Background checks are patently unconstitutional by any metric. You have to wait to exercise a constitutional Right; you don't have a presumption of innocence; there is no probable cause to conduct the search (exercising a Right should NEVER be probable cause) AND such checks cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration.
If someone done something that justifies denying them their constitutional Rights, what in the Hell are they doing running amok on our streets? If someone is dangerous, they are dangerous and need to be in jail, prison, or in a mental institution - or at least under constant supervision.
Show me where in the Constitution where it's Unconstitutional. I read it and didn't see one mention of it. Does your copy have it written in Sharpie?
Did you try reading the Fourth Amendment? I'm sure the word "
papers" would be inclusive of computer records. Oh, that's right, your copy don't contain that Amendment. Let me get it for you:
"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It is unreasonable to search someone just because they exercise a constitutional Right. How about a background check to buy that case of beer, buy a certain book, access certain content from your ISP, join a church??? Would the search be reasonable then?
Jim Jones caused over 900 people to commit suicide so that religion you're interested in might encourage you to do likewise - or like some religions, encourage you to kill or convert people.
Books and Internet content have taught a lot of killers the tricks of the trade. Booze has caused more deaths than firearms (you know like DUI, over-indulgence leading to health problems, etc.)
Sorry about your incomplete Constitution... wait a minute. You were right along. I apologize. The
illegally ratified 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights that contained that pesky 4th Amendment. So we have no Rights at all. Maybe it will be books or booze; video games or churches that will require a background check for you to partake in.
And yet, not one thing about Background Checks to purchase firearms. Imagine that. The State has the right to require it as long as they used Reasonable Due Process to require it. You can't just pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you will follow. You either follow all of it or none of it. Unless you can get the 14th amendment rescended then it stands as law. And it stands as constitutional.
Background Checks, when done with Due Process, are completely legal even for Federals but the Federals have not done it yet outside of FFL licensed dealers and that has been upheld in the courts. The States have done it on ALL sales and that also has stood up in the courts. It has nothing to do with anything you keep bringing up. You do a lot of "Hey, Look over there" crap.
I have read a LOT of posts on this board. Some notable trolls that don't make ANY sense would include danielpalos and IM2. That post you just put up was the most idiotic, dumb, stupid, asinine, uneducated, ridiculous, bullshit that has EVER been put on the Internet. It shows that you couldn't pass a 6th grade civics course. You better get the Hell off this thread before I embarrass you and make you a laughingstock.
“
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
According to Wikipedia:
"
The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
Daryl Hunt, with the 14th Amendment in place there is NO SUCH THING AS DUE PROCESS. Are you that stupid? Even Donald Trump has wanted to go after the guns, THEN give Due Process later. What an idiot you are! The reason unconstitutional laws are being upheld in the courts is that
you have no Rights due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment cancelled out Due Process. It's why there is no more innocent until proven guilty. It's why they can pass ex post facto laws. Yeah, I'm reclaiming my Rights back by exposing what the 14th Amendment is all about. So pick a side and stand on it. If you want Due Process,
unalienable Rights, and Freedom, then you have to reject the 14th Amendment.
You can't have it both ways.
“
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
“...
rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)
"
Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
“
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808
Daryl Hunt, you cannot over-ride
unalienable Rights (like the Bill of Rights) with an illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution.
