The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on August 04, 2014, 04:21:10 PM
-
Get ready for the attack on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Today James Brady died, and every radio and print report talks more about him as a victim and champion for gun regulation.
One third of Mr. Brady's life was spent as nothing more than a prop for his wife and the rest of the freedom haters. I feel bad for what happened to everybody touched that day, but I feel the most for Mr. Brady because of how he has been abused for the last quarter century.
I feel bad for Mrs. Giffords today, because I believe this is the event that her husband has been waiting for so he can become the next Sara Brady.
-
Hi;
In a few days we can expect a funding/donation campaign in his memory from his wife. Within the next year, I doubt if we will hear much from her anymore - maybe an occational response from another shooting - but basically, She has a lot of money to keep her personally comfortable.
She will do the $$$ talking tours if she wants to keep in the news or needs more money. Since he died of other than gunshot wounds - her forum is waning on isolation. She will need another "victim" to keep going strong.
have not heard much from Gabby or Husband...How is thier money flow working for them ?
-
The Brady's day passed a long time ago. It's not widely known, but they were actually willing to sit down and address concerns with the NRA - unlike Bloomberg, who is about as reasonable and subtle as a Sherman Tank. The Bradys and the Giffords cannot get anything done without public support - which makes them much easier to deal with. Bloomberg doesn't need any public support - as events in Colorado showed. His organizations are pure AstroTruf - and he can afford to put a lot of that stuff in.
If - and this is a huge if - expanded federal background checks are passed, chances are we will both be able to minimize that threat to our rights and be able to get some things in return. Last time around, in the final version of the bill had a ton of pro-gun rights provisions - including the right to buy a gun in any state and criminal sanctions for creating a gun registry - and they still could not get it passed...... next time it's going to take something like nullification of oppressive state gun laws or nation wide reciprocity to even get it close to passing.
-
If - and this is a huge if - expanded federal background checks are passed, chances are we will both be able to minimize that threat to our rights and be able to get some things in return. Last time around, in the final version of the bill had a ton of pro-gun rights provisions - including the right to buy a gun in any state and criminal sanctions for creating a gun registry - and they still could not get it passed...... next time it's going to take something like nullification of oppressive state gun laws or nation wide reciprocity to even get it close to passing.
Don't be fooled. Those pro-gun provisions were put in the bill to keep it from passingm not because the antis want to give us anything. I don't like how "compromise" is played out in DC. I say never give in to anything they want to foist on us.
Here's a cartoon about Israel negotiating with Hamas. Substitute Bloomberg for Hamas and "BAN ALL GUNS" for his demand, and us for Israel.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4GlJtwYOi-M/U984E6cAKvI/AAAAAAABm9U/nA67dRjqErE/s1600/John+Kerry's+idea+of+compromise.jpg)
-
Al is right and it's like Michael says, the antigunners are not having a debate with reasonable dialogue. It's a fools game for us...as soon as they think they have the upper hand it's "Turn them in Mr. & Mrs. America." It may look like a debate, have dialogue like a debate and be publicized as a reasonable dialogue but it is not....they lie, they cheat and they steal. It is what they do it is who they are.
Did not the "reasonable dialogue champions" from the antigun side within the week after the last tragedy switch to absolute confiscation a couple of years ago? Yes they did. And so now they ask for "common ground" and "sensible regulation" again? Yes...just as they did before attempting to ram total confiscation down our throats.
I would say the extended breath and depth of the current ammo shortage is a direct reflection of many of the hunters and the "Uncle Fudds" among us finally realizing antigunners are not just after the evil black rifles but also the .22 LR, the 30-30, and the family shotgun.
Don't be fooled. Those pro-gun provisions were put in the bill to keep it from passingm not because the antis want to give us anything. I don't like how "compromise" is played out in DC. I say never give in to anything they want to foist on us.
Here's a cartoon about Israel negotiating with Hamas. Substitute Bloomberg for Hamas and "BAN ALL GUNS" for his demand, and us for Israel.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4GlJtwYOi-M/U984E6cAKvI/AAAAAAABm9U/nA67dRjqErE/s1600/John+Kerry's+idea+of+compromise.jpg)
-
"Shall not be infringed" !
With the constant reports of gun related crime in areas with restrictive gun laws, the continual association of "mass shootings" and "gun free zones", and the increasing focus on mental health issues, the anti gun lobby has lost all credibility.
It's no longer "anti crime", it's no longer "for the children", it is now, just because they hate guns.
-
I say never give in to anything they want to foist on us.
Exact Dead Center Bullseye.
When the discussion is about how many and how much of our God given, Constitution protected freedoms they can take from us, there will be no further "discussion".
I felt bad for Jim & Sarah Brady.
Their lives were forever damaged by a madman. Seeing someone you love hurt and almost killed is heartbreaking.
But when that anger is not focused on the madman that did the deed and instead prostituted to deprive honest citizens of their rights, Sarah and the rest of the commie bastards can kiss my Royal Irish Ass.
-
Don't be fooled. Those pro-gun provisions were put in the bill to keep it from passing not because the antis want to give us anything. I don't like how "compromise" is played out in DC. I say never give in to anything they want to foist on us.
The hard core antis certainly do not want to give us anything - but once a politician becomes invested in a bill they really want it to pass. Furthermore, some of the antis are willing to give us something in return for something that they can label as a victory.
Now, should we support such bills? I think it's dumb not to consider it, while maintaining our skeptical view of the other side. By the time the final version of the last bill was put up for a vote, it could be argued that either way - we won. Defeat it, and we hand them a loss. Pass it, and it we don't have to report family transfers, we get teeth on FOPA, and the right to buy a gun in any state.
Now let me say that I know I'm going to get flamed, but I agree with Alan Gura ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oRWMxfTcfs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oRWMxfTcfs) ). Gura is certainly not a traitor to the gun rights movement - in fact he has been at the center of many of our recent legal victories. I think if Republicans take the Senate we should draft a background check bill of our own, attach a bunch of pro-gun rights provisions (all of the above - and national CCW reciprocity, and maybe federal preemption of most areas of gun law) and send it to Obama. Before you flame me, here's my reasoning:
1) Expanded background checks are the only gun control action that has wide support outside of the small number of anti-gun rights activists. If we remove that issue, they have almost no support - even in times when events favor them. They become much more marginalized than they are today.
2) One of the dangers in continuing to allow the antis to have this issue to bring up is that they can write some horrible laws and call it "background checks" - just look at Colorado and it's Bloomberg authored laws. If we write the law, we can do things like defining a transfer as transfer of ownership and making it a felony to uses the data to create a registry. We can control the other provisions and prevent them from sneaking in other gun control provisions from their wish list.
3) As I mentioned - we don't just pass a background check bill - we look for pro-gun rights provisions that the public supports. Like CCW reciprocity. Most "non-gun people" don't understand why a carry permit is not like a drivers license. Preemption of state laws would be more difficult, but might be possible - after all, the antis are always talking about how gun laws in restrictive states don't work because of gun laws in other states.
4) I think it's important to understand that the antis have a very small core, but they can influence a much larger group. They do that by painting gun rights advocates like us as a small group of unreasonable extremists. By taking the initiative, we can gain the support of most of this group and disprove the idea that we are "unreasonable".
5) I also have a creative way to implement expanded background checks.
a) Background checks would continue to be voluntary for private transfers - it would not be a crime to sell your guns without one, give them away without one or transfer to anyone - including people in other states (this would be new).
b) Anyone transferring a firearm to a prohibited person would be strictly criminally liable for such action. "I didn't know" would not be a defense.
c) Any transfer conducted through an FFL with a background check would be exempt from prosecution even if the person receiving the firearm is a prohibited person.
So - if I am transferring to my family or a close friend and I am positive they are not prohibited, I just give them the gun. If I don't know them, I probably would not want to transfer without a background check.
As far as allowing the ATF to fight "illegal dealers" or "illegal trafficking" or pushing prohibited persons into the illegal market - this law would be just as effective as requiring background checks on every transaction. It would be very hard for the antis to argue that mandatory checks would be any more effective than such a program. Should they oppose this law, the would have to admit that what they are really after is back door registration - not simply background checks. That alone would be a huge victory for us.
6) If we are really lucky, some of the gun control groups will sign on to the deal in an effort to look like they are doing something - while others will oppose. There is potential to divide our enemies.
7) The next time there is another Newtown, we will have preempted the one issue that they have majority support for. If we put such a bill on Obama's desk and he vetoes it, he will think long and hard about calling for background checks - because we can say, "We put that on your desk and you vetoed it." Even if there is a push, we will have much more control over the discussion. Like it or not, the discussion would begin with our bill. We can simply say, "We can send that bill up to you again TODAY."
So OK, I'm ready. Shoot this proposal full of holes. That's the way things get perfected.
-
How do you propose to open the NICS to private individuals? Additionally would you want to give your SSN and other private info to someone?
If you mean all transfers must involve a FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer that is a non-starter.
-
Background checks are nothing but ground work for registration, registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
No gun owner can accept ANYTHING other than "Shall not be infringed" with out being a traitor to the culture and the Constitution.
There are currently over 20,000 local, state, and federal laws regulating our Constitutional Right.
THEY DO NOT WORK to reduce crime, or increase safety.
The only thing they accomplish is to convince the public that they can be just a little f*cked.
When you compromise with traitors and idiots it doesn't raise them closer to your standards, it lowers you toward theirs.
-
The hard core antis certainly do not want to give us anything - but once a politician becomes invested in a bill they really want it to pass. Furthermore, some of the antis are willing to give us something in return for something that they can label as a victory.
They aren't giving us anything! According to our founding documents these are rights given us by our Creator that are protected by our Constitution. The antis are just keeping their grubby hands off these rights, and that is not GIVING us anything.
-
How do you propose to open the NICS to private individuals? Additionally would you want to give your SSN and other private info to someone?
If you mean all transfers must involve a FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer that is a non-starter.
The nice thing about NICS is that they do not require your SSN. Just leave it blank. However, that does not make it ok to mess with law abiding citizens going about their daily lives.
-
Problem is so many people are going the wrong way. Here's my idea of compromise.
My position is:
Disband the BATFE and repeal all the laws that it enforces.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
REPEAL all restrictions on firearm and blade carry.
Okay, NOW I'm ready to compromise. Maybe I'll give you parts of the 1994 BHVPA (for now).
-
Sweet....we give up something tangible and they give up nothing.
Sorry Vince I know you mean well but no thanks. I'm not mad and flaming you but we're never going to agree on this.
I've seen compromise where one side gives up something tangible and the other side gives up nothing. Check out Al's list...what did the anti's give up? What did we give up? Who won? It was capitulation not compromise.
Capitulation is not compromise and both have the stench of death attached to them. I know you are emotionally invested here but let it die down and rethink it.
-
On gun rights compromise means giving up less of something that we have no right to surrender in order to prevent the anti American conspiracy from taking even more of our culture from us.
Our education system has descended to the level of communist indoctrination,
Our govt owes more than the entire value of the US,
2/3 of the population draw their income from the taxpayers pocket,
You can not walk down the street with out being under surveillance,
The only religion that is not actively suppressed is the one that hates everything America stands for,
The "free" media is nothing but a propaganda organ of the socialists.
Law enforcement can seize your property for minor offenses and even if you are found innocent it is not returned,
The list goes on but I'm writing off the top of my head.
Yet those like Vince are willing to give up "just a little more".
When do you say enough, STOP!
If not now, when ?
When the Govt inspectors start jailing people for crapping at 8:30 instead of the specified 8:00 ?
Would that be enough infringement for you to FINALLY understand WHY there is a 2nd Amendment, the one you suggest a "little" compromise on ?
(Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID get more PO'd as I thought about it. I have GOT to find the ambition and get my head into the place where I can write my book !!! ;D )
-
How do you propose to open the NICS to private individuals? Additionally would you want to give your SSN and other private info to someone?
If you mean all transfers must involve a FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer that is a non-starter.
01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00). They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form.
No one would be REQUIRED to go through an FFL - it would be completely optional. It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method.
What would be a crime is to knowingly or unknowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. However, any transfer done through an FFL would be completely exempt from prosecution. This would have the effect of motivating people to do the transfer through an FFL unless they are 100% sure the person is not prohibited. Even if you are 100% sure, it would be wise to look at their driver's license and write up a bill of sale signed by both parties.
So, let's say that ATF finds a gun in the hands of a felon that you bought from a dealer and later sold. If you did the transfer through a dealer, you could show them a receipt for the NICS check or even just give them the name of the FFL. They check his or her bound book and when they find the transfer documented there, they continue the trace and you are off the hook. If you sold the gun to a non-prohibited person, you could give them that person's name and possibly show them the bill of sale.
So, again going through an FFL would not be required - but in many circumstances it would be foolish to to do so. Now, in reality, how much would this change for the average, responsible gun owner? I'm certainly not going to sell a gun without a NICS check to anyone who I am not absolutely positive is not a prohibited person - no matter what the law is. I think most of us here would adhere to the same policy. In fact, by making the NICS check available to private sellers (through 01 FFLs), it would enable us to sell to complete strangers with confidence and legal protection.
-
Background checks are nothing but ground work for registration, registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
I agree that many of those advocating for expanded background checks would like to use it to create a registration system. I also agree with the principle that registration frequently leads to confiscation.
However, Alan Gura counters - and I agree - that this is EXACTLY why we should be the ones to write the bill. Let's think about how we could make it virtually impossible for someone to use the NICS system to create a registry.
1) First of all, NICS does not contain any firearms description, nor even the number of firearms purchased. That info is retained by the FFL in their files. Frankly, I cannot think of a safer place for them to be. Remember the uproar when ATF tried to copy the whole bound books of a few dealers in Alaska? Keeping firearms purchase records at the FFL, with ATF only able to look at them during inspections or while doing a trace for a criminal investigation is very good security.
2) What they can do with the NICS system is create a database of gun owners. Right now this is likely illegal under the gun registry ban - but there is no penalty for doing so. We need to make this a felony with lots of jail time - say 15 years minimum. We also need to write the law so that any state AG can prosecute. We also need to be very sure the NICS data on approved purchases is being destroyed as required by making failure to do so a felony, also able to be prosecuted by any state AG. Likewise, the copying of 4473 forms or bound books, outside of a criminal investigation supported by warrants, would also be a felony. Lastly, we need to secure the records of closed FFLs by transferring them to an industry run organization (likely the NSSF), with access controlled by the same laws that govern open FFLs. This would include all of the records currently possessed by ATF.
We won the battle on background checks last time - but I'm not willing to gamble that we will always be able to do so. If the other side writes the bill, it will not include the above safeguards - and will likely be used to create a registry. The devil is ALWAYS in the details.....
-
They aren't giving us anything! According to our founding documents these are rights given us by our Creator that are protected by our Constitution. The antis are just keeping their grubby hands off these rights, and that is not GIVING us anything.
I agree with your assessment of our 2nd Amendment rights. However, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means. That is the practical reality. Assuming that we see no changes on the court, we have a lot of protection - but even under Heller, background checks would likely be found to be constitutional - since Heller makes it clear that prohibited persons can be forbidden firearms.
Now I ***HOPE*** that when a carry case gets to the court, we get not just a positive ruling - but a ruling that affirms that the 2nd Amendment is to be accorded strict scrutiny. That may very well make registration unconstitutional, at least for long guns. However, even then background checks would likely be constitutional PROVIDED there are strong safeguards in place.
-
The nice thing about NICS is that they do not require your SSN. Just leave it blank. However, that does not make it ok to mess with law abiding citizens going about their daily lives.
And I would not change that.
-
Problem is so many people are going the wrong way. Here's my idea of compromise.
My position is:
Disband the BATFE and repeal all the laws that it enforces.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
REPEAL all restrictions on firearm and blade carry.
Okay, NOW I'm ready to compromise. Maybe I'll give you parts of the 1994 BHVPA (for now).
I think that some of the provisions in these laws could be changed (I would go for making suppressors easier to own), but politically getting rid of all of them would be a bridge too far.
-
Sweet....we give up something tangible and they give up nothing.
Sorry Vince I know you mean well but no thanks. I'm not mad and flaming you but we're never going to agree on this.
I've seen compromise where one side gives up something tangible and the other side gives up nothing. Check out Al's list...what did the anti's give up? What did we give up? Who won? It was capitulation not compromise.
Capitulation is not compromise and both have the stench of death attached to them. I know you are emotionally invested here but let it die down and rethink it.
I think you missed my point. If they are not willing to give us something tangible, then the bill doesn't pass. If they refuse to recognize that we can stop any bill they put forth and that things have changed, then nothing changes. You are right that the other side has, in the past, given up little to nothing - however, things are different now.
I have been a gun owner since before 1968 - so I understand where you are coming from. I respectfully submit that you are not recognizing how strong we are right now. We have NEVER BEEN STRONGER. For the first time ever, after a bunch of high profile shootings, the other side got nothing. The only question is: How will we use that strength?
One option is to simply play defense. Just oppose every bill the antis put forth and hope we can always stop them. That is an option. The problem with it is if another Newtown happens when the Dems have both houses and the presidency, they will pass their own "background check bill" with TONS of horrible provisions.
Another option is something like I laid out:
1) A bill that is a net gain for gun rights. If we have both houses, we control the amendments and we may sure it's a net gain. This would be our bill,
2) A bill that takes away the ONLY ISSUE that has strong support. Even if they gain majorities in both houses they are not going to be able to call a registration bill a "background check" bill. That makes it very hard for them to get what they want.
3) A bill that has criminal sanctions for creating a registry and other gun control done by "executive action" with any state AG able to prosecute.
4) The antis will be in a difficult position. Should they oppose, it will be difficult for them to bring up the issue again. Likely, after trying unsuccessfully to modify the bill, at least some will support it. We cause a split in their ranks.
5) If it lands on Obama's desk, we win either way. If he signs it, we win. If he vetoes it, we also win. We can make it clear that he could have had background checks, but turned them down.
6) Even if they push for background checks again, the starting point would be our bill. This would be a good thing.
7) The pro-gun provisions would be sweeping.
Federal preemption of all gun laws controlling purchase and possession would invalidate hundreds of anti gun rights laws that affect a huge portion of our population. I think this is doable. The antis are always saying that these state laws don't work because federal laws are lacking. Fine - we will give you expanded background checks in exchanged for laws you admit do not work.
Universal CCW reciprocity would effectively mandate shall issue nation wide. This is also huge.
Other changes could be made to federal laws - like getting rid of the $200.00 fee on suppressors. FOPA could also be strengthened.
Again, THIS WOULD BE OUR BILL. We write it - they don't. We would be using our strength to both preempt their best argument and push back many current laws. While good people can and do disagree, I think that this would be the best uses of our current strength.
-
Yet those like Vince are willing to give up "just a little more".
When do you say enough, STOP!
I'm not willing to support any bill that is not a significant net gain for gun rights. I'm absolutely not advocating that we simply "give a little bit more". I am suggesting that we give a bit on background checks in exchange for a NET GAIN FOR GUN RIGHTS. I'm talking about rolling back a lot of gun laws - or we kill the bill.
Let me ask a question: Is there anything you would accept in exchange for expanded checks as outlined in my proposal? There are TONS of local, state and federal gun laws out there. If the worst of them were to go away and a ton of new gun rights provisions were to be written into federal law, in exchange for expanded background checks that still left you free to sell to anyone without a check - would that not be a massive net win for us?
I for one, am willing to look at the whole bill - what we gain and what we concede. I don't know a single pro-gun rights legal scholar who believes that NICS checks violate the 2nd Amendment. That means it is strictly a political issue. What would have happened if Newtown has happened in 2011? We would have a horrible bill rammed through under the label of background checks. As long as that issue is still out there, we are vulnerable to it. Pass our own version of expanded background checks and it's off the table. The antis now have to argue issues where they have very little support.
Frankly, I think the fact that Alan Gura - who is certainly pro-gun rights - takes this position speaks volumes.
-
"It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."
It already is! Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!
How about if I sell a car to a convicted DUI then he kills someone while drunk driving?
"01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00). They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form."
So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!
Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books. He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay. You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.
Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.
I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
MOLON LABE ( if you have the balls!)
-
There's a couple of points in a couple of posts I would like to address...
Like CCW reciprocity. Most "non-gun people" don't understand why a carry permit is not like a drivers license. Preemption of state laws would be more difficult, but might be possible - after all, the antis are always talking about how gun laws in restrictive states don't work because of gun laws in other states.
I think "most non-gun people" couldn't care less what the CCW laws are. Guns are icky and it's not on their radar.
Ask a bunch of soccer moms in Boston, Newark, Chicago, New York City and San Francisco if I should be able to walk around their kids armed because of my AZ CCW and I think you'll find it's closer to "No freaking way!" than "Oh yeah, no problem."
Let me ask a question: Is there anything you would accept in exchange for expanded checks as outlined in my proposal? There are TONS of local, state and federal gun laws out there. If the worst of them were to go away and a ton of new gun rights provisions were to be written into federal law, in exchange for expanded background checks that still left you free to sell to anyone without a check - would that not be a massive net win for us?
First, gun rights don't have to be written into federal law. Do you think your rights are/were granted by the government??
Someone already forbid the govt. from screwing with our rights and that was ratified back in 1789.
Second, without UNIVERSAL background checks, the antis aren't interested.
It would leave un-nannied too much of what we have now.....freedom.
You want dishonest weasels to write a massive pile of federal scat so I can sell, give or trade a gun privately w/o a check?
Big F'n Deal. I can do that now.
Pass our own version of expanded background checks and it's off the table.
You don't seem to understand....
NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE AS LONG AS CITIZENS STILL OWN GUNS AND WON'T BE UNTIL ALL GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS ARE OUTLAWED!!!
THAT IS THEIR STATED GOAL AND WE WOULD BE FOOLS TO FORGET THAT!
TO THINK YOU CAN REASON WITH OR PLACATE SOMEONE WHO WANTS YOUR NECK UNDER THEIR BOOT IS A FOOLS ERRAND.
I respect Alan Gura and the amount of courtroom experience he brings to the table and glad he's won some great court cases but anymore I lean towards that noted gun rights scholar - - -
Ted Nugent,
"f..k 'em!"
-
I agree with your assessment of our 2nd Amendment rights. However, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means.
Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?
The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee. They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are too willing to give away the store for me to begin to pick apart each of your points. I will leave you with my full support of Alf's proposal, and add my statement that it is nobody's business what, what type, or how many firearms or arms I choose to purchase and use.
-
Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?
The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee. They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are too willing to give away the store for me to begin to pick apart each of your points. I will leave you with my full support of Alf's proposal, and add my statement that it is nobody's business what, what type, or how many firearms or arms I choose to purchase and use.
All that reading on my little Kindle screen, preparing to have to laboriously type a response, and you covered it for me.
Thanks. M58.
The 2nd Amendment means just what it says.....in plain English.
After two hundred plus years, anyone who wants to re-interpret its meaning should not be allowed to sit a judicial bench.
-
"It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."
It already is! Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!
Actually I am quite aware of current law. Allowing sales other than in state face to face would be one of the many pro-gun rights changes to FEDERAL law.
"01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00). They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form."
So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!
This fee would not apply to dealer sales - it would be the maximum that a dealer could charge for doing a NICS check on a private sale.
Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books. He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay. You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.
Really - That's interesting because there are already many states that require dealers to do NICS checks on private sales and require them on some or all private sales. Dealers have guns on their books all the time that they DO NOT OWN. Consignment sales are but one example as are guns left of servicing. If this is the best argument up can come up with, it's not convincing.
Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.
I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!
I will ignore the name calling and simply point out that NOT ONE pro-gun rights legal scholar believes that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. I stay up on this stuff as much as I can, and I don't know of any - if someone does PLEASE correct me. I really want to know.
In fact, Heller makes it clear that government may take steps to keep the mentally ill and felons from owning or possessing firearms. There is no constitutional barrier to expanding NICS check to all sales (although my proposal would not do that).
So, we can go with your approach - and hope that in the future a Democrat majority doesn't put a background check bill written by Bloomberg on the desk of an anti-gun rights president - OR - we can write our own bill and remove the issue without all the "flypaper provisions". That Alan Gura's position, and I agree with him.
-
There's a couple of points in a couple of posts I would like to address...
I think "most non-gun people" couldn't care less what the CCW laws are. Guns are icky and it's not on their radar.
That's exactly where you are wrong. It is the people who are not "gun people" who will decide what kind of gun laws we live with. Many of them care about cases like the Pennsylvania woman who New Jersey is trying to throw into jail for crossing the state line with her carry gun. That gets their attention, because they view it as unjust. It also doesn't make sense to them. Unfortunately many of these same people also want "universal background checks" because that also makes sense to them.
First, gun rights don't have to be written into federal law. Do you think your rights are/were granted by the government??
Someone already forbid the govt. from screwing with our rights and that was ratified back in 1789.
Unfortunately, you and I do not get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means - SCOTUS does. It was fear of an adverse ruling from SCOTUS that keep the NRA from bringing any 2nd Amendment cases to the high court. Now we have had several rulings that are good - but none of them even suggest that a NICS check is an infringement. That's their view, and sadly it's the only one that counts when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights.
Second, without UNIVERSAL background checks, the antis aren't interested.
It would leave un-nannied too much of what we have now.....freedom.
Well, guess what? They already agreed to a background check bill that wasn't universal. The final version for the Senate bill exempted family transfers.
You want dishonest weasels to write a massive pile of federal scat so I can sell, give or trade a gun privately w/o a check?
Nope, I want to roll back a huge number of gun laws we all hate and preempt the other side's best issue - in a way that has little affect upon all of us.
NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE AS LONG AS CITIZENS STILL OWN GUNS AND WON'T BE UNTIL ALL GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS ARE OUTLAWED!!!
THAT IS THEIR STATED GOAL AND WE WOULD BE FOOLS TO FORGET THAT!
TO THINK YOU CAN REASON WITH OR PLACATE SOMEONE WHO WANTS YOUR NECK UNDER THEIR BOOT IS A FOOLS ERRAND.
I believe that your assessment is true of most gun control organizations - certainly Bloomberg's. However, the number of hard core gun control advocates is very small. They depend upon gaining support from non-gun owners. That's why they have to lie to even get their bills considered. Right now, their favorite tactic is to write a horrible bill and label it "Background Checks" in order to sell it. Wy do they do this? Simple - background checks are the ONLY issue that gains them enough support to win. The non-gun owning public doesn't support registration - so they will write a registration bill and call it "background checks".
I respect Alan Gura and the amount of courtroom experience he brings to the table and glad he's won some great court cases but anymore I lean towards that noted gun rights scholar - - - Ted Nugent,
"f..k 'em!"
I love "Uncle Ted" - but he isn't a legal scholar. I'm not either, and I assume you are not. I too respect Gura - and I only hope that he is wrong in his prediction that if we do not write our own background check bill, eventually the other side will get one passed - because I don't think we are going to follow his advice.
-
Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?
The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee. They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.
That is something that we wholehearted agree upon! IMHO we have five justices who think that the Constitution should at least be consulted before deciding how to rule and we have four justices who flat out do not care what the Constitution says. Indeed, if we had a Supreme Court that cared about original intent and what the text actually says, we would not be having this discussion because most of our current gun laws would have been struck down long ago.
Sadly, the reality - as you outlined - is very different. One change on the court and we could see Heller reversed. That's why having support outside the gun owning community is so critical. We may need to over rule a future adverse ruling on the 2nd Amendment by passing a constitutional amendment to restore it.
-
All that reading on my little Kindle screen, preparing to have to laboriously type a response, and you covered it for me.
Thanks. M58.
The 2nd Amendment means just what it says.....in plain English.
After two hundred plus years, anyone who wants to re-interpret its meaning should not be allowed to sit a judicial bench.
I agree - but sadly, his assessment is correct.
-
<snip>
I have been a gun owner since before 1968 - so I understand where you are coming from. I respectfully submit that you are not recognizing how strong we are right now. We have NEVER BEEN STRONGER. For the first time ever, after a bunch of high profile shootings, the other side got nothing. The only question is: How will we use that strength?
One option is to simply play defense. <snip>
Again, THIS WOULD BE OUR BILL. We write it - they don't. We would be using our strength to both preempt their best argument and push back many current laws. While good people can and do disagree, I think that this would be the best uses of our current strength.
Me too on the '68 thing, a H&R Topper .410 shotgun. I remember when I could mail order a 30-30 from Sears and get it back in the mail...I also remember you could go to the feed store and buy dynamite and nobody cared.
Yes we have never been stronger since the GCA debacle in the 60's and I attribute that to the concealed carry fight. Concealed carry was an offensive struggle. The Uncle Fudds were pissing down both legs wanting to stay below the radar thinking bringing up guns was going to cause us to lose them all...or at least a large portion. Well, we got concealed carry by demanding it without conciliation and we won and here we are. Uncle Fudd was wrong and you are right...we've never been stronger at least in my lifetime (past two years up for debate). And we lose with the "prevent defense" which Uncle Fudd had been employing until we took the NRA back in the Cincinnati Revolution and pushed concealed carry.
Now I agree we write bills but we give them nothing. If they want us to have, for instance, personal NICS checks to close the patently false and misleading "gun show loophole" we make it illegal to transfer, aw heck, let's just say a car without one...cars not being a Constitutional right and we close that damned car loophole and keep crazies from being behind the wheel. We give them nothing but hell and leave them as the poster child and that is all I'm willing to be conciliatory over.
And more to the point...my rights are not what a court says they are per se' depending on what the topic is. They can say, for instance, you have no right to breathe air and need to pay a tax for air....would you follow that? It's like people saying they will "die" for someone's right to ______ (insert right in blank) and it's all really just hand waving to impress people with their caring which really does not exist.
.
-
Vince, You are the one who does not get it.
Unfortunately there are far to many gun owners like you.
Your reasoning is shallow.
The anti's have nothing "tangible" or otherwise to offer.
They can only agree to take less, for now.
-
Tell ya what, Vince.
Instead of putting the onus on the citizen who wants NONE of this nonsense lets put it where it belongs, on the government.
I don't have to prove I am 'allowed' to own a gun, the 2A secures that right for me. If the government wants to ensure felons don't get guns then the government needs to make it harder for them to get guns not harder for me the legal, Citizen.
Here's an idea. I have several types of government ID (driver's license, VA card, etc) so if the government decided I was not allowed to own a gun my ID should have a mark so stating. If I want to buy a gun at an FFL I show my ID. No mark? then I am good to go.
No sale if I cannot produce ID or if ID has a mark. Same goes for private sales.
That puts all of the onus on the government, as it should.
-
I would rather that the government compile a database of firearms prohibited persons and FFLs download that database and down load updated at the start of each day.
Then an offline application can access that database without anyone outside the FFL's shop knowing the request was made.
No possibility that the request to purchase could be gathered and kept for any use...except locally where we already have to leave a paper trail.
Leave private sales alone. No individual can verify that an ID is not a fake...and a seller who can legally buy firearms and intends to sell them illegally won't be checking IDs anyway.
-
Yes we have never been stronger since the GCA debacle in the 60's and I attribute that to the concealed carry fight. Concealed carry was an offensive struggle. The Uncle Fudds were pissing down both legs wanting to stay below the radar thinking bringing up guns was going to cause us to lose them all...or at least a large portion. Well, we got concealed carry by demanding it without conciliation and we won and here we are. Uncle Fudd was wrong and you are right...we've never been stronger at least in my lifetime (past two years up for debate). And we lose with the "prevent defense" which Uncle Fudd had been employing until we took the NRA back in the Cincinnati Revolution and pushed concealed carry.
We won the political battle on concealed carry not only through hard work - but because many people own don't own a gun and will likely never apply for a permit support the right to carry. This is especially true when talking about background checked and trained permit holders. These folks think that, should they ever "need" a permit, they should be able to get one. Many of these same people also believe that background checks should be expanded to most private transfers.
Now I agree we write bills but we give them nothing. If they want us to have, for instance, personal NICS checks to close the patently false and misleading "gun show loophole" we make it illegal to transfer, aw heck, let's just say a car without one...cars not being a Constitutional right and we close that damned car loophole and keep crazies from being behind the wheel. We give them nothing but hell and leave them as the poster child and that is all I'm willing to be conciliatory over.
We will NEVER convince the care of the anti-gun movement to give up their dream of UK style (or worse) gun control. I have no illusions about this - but I submit to you that, by themselves, they pose little danger because they are so small. Remember when Brady held a press conference and two reporters and one camera showed up? One of the reporters and the camera were from NRA News!
The anti-gun movement is like a balloon. It is nothing until it is inflated. It gets inflated when people - many of whom can be reasoned with - rush in to inflate it. Two things fill the balloon with air: Mass shootings and the issue of background checks. That's why the antis have to disguise their registration bills as "background check" bills - registration is a loosing issue at a national level. Background checks are a winning issue for them.
What Gura and I are suggesting is that we co-opt the only remaining issue that they can get significant support for. This will prevent them from using it to get registration and other horrible provisions passed. Witness what happened in Colorado. I'm also suggesting that, in the same bill, we repeal a ton of bad gun laws passed in the last 80 years. Put that bill on Obama's desk and we win either way. If he vetoes a background check bill, even one with lots of pro-gun rights provisions, then it's going to be hard for him to raise the issue. If he signs it, we get rid of a ton of very bad laws in exchange for giving up very little - since background checks would be available through FFLs, but would be completely optional. On the other hand they would provide legal protection when selling to people we don't know.
And more to the point...my rights are not what a court says they are per se' depending on what the topic is. They can say, for instance, you have no right to breathe air and need to pay a tax for air....would you follow that? It's like people saying they will "die" for someone's right to ______ (insert right in blank) and it's all really just hand waving to impress people with their caring which really does not exist.
While I understand where you are coming from - especially when it comes to unenforceable laws - in practical terms, SCOTUS decides what our constitutional protections are. So far, no one here has been able to provide evidence that the current court is going to rule that NICS checks are an infringement under the 2nd Amendment. Thank God we can use the 2nd Amendment as a firewall against really, really bad laws. Ditto that we can use it to expand concealed carry. But background checks - and by this I mean instant NICS checks - are a 100% political battle. As I said earlier - I really hope that Gura and I are wrong and that we are able to stop Bloomberg when he swoops in with his pre-written law after the next high profile mass shooting.
-
Tell ya what, Vince.
Instead of putting the onus on the citizen who wants NONE of this nonsense lets put it where it belongs, on the government.
I don't have to prove I am 'allowed' to own a gun, the 2A secures that right for me. If the government wants to ensure felons don't get guns then the government needs to make it harder for them to get guns not harder for me the legal, Citizen.
Here's an idea. I have several types of government ID (driver's license, VA card, etc) so if the government decided I was not allowed to own a gun my ID should have a mark so stating. If I want to buy a gun at an FFL I show my ID. No mark? then I am good to go.
No sale if I cannot produce ID or if ID has a mark. Same goes for private sales.
That puts all of the onus on the government, as it should.
That's actually an interesting idea - in fact it may be better than my idea. It would have value in other areas besides guns - such as alcohol sales and employment.
I would only add to your proposal a verification system, open to all, run over the net. It's just too easy to forge IDs. Pull up a website, punch in the number, check that it matches and the print out the page and the verification number. File it away and you are done. If ATF knocks on your door about a gun you sold, you show them the form. Such as system could work - and it, like my proposal, avoids giving the government the info they need to set up a registration system.
The only problem I see is that some will argue that a "no guns" mark on your D/L would stigmatize people...... but I still think it's a good idea.
-
I would rather that the government compile a database of firearms prohibited persons and FFLs download that database and down load updated at the start of each day.
Then an offline application can access that database without anyone outside the FFL's shop knowing the request was made.
No possibility that the request to purchase could be gathered and kept for any use...except locally where we already have to leave a paper trail.
Another good idea with good protections!
Leave private sales alone. No individual can verify that an ID is not a fake...and a seller who can legally buy firearms and intends to sell them illegally won't be checking IDs anyway.
Now if you could figure out a way to open the system to private sellers, we could slam he door shut on the antis best issue.
-
Universal BG will never be in our favor.
The antis want ALL transfers to be with a BG at an FFL, period. If you put any 'loopholes' in it for family then they will still say it is not universal and will continue to whine and complain that we are not 'sincere' about 'gun safety'.
If it passed with a 'family' exception how do you define 'family'? Mom, Dad, children, brother, sister? How about 'I was raised by my Aunt, Grandmother, cousin', etc? Does it include foster parents? These are questions I can come up with off the top of my mind, I am sure others could easily come up with even more.
NO MORE COMPROMISE! (BTW 'compromise' is another word for capitulation when dealing with the left)
Let's send a bill up that says every state MUST recognize a form of constitutional carry, either open or concealed. If they choose open then concealed may be a permitted process (same if they choose concealed as the primary).
Lets push for enough votes to pass it and then see if the antis want to 'compromise'.
Deal (if you must) from a position of strength not by giving away things before the process is even started.
You and Alan (bless his good work) want to start from an 'OBO' and HOPE you can get something near your asking price. That is a losing mindset.
-
The easiest way to open it to private sellers is that they visit an FFL shop and run the search off line.
PITA for sure....but if a private seller wanted to be absolutely CYA sure the sale was legal that would work. But optional not mandatory.
Would even work at gun shows...so that "loop hole" would be nullified.
Now, if FFLs provided the service for $2, it would be fine...again for those who CHOOSE to use that OPTION.
-
HMM...was thinking about how a private seller might have access to the database.
I am sure they will not want to DL, store and update the database so if a local firearms group could provide browse access to that database, it might work...but still a PITA to have a computer handy at the time of sale..and it would still have to be an OPTIONAL procedure.
Any worries about the DB being modified in uncontrolled hands is null...if they intended to violate the law, they wouldn't take the time to dl the thing.
Any one with the DB and willing to use is have proven they do not intend to make an illegal sale.
So again, that procedure would not stop criminals even if it were mandatory.
It would have the benefit of allowing the private seller to do the most possible to verify the legality of the buyer...if they felt it necessary.
-
"It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."
It already is! Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!
Actually I am quite aware of current law. Allowing sales other than in state face to face would be one of the many pro-gun rights changes to FEDERAL law.
Face to face sales are legal now, no matter where they happen.
Quote
"01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00). They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form."
So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!
This fee would not apply to dealer sales - it would be the maximum that a dealer could charge for doing a NICS check on a private sale.
I was not talking about dealer sales. You are still adding to the cost of the sale between private sellers.
Quote
Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books. He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay. You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.
Really - That's interesting because there are already many states that require dealers to do NICS checks on private sales and require them on some or all private sales. Dealers have guns on their books all the time that they DO NOT OWN. Consignment sales are but one example as are guns left of servicing. If this is the best argument up can come up with, it's not convincing.
Many states? How about ' a few states', not many.
As far as 'it hasn't happened' (yet), that doesn't mean it won't if we make it more possible by requiring FFL transfers on sales.
This also opens the possibility of a defacto registration (regardless of law). I buy as few guns as possible from FFL because of the existence of that paperwork. It is open to government review at any time for no reason and if the FFL goes out of business all that paperwork MUST be turned into the government.
Quote
Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.
I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!
I will ignore the name calling and simply point out that NOT ONE pro-gun rights legal scholar believes that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. I stay up on this stuff as much as I can, and I don't know of any - if someone does PLEASE correct me. I really want to know.
In fact, Heller makes it clear that government may take steps to keep the mentally ill and felons from owning or possessing firearms. There is no constitutional barrier to expanding NICS check to all sales (although my proposal would not do that).
So, we can go with your approach - and hope that in the future a Democrat majority doesn't put a background check bill written by Bloomberg on the desk of an anti-gun rights president - OR - we can write our own bill and remove the issue without all the "flypaper provisions". That Alan Gura's position, and I agree with him.
Anyone that starts with the mindset that we must accept what is current is an imbicile,
As far as NICS "NICS data indicates that approximately 5 percent of NICS denials are appealed, and close to half of appealed denials are overturned.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5492109_national-instant-check-system.htm"
How would / could this process work with a private transaction? Once again we have paperwork and lists ending up in government hands.
PUT THE ONUS ON THE CONTROLLERS NOT ON THE PRIVATE CITIZEN! If the government does not want an individual to own a gun then the government should inconvenience/harass THAT INDIVIDUAL not ALL INDIVIDUALS.
-
And if we are in a political position of power right now, then we set the terms and compromise consists not of giving up more things, but of not repealing some of the laws... 'til later.
In other words you approach it from all the things we want and which of those can wait till later. Not all the thing they want and how to make them palatable.
-
Hey Vince, What part of "Shall not be infringed" gives you a problem ?
How about if we start limiting voting rights ?
Or maybe we could legalize slavery under certain "Reasonable" conditions ?
The founder's knew that law breakers, in Govt or out, could never be disarmed so they didn't waste their time trying.
They made sure that the honest citizens had the greatest possible opportunity of resisting both types.
-
Vince, did you get a background check before you posted (after a mandatory 3 day 'cooling off' period)?
Seems like a 'reasonable', 'common sense', posting safety measure, doesn't it?
-
You want capitulation? Read up on Massachusetts gun laws! EVERYTHING IS REGISTERED! Nothing is done to stop the bangers, only those of us who shouldn't need regulation are regulated!
Give no quarter!
Accept no compromise!
Stand your ground!
-
Hey Vince, What part of "Shall not be infringed" gives you a problem ?
How about if we start limiting voting rights ?
Or maybe we could legalize slavery under certain "Reasonable" conditions ?
The founder's knew that law breakers, in Govt or out, could never be disarmed so they didn't waste their time trying.
They made sure that the honest citizens had the greatest possible opportunity of resisting both types.
That about hits the nail on the head, Tom.
-
That's exactly where you are wrong. It is the people who are not "gun people" who will decide what kind of gun laws we live with.
No it isn't. Sally Soccermom doesn't have s#!t to say about what kind of, or how many guns I own or carry.
It's lying weasels in DC that will decide what fed law is.
It's lying weasels in your state legislature that will decide what your state laws are.
If it got put up to a nationwide vote, CA, NY, OR, WA, MA and NJ would BURY the flyover states.
Hell, we can't even get every gun owner to VOTE.
Unfortunately, you and I do not get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means - SCOTUS does.
{{coughcoughbullshitcoughcough}}
Actually every gun, pitchfork, knife and rope owner has a say in the final product.
SCOTUS, POTUS and the rest of the DC crowd be damned.
If we didn't, we would still be paying taxes to and bowing to (no longer Great) Britain.
Get it???
That's why, THEY WANT TO OUTLAW EVERY GUN IN PRIVATE HANDS AND WON'T STOP UNTIL THEY DO!