Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida Gentleman
Retire.....so your retiring to where the remaining 7% of gun fanatics now live ?
|
I am less a gun fanatic and more a liberty fanatic. I am less a gun fanatic than I am a fanatic about our Constitution. And yes, where I will live in retirement I will be honored to live among many like minded people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florida Gentleman
Can do no more ? Strikes me among many other steps they wanted to take was background checks and a waiting period for firearms sold at gun shows but that was shot down so anyone can purchase guns there without question. Can do no more......it would seem not .... There's still plenty that can be done.
Regarding the gratuitous insults......they come free with every post that qualifies as nonsense.
|
I'll try one more time .....
It is already federal law that all new firearms purchased anywhere in the country require a background check. Let me say that again: All of them, as in 100%. Whether you buy them at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else. Why can the federal government constitutionally impose this requirement? Because it is assumed that in most cases the firearm manufacturer is in a different state than the buyer, and the constitution provides the federal government with the authority to regulate interstate commerce. [As a side note, Montana has created a law that clarifies that if the firearm is 100% manufactured within the state of Montana, then all federal gun laws do not apply. This law still stands unchallenged by the feds.]
It is already federal law that all used guns where the buyer and seller are NOT residents of the same state require a background check. Again, all of them, as in 100%. As with new firearms, this is the case regardless of the venue where the gun is purchased, including gun shows. Why can they impose this requirement? Because this is another example of interstate commerce.
So, point one here, your statement regarding gun shows that "anyone can purchase guns there without question" is a complete and utter falsehood. You really should stop making stuff up. I don't mind if people have honest disagreements about matters that are not factual, but you do not understand the facts about this subject.
So there is only one more category left, that being sales of used guns where both the buyer and the seller are residents of the same state. This makes this form of commerce fall into the category of intrastate commerce. The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, which means they do not have the authority to require a background check for those sales. Any attempt by the feds to regulate used firearms sales where the buyer and seller are from the same state would be struck down in the courts as this is clearly not interstate commerce.
So, the feds are in fact already requiring background checks for ALL firearms purchases where they have the authority to do so. You may wish they could do more, but the reality is they can not.
The other point that seems to have flown by you is that we don't have a great deal of disagreement about the value of requiring background checks for all firearms purchases. In general, I am fine with that requirement. If they are really checking against an accurate database it should be a way to prevent people (convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be insane) who should not have guns from purchasing them. I simply suggest that the regulation of interstate commerce must be left to the states, and therefore the one remaining case needs to be addressed on a state by state basis.
Further, I'd like to ensure that these background checks are effective, and minimize the inconvenience to the gun buyer. Waiting periods are an interesting example. I can live with a waiting period for my first gun purchase. I don't necessarily buy into the notion that they help prevent crimes of passion (as though nobody has a 10" chef's knife in their kitchen, or a baseball bat in the garage), and I don't like it, but I can live with it. But, once I have one or more guns they serve no useful purpose except as an inconvenience to the firearms buyer. The government knows I already own one or more firearms, so why impose a waiting period? It's silly. To me, changing these rules to only impose a waiting period on your first firearm purchase would be a true example of common sense gun regulation.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
