[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

With all due respect if you don't support expansion of background checks, that's exactly what you're doing.

Nope. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, and no felon will walk to a dealer to run a check when they're making a back alley deal on a stolen, illegal gun.

No it's not. The Supreme Court has always held that guns and gun sales may be regulated.

But that doesn't mean every regulation is constitutional. A law that makes people felons for lending each other guns isn't going to pass any test by the court.

So why a law against homicide? Selling Narcotics? Highjacking Airplanes? If someone is intent they're going to do it anyway, right? This specious and stupid argument needs to go away.

Those laws are meant to put dangerous people behind bars after they've done something violent. A ban on private sales of guns is criminalizing a victimless activity.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by Comp625

Political ideologies aside, I think most folks can agree that our system of electing representatives is flawed if they cannot accurately represent public opinion. Congress men and women aren't living up to the true definition of representation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What I would say is our country is doomed so long as there are a significant percentage of the electorate that don't understand we are a Constitutional republic. "Because a majority want something" is insufficient if it is unconstitutional.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Nope. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, and no felon will walk to a dealer to run a check when they're making a back alley deal on a stolen, illegal gun.

Right, no one is saying that background checks will prevent all crime. They are a commonsense step to prevent crazy people or felons from obtaining guns. We understand, people will still break the law, however, this law certainly could prevent some criminal acts. Perhaps people will think twice before parking lot gun sales--

Please show me the stats that most guns used in crimes are stolen. This US DOJ report seems to disagree with you...

According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Seems like about 10% are stolen and a much larger degree are acquired through a black market-- I bet background checks would prevent SOME of those weapons from reaching the black market. Yes, this is an old report, but I'd challenge you to find ANYTHING reputable that supports your claim.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

But that doesn't mean every regulation is constitutional. A law that makes people felons for lending each other guns isn't going to pass any test by the court.

You have to separate what's constitutional and what you simply dislike-- By definition the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's constitutional. If they say it is, it is.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Those laws are meant to put dangerous people behind bars after they've done something violent. A ban on private sales of guns is criminalizing a victimless activity.

No one is banning private sales, so you're arguing a straw man. A private sale without a background check is what the legislation tries to curb.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Right, no one is saying that background checks will prevent all crime. They are a commonsense step to prevent crazy people or felons from obtaining guns. We understand, people will still break the law, however, this law certainly could prevent some criminal acts. Perhaps people will think twice before parking lot gun sales--

Please show me the stats that most guns used in crimes are stolen. This US DOJ report seems to disagree with you...



http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Seems like about 10% are stolen and a much larger degree are acquired through a black market-- I bet background checks would prevent SOME of those weapons from reaching the black market. Yes, this is an old report, but I'd challenge you to find ANYTHING reputable that supports your claim.

If you're talking straw purchases (already illegal), they are running background checks. The straw purchaser (who can pass it) buys the gun for the criminal who can't. So I fail to see how your background check proposal will stop them when straw purchasers are already passing a background check. Again, this is a victimless crime intended to make things more difficult for the law abiding gun owners, because it will have zero impact on criminals.

You have to separate what's constitutional and what you simply dislike-- By definition the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's constitutional. If they say it is, it is.

Not exactly true, that's not in the Constitution, and the SCOTUS has reversed itself before. The SCOTUS has declared blacks not persons, segregation okay, concentration camps during WWII okay...do you find that track record acceptable?

No one is banning private sales, so you're arguing a straw man. A private sale without a background check is what the legislation tries to curb.

You're joking, right? You must not have been paying much attention. That bill would have required sales go through a dealer. They weren't talking about letting anyone call the NICS to do a background check on a buyer, they were looking at making all sales go through a dealer.

[Henry10]

Many people, actually most people do not realize that we are legally at a cliff. Although well-meaning, we have a legal overload. Over-legislation is a symptom of a society about to disintegrate. It always does.

In layman's terms, you can't take a step out on the sidewalk, without breaking about a thousand statutes. So, if a powerful person does not like you, he could have many laws to hang his hat on. That means he can basically destroy you at his discretion. It also means that some laws now we follow, and some we don't. So we pick and choose.

With the amount of laws in the books, I don't think we can have smaller Govt. You gotta, in order to execute those laws and administer justice.

So making a law, even with the best and benign intention -- this comes with the whole enchilada- bureaucrats, justice workers, etc. By law, we have to follow laws. It's a clusterf****.

Has anyone here seen a law library?

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

You're creating a strawman. No one is arguing against keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and the dangerously insane. Banning private sales is an unconstitutional attack on privacy, the second amendment and is not interstate commerce the feds have jurisdiction over. Moreover, no one intent on killing someone is going to run down to an FFL to have a background check run on a gun they steal.

Then how DO you prevent a private sale to a violent felon or the dangerously insane, pray tell?

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Nope. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, and no felon will walk to a dealer to run a check when they're making a back alley deal on a stolen, illegal gun.

A ban on private sales of guns is criminalizing a victimless activity.

So let's make every "illicit drug" 100% legal and not regulate "private sales" of say crack or heroin then using that logic.

As for the "victimless activity", tell that to the person who died as a result of the "private sale"

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

What I would say is our country is doomed so long as there are a significant percentage of the electorate that don't understand we are a Constitutional republic. "Because a majority want something" is insufficient if it is unconstitutional.

Really? Times don't change? Those who wrote it could fully see 200+ years into the future and know more than a majority of the people today (and is that a democracy then)? OK fair enough, you know what, they used a Constitutional Amendment to both bring on Prohibition and repeal it, maybe we honestly should have a Constitutional Amendment for clarifying/modernizing the 2nd Amendment then. I know it's an even more onerous process than this whole 60-40 filibuster nonsense, but it would at least make a statement.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Then how DO you prevent a private sale to a violent felon or the dangerously insane, pray tell?

You can't

So let's make every "illicit drug" 100% legal and not regulate "private sales" of say crack or heroin then using that logic.

As for the "victimless activity", tell that to the person who died as a result of the "private sale"

Drug prohibition has been as successful as alcohol prohibition. Drug addiction is a medical problem not a criminal problem, but as with alcohol prohibition, criminalizing it gave rise to violent gangs to supply the black market.

Really? Times don't change? Those who wrote it could fully see 200+ years into the future and know more than a majority of the people today (and is that a democracy then)? OK fair enough, you know what, they used a Constitutional Amendment to both bring on Prohibition and repeal it, maybe we honestly should have a Constitutional Amendment for clarifying/modernizing the 2nd Amendment then. I know it's an even more onerous process than this whole 60-40 filibuster nonsense, but it would at least make a statement.

LOL

Just because the urbanized parts of states like NY, CT, MA, NJ, MD and CA might want that, doesn't mean the rest of the states will go along with such an amendment. Our system of government was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority."

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

maybe we honestly should have a Constitutional Amendment for clarifying/modernizing the 2nd Amendment then.

That's one way this may go, or SCOTUS may just go ahead do it itself de facto. And it's about to hit SCOTUS in short order.

[hartford_renter]

Obama said conservatives cling to their guns and religion.

Well the liberals seem to cling to their gun control and abortion issues

Henninger: Clinging to Guns—and Abortion - WSJ.com

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Drug prohibition has been as successful as alcohol prohibition. Drug addiction is a medical problem not a criminal problem, but as with alcohol prohibition, criminalizing it gave rise to violent gangs to supply the black market.


Just because the urbanized parts of states like NY, CT, MA, NJ, MD and CA might want that, doesn't mean the rest of the states will go along with such an amendment. Our system of government was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority."

So then conservatives/Tea Partiers/Libertarians should in droves be saying let's eliminate all the drug laws, I thought they're the ones against all the "marijuana legalization", etc. for example (OK I actually have heard a few Libertarians out there in favor on this logic, but not the other 2 group and not all Libertarians). I actually agree with you on this point (about the success of drug and alcohol prohibition and how criminalizing it made it worse), just noting the hypocrisy.

90% of the US and 70% of NRA members is not simply the urban Northeast plus California.....and the "tyranny of the majority" actually sounds like something out of 1984's "Doublespeak" IMHO........