazine limit just passed in Colorado is in fact a ban of certain types of pistol...in particular the M&P 9 which holds 17 rounds.....and the assholes knew that would happen when they passed the magazine capacity limit.....

guns stores are still fighting to open in Chicago and Washington D.C.and the ATF just tried to ban the most popular bullet for AR-15s.....

and AR-15s and other rifles were banned in the 90s......

So please...again...this isn't our first rodeo........

 

[Roadrunner]

6 revolvers in holsters and tucked into a belt do the same thing.....and are under the radar with the gun banners.....

Thank God for cheapo geegaw drum mags.

Had the one James Holmes had not jammed, or had he been armed with GI mags, many, many more would have died.

Of course, if the present laws had been enforced, nobody would have died.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit...

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

...Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

...With me so far...

Yep.

...Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.... Just like they do already...with the current background check system....

And now that there's a paper-trail of who owned and possessed the gun last, before it came into the possession of the criminal, both the criminal and the re-seller (the guy who bought it from you on eBay) are both crucified.

...And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special....

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

...and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't...

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

...We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use...

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

...So....we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...

Nobody is proposing that you do.

Unless The People decide that Registration and Licensing are in the best interests of society, and should they then codify that as law, and should the law withstand challenges.

If all those things come to pass, you will comply with the Nation's laws.. registering your guns and obtaining a license.

Guaranteed.

None of that is going to come to pass.

Book it.

 

[2aguy]

...Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit...

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

...Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

...With me so far...

Yep.

...Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.... Just like they do already...with the current background check system....

And now that there's a paper-trail of who owned and possessed the gun last, before it came into the possession of the criminal, both the criminal and the re-seller (the guy who bought it from you on eBay) are both crucified.

...And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special....

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

...and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't...

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

...We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use...

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

...So....we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...

Nobody is proposing that you do.

Unless The People decide that Registration and Licensing are in the best interests of society, and should they then codify that as law, and should the law withstand challenges.

If all those things come to pass, you will comply with the Nation's laws.. registering your guns and obtaining a license.

Guaranteed.

None of that is going to come to pass.

Book it.

It won't come to pass if we stay aware of what they are doing and we resist each step of their plans......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment can be surrendered to the gun grabbers....it just encourages them to try harder......

 

[2aguy]

...Okay....say you anti-gun nuts get your way and every time you lend your wife your gun you have to go get a background check....even though she has a concealed carry permit...

Husband and wife both go through a single pre-licensing (or pre-renewal) background check, and register the gun as joint property.

...Now...you want to sell a gun and you put it on Ebay....you contact a buyer and they say they want to buy the gun and now you MUST, get them to go through a background check....

You can't sell that gun unless it's registered to you, and you can't buy that gun unless you already hold a license.

...With me so far...

Yep.

...Now...they go and pass the background check with you.....and once they have the gun they sell it to the actual felon who asked them to buy the gun in the first place.... Just like they do already...with the current background check system....

And now that there's a paper-trail of who owned and possessed the gun last, before it came into the possession of the criminal, both the criminal and the re-seller (the guy who bought it from you on eBay) are both crucified.

...And your super duper, extra fancy Universal Background Check has just been defeated the way it was defeated before it was super duper extra special....

Nope. We now know who to hold accountable for providing the gun to the felon. Others will remember that crucifixion and refrain from selling to a felon.

...and now that criminals are still getting illegal guns with this new universal background check.....you anti-gunners will come back and say....hey.....it just makes sense that we need to register all guns because it is obvious there is a loophole where people with who can pass background checks buy guns for those who can't...

Nahhhhh... the number of people willing to sell guns to felons has just fallen through the floor.

...We know how you anti-gun nuts think, we know what you anti-gun nuts want and we know the tactics you anti-gun nuts use...

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

Probably not, considering that you equate Gun Registration and Licensing with Gun-Grabbing, when, in truth, these are vastly different things, at least to the non-paranoid.

...So....we aren't going to give you one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...

Nobody is proposing that you do.

Unless The People decide that Registration and Licensing are in the best interests of society, and should they then codify that as law, and should the law withstand challenges.

If all those things come to pass, you will comply with the Nation's laws.. registering your guns and obtaining a license.

Guaranteed.

Do you understand that (1) Gun Grabbers want this as a first step but that (2) much of the rest of American will settle for that as a Final Step, and back you up, afterwards?

I am not going to trust Americans with no idea of the issues behind Universal Background Checks who answer a poll question that they support Universal Background Checks...that these same Americans are just going to stop with registration after the anti-gun nuts come back a few years from now and say "hey...it just makes sense to know who owns these guns..right?"....and then when they have the will they will just push through whatever ban they can get at the time....while people ignorant of these laws allow them to do it......