“An estimated 1,000 gun rights activists converged Saturday on the Capitol Campus, toting American flags, wearing camouflage and carrying their guns,” theolympian.com reports. “The armed citizens turned out to participate in an I Will Not Comply rally, protesting Initiative 594, a measure passed by voters that expands background checks for firearm sales and transfers.’We’re going to stand up for our rights,’ event organizer Gavin Seim said. ‘Our rights are not up for negotiation.’” Unless they are. “Roy Talbott of Olympia said he’s in favor of background checks, but I-594 is just too broad. ‘All of us are for background checks, but this just goes too far,’ Talbott said.” To quote Will Smith, oh hell no. I’m not for any background checks on gun sales whatsoever. You? [h/t MS]
Home Question of the Day Question of the Day: Do You Support Background Checks?
Hope to see some fierce political and social backlash in the coming months.
Colt, how many people were really there? I’ve seen attendance reported as low as 600.
I’m guessing 1,000+. It would have been nice to see a lot more participation. Our protest, unlike others, didn’t disrupt traffic, damage property, or antagonize the State Patrol. In fact, the Patrol were friendly and professional. No arrests… yet the antis think we’re the problem.
There were easily over 1000 early on. By about 14:00 it started to taper off.
No fights. No smashed windows. No burning police cards. No gun shots. No one beaten to death with hammers. Just really nice, friendly folks who wanted to protect their rights, and fondle each others guns. Just what you would expect…unless you’re an anti 2A type.
No BG checks, at all. I should be able to buy a Glock 17 at a vending machine, as should convicted felons.
Background checks don’t work. Felons send in a friend or their girlfriend with clean records to buy at an FFL-how can a dealer know its a straw purchase if the parties have made the arrangements beforehand?
Spree killer Dylan Kliebold used that exact strategy to get arms for Columbine .If the felon can’t get laid, hell just buy or rent a gun from the hood. Same outcome-the bad guys being bad guys, they’ll always get guns. May as well save ourselves money and paperwork -wed have better luck preventing criminals from buying tic tacs.
Further the DAs don’t prosecute gun crimes, and for good reason. When someone’s used a gun in a robbery, rape, or murder, you don’t want them going down for six months on a gun charge-you want them behind bars, permanently. So the first thing to get negotiated away is the firearm beef-which means the law does literally nothing. Even if someone’s picked up for violating BG check laws, its the first charge getting tossed before trial.
Let’s save money and time better spent on other issues. Vote NO on any background check bill coming your way, and work to repeal the useless ones already on the books.
I don’t support background checks! But! to say Glock 17’s should be sold in vending machines is a bit reckless. Do you want all these protesters to have guns? Do you want children buying guns from a vending machine. And most important, do you want your enraged ex wife grabbing a gun to off your miserable ass because you haven’t sent alimony payments for six months!
“Do you want all these protesters to have guns?”
Do you think these protesters that want guns don’t already have them?
“do you want your enraged ex wife grabbing a gun to off your miserable ass because you haven’t sent alimony payments for six months!” — Please explain how a background check would prevent your “enraged” ex wife from purchasing a firearm?
“Do you want children buying guns from a vending machine.” Children are commonly prohibited. Which means most, the law abiding, rule following – won’t do it.
Since there are multiple examples of “prohibited” persons already acquiring firearms what is your background check supposed to do?
Dylan Kleibold could not pass a background check(being underage) — He still acquired his firearms… which is exactly the point. The background check was nothing more than a minor inconvenience to a malicious individual.
I guess you missed the . 🙂
Damn. Logic is a bitch. lmao
All good points Chris.
I suppose there are some that. Point is, if you could get one from a vending machine, they would all have them. Do you really want that?
2 You miss read my post I am NOT in favor of background checks! The ex wife thing was hopefully a bit of humor, Again, would you want just anybody being able to get a gun, no matter who or what they are?
3 Children are commonly prohibited, Do you think a 5 year old should be able to buy a gun from a vending machine?
4 What is you background check suppose to do. What makes you think I’m for background checks, just because I don’t think children should have access to guns.
Vending machines is stretching it, but I get the point.
+1 Chris & ST.
Butters unite for gun control.
^^^Truth. Our “allies” are our worst enemy.
Anon, “butters” as in
“Everybody I know has a big but.” –Pee-Wee Herman
Yes, I want every protestor to have the ability to arm themselves if they so choose. I want every American to be able to arm themselves if they so choose. I will even support convicted and released felons if they can go through a thorough rehabilitation process to show that they deserve to have their rights returned to them because not all feloniies are the result of violent crimes.
“if they can go through a thorough rehabilitation process to show that they deserve to have their rights returned ”
That should be required before they are RELEASED! Once released, they should have all rights, including RKBA.
I had a blog post about how criminals in jail shouldn’t be prohibited from purchasing guns, especially since there are no gun shops in jails.
Yes, but then how would Certain Political Alignments continue with the pretense that it isn’t Certain Demographic Groups committing so much of gun crime?
If they don’t have the gun to blame, they’d have to point the finger at the Certain Demographic Groups.
And that would be politically incorrect to the point of heresy.
Yes, because the average child has $600 and will spend it on a gun. Children aren’t exactly known for their financial restraint, nor do they have much opportunity to acquire money.
Glock 17s sold from vending machines?
That’s a tall order. Imagine standing there feeding 2,400 quarters into the machine!
Now the *ammo* is doable.
Plenty of video/arcade/gambling games these days that accept plastic money….
You know somebody would leave a note on the machine:
“This machine owes Model 31 $600 for the 92FS” that it failed to dispense.
That made me smile.
How about 4473s for the NFA stuff, and a nice clean go/no go call in with a driver’s license for the rest? I call that a common sense reform.
Common sense…..”Shall not be infringed” means just that. Anything else is commonly criminal.
At one point in time I was in support of background checks, then I woke up and realized Criminals don’t get a background check. They steal, buy stolen, or buy illegally anyway. So background checks are just a pain in my lawful ass every time I want a new toy!
nope…not at all
I’d be for universal background checks if we were to also repeal the Hughes ammendment, repeal the NFA, create stronger carry law, awb protection protection-including “hicap” magazines, and also strengthening the destruction of paperwork FFLs are required to keep.
That’s not going to happen though. We have been giving up our rights since 34′. Enough is enough. At the moment, I say NO.
“At the moment, I say NO.” Hmm..either you’re for freedom or you’re against it. There are no half freedoms. Not trying to tick you off, just bringing up a point.
I imagine Bunny is stating a tactical strategy. Agreeing to background checks in exchange for repealing the Hugh’s Amendment, Gun Control Act of 1968, and National Firearms Act of 1934 would be a huge win.
Of course it would be nice if we could eliminate all of those unconstitutional laws without mandating universal background checks.
I read it the same way you did. I was just stating one should not be willing to trade one restriction for another. Our birthright is “…shall not be infringed…”
Being willing to trade favors with infringements is the kind of crap that got us here.
Just say NO, to any and all infringements.
Yeah, more rules!!! We need more restrictions! This proposal is gonna scare the crap out of the bad guys! I feel safer just thinking about it. Don’t you?
NO on background checks. Period.
The only checks that I support are marked “Pay to the Order of Ralph.”
In an ideal world I could be. By ideal I mean that the government was well-controlled and kept on a short leash and if they abused the information in any way there would be huge consequences involving felony convictions and jail time for anyone who did. And also if the anti-gun people would stop pushing to take our rights inch by inch.
But that is not the world we live in. The anti-gunners and police and government agencies have demonstrated themselves not trustworthy enough to handle that information and that great responsibility entailed in protecting it. They have abused what information they have consistently, and rather than using it to go after straw buyers and convict criminals who attempt to buy guns, they’ve used it to profile, spy on, and harass law abiding gun owners.
So really what makes the idea of universal background checks untenable is the immaturity and lack of ethics of the people who push for it hardest, the government, police, and anti-gun agitators. I don’t expect the maturity or ethics of these groups of people to EVER improve, so therefore I am vehemently opposed to UBC.
Don, in your perfect world, where govt was not abusive, background checks would never have been proposed. The whole idea from the beginning was to obtain a registry so as to confiscate firearms. Nothing about the law has ever been enforced except to persecute out-of-favor gun dealers, and gun dealers is not who was targeted, in theory. The original background checks was absolutely worthless and hugely expensive, “universal” would not be universal, would not produce any changes of value, and would cost a larger fortune.
The only compromise we should go for is that, if passed, UBC would be paid for by reductions in the $$ going to the states represented by the congresscritters who voted for it. No cost to the dealer, no cost to the purchaser, no cost to the average taxpayer, all paid for out of funds which would otherwise go to YOUR STATE, sir. Watch how fast it would disappear from the planet.
yeah, like I said…
I hate I-594, and I understand that any “gun control” is “infringement”. However, I understand that some compensation (or Constitutional infringement) is necessary to diminish opportunities for felons, the mentally ill, and domestic abuse criminals. ‘Absolute nothing’ is never going to fly in any society of 21st Century Western Civilization. I believe more additional rules are not needed nor would they be useful; and we should remove some of the useless rules that currently exist. But I don’t know that I agree with ‘absolutely nothing’ being done to control gun ownership. Some guy with a history of mental illness should not be allowed to buy a gun from a gun store, etc. Let’s be reasonable in our expectations.
Define “mental illness.” A huge percentage of the population is on antidepressant drugs. Are they mentally ill?
If you mean confined to a facility, that doesn’t cut it either. I once represented the family of a high school student who was confined “for his own good.” His crime? He was sad because he couldn’t get a prom date. He wasn’t suicidal. He wasn’t murderous. He was sad. And now he has “a record of mental illness.”
And his family caught a ration of sh!t too. Their crime? The boy’s dad told the kid to suck it up and get over it. The horror! The school administration accused the father of child abuse. Of course, it was a mere coincidence that the father was also an education gadfly who had tweaked the school administration one time too many.
Do you believe that such things don’t happen in America? If so, you are very wrong.
I’ve said it before, “mental illness” is too vague of a criterion (just guessing on the singular form there) to make such a determination. The only thing that is pertinent is if an individual is a danger to themselves or others, and being a danger to itself is iffy. Of course if someone fits that criterion then they should be taken into custody for treatment. As always, focusing on the guns as a solution is misguided.
Or, in the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar, “It’s a trap!”
Here it is:
I have heard on numerous occasions the anti-gun crowd making an argument that the mere act of owning a firearm is a mental illness. I have also heard, on more than one occasion, supposed 2A supporters ready and willing to throw those with a “mental illness” under the bus. They are of the notion that this would help secure their 2A rights. This logic may work in the short term but is a long term loser. The only thing that will stop the anti-gunners from trying to infringe on our rights is an outright ban and confiscation of privately owned firearms. That is their end game.
Ralph I want to say thanking for shining a light on the abuse of children at the hands of the mental health industry.
Fun fact over 80% of people in the mental health industry are leftist.
The opinion of one of these parasites should not invalid the unalienable rights that are bestowed on to us by virtue of our existence at birth based on the “opinion” of a quack.
“Fun fact over 80% of people in the mental health industry are leftist.”
I don’t think it’s possible to call most of them leftist. Most I’ve known don’t even think about politics beyond what they’re told to think. They’re statists who get their salaries from vast pools of tax dollars and foundation funding. They’re for anything that creates and maintains organizations and institutions that keep these flows of money going.
Compare: the giant religious organizations who just licked up nearly half a billion in our wages to feed, clothe, house, and entertain “undocumented” “immigrant” “children.” (Some Baptist social agency alone got $182 million for providing these services for four months for 2,400 individuals.)
Citation: Judicial Watch dot org, search documents for HHS 2720, and click on HHS 2720_Responsive recs 1 Full Production
They care about politics only inasmuch as they can
Nope, just nope.
Not sure how we survived before GCA of 1968. When you know, you could have order it by mail.
BS. Just say NO!
If someone is so dangerous that society cannot trust them with a firearm, they need to be locked up, not roaming the streets. Think about it. A dangerous person who cannot purchase a firearm at a gun store can easily steal a firearm or use any number of alternate weapons to rape, pillage, and plunder.
The only thing that universal background checks could possibly do is stop a violent ex-convict from purchasing a firearm from a gun store or honest person … but they would absolutely NOT stop a violent ex-convict from stealing guns, purchasing guns on the streets, or acquiring alternate weapons and then harming people. Therefore, there is no point in having universal background checks. They are a waste of resources.
Even if these laws were ragional (they are not), just who do you propose to give power to identify and restrain the felons, mentally ill, and so forth you’d like to see deprived of their right to self defense tools? What in the world gives you, or anyone else, the authority to make other people helpless?
Trying to prevent people from doing harm with their tools is a fool’s errand and pretty much impossible. That is exactly why every person who wants to do so must be free to have the tools they find necessary to defend themselves!
People should certainly take care to choose their companions and partners carefully, and have the option to be armed just in case they make a mistake. That is the logical cure for “domestic abuse.”
“some compensation (or Constitutional infringement) is necessary to diminish opportunities for felons, the mentally ill, and domestic abuse criminals”
Well, you’ve stated the anti-gunners position there and it is proven false. Background checks do absolutely nothing to diminish any opportunities at all. So, why would you want any infringement? We’ve seen a long history that shows that allowing infringements as some kind of tactic to avoid something worse is a severely failed strategy. It’s time to stop that.
Background checks fail massively in two different respects:
1. The mere presence of a background check implies that my natural right to self defense is subject to the approval of the government. Hell no.
2. As a practical matter, background checks only stop the very dumbest of criminals. Anyone with half a brain can illegally obtain a gun without a background check. This would continue to be the case even if background checks were mandated for all firearms transactions. For anyone arguing to the contrary I have no doubt I could obtain any of a number of illegal drugs inside of half an hour if I so desired, though I personally do not consume such products as I believe they are not beneficial for my health nor my continued function in society.
I would add to that, any actual criminal could buy his desired guns on the street far, I mean FAR cheaper than you and I can find them. Go pay $3000 for a top line 1911. Once it is stolen the next day, how much do you think it is going to bring on the street? I’d guess the thief would be lucky to get $500, probably more like $200. We don’t shop there because those guns are stolen. Back in CB radio days, a coworker offered me one for a ridiculously low price, guaranteeing it was not stolen. I pointed out that the antenna cable and the power cord, both of which were quick disconnect, had been cut with wire cutters instead. You just do not deal with those people.
I’m not a LEO, but the ones I talk to tell me that the only two things that they see go up in value after they have been stolen are prescription drugs and firearms. Not trying to troll you, and it’s totally anecdotal, but I have heard it enough to think that a lot of leos believe it. It would be an interesting subject for an econ phd proposal.
Not at all. The main way criminals get guns is through straw purchases, corrupt dealers and theft. Background checks do nothing to stop those things.
For the purchase of tools? No
I support foreground checks. No sales to those who will, at some point in the future, use a firearm criminally or negligently.
Nope. They’re meaningless and useless.
Yes and no.
The second amendment, as written, would allow anyone with the cash to purchase a tactical nuke or artillery shells containing VX. There really should be a background check on those sorts of items to make sure evil or irresponsible people don’t take out entire towns in suicide attacks.
“Shall not be infringed” just wasn’t intended for a world with WMDs. It was, however, written in a time when cannons were owned by private citizens at a much higher rate than by the govt and there weren’t a whole lot of cannon murders that I’ve heard about.
As far as private sales go, nope… Do not support and would not comply. Thankfully, I live in an area with sensible gun laws and law abiding citizens are allowed to own pretty much whatever we want short of nuclear, biologic, or chemical weapons and can sell privately owned firearms without asking permission.
The person who can afford to purchase nuclear weapons and artillery shells with VX gas can also afford to purchase a thousand beater cars, fill them with ANFO, and remotely detonate them to decimate an entire city. And a person of much more modest means can afford to purchase a thousand gasoline containers, 10 boxes of kitchen stick matches, and set an entire city ablaze ala Tokyo in World War II. And if you are willing to die, you can take over an airliner with a $5 box cutter and fly it into a building and kill thousands.
No matter how you look at it, background checks NEVER prevent anyone from committing mass atrocities. They are a waste of time and resources.
Sorry, but that’s not the case: the Second Amendment refers to the common arms of a soldier, so tactical nukes aren’t covered.
Larger or crew-served weapons were for organized militias, so if you want, say, a battle helicopter, you need to organize a militia, elect officers, have some semblance of training, and people skilled enough to use it. Then your militia can acquire said helicopter… or battle tank, or aircraft carrier.
Arguably, you have to notify the governor of your state that y’all are a militia, and provide the names of officers who may be contacted. OTOH, you don’t have to tell the feds a bloody thing.
Your logic escapes me.
We know that “background checks” and prohibitions don’t prevent bad people from getting weapons or using them to harm others… but you seem to think all of a sudden that’s actually going to work well if the tool happens to be a nuke or an airplane?
Control of these things by some central “authority” is only going to limit what good people buy and do. None of these “laws” can actually PREVENT bad people from getting the tools, or doing bad things with them. That’s exactly why people must be free to defend themselves from aggressors, regardless of the tools being used.
Preventing crime of any kind, by prohibiting ownership and possession of specific tools, is just not possible.
Sorry, but that is the case. Warships and cannon were quite common as “bearable” arms. They can be brought to bear on an adversary. Quit reading things into the 2A that are not there.
In the tune of the writing of the constitution, my understanding is that they really had no weapons more powerful than a cannon, and maybe exploding shells (not sure on that), certainly no idea something like a nuke was possible, which means that old, tired argument dies actually apply to some things.
The 2nd certainty does apply to infantry weapons, but I’ve never read anything that suggested the language was chosen to limit constitutional protection to such small arms, or that they even considered that there would be other classes of arms orders of magnitude more powerful.
But I don’t have any specific knowledge on the topic. Does anyone know of any writings from that time that indicate an understanding that there would be weapons so unimaginably more powerful and how they would fit into this right?
Marcus, the legal framing of these matters does not involve the reach or nature of the weapons. That is a red herring thrown out by the Feinsteins of the world either because they don’t understand the law or well understand it and have learned how to get a portion of the electorate clapping like seals.
Here are a few links that I hope contribute to a good response to your question…which is the kind of question I wish more PoTG/RKBA advocates asked.
[Robert/mods, these links are discussions of legal theory/framing of 2A]
Legal theory of the right to keep and bear arms (including TNWs):
Historical bases of the right to keep and bear arms:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments:
The Framers’ Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
If you’ve got the money to buy VX, you’ve got the money to make all sorts of lower tech, but equally deadly weapons.
The hypothetical of what some evil person could do is the most convenient avenue of attack against any right. Someone could be planning terrorism using email? We need to read them all. Your rights advocacy group could be a front for subversive elements, we’re going to place you under surveillance and if we think you look really iffy, arrest you without warrants or charges. Because you could be up to no good.
VX is illegal in International Law, you cannot buy it legally anywhere, 2A notwithstanding. Nuclear weapons which have not been stolen (therefore not subject to background checks, just as stolen guns are not) would cost hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars each and take years to develop and build. But if you are still worried, the correct way to do something about it is called a “Constitutional Amendment” excluding WMD, by name, from protection under 2A. Just ignoring 2A is absolutely unacceptable, but that is what’s being done every day.
FORREST: “The second amendment, as written, would allow anyone with the cash to purchase a tactical nuke or artillery shells containing VX.”
Nonsense. We interpret the Second Amendment in context — including historical context.
See “The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment” (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html), and scroll down to the last two sections, “To Bear Arms,” and “Arms.”
M16s fall under the framers’ definition of “arms.”
Nukes and artillery … not so much.
Inaccurate. Please take a look at the links I posted above in response to Marcus (Aurelius) Payne. Thanks.
The first link doesn’t even get the meaning of “well-regulated” right, so I’m not inclined to take seriously anything else it says. It’s easy to get the correct sense of the term by looking at the correspondence of Gen. George Washington with the Continental Congress, where he complains about certain militias not being well-regulated. The deficiencies he lists include poor response to commands, poor care of weapons, and in general a lack of training and discipline making them suitable to be in battle. So the meaning of well-regulated can be stated as “having to a reasonable degree the character of regulars” — those being the British Regulars, the trained and disciplined forces who took proper care of their weapons, knew how to use them, remained alert, responded well to orders, etc. It most certainly cannot be boiled down to “self-regulated”, although, given the concept of militia at the time it is fair to say that this characteristic is necessary — although not at all sufficient.
Also of importance to “well-regulated” was being able to appear for muster with proper equipment, that equipment being not at all limited to the arms themselves. In terms of arms, a well-regulated militia was one that had the most modern personal weapons they could afford, but in addition it was one where there was a sufficient supply of all those things necessary to maintain those arms’ usefulness — which today would mean plenty of ammunition, cleaning kits, tools for field repairs, and effective storage for those in a way that they could be carried to battle or at least easily packed and moved at quick notice.
But this cannot be used to bar citizens from having crew-served or special weapons, as those were the province of the organized militia. Since militias were inheritors of the older feudal scheme where vassals were expected to supply military might appropriate to their means, it was not merely allowed but expected that as they were able, militias would have, and maintain, artillery (with all the proper gear) and transport, with a secure facility in which to store both these and any extra munitions for resupply and/or for members unable to afford their own. Today that would mean that if I and fifty friends organized a militia, it would be within the meaning of that term and “well-regulated” for us to acquire any equipment that an official militia — e.g. the National Guard — could.
The militia concept even extended to fortifications; a number of colonial harbors were protected by forts and batteries paid for not by government but by local citizens, according to their means (the militia was in some ways a very communist sort of thing), as well as maintained by local militia who would be expected to man them at need.
Further, along the coasts maritime militias were not unknown, so if I and my hypothetical friends preferred, we could organize a militia meant to guard the sea off our coast, in which case our arms would be those of a sailor or marine, and our militia equipment would include patrol boats and right up to cruisers and submarines.
Today, we also have aircraft, but as military items they are also the proper domain of the militia, once a particular militia has organized in fashion to keep and employ them.
In other words, while “keep and bear arms” for an individual private citizen did not include crew-served weapons or special weapons, those came under the rubric of the militia, and thus are indeed protected by the Second.
Yes, Comrade. Background checks are needed to keep us safe. You can trust the government to keep accurate records of you peasants. To do this, you must all pay much taxes.
They are generally ineffective as far as preventing criminals from acquiring guns or other weapons.
No right should ever be subject to a background check.
The simple act of buying (or owning, or carrying) a gun harms no one.
Background checks make it much easier for the government to create a registry of gun owners.
Errors result in non-prohibited persons being denied their right to keep & bear arms.
The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to restrict the rights of everyone in order to prevent a small minority of persons from committing bad acts is incompatible with a free society.
“No right should ever be subject to a background check.”
I’m gonna quote you ’til the day I die!
The Second Amendment Right isn’t so much being subjected to a background check, as the background check is verifying your eligibility to have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. A Felon loses those rights after conviction, and the background check is an established way to verify that you are not a felon who is a prohibited person, and can enjoy your rights.
The Second Amendment, is just an amendment. Ratified 3 years later as part of the Bill of Rights. But, it’s not a god given right.
I support the right to possess and carry firearms, just as I support the removal of rights of convicted felons. I also support background checks. I am aware that criminals will find other ways to get firearms, and I know background checks can be a pain in the ass, but the problem is that people get so riled up over the right to bear arms that not enough people use diligence when selling a firearm. Because not enough people are diligent, we have foolish legislation shoved through that doesn’t fix the problem. If I’m selling a hunting rifle and the prospective buyer gives me a bad vibe or looks like he shouldn’t have access to a firearm, I’m not going to sell it.
Should I care why he want to buy my rifle? Should I bother to be accountable? Not overly to the first part, and Yes to the second.
It’s a hornets nest of a issue, but it wouldn’t be so bad if people were a bit more accountable.
How often do background checks prevent felons from purchasing firearms?
Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent, natural, God-given right – as an extension of the right to life and self-defense.
I don’t support sych “removal.” First, not all felonies are created equally. Should spmeone lose their RKBA for smoking some pot or writing bad checks? Second, if someone is such a threat/risk of violence (murderer/rapist), then they should never again see the outside of a prison.
Keep violent felons behind bars, and voila: no need to burden law-abiding, buying/selling citizens with background checks for the sale of a legal good.
Any type of a restriction can not be put on a persons constitutional right regardless of what he/she has done.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
U.S.C. Article VI
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I would like someone to show me in the 2nd Amend where it states that a person convicted of a crime looses this right to protect themselves?
Congress has authority under Article I Section 8 to provide for the discipline of the militia. This could sensibly be construed to extend to defining who is not considered competent to be a member of the militia.
OTOH, the government should not be allowed to make sweeping categories, but should have the burden of proving in each case that an individual is not competent — not to a federal judge, but to a jury. And if a judge decides that the government case is frivolous, the costs of the proceedings should be billed to the federal attorney who brought the action.
The 2A enumerafes rhe rights of the people, not the militia.
When did those two become different?
They always have been. The people have NEVER been the well-regulated militia. Some of the people may be engaged as such, but that is not the population in general.
The Bill of Rights enumerates rights of the people, not of the militia.
It isn’t rocket science.
No, they haven’t been different: the militia is the whole people, according to writers on both sides of the federalist/anti-federalist divide.
Yeah, about that…..you might want to actually check into stuff before saying it. 10 USC 311 for instance. If you are under 17 or over 45 as a male, or a female who isn’t in the National Guard, then I guess you aren’t part of the “whole people”. Or you could justs be wrong. Very wrong. Even then, those person who are included are part of the unorganized militia, which is the antithesis of well-regulated. Ah well, live and learn.
I guess you think the Founding Fathers and the Framers were wrong.
If you think that federal laws trump the original meaning, why care about the Second Amendment? The way you’re approaching it, the Second is just another piece of the Constitution that is fair game to change with federal law.
I don’t believe the founding fathers were wrong. I just don’t put words into their mouth; You mentioned the Constitution. Please show me exactly where it says the militia is all of the people. Look really hard. You are the one playing too play fast and loose with “original meanings” that just aren’t there.
See, in discussion leading to the writing of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights shortly thereafter, a lot of opinions were expressed. Only certain of those made it into the actual documents.
No, the second amendment does not state anything about the people being the militia. It merely relates the fact that a well-regulated militia is a necessary evil, for the security of a free state. In fact, if you look to the Constitution itself, as existed before the Bill of Rights was added, you can find the stipulations for such a militia were already in place.
No second amendment was needed to create such a militia, nor is a bill of the rights of the people a place to create such a thing. Plenty of countries with no right to bear arms allow their subjects to have arms for militia duty. The Bill of Rights is not a list of duties of the people to help the state. That is absurd. The second amendment is quite simply the enumeration of a right of every person to keep and bear arms.
Now you sound like a Yale lawyer who thinks the law exists for him to make it mean whatever he wants.
The ratification debates show what the term “militia” meant. If they didn’t, then it has only the meaning a person gives it. That’s the ultra-liberal approach, disconnecting the Constitution from the original meaning so they can turn it into something it isn’t.
You are tooo funny!! Militia had more than one meaning back then. I guess when the truth doesn’t support your opinion, make it up as you go. Have a great New Year. At least you made me laugh. Your pseudo-conservatism is actually the playing fast and loose with facts. You can’t have it both ways.
At least you’re consistent, sticking to switching meanings as you please.
But the debates around the adoption of the Bill of Rights only uses one definition for the stand-alone term “militia”: the whole people. No one challenged that, no one argued it meant something else.
Indeed for a free country, that’s what the term has to mean, otherwise you go the route of the states after the Civil War, defining the militia as one portion of the population and using it to persecute another portion. If “militia” does not mean the whole people, then the government has an avenue for specially arming those who approve of it and setting them above the rest.
See, I have not changed meanings one iota. Try as I may, I cannot find one definition of militia, anywhere, that claims it is the whole of the people. I guess you are still making things up on the fly. Mr. Mason never produced a dictionary, nor enacted a legal definition. Oops. guess you are mistaken, AGAIN.
BTW, a “well-regulated militia” and the unorganized militia are not contrary things — or at least, George Mason and George Washington didn’t think so. Alexander Hamilton rather implied it when he noted that the majority of the people would not have the time to devote to being well-regulated, but that was a practical distinction, not an inherent one. All three agreed that the militia was the whole of the people; Mason, from his arguments in favor of the Second in the Virginia ratifying convention, held that the whole militia. i.e. the whole people, could be well-regulated, but didn’t address the practicality; Washington, writing to Congress about the troops he had to work with, lamented that the militia were not in fact well-regulated, but repeatedly expected that they should be; Hamilton, a definite authoritarian, flatly asserted that it wasn’t possible for them to be if they were to carry out the commerce of a nation as well… and supported a standing army.
So if all you mean is what Hamilton asserted, then yes, the disorganized militia and a well-regulated militia aren’t the same thing, but that is by practicality and not by essence.
It is not what I think that matters. Nor what you think, or what any of the founders thought. What is in writing is what matters. So,what is in the Constitution supports Hamilton’s assertion, in that Congress was empowered to
:provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
:provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
That was prior to any Bill of Rights, do not forget. Proof positive that no second amendment is needed to provide for a militia.
It also supports the concept, pretty simple to understand, that no hodge-podge of citizens could meet the security needs of protecting the state without provisions and training….regulation, good regulation. Get where I am going with that?
Lastly, it supports the reason that such a militia could be a threat to liberty, giving good reason for it to be mentioned in the enumeration of a right of the people to be armed.
Again your argument reduces to giving words the meaning you want them to have instead of the meaning they did have.
How do we know what “militia” meant? We look at the people who used the word, specifically those who used it in that particular context at that particular time.
Thus we know that the militia, as used in the Constitution, means the whole of the people.
The alternative to doing it that way is to hand the anti-gunners a tool to make the Constitution mean what they want.
No it is about what the words mean, not what you claim they mean, or meant. That is the problem, you create definitions contrary to truth, and expect them to be right. Wrong, again.
It is actually YOU who are giving ammo to the anti’s. It is much easier to align guns with militia membership, falsely, as you do. Then, let someone decide that since we have standing armies and all today, that militia is passe and can be eliminated. In your world, no militia means no right to arms.
We are lucky that the second amendment makes no such connection.
They always have been.
“The right of the people…” implies an individual right. “A well-regulated militia…” is a corporate body, comprised of individuals. The right to keep and bear arms is conferred upon the individual, not the corporate body comprised of those individuals. The wording of the constitution explicitly protects the right as-conferred to individuals (the people), and not as-conferred to the corporate body (the militia).
They would have to redefine the definition first.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
No, they absolutely would not. An unorganized militia is not a well-regulated militia. The wo terms are contrary to each other. Second, the Bill of Rights predates that definition…so if anything the definition is faulty. Remember, the Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.
By the way, if you read that code, large segments of the population are NOT part of the militia in any way shape or form. If you really think the 2A is about arming a militia and does not enumerate the rights of those other people, think again.
Duh, too late, after the fact, I see that you were agreeing with me…mea culpa.
No, as long as it is not in the Constitution it is not legal.
For whom? The Constitution is about the powers of the government.
I don’t need a background check to speak.
I don’t need a background check to not quarter troops.
I don’t need a background check to be secure in my person, house, paper, or effects.
I don’t need a background check to not incriminate myself.
I don’t need a background check to have a speedy trial.
I don’t need a background check to have that trial be heard by a jury.
I don’t need a background check to post bail.
Yet, somehow, I need to have a background check to keep and bear arms? The one single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that says, quite explicitly, that it shall not be infringed.
People take background checks as a given. They’ve only been around since 1993 – and a workable, mandatory, nation-wide system for them has only been in place since 1996. While its intentions were noble, I’d go so far as to call it a failed experiment.
“The one single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that says, quite explicitly, that it shall not be infringed.”
Absolutely correct. The First Amendment, for example, says “Congress shall make no law…”, clearly leaving the door open for a state like Utah, for example, to establish a state religion if the people of that state wished to. But the First Amendment has been “interpreted” to not mean what it says, to instead mean something like “these rights shall not be infringed”, while 2A is somehow treated as a suggestion.
Framing your response this way makes it absolutely clear why mandating background checks is completely incongruous to how we approach all other rights outlined in the Constitution.
Nope. Thank you all for giving me more “ammo ” to argue against BC’s.
If someone is trying to become a third grade teacher, yes lets put them through some background checks.
If someone is trying to buy a tool to put food on their table, protect their family, or enjoy putting holes in paper, no background checks.
I do not need a background check to purchase $25 worth of parts at my local hardware store and construct my own single-shot 12 gauge shotgun. Of course I could use that shotgun to compel someone else to “give” me their nice pump-action shotgun, semi-automatic rifle, pistol, etc.
That is why background checks are worthless and why I do not support them.
Yesterday me and my misses stood on the capital’s grounds and stood against 594 AND sign a deceleration that we will stand against this measure and any like it. We will NOT comply with 594.
As for the question of background checks themselves. I’m going to say no. There’s no way to have a background check system without laying the ground work for further stripping of rights. Which is EXACTLY the intent of i594. The people behind it themselves have said this initiative is ‘just a first step’.
Oh… might as well offer up a collection of photos from my trip. ^,,^
I was encouraged by the decent looking turnout on the local news. Until they interviewed only one person who said something like “I own guns and I think background checks are good”.
Unfortunately 594 is NOT a BG check bill. It is a sack of putrescent feces posing as a BG bill. Bloomie and the billionaire leftist club flat out lied in every ad they ran, and the low info voters ate it up. Sadly I think many gun owners voted for this abomination.
Fsck King county, Gates, Allen, the piss ant King Co sheriff, the mayor of Seattle and that commie Seattle city council woman. I’m moving back to FL.
I was encouraged by the decent looking turnout on the local news. Until they interviewed only one person who said something like “I own guns and I think background checks are good”.
Unfortunately 594 is NOT a BG check bill. It is a sack of putrescent feces posing as a BG bill. Bloomie and the billionaire leftist club flat out lied in every ad they ran, and the low info voters ate it up. Sadly I think many gun owners voted for this abomination.
Fsck King county, Gates, Allen, the King Co sheriff and prosecutor, the mayor of Seattle and that commie Seattle city council woman. I’m moving back to FL.
Problem there is that WA was only ever supposed to be a test case for Bloomburgs efforts to strip gun rights from everyone. They’ve already trying to get this on the ballot in three other states.
One of the speaks at the rally really nailed it… the big pro-2A groups just let us swing here in Washington state. Their half hearted support means that we’ve given the anti’s the first play. Now it’s up to everyone across the nation to stand up and fight against it.
“Does this double post make me look crazy?”
“Yes, a little”
Smartphone, 500 server error, arrgghhh
Not for the anti-gun background checks at all!
Nor am I for any gun laws at all. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not get? Should vote the whole bunch of them out of office.
English is a second language for all career politicians, (like Obama and his ilk) and the voters that put them in office.
I do not want them to get off the hook. They caused this mess and should pay for it. Not spread it out amongst the tax payers! That is just another Liberal ploy. I mean to spend other people’s money. Make them fund the bill and they will change in a heart beat!!!
I do. But only as a limitation of liability not as an overreaching govt policy.
Under current law it is illegal to provide a prohibited person with a firearm. I would hate to see an honest person lose their business because they unknowingly provided a firearm to a prohibited person. Likewise, I would not enjoy being criminally liable for the same action.
I don’t see it making a lick of difference in violent crime. I see it protecting sellers under the law.
2A does not mention the definition of a “prohibited person”, that law is unconstitutional and should be struck down, not used as a reason to support ANOTHER unconstitutional law, ie background checks.
The glaring flaw in the background check movement’s logic is this: If a background check is to have any meaning at all, passing it ought to remove all firearms restrictions. No NFA, no ban on hollow-points a la New Jersey, no silly felonies for having a >10-round magazine, no restrictions, no restrictions on carry, no ludicrous California roster, no ban on evil-looking black rifles, etc.
This observation is not meant to show support for background checks, only to point out the sheer lunacy of the idea that someone who can be trusted with a 10-round magazine cannot be trusted with 11, or with a suppressor, etc.
Adam Lanza’s mom passed all the needed checks in Connecticut…. how did that stop anything?
The punk that went on a rampage near a Santa Barbra college passed a driving test and several background checks. Neither did anything to prevent the loss of life.
The huge problem with background checks is the false sense of security they instill. When something bad goes down either it’s noted the perp passed the check or got around it. If all the bad things were done by those that did not follow the law then clearly effort could be made to enforce or expand the checks. But back in the real world this is not that case.
Background checks and rules only apply to those who follow them. And serve to inconvenience the good people with little to no effect on criminal use of firearms. The Progressives like to shake up societal norms, how about shaking this one up instead. Fully arming everyone, including bad guys, means a new set of laws where bad actors get their just desserts.
Will there be unintended consequences? Sure, nothing is airtight and perfect. But the alternative is handing more advantages to the bad people.
Yes. That pragmatic answer conflicts with my own theoretical wish that 2A be given the same heft as 1A. Goverment exists to do those things that individuals can’t do alone. National defense and a judicial system come to mind. I think that another thing we can have our goverment do that we cannot do as individuals is to identify past dangerous behavior in order to prevent future recurrence. This won’t be a popular position here on TTAG, but if everyone always agrees, what’s the point of discussing anything?
National defense and the judicial system actually serve a purpose, unlike background checks. Background checks are just a feel good measure that allows their supporters to tell themselves they’re “doing something”.
If those people are so dangerous, then they should be controlled. If they’re not actually dangerous, then there’s no reason they should be treated differently from the rest of us. Either way, there’s no justification for interfering with our rights.
Where’s spellcheck when I need it?
You could just say “Gubmint” like a lot of us and get away with it.
Let’s remember that without even making things up we can prove that is not a good idea. In this very country, which is among the youngest in the world, there have been times when shooting a black man would not get you on that list of “dangerous people”, but a black man looking at a white woman would get him recognized as so “dangerous” that he needs to be hung before sundown. The government does not have the ability, much less the authority, to decide on who is dangerous and who is not, as evidenced by the number of people who pass the background checks and then go on to murder people. Pretending that politicians somehow become superhuman because they win an election is just silly.
Federal prosecutors have been pursuing a line of indictments aimed at turning journalists into servants of law enforcement, so wanting the 2nd to be as strong as the 1st isn’t enough — it has to be absolute.
What the…! White people protesting?! WHAT THE…?
Watch out Seattle, they’re gonna burn it down! Oh no, wait a minute…
I would prefer that crazy people and violent criminals not get their hands on weapons, especially guns. Background checks serve as a deterrent, but they can be circumvented without too much trouble. So I would say I support them, but not 100%.
No, not for them. Regardless, current federal requirements for background checks when purchasing from a dealer will go away. Never. It’s like the pipe dream of removing NFA restrictions on SBR/SRS/Full Auto, et. al. Not gonna happen in my lifetime or yours, regardless of who gets voted in. The best we can do now is get state requirements repealed (NY, NJ, CA? Yeah, right) and keep others like mine (FL) from going all-in on “universal background checks”.
This is the end game of the Clinton administrations crackdown on “kitchen table gun dealers”.
Close to 3/4 of FFLs were revoked, but we were assured that FTF sales would be permitted as long as it was not a business.
I’m for background checks!
IF and only IF you can provide evidence that such background checks have reduced violent crime in any way.
Wouldn’t you also like an estimate of some kind, however vague, of how much the system costs? Nobody has ever given us so much as a hint. My guess would be tens of billions a year. And how ’bout an explanation of why we still need “investigation” on the way to purchasing a damn silencer? NICS isn’t good enough? What is it they are investigating for 6 months or more?
I had a link to a page that gave estimated figures, but the page no longer exists (or so says my browser). Fishing from memory, though, the total cost to the FBI of running the system between 1996 and 2012 approached a billion but didn’t pass it. OTOH, they’re not the only government agency that spends money on or because of the system, so my guess is that overall the system costs under (but not far under) a hundred million a year on the federal level.
That money could absolutely be better spent — for example, how about providing free mental health care? If we’re worried about mental health issues leading to the misuse of firearms, it would make sense to aim at preventing, rather than trying to exclude such persons in about the most inefficient manner imaginable.
There is zero data that suggests background checks have reduced the crime rate. Why waste resources on something that has not been demonstrated to be effective? Because death by a thousand cuts is why.
I am for the ABILITY of the seller to run a background check, if he so chooses.
Mandatory by the government? Well first get rid of the overly broad prohibiting conditions (commit wire fraud and be banned for life?), and then tell me a way to do it that does not burden people at all.
Maybe they could simply have coding on the DL that woulud say approved or prohibitted
To carry a firearm in Illinois, a person needs at least three (3) NICS background checks.
One when he applies for his FOID card
One when he buys his gun
One when he applies for his Concealed Carry license.
And I would be willing to live with this, if there were any evidence that it reduced violent crime or at least made it harder for felons and gang-banging teenagers to acquire guns.
But there is no such evidence, and hence no reason to continue with the expense of these background checks or the delays and inconveniences they cause.
Even if evidence completely supported such checks, they would still be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional equals unsupportable. Think about all of the problems we could prevent if we just threw out portions of the Constitution for convenience.
You’d support the government doing this? Never!
If it’s effective at anything, it’s a good idea. But putting it into government hands is a bad idea whether it’s effective at something or not. Besides that, the Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Let someone do it who would go down fighting before letting the government get its hands on any info about who owns what or is “prohibited” or whatever — that’s why I suggest the JPFO.
Not only no, but HELL NO.
Ideally? Yes, of course. I would prefer to be sure that the gun I’m selling will not end in the hands of someone with mental illness of some criminals that could potentially kill someone good.
But this is not what I-594 is all about. Therefor I don’t support it. Because, having a background check for private sales could surely happen without creating a registry that could be in the hands of the government. And it should only happen when you’re transferring the propriety of the guns, not just lend it to someone, or even hold it at the range or so.
This is all about “propriety”. If you’re the owner, you’re responsible. If you sold your gun to someone, you could simply transfert the propriety to someone else after a background check to be sure the person was allowed to have a gun at the time you sold him/her the gun.
Allowing anyone to access to the FBI background check website, and print the recipe, with the copy of the seller ID, and you keep that for yourself in case few years later there’s a justice case involving the gun you sold. You could just provide this transfert paperwork, with the ID and the background check result to prove it was OK to sell it and you don’t own the gun anymore. Justice could backtrace the gun ownership that way until the last owner. And with the official recipe, you’d have a unique number that would prove your document is not forged and was done at the proper date.
No need for a national central registry… But somehow, I’m quite sure it wouldn’t be enough for the gun grabbers.
I am only for background checks that are not a de facto gun registration (current system), and only to prevent felons and the mentally insane from buying guns. To not make sure someone is allowed to own them upon purchase (felony check) is to be irresponsible. We all know someone in our own family that we would not want having guns because they’re either a criminal or insane or both.
However, the current system, due to NCIS or whatever computer system logging searches, is a de facto gun registration because you can look up search history on that person and see their gun serial numbers. That is also wrong.
” To not make sure someone is allowed to own them upon purchase (felony check) is to be irresponsible.”
It is not even possible to “make sure” of this, regardless of who does the “checking.” Furthermore, nobody has any legitimate authority to decide this for anyone but themselves. Who really has the authority to “allow” or disallow anything?
If you are not comfortable selling something to another person – be it a gun or a book of matches, it is your choice not to sell it. But you can’t decide that for anyone else. Not even if you are “elected” to something.
If we lived in some happy fairytale world where bad guys have no other possible option to obtain weapons aside from making a lawful purchase at a reputable dealer and absolutely no records are maintained of the purchase once a background check has cleared, then sure; I might be talked into supporting them. So long as we still live in the real world: No.
Pretty much what Curtis in Illinois says. I can cross the border to Indiana and things are much looser AND safer…
Hard to say. The real problem is that there are too many non-violent offenses for which you lose your rights.
Funny thing is that for everything else (jobs, etc) background checks are decried as racist. When minorities start to care that this is yet another infringement on their rights, we might actually see some push-back against background checks. As it is now, the background check issue is the limousine liberals against the OFWG
Hell No! I will not comply with I-594.
Everyone in Washington should not comply. When the arrests are made, massive protests should be scheduled.
**”Officer, I received that gun before I-594 went into effect.”
**Any gun you sell – you don’t recollect the exact date it was sold, but it was sold before I-594 went into effect.
**If some guy claims you sold him a firearm after I-594, you didn’t sell him anything. You sold that firearm to someone else and they must have sold that to him, and you have never seen or met that person before.
**Everyone from Washington should immediately trade their firearm with someone from the central states off the books (pronto).
The only way this law will be enforced is universal registration. Guaranteed it is easy to abuse this law as well. Throw a gun in someones car, make a phone call – they have now lost their gun rights. Yep.
The only gun law needed is this:
A crime committed while carrying a gun is life in prison.
Kill someone with the gun while committing the crime, death penalty, or in States without that, life in prison with no parole.
Self defense does not count as that is not a crime.
Why just a gun? Isn’t the crime the harm done to someone else? What does it matter what tool is used to inflict the harm? You ok with murder by knife, pipe bomb, matches?
Murder is illegal no matter what weapon is used.
This is about all those stupid GUN CONTROL LAWS.
Don’t try to nit-pick.
Do we have knife control laws? Hatchet or axe laws? Blunt object laws?
Anybody need a permit to carry a knife or axe or hatchet or any other weapon EXCEPT for a GUN?
Do you have to register your knife or other weapon in New York? NO. Just your gun.
And yes, I do know that in some States long knives are illegal. No Bowie knife for you in Texas. Go Figure.
Trust me, those laws will come if the antis ever achieve disarmament. See the U.K. for reference.
His point was that ANY law focusing on the implement is wrong, even one increasing the punishment for an existing crime. And I agree with him.
The only way I could get behind such a law would be if it wad intended to entice criminals into foregoing firearms to avoid the stricter penalty to try and ensure they are outgunned by victims chosen from an armed populous. But this could backfire pretty badly.
And have fun going out for some Lindt chocolate for the holidays in Australia.
What if they didn’t use the gun in the crime? Like say… they stole a sandwich from the grocery store and nobody knew that they had a gun.
Quite simply, no.
Not only no, but hell no!
Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that the check will never return a false positive (or negative), and can be done in such a way as to not be a registry, “felons” includes a lot of non-violent offenders, and “adjudicated mentally ill” is ripe for abuse. So I won’t even support a “perfect” background check.
Arm yourself and don’t worry too much about that other guy; you have the means to deal with him if he acts up. And if the law prevents that… there’s the real crime.
In theory background checks work, in theory communism works!!!!
No, for the following reasons:
Only law abiding gun owners go through background checks. Lots of bureaucratic red tape and inconvenience to current lawful gun owners and a deterrent from future persons thinking about becoming a lawful gun owner. Being a lawful gun owner is a good thing.
If caught, just another charge to pin on criminals for “plea bargains.” Which are not true justice.
A law requiring all guns go through background checks takes the accountability from the future criminal and places it on the present day lawful gun owner for the sake of “pre-crime.”
No, absolutely not. Not since my grandpa told me what buying a gun was like when he was my age prior to 1968. In those days he walked into a gun shop, paid in cash, and walked out with no form 4473, which is just a back-door, long-term registration scheme anyway, filled out whatsoever. If he didn’t have the time to go to the store, he ordered one out of a catalogue and had it mailed to his house. Buying a handgun across state lines? Totally legal. NFA stuff? Lightning fast paperwork times compared to today even though 200 bucks was a significant chunk of change.
Grandpa Milsurp also biked across town to the woods with a shotgun, rifle, or both slung across his back and a handlebar basket full of ammo at the age of 16. Not a single cop or pedestrian batted an eyelash. Parents kept their guns in living room cabinets or mounted above the fireplace in plain sight. In elementary school, a bunch of kids in his class brought their dads’ war souvenirs, guns included, in for show and tell to be passed around freely. In high school, deer rifles were regularly stored in lockers or the principal’s office. The two or three college-bound friends he had kept their favorite weapons to their dorm rooms without hassle.
There were more guns in easier to reach places, far less laws governing their purchase, and yet no rivers of blood ran through the streets. Yeah murders did occur, but the headline grabbing shootings we see today, which are just deranged cries for attention, didn’t exist. There are other reasons why, but at the real heart of the matter, this was because parents actually put effort into properly raising their kids. The violence we see today is the result of a long-standing culture problem, plain and simple. And too many people bury their heads in the sand because “duh durr let’s crack down on guns background checks for everyone” is seen the easiest solution requiring the least amount of work.
Universal background checks? No. As background checks exist in most states? Yes.
Although, I’d argue that if you were a felon, served your time, you should have all your civil rights restored, including your 2nd Amendment ones. I think people fail to realize how many stupid laws can make you a felon if you run afoul of them.
IMO, i would argue those who have committed violent felonies, have already proved a behavior of violence against innocents, should not have that right restored. non-violent felons, after a given time period, i agree with your argument.
So punching out your neighbor is so much more problematic than stealing his, and 50 other people’s retirement funds?
open NICS to the public. anyone can do a background check on anyone, anytime, anywhere.
if you do a background check on a sale, you get 100% immunity from all criminal and civil liability.
I don’t support BCGs for all of the reasons already mentioned, they serve no other function than to dissuade good people from exercising a Constitutionally protected human right and further damage the freedom loving culture that seems to be evaporating in this country. I will certainly never be willing to trade more BCGs for NFA, national CCW or any other bargain that isn’t one. Human nature tells us that once the gov knows who has what, we’d be one bad law from confiscation. While I believe that this would lead to civil disobedience, I doubt the internet commandos would actually start a civil war over it, which means some future generation will lose their RKBA and with that, who knows how many other rights.
No, I do not support background checks. It is an entirely reasonable proposition for the person who does not read history, or understand the implications of recent over-reach by a corrupted Executive branch, who believes that laws prevent law-breakers from committing crimes.
For no other reason than the example of what has happened in Great Britain, we 2A activists should resist ANY new gun control. This Democrat Party and President have proven they simply cannot be trusted with private information, and the trust placed in their administration of the Federal Government. We have much work to do as a nation enforcing the laws we already have on the books, including rooting out and punishing corruption and malfeasance in the Executive branch. When Lois Lerner is convicted under the Hatch Act, we can start talking about the next step.
What we really need is a place to point the un-educated, for a collection of cogent factual explanations of background and why no UBC and why no gun registration.
As a start, here is the link to Bruce Kraft’s excellent piece under the tab “Facts About Guns” section titled Universal Background Checks. As a reasonable man noob, I asked the question, and only found this on my own after doing some searching. I should have known better to simply start with TTAG, and much more can be done to become a resource as a central repository, starting with links.
PS: Bruce, really nice work on this- looking forward to part 2…ETA?
Background checks are the gateway drug to confiscation. They don’t prevent crime. There is no evidence, even in lie-filled studies trying to make gun people look bad. Background checks are evil. The money wasted could be used on the poor (oh, wait, I didn’t say that right – I mean on “another government program.”)
Yes, but ONLY a blind background check, where the seller accesses a database to determine whether or not his buyer is a prohibited person. No makes, models and serial numbers or buyer’s or seller’s name being recorded with the government. Just the seller knowing with confidence that his buyer is not a prohibited person.
BIDS (Blind Identification Database System), not NICS.
We do we not have this conversation, and demand that NICS be replaced with BIDS? It will instantly expose the disarms/gun controllers for their hypocrisy, b/c THEY WANT government databases of buyers, sellers and who owns what make, model and S/N.
No, there are no exceptions in the second amendment.
No, until I can walk into a gun store and purchase a newly manufactured short barreled, suppressed full-auto belt-fed machine gun with an undercounted 40mm mike/mike with HE ordinance without tax stamp, background check the Second Amendment is being violated by the State/Fed.
Yes, to ensure that only native born, nonfelon, land owners are allowed to vote.
Good luck to them in going against the popular will of the state. This isn’t a government legislation that got rammed through by an arrogant legislature, the popular will voted for this. The only hope as I see it is that people will start to experience how bad it is and then a backlash will come. Troubling as well is that many who voted for this “reasonable” policy probably do not themselves own guns, and thus will end up not experiencing the bad aspects of it.
In a republic, rights are not subject to the popular will. This explains why the big push to have America considered a democracy.
To quote/reference Emily Miller(this interview… somewhere), I’m not up for any more restrictions/background checks than those that were in place before the “Assualt Rifle” bans and magazine restrictions – anything other than that:
BTW. I think this site should have a Emilly Miller feature (that actually features and interview/discussion with her). She explains guns well and also presents them well… and as a news professional, she doesn’t come off as the OWG, redneck, or crazy conspiracy theorist that disgusting shameless antis try to stereotype all gun owners as.
Wow, this is timely… and very helpful. Just yesterday I was asked about my thoughts on carry rights. I said I was in favor of constitutional carry except for violent felons. When his followup question was, “So you’re in favor of background checks?” I was stymied. I was totally at a loss as to how I could justify my conflicting opinions. I don’t want violent felons to have free access to guns (even though I know they do through illegal means, and failing that there are MANY other ways to be violent, I’m no Pollyanna), but I couldn’t come up with a viable way to screen them out. So, having read all the posts above, I guess I’m going to have to backpedal on my original answer and say, “Constitutional carry for everyone!” and “No background checks.”
Good for you, recognizing the contradiction was there and resolving it. (Bonus that you resolved it in the correct direction.)
On a related note,
ALL HANDS ON DECK,
stand by for “fire mission…”
PBS wants your vote on “whether you support more gun control laws in your state”
As of 4PM PST, Sunday the vote was 77% (2396 voting NO, no more restrictive gun laws)
I already voted, but you should have opened your statement with something like
POLL! or [POLL]
in bold, followed with the link, and a quick explanation of what it’s about in another paragraph below. I don’t think everyone will notice that it’s not just a comment at first glance.
POLL!!! POLL!!! POLL!!!
As of 1840 its now 85% 6229 votes “NO”
at PBS on “Would you support more restrictive gun laws?”
Went and voted last night.
The one fault I have with it is the lack of a “No, in fact we have too g****** f***ing many “gun laws” on the books already and we should be repealing them” option.
I’d even settle for a similar option without the stress-relieving censorable verbiage.
Its window dressing on a gun control scheme. You put your rights in the hand of whoever’s tracking our legal histories. Even with that, they often screw up while leaving all sorts of loopholes for people to bypass the system.
Wasted money for a feel-good, in the end.
Yes, but for the purposes of legal protection. If a system could be designed where a drivers liscense could be entered to check against a prohibited persons list without cost to the consumer. Then inagine this scenerio, I agree to sell a gun to an individual so we enter the buyers drivers license number (or whatever other number) and then the computer simply spits back a straight up yes or no with a reference number to that particular check. Then we draw up a written contract between us that contains the reference number, make our transaction and go our seperate ways. That way I as a seller have protection from legal blowback and all the government has is a check was ran against this individual on this particular date. No serial numbers, no mention of firearms, just on this date this infividual was found competant to possess firearms. I know some of you will reject any such system but as a method of legal protection for myself I would be in favor of such a system as an option.
Without the “system”, you don’t need legal protections.
That’s the way it should be run, but let the JPFO do it. The government will always find a way to cheat.
Way too easy for the government to cheat (and having JPFO do it instead won’t work either, not for long, for reasons I elucidated below). And whoever it is that is running this show still knows Job Lowe bought a gun (or guns) on the 32nd of December 2104.
The least intrusive (but still too intrusive) method I’ve heard suggested was for drivers’ license bureaus to offer an optional mark on the *back* of a driver’s license (or other state ID) denoting whether or not the individual would pass a background check. Most people never see the back of others’ licenses, but you could show it to the gun shop owner, and he’d have done his (alleged) duty. If you then ditch the 4473 etc., there is no longer a paper trail.
But there are many things I don’t like about even THAT idea, so I don’t actually propose it.
If there’s no record, how would anyone know who bought what? I’d write the software so no human being would ever even see that a transaction took place, except for keeping statistics like zip code, age range, and gun type (in broad terms — pistol, revolver, shotgun, etc.). And instead of the default being “can’t have it”, the default would be the opposite: if the database didn’t contain a flag against purchase, the purchase would go through.
So the most anyone could ever know would be, for example, that someone in south Houston, age 21-25, was approved to purchase a lever-action rifle on 6 November 2016.
No of coarse. Like most gun laws they’ll do no good what so ever.
I used to. But knowing the costs and seeing the lack of benefit now. They just don’t make sense.
Background checks are a wonderful thing for someone wanting to sell a firearm — they just shouldn’t be the province of the government. The law should be changed to put the whole registry in the hands of the JPFO, where the government would be required to have a warrant to even ask if someone’s name was in it, and a separate warrant from a different judge to ask if that person is missing a firearm. The government would also have to present a warrant to ask if a firearm with a specific serial number was in the registry.
The government would not be allowed to access the information itself; all contact with the actual data would be done by JPFO personnel.
And of course they would have to pay a fee to cover the cost of providing the answers.
That will work for a few years until JPFO is infiltrated and taken over by undercover ATF pukes.
Or the government might choose the cheaper option and simply hack their computers/break into their headquarters at 3AM.
No, I do not support background checks in any shape or form. Why? Because just like current gun control measures, they are not effective at reducing gun related crimes.
Not only should background checks not be expanded, the existing BC system should be dismantled.
No background checks! Lots of good reasons listed above, no need to parrot what has already been nicely elucidated by others above.
No GCA 1968. No NFA 1934.
No State, County (or equivalent), or Municipal laws that infringe RKBA.
Yes, Open and Concealed Carry in all States.
Yes nationwide reciprocity (but if OC and CC are properly implemented, there should be no need for CCW “permits” or reciprocity).
Yes, convicted felons should have RKBA when released.
No, you cannot pre-intervene with the so-called “mentally ill” because that amounts to penalizing a person for a crime they have not committed. Some results might be tough to accept, but that’s the right thing to do. A crime only exists once it is committed. “Thought-crimes” are just that and nothing more.
Yes, age to own firearms should be up to Parents (or Legal Guardians) of children affected.
Yes, penalties for homicide or inflicting injury on another person wantonly/criminally/negligently should be uniform without regard to means (tools) utilized.
Yes, cases where “self-defense” is claimed should be carefully, fairly and thoroughly investigated as a matter of Public Record to insure they are not criminal acts.
No Taxes that specifically apply to Arms, Ammunition, Accessories, Reloading Supplies or Equipment.
Yes, there should be provisions to establish Publicly Accessible Shooting Ranges and Areas, but I haven’t figured details yet. Financials could be based on type of range and ranges fees at formal ranges and of course privately owned Ranges and Clubs are in the “free market”.
Other suggestions welcome.
That’s my Extreme Wish List….
I wouldn’t go out of my way to vote for it or support it. But I don’t really have a problem with them doing it.
How do you stop a mentally ill person from buying a gun?
I believe that every sane person should be able to get one if he chooses.
You don’t stop the mentally ill in general; that’s just another route to disarmament since something like a third of the population goes through some sort of mental illness at some time in life. What you do is authorize public institutions to report when they have found that a particular person is dangerous to self and others as a habitual matter.
If the reported individual wanted to dispute that, then at the government’s expense evaluations should be done by multiple professionals. If the professionals decide the person is actually safe for keeping and bearing arms, then the original report gets nullified, and the originating institution coughs up half the cost of the evaluations (let the other half be paid by the taxpayers, as part of the cost of protecting our rights).
I would actually be willing to do a background check every time if they did away with the record keeping. No paper 1073’s, just an electronic check that produced a yes or no answer. I would prefer no checks at all, but my big issue with backgroun checks is the de-facto registry that it creates when gun shops are required to keep 1073’s for 20 years / turn them over to ATF.
Your thinking is indicative of the impact of the barrage of brain-washing fomented by the anti-gun crowd. If indeed there are persons who cannot have firearms, it is their duty to abide, not yours. You have no reason to believe a person guilty until proven otherwise.
What stops or deters bad or crazy people with guns? Sane good people with guns.
No to background checks. They do nothing to deter crime, nor do they do anything to regulate the dispersement of firearms. I had an uncle to was affiliated with MS-13 and had a number of feolonies. According to the law, such a person is not eligible to purchase or own firearms. He had an arsenal that rivals most people I know. Of course, no one knew this until he shot and killed my aunt then himself in the McKinney Tx Hospital parking lot.
Background checks don’t prohibit criminals from obtaining firearms. They prohibit law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms.
As is with current laws (in “free” states, not CA, NY and likes)… Yes. Are there problems with the system? Yes, but if it catches a few dummies then okay. Do I have problems with the 4473? YES. From a CYA side it should simply be a confirmation number with the FFL and something that identifies you like your DL#. It doesn’t need to have any of the gun information and would signify that a check was run on this person at this date and passed/failed.
Why do I have this stance? Because if you’re going to have the stance that felons shouldn’t have guns you need reasonable assurance that they can’t get them through the easiest legit means, I.E. walking into a gun store. Can we talk about restoration of rights? Of course, but that would seem to lead to a very case-by-case evaluation and questions about what should be a felony and not. Do I think that conversation needs to be had? Probably, especially duration on your record.
Also, we’re fighting against ourselves in the PR battle. If we don’t want them to throw back the “guns for everyone” charge.. we need to not say “guns for everyone” which is a background checkless world.
Why not? The 2A is pretty explicit. Tell them to shut the hell up until they get their 1A UBC’s in place. No free speech for everybody.
I’m against background checks for all the reason stated above. Anyone in public who cannot be trusted with a firearm should not be under their own care.
The only argument that even comes close is the mental health argument, but even then, Captain McCrazy can kill me just as well with a machete or Louisville Slugger as he can with a gun. If someone shows signs that they may be a public threat, they must be locked up and monitored. If someone *might* be a public threat, then I guess we risk that threat. Because once you start limiting the rights of people who *might* be a threat, you can arbitrarily set the point where *might* begins. As we’re doing now.
The prison system needs to stop “punishing” and start protecting the public by confining those who would cause harm, and rehabilitating those under confinement. That is the only right and proper way to control crime. Not background checks.
” I’m not for any background checks on gun sales whatsoever. You?”
congrats on merging over to the irrational gun nut mentality.
Yeah, since the last few decades have been so much safer than the first couple centuries. How we ever got by without background checks for centuries is beyond me. Mail order guns???? Oh the insanity of it all!!!!! They actually believed in “shall not be infringed”!?!
Irrational is the idea that background checks have done anything.
No. They don’t stop “prohibited persons” from getting firearms, and only serve as a government impediment on lawful commerce at best, and act as a de facto registration at worst.
I’m in favor of non-committal background checks.
For instance, the gun store runs your name to see your mental health and criminal history. It is then up to that store whether to sell you the gun or not. The store can see you’re a five time felon who was committed to a mental institution and decides not to sell it to you. The store sees that you were on anti depressants for a month thirty years ago and uses common sense (you know, that thing leftists claim to love but secretly hate) to see see that’s no reason to deny a sale.
Either way, there’s no paperwork for government eyes.
There’s nothing more American than leaving the decisions up to the citizens. There’s nothing more unAmerican than leaving decisions up to the government.
I dunno, the local gunshop having easy access to your health records sounds pretty unAmerican to me.
A lot of folks have been brain-washed into thinking background checks have an iota of merit. The anti’s canpaigns are working.
No background checks. All they are is just another hoop to jump through for decent people trying to obtain arms to keep and bear. …Oh – and helping the .gov to keep check on these people.