So I want to premise my rant with this: I don't support this bs, but I got to thinking. If the republicans had to give in to any of the crap that's being flung in their direction this is probably what it's going to be. Now if that does in fact happen wouldn't we be able to fight for universal LTC's? I guess I'm stepping over the line by using logic, but if we all have to abide by the same background checks due to a federal law, shouldn't we have federal licenses?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
turning universal background checks in our favor?
- Thread starter blinky
- Start date
A background check that didn't blatantly violate the Constitution as better enforced in most states would only be able to have a database of prohibited persons. Even that is questionable as you have no probable cause to assume that a private person selling to another private person who is not engaging in interstate commerce has broken any laws. So, even ignoring the utter lack of Federal jurisdiction, there is no cause to intervene here.
MA has "allowed persons" whereas NICS has only "prohibited persons" because databasing people who have broken no law in the rest of America is viewed as a violation of due process, invasion of privacy, etc...
So, no, UBC does not require a Federal Licenses, what it would require is opening up NICS to individuals which WILL be abused (NICS check to get a job, buy a car, get a credit card, etc...). NICS is simply not setup for any random shmo to use - in fact dealers are prohibited from using it for any other purpose of disseminating the information they receive from other than to complete a firearm transaction.
Don't surrender before the war even starts... We tried that already.
MA's scheme won't hold up in front of SCOTUS as is. I can't say exactly what they will allow, but even the 9th circuit wouldn't let what we have fly, much less some of the more conservative circuits or justices.
Last edited:
Blinky, this is the problem, people have become so numb to invasion of their persons, houses and effects that they don't recognize the blatant problems with these schemes.
Prohibition, depression era socialism and then the civil rights era expanded the notion of "interstate commerce" to include pretty much anything. The problem with that is that they/we lost sight that even if you can legitimately claim jurisdiction over something that doesn't magically lower the bar to mean you can regulate it as much as you see fit.
The ability to regulate at all via jurisdiction and the amount of regulation permitted by the enumerated powers are two very different things. The Courts are dead wrong on that and we as the balance of power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches should have been saying so for nearly 100 years.
This is not a "loophole" it is a feature of a free society that two people inside a state trading, buying, selling property is simply not within the scope of the Federal Government's power. Period.
Which is also why "direct taxation" was specifically precluded from the original design of this nation. That we have all this direct taxation creates all sorts of excuses to cross this line. Now SCOTUS has, with healthcare, said anything can be taxed to any degree... [sad2]
Short version - NO, there is no winning here by compromising. We are past that point.
Prohibition, depression era socialism and then the civil rights era expanded the notion of "interstate commerce" to include pretty much anything. The problem with that is that they/we lost sight that even if you can legitimately claim jurisdiction over something that doesn't magically lower the bar to mean you can regulate it as much as you see fit.
The ability to regulate at all via jurisdiction and the amount of regulation permitted by the enumerated powers are two very different things. The Courts are dead wrong on that and we as the balance of power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches should have been saying so for nearly 100 years.
This is not a "loophole" it is a feature of a free society that two people inside a state trading, buying, selling property is simply not within the scope of the Federal Government's power. Period.
Which is also why "direct taxation" was specifically precluded from the original design of this nation. That we have all this direct taxation creates all sorts of excuses to cross this line. Now SCOTUS has, with healthcare, said anything can be taxed to any degree... [sad2]
Short version - NO, there is no winning here by compromising. We are past that point.
Why do they have to concede any ground? We've done nothing wrong and the proposed 'fixes' would not have stopped any of these tragedies. What they need to 'fix' is the lack of enforcement of current laws and the blatant spread of misinformation.
Is that a scheme that is being proposed anywhere? I was always under the impression that UBC also meant no private sales because you would need a NICS check, which only dealers can do.
I did have one person I know, a gun owner, tell me he supported closing the "gun-show-loophole" and everyone should just be able to do a NICS type check on someone with a smart phone app...
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Garys
NES Member
I'm not the first person to come up with this, but if the Supreme Court requires all states to recognize same sex marriage, why would that not require all states to recognize other states firearms licenses and permits? The decision to allow same sex marriage could hinge on the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. If DOMA is struck down, it could be a big win for gun owners.
I'm not saying give up before we fight. It's more of an IF this is to happen can we make THIS happen, as in can we turn this to our favor. but thank you for pointing out the diference between federal background checks and MA's system. I was unaware of that.
They Don't have to give up anything and I know we have done nothing wrong. The misinformation just has more backers than the truth. The MSM is constantly perpetuating the propaganda of the anti's to the point where most believe it to be fact.
I'm constantly arguing the 40 percent loophole bs to people but because someone with a suit on tv said it they believe it.
I'm not supporting the idea of the checks because quite frankly I don't think the .gov should be involved if I'm trying to sell my personal property to a friend, but in the case that it did happen I want to be able to tell my self we can make them regret it and take something from it.
Garys
NES Member
Is that a scheme that is being proposed anywhere? I was always under the impression that UBC also meant no private sales because you would need a NICS check, which only dealers can do.
I did have one person I know, a gun owner, tell me he supported closing the "gun-show-loophole" and everyone should just be able to do a NICS type check on someone with a smart phone app...
Not to mention how woefully inaccurate NICS data is. Which is why PDs don't use it or CORI when doing background checks for LTC applicants. There are any number of posts here and elsewhere by people with no criminal record or who have had charges dismissed who have received "delay" or "deny" returns on their NICS check. NICS has to be a whole lot better before it's useful for face to face background checks.
The trouble is that you are assuming they are negotiating in good faith that if they get this compromise, they won't just push it another inch further next time and the next time and the next time.
I know what you are asking, but the trouble is that they are lying. They don't want to make anyone safer, or "just ban this" or "just check that", they want to ban guns and they know they can't right now. So, they are willing to kill us with a billion paper cuts if that's what it takes.
So, because of that, no we don't win. If it appears that way, it will be short lived. They have shown their true face (they showed it before, but never so blatantly as they have now).
One way or another that's where it has to go we allow this. They won't be able to require that people go to an FFL to do a FTF, I cannot imagine that won't be smacked down quickly in courts outside the iron curtain of the 1st and 2nd circuits.Is that a scheme that is being proposed anywhere? I was always under the impression that UBC also meant no private sales because you would need a NICS check, which only dealers can do.
I did have one person I know, a gun owner, tell me he supported closing the "gun-show-loophole" and everyone should just be able to do a NICS type check on someone with a smart phone app...
I can imagine them sleazing their way into an on-line check scheme for organized gun-shows or some BS like that, but as I said, one way or another if they demand that FTF get checked, they have to provide a mechanism for it to happen.
Allow everybody to query NICS, and provide an opt-out system.
I like the idea of having a special case of NICS for the public (call it PUB-NICS) which returns a "GO" or "No Go" answer, uses the buyers name and SSN, and which people can choose to opt out of, resulting in all queries returning "No Go". So a prospective employer or roommate can't assume a "No Go" answer means you are a prohibited person, you might just be a pacifist or anti-gun zealot who opted out of PUB-NICS on principle.
From what I have seen, all the proposed schemes (state law and nationally) all require involving a FFL to actually call into NICS and run the check. Some of these proposals actually have the FFL running the transaction through his bound book and recording the serial number, other proposals do NOT require the FFL dealer to actually perform the transaction through his license and do not include a record of the seller nor of the serial number of the weapon.
I like the idea of having a special case of NICS for the public (call it PUB-NICS) which returns a "GO" or "No Go" answer, uses the buyers name and SSN, and which people can choose to opt out of, resulting in all queries returning "No Go". So a prospective employer or roommate can't assume a "No Go" answer means you are a prohibited person, you might just be a pacifist or anti-gun zealot who opted out of PUB-NICS on principle.
MaverickNH
NES Member
BINGO! You decide to nip off the "tip of the iceberg" and what happens?
1. You've done little useful at all (but you never planned to anyway)
2. The iceberg rises above the water again
3. You go after the new tip of the iceberg
4. Lather, rinse, repeat - "The Slippery Slope" in all its glory
People will presume "no go" is bad regardless of libtardism.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
Legislation cannot take guns from criminals. Legislation can only take rights from the law abiding.
The rights of free people are not to be messed with.
Dianne feinstein is on record in 1995, on 60 minutes stating that she wants the complete disarmament of the American civilian population. She whipes her ass with the constitution and blows her nose on the American flag. Make no mistake about it. Gun-grabbers dont respect your natural right to self-defense, let alone your right to be armed. They will not stop until all of your power is taken and they are in complete control.
There are ways of dealing with societys problems but taking rights from free people is not the way.
UBC is one step in the direction of disarmament.
The rights of free people are not to be messed with.
Dianne feinstein is on record in 1995, on 60 minutes stating that she wants the complete disarmament of the American civilian population. She whipes her ass with the constitution and blows her nose on the American flag. Make no mistake about it. Gun-grabbers dont respect your natural right to self-defense, let alone your right to be armed. They will not stop until all of your power is taken and they are in complete control.
There are ways of dealing with societys problems but taking rights from free people is not the way.
UBC is one step in the direction of disarmament.
Good point
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
14 th broken in a nutshell
14 th broken in a nutshell
I also recall reading that Chuckie 'The Commie' Schumer is trying to weave registration into the UBC legislation so you know what comes next.
Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won?t Create A Gun Registry? Then Calls It ?Universal Registration?? | Weasel Zippers
Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won?t Create A Gun Registry? Then Calls It ?Universal Registration?? | Weasel Zippers
That's pretty much it in a nutshell, they can no longer hide from nearly 20 years of gun-grabbing. We need to force either them or the broader public to admit that's the goal - total confiscation and start talking about what of our lost rights we are getting back not what more we are willing to give up.
I respect your premise of Republicans (and very few Democrats) needing something to present back to the gun grabbing bastards other than saying NO. Sure the stance of holding firm and not giving in to any friggin bill or proposed law that imposes on the 2nd amendment is what we need to do, in a perfect world. Now in reality these politicians care about 2 things and only 2 , getting reelected and public perception of them. I would say Sen Rand Lee and Cruz could be exceptions.
So if they think there is a better chance for them to look good by "giving in a little on your rights" that's what they will do. If it hurts some of their voting base but they see they still they will get back in, youre screwed.
So I think you call the Anti 2a bluff. You want checks? Ok give every one access to NICS. Now since we are all doing it we want every state to reciprocate universal CCW.
Also you want a waiting period (just an example). Then do away with needing an FFL for me to purchase out of state, I mean since we are all checked out already and do away with the state by state bullshit restrictions like in NY and MA, especially since we are all checked out right?
Hey if you want me to recognize your gay marriage in every state why not my ccw?
So in the end we need to think these politicians are not all on our side they are on the side that gets them back in.
caboose84
NES Member
Devils advocate here-
I could see adding forcing all states to honor LTC's (by whatever name known) as a poison pill... "you want this you have to give this- it's a reasonable compromise after all- just as you've been saying you want"
and include NYC in it- remember carry permits issued elsewhere in New York State aren't valid in New York City- what would Bloomberg do if he had to accept not just NYS carry permits- but ones from everywhere...
would be funny just to see the gun grabbers heads explode... or vote against their own bills...
I could see adding forcing all states to honor LTC's (by whatever name known) as a poison pill... "you want this you have to give this- it's a reasonable compromise after all- just as you've been saying you want"
and include NYC in it- remember carry permits issued elsewhere in New York State aren't valid in New York City- what would Bloomberg do if he had to accept not just NYS carry permits- but ones from everywhere...
would be funny just to see the gun grabbers heads explode... or vote against their own bills...
I cannot support this. It is a further encroachment of our rights, and there is already a marketplace solution for doing transfers if you don't trust that the other party is not a criminal: take it to an FFL to do the transfer.
According to the US Justice Department, there are more than 7 million instances of identity fraud per year in the US - approximately 600,000 per month. So, if criminals can fraudulently use your identity to obtain credit, products or services in excess of 8 billion dollars per year - how will requiring criminals to provide a "clean" identity to purchase a firearm prevent them from obtaining a firearm?
Universal Background checks will simply expand identify fraud and attach a "paper trail" to millions of innocent, law abidding citizens who will be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars and months of their time defending themselves from unlawful investigations based on someone else using their identifying information.
Universal Background checks will simply expand identify fraud and attach a "paper trail" to millions of innocent, law abidding citizens who will be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars and months of their time defending themselves from unlawful investigations based on someone else using their identifying information.
Parker Duofold
NES Member
Let's get one thing straight; there is no compromise being sought here. In a compromise each side "gives" somewhat and an agreement is reached. There is no "giving" by the antis -- just taking.
Horrible
NES Member
"Shall NOT be infringed..." Nuff said.
So, we have to undergo all of these background checks to exercise our god-given and Constitutional right to defend ourselves, but don't even have to show an id to vote? Wow, this country is effed up!
So, we have to undergo all of these background checks to exercise our god-given and Constitutional right to defend ourselves, but don't even have to show an id to vote? Wow, this country is effed up!
Similar threads
