Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[2aguy]

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....

The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....

The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.

 

[2aguy]

yes....I don't like sobriety check points....you catch DUIs as they drive....

and voter ID laws?

Okay Smarter.....I hate to put this idea out there ...but here it is....

We pass a law that says that every bar in the country must do a criminal background check on each and every customer to determine if they have a DUI before they serve them.........every customer...it is not a right to drink at a bar...

So...you support this right? It would also scoop up felons...they can't drink in bars either...right?

I would totally favor a law which prevented someone who has a DUI conviction from being served at a bar. Absolutely, completely, in fact I would give large sums of money to any candidate bold enough to suggest it. DUI is a scourge on this country.

Yes.....your true colors are flying free and clear..............

And? For God's sake I was an Army MP for 20+ years. I'm an authoritarian within the framework of freedom. I admit that.

I believe Americans should be as free as they would like as long as they are not harming others and I try to base my EVERY opinion on that basis. I don't and won't hide who I am.

I appreciate your honesty...but you guys never really hide anyway......it is the political types who hide their true motives...and why I don't trust the laws they want .....

 

[2aguy]

From the Haynes decision and why I won't support Universal background checks...

Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.

That sort of stupidity is at the heart of Background checks...................

 

[2aguy]

And this is an early example of 1) gun registration in the U.S. targeted at Citizens, and 2) unintended consequences that were actually intended.....

The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences. [5]

Unfortunately, Rep. Vinson's concern about law-abiding people running afoul of registration laws, while criminals run free, turned out to be prophetic. The same year as the Haynes decision, the New York City Gun Control Law was challenged in the courts. The statute sought to bring shotguns and rifles under the same sort of licensing restrictions as handguns. Edward Grimm and a number of others filed suit against the City of New York, seeking to overturn the city ordinance. Grimm, et. al., raised a number of objections to the law during the trial, most of which were based on the Second Amendment. After the trial but before the decision had been completed, the Haynes decision appeared. Grimm's attorneys pointed out the implications for New York City's gun registration requirement. The trial court held that the legislative intent of the law was:

• 
  that there existed an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals and persons not qualified to use these weapons and that the ease with which the weapons could be obtained was of concern... [6]

Yet on the subject of the Haynes decision:

• 
  In this court's reading of the Haynes decision, it is inapposite to the statute under consideration here. The registration requirement in Haynes was "...directed principally at those persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with the Act's other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by criminal prosecutions... They are unmistakably persons 'inherently suspect of criminal activities.'"... The City of New York's Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature. Accordingly, Haynes does not stand as authority for plaintiffs' position. [7]

In three pages, the court went from claiming that the registration law was intended to stop "an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals" to admitting that it was "not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

and voter ID laws?

Okay Smarter.....I hate to put this idea out there ...but here it is....

We pass a law that says that every bar in the country must do a criminal background check on each and every customer to determine if they have a DUI before they serve them.........every customer...it is not a right to drink at a bar...

So...you support this right? It would also scoop up felons...they can't drink in bars either...right?

I would totally favor a law which prevented someone who has a DUI conviction from being served at a bar. Absolutely, completely, in fact I would give large sums of money to any candidate bold enough to suggest it. DUI is a scourge on this country.

Yes.....your true colors are flying free and clear..............

And? For God's sake I was an Army MP for 20+ years. I'm an authoritarian within the framework of freedom. I admit that.

I believe Americans should be as free as they would like as long as they are not harming others and I try to base my EVERY opinion on that basis. I don't and won't hide who I am.

I appreciate your honesty...but you guys never really hide anyway......it is the political types who hide their true motives...and why I don't trust the laws they want .....

Oh, I don't trust politicians either bruh. I'd want the law written as clearly as possible. And I acknowledge that your fears are not unfounded. I'm saying , there are too many people selling guns to just whomever, and that needs to stop.If requiring you to run a back ground check has any effect on that ( and it would) then thats what we should do )

I will say this however, I think that a concealed carry permit and or a valid hunting license should include the background check, renewed yearly and if you have either of those you should be able to just show your ID to either a private gun owner or a gun store and be able to purchase your weapon with no further ado.

Now that is fair isnt it? Felons certainly shouldn't be obtaining either a hunting license OR a concealed carry permit anyway. I think you would agree on that.

It wouldn't take but a software change to accomplish either. Simple .

 

[2aguy]

I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?

Any extra taxes or fees for the owning or carrying of guns is essentially the equivalent of a poll tax......

 

[Abatis]

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.

What case was that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?

Any extra taxes or fees for the owning or carrying of guns is essentially the equivalent of a poll tax......

Um I was talking about CONCEALED carry, which does - and should - require additional precautions over open carry. That's why there is no open carry license. Only for concealed carry.

And as for additional fees, who said that? I didn't say you HAD to have either a CCW or hunting license to buy a gun. I said that either should be able to be used in lieu of having a background check done each and every time you wish to buy a gun. Yes, I'm sure the fee for ether would go up some if they had to run a background check. So be it.

Do you see what I'm saying here. You are as inflexible as the militant gays are for their cause; and guess what? They feel just as righteous as you do.

Be the bigger person. Admit that yes, there is room for compromise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....
The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks.

This is a lie.
Disagree?
Cite the case and the holding.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.

What case was that?

Printz v. US.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.

What case was that?

Printz v. US.

False.
The constitutionality of backgrounds checks in and of themselves was never part of the case and so was not ruled upon by the court.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....
The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks.

This is a lie.
Disagree?
Cite the case and the holding.

It's not a lie, and I"ve cited the case 3 times already. Printz v United States 1997

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that the FEDS couldn't regulate background checks, but states could.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....
The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks.

This is a lie.
Disagree?
Cite the case and the holding.

It's not a lie, and I"ve cited the case 3 times already. Printz v United States 1997
Printz v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Court ruled that the FEDS couldn't regulate background checks, but states could.

Again, false.
The questron in Printz was if the federal government could force states to enforce federal law.
The constitutionality of the background checks themselves was not part of the legal question..
IOW this was 10th amendment, not a 2nd amendment challenge.
If not a lie, then ignorance.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

how about this one then M14?

Abramski v. United States

 

[M14 Shooter]

how about this one then M14?
Abramski v. United States

This is a ruling regarding straw purchases not background checks.

Holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OMG I give up, M14 you are retarded. You don't even understand shit.

Go read EITHER of those rulings, there is a reason the plaintiffs ignored the question of whether background checks were constitutional. then go read the majority decision in both cases and see that the authoring Justice defended the authority to perform a background check.

You are living in a fantasy world if you truly believe the Court is going to rule background checks unconstitutional. And worse, in light of recent shootings you make all gun owners look like fools when you screech that no one should be back grounded.

And to top it all off you are too stupid to see the direct comparison to voter ID laws.

Do us all a favor and end your life M14, you truly are too stupid to waste resources on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OMG I give up, M14 you are retarded. You don't even understand shit.

Fact:
Neither of the cases you cited can be said to hold that background checks re constitutional as in neither of the cases was the issue of background checks part of the legal question before the court.
Fact.
In this regard, you are either lying or ignorant.

Please do tell us which.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....******* arrest them now...you don't need a ******* new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right ******* now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

They still can't sell guns to felons...that is against the law right now.......and dealers posing as private sellers are Breaking the law since they aren't private sellers...are they...so they are....right now....breaking the law......right now....without universal background checks......right now.......so you send in police officers....ask the dealer posing as a private seller to sell you a gun...run his name and find out he is a licensed dealer....selling as a private seller....and ******* arrest him for breaking the current law.......right?

As to private sales not requiring a background check....sooooo what. They can't sell to felons........go to gun shows and pose as private sellers.....when a felon comes up to the guy pretending to be a private seller, you ask the guy...do you mind if I do a background check...if the guy says yes...I can't pass one... and then still actually buys a weapon, illegally, arrest him...........no need for universal background checks, since that can be done now without the universal background check....then......you pose as a felon and go to the private dealer...and tell him....I am a felon and can't pass a background check.....if he still sells the guy a gun.....******* arrest him too......no need for universal background checks....

There is no need to make a new "super duper" background check law....law enforcement already has all the tools they need to stop felons from getting guns.....

And right now...background checks are voided by having people who can pass background checks buy the gun for the person who can't ......this is illegal...that means it is against the law.....so....

You pass the super duper universal background check where private sellers must do background checks at gun shows....the same people who can pass and actual background check from before...go in and get the new super duper universal background check......and then sell or give the gun to the felon who couldn't pass the original background check...

or they simply steal the gun, thus avoiding the current background check and the new, super duper background check.......

what part of all of this is so ******* hard for you anti-gun nuts to understand.................

All you have to do is if you catch a felon with a gun.....******* arrest them and put them in jail for a long time.........end of story...easy peasy solution and no background check upgrade is needed......

What morons......

You truly are a moron. And you argument is childish. WHO in their right ******* mind would put their name on a gun for a criminal? The girl in Webster NY who bought the weapon for a guy that couldn't pass a background check and used it to kill two fireman is going to prison for 8 YEARS.

 

[2aguy]

I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?

Any extra taxes or fees for the owning or carrying of guns is essentially the equivalent of a poll tax......

Um I was talking about CONCEALED carry, which does - and should - require additional precautions over open carry. That's why there is no open carry license. Only for concealed carry.

And as for additional fees, who said that? I didn't say you HAD to have either a CCW or hunting license to buy a gun. I said that either should be able to be used in lieu of having a background check done each and every time you wish to buy a gun. Yes, I'm sure the fee for ether would go up some if they had to run a background check. So be it.

Do you see what I'm saying here. You are as inflexible as the militant gays are for their cause; and guess what? They feel just as righteous as you do.

Be the bigger person. Admit that yes, there is room for compromise.

we have compromised...we now have background checks for gun purchases.....and now that isn't enough,and the gun grabbers are coming back for more background checks because the first background checks they wanted didn't stop gun crime like they said it would....so now they want more....and then, as I pointed out, since the next level of background checks still won't stop criminals from getting guns they will come back for more.....

thanks for showing that we have already compromised and seen that it doesn't matter....

so screw them.....not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...and we have all the laws we need...right now....just ******* enforce them when you catch bad guys using guns....