Universal Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Styx

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
3,225
Is there case law that gives the Federal government the power to force states to abide by a UBC legislation? Seems like a state and not a federal issue when it comes to whether two private individuals can sell, trade, or gift a firearm to one another.
 
Firearms travel in interstate commerce. Thus, Congress can regulate them under the Commerce Clause. Throw in the Supremacy Clause, and there you have it.
Just about everything travels interstate in one way, shape, or form.... That would essentially give the Federal government complete power over states, and mean states had almost zero rights.

Be it that it may, then I do not see how the gifting of a firearm can fall under the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez
 
Just about everything travels interstate in one way, shape, or form.... That would essentially give the Federal government complete power over states, and mean states had almost zero rights.
I don't disagree with you. There's been a drastic expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause since about the turn of the 20th century.
Be it that it may, then I do not see how the gifting of a firearm can fall under the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez
You may not, but Congress sure does.
 
Last edited:
Thought this was a gun forum and legal section where stuff like this could be discussed. Forgot where I was at. You can close the thread. I'll start a new one on a different forum.
 
Do I understand the question to be whether background checks on transfers between individuals within the same state, ie no interstate commerce, would be subject to federal jurisdiction and, if so, what case law precedent exists for that?
 
Do I understand the question to be whether background checks on transfers between individuals within the same state, ie no interstate commerce, would be subject to federal jurisdiction and, if so, what case law precedent exists for that?

Courts have taken a broad view of the Commerce Clause in gun law cases, for example:

  1. In U.S. v. Chesney, 86 F.3d 564 (C.A.6 (Tenn.), 1996), the Sixth Circuit affirmed, against a Commerce Clause challenge Chesney's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional, the court of appeal noted, at 568 -- 569:
    ...another panel of this court has held § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional. In United States v. Turner, 77 F.3d 887 (6th Cir.1996), a unanimous panel held that " § 922(g)(1) represents a valid exercise of legislative power under the Commerce Clause." Id. at 889. As this court wrote in Turner, "Every court of appeals that has been faced with this question since Lopez has held that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g) provides the requisite nexus with interstate commerce ....

    In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the statute can not be applied in his case, the court of appeal noted, at 570 -- 571, emphasis added:
    ...Chesney, unlike the defendant in Turner, also challenges § 922(g)(1) as applied to him by arguing that his conviction is unconstitutional because the government failed to prove any "substantial nexus between the crime charged and interstate commerce." Chesney stipulated that the gun had moved in interstate commerce, and such a stipulation is sufficient evidence to support Chesney's conviction pursuant to § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Lee, 72 F.3d 55, 58 (7th Cir.1995) (stipulation that gun was in or affecting commerce sufficient evidence to support a conviction under § 922(g)(1)). ...

    The Supreme Court has held that proof that a firearm moved in interstate commerce at any time is sufficient to meet the government's burden of proving the "in commerce or affecting commerce" element of § 1202(a), the predecessor to § 922(g)(1). Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566-67, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1964-65, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Although Scarborough was decided as a matter of statutory construction, the Court noted that Congress knew how to assert " 'its full Commerce Clause power so as to cover all activity substantially affecting interstate commerce,' " and that Congress intended to exercise the full extent of its Commerce Clause power when enacting § 1202(a). Id. at 571-72, 97 S.Ct. at 1967-68 ...

    All of the courts of appeals to consider the issue since Lopez have concluded that § 922(g)(1), as construed to require only the minimum nexus to commerce approved in Scarborough, is constitutional. See, e.g., McAllister, 77 F.3d at 390; Sorrentino, 72 F.3d at 296; Shelton, 66 F.3d at 992; Hanna, 55 F.3d at 1462 n. 2.,...

  2. In U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), the Third Circuit affirmed a conviction for being a felon in possession against an attack on the constitutionality of 922(g), at 197:
    ...Singletary contends that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional because the conduct it proscribes -- the intrastate possession of a firearm -- does not have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce, and thus does not constitute a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Specifically,...

    In rejected Singletary's assertion, the court of appeal noted, at 200:
    ...the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)....

  3. In United States v. Hoyle, 697 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir., 2012), the Tenth Circuit affirmed Hoyle's conviction for being a felon in possession. In doing so the court of appeal noted, at 1165:
    ... “Section 922(g) requires that the firearm be possessed ‘in or affecting commerce.’” United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). The Supreme Court has affirmed the Fourth Circuit's holding that: “[T]he interstate commerce nexus requirement of the possession offense was satisfied by proof that the firearm [defendant] possessed had previously traveled in interstate commerce.” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977)...
 
I suppose the conversation can be expanded a bit by including Wickard v Filburn (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/), which has nothing to do with firearms, but does deal with the Commerce Clause. Filburn happened to grow excess wheat beyond the quota established by Congress to stabilize grain prices, and was subsequently fined. That wheat was intended to feed his own animals on his own farm. The court upheld his fine because his locally produced wheat competed with commercial wheat

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. [Footnote 26] The same consideration might help in determining whether, in the absence of Congressional action, it would be permissible for the state to exert its power on the subject matter, even though, in so doing, it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect."

...

Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

...

But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

What I infer from Wickard in the context of the proposed Universal Background Check is that, even if you were to build a firearm yourself and it never crossed state lines, the Federal government could regulate the creation, possession, and transfer of the firearm based on the Commerce Clause because your home-made firearm is in competition with commercial firearms. I don't think it would be a far reach at all to say that current case law would support a UBC requirement prior to making a firearm yourself... even if you mined the source material on your own land.

I agree with Spats...
There's been a drastic expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause since about the turn of the 20th century.

And I agree with the OP...
Just about everything travels interstate in one way, shape, or form.... That would essentially give the Federal government complete power over states, and mean states had almost zero rights.

But I'm not a Justice, so my opinion on whether that expansion is justifiable under the constitution doesn't mean anything at all.

Be it that it may, then I do not see how the gifting of a firearm can fall under the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Congress remedy the Court's opinion in Lopez by simply passing the Gun Free School Zone act again and stipulating that it applied to any firearm that has passed in or affected interstate congress?
 
Last edited:
But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect."

But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

What I infer from Wickard in the context of the proposed Universal Background Check is that, even if you were to build a firearm yourself and it never crossed state lines, the Federal government could regulate the creation, possession, and transfer of the firearm based on the Commerce Clause because your home-made firearm is in competition with commercial firearms. I don't think it would be a far reach at all to say that current case law would support a UBC requirement prior to making a firearm yourself... even if you mined the source material on your own land.
Wow. So the court's opinion on Interstate commerce is based on the economic equivalent of the Butterfly Effect.

Yeah, that's a fine string the Feds are just going to cling to with all their might. Power corrupts, and absolute power....
 
Last edited:
So the court's opinion on Interstate commerce is based on the economic equivalent of the Butterfly Effect.

Pretty much, at least according to Justice Clarence Thomas. In his dissent to GONZALES V. RAICH (cornell.edu) he writes:
By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power.
 
Pretty much, at least according to Justice Clarence Thomas. In his dissent to GONZALES V. RAICH (cornell.edu) he writes:
By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power.
Justice Thomas is spot on. It's a federal power grab. And a blatant one at that.
 
Thought this was a gun forum and legal section where stuff like this could be discussed.
Well, this is specifically the Legal Subforum. And by both rule and tradition, it focuses on the concrete and not the speculative.
Use of the Commerce Clause is a very real thing and with considerable case law precedent. Frank has excellently offered us toothsome examples of this, and specifically to the issue of gun rights.

However, we do not have any finished UBC law to cite--so any discussion must needs be speculative. This is doubly so as the language of, for instance, HB 7, is now in the possession of the Senate and subject to debate within that body. It's subject to change, potentially substantial. It's also subject to filibuster, and might be tabled and pass into the vast history of legislation that was not enacted.
 
States can & do refuse to follow the Fed laws. Look at the Marijuana laws.
There is no legal interstate commerce of Marijuana for private citizen consumers. In theory, the states are in an economic vacuum where it is concerned.

Ironically, if the feds legalized it and there was legal interstate commerce, then they could tell the states what to do. Restrict growth, restrict sales, etc.

For example: Alcohol, firearms, prescription drugs, etc.
 
Last edited:
Not being a lawyer my reply is based upon historical acts not statutes. The federal government has regulated firearms for many decades. The law requires a authorization to purchase certain guns and equipment like fully automatic guns and compressors. It requires that a person be over 21 and undergo a background check to purchase a handgun from an FFL. It proscribes that a resident of a state must undergo the background check in their own state. If it can do those things then I do not see any prohibition to requiring universal background checks. I am not certain what empowers the Feds to legislate those restrictions, but over many decades those restrictions have not been struck down by SCOTUS, which in some past cases including Heller has acknowledged that the government can enact reasonable regulation of firearms like preventing the mentally lll, felons and domestic abusers the right to possess a handgun. In light of that history I think UBCs are inevitable since over 80% of the 2A supporting public thinks they are OK. The question I have is if limited background checks keep guns out of the hands of some who should not have them, why are UBCs bad? Personal sales have put guns into the hands of some people who should not have had them. I await being enlightened.
 
Not being a lawyer my reply is based upon historical acts not statutes. The federal government has regulated firearms for many decades. The law requires a authorization to purchase certain guns and equipment like fully automatic guns and compressors. It requires that a person be over 21 and undergo a background check to purchase a handgun from an FFL. It proscribes that a resident of a state must undergo the background check in their own state. If it can do those things then I do not see any prohibition to requiring universal background checks. I am not certain what empowers the Feds to legislate those restrictions, but over many decades those restrictions have not been struck down by SCOTUS, which in some past cases including Heller has acknowledged that the government can enact reasonable regulation of firearms like preventing the mentally lll, felons and domestic abusers the right to possess a handgun. In light of that history I think UBCs are inevitable since over 80% of the 2A supporting public thinks they are OK. The question I have is if limited background checks keep guns out of the hands of some who should not have them, why are UBCs bad? Personal sales have put guns into the hands of some people who should not have had them. I await being enlightened.

I'd point you to Table 5 on page 7 of this report that surveyed prisoners on how they obtained firearms used in crime. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

The data show that most guns used in crime are not obtained through legal sales of all types. In fact, guns from retail purchases which include background checks (10%) account for more crime than guns from individual purchases outside of sources that are already engaged in illegal sales (8%).
 
The question I have is if limited background checks keep guns out of the hands of some who should not have them, why are UBCs bad? Personal sales have put guns into the hands of some people who should not have had them. I await being enlightened.
Whether it is constitutional or not aside, here is my concern with it. Between HR 8 and HR 1446, they are making it illegal for anyone to purchase or transfer a firearm without a NICs check. (no private sale or transfer). Then they are requiring that the FBI give a firm OK in order for the transfer to proceed. No response, no transfer. (Currently if the FBI does not respond in three days the transfer proceeds).

What if they then defund the FBI's NICs processing? Back door gun ban.

What if the attorney general convinces the FBI just to not allocate any resources to background checks? Back door gun ban.

Right now, we are occasionally seeing NFA forms that should and do normally process in one month, sometimes take a year or more because the FBI will not respond to the background check. No explanation. Calls to ATF and FBI get no where. Sometimes these get moved with a call to a pro-gun congressman, sometimes not. Imagine now if this happened to normal gun purchases?

Sometimes these things look like they are fair and just on the surface, but they will not be when controlled by bureaucracy.

Now, as pdsmith505 said, this will not have any measurable effect on crime. It will only serve as an unfair hinderance to those of us who wish to abide by the law.

It is nothing less than another road block to legal gun ownership. That is the intent.
 
Last edited:
I do understand the points that others have made above and see the legitimacy of them. out of curiosity I checked to see how private sales are regulated in the states. Here is the requirement in my state: PA


Pennsylvania
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111, et seq:private sales of handguns or short-barreled rifles/shotguns may only be conducted in the county sheriff's office or the place of business of a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer.
No background check requirement for private sales of rifles or shotguns (regular sized).

Using this URL you can check out any state:
https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

i
n terms of my state UBC legislation would not be a meaningful change for me, and that would be tru in quite a few states. Anyway, I’m on the fence when it comes to federal UBC legislation.
 
they are making it illegal for anyone to purchase or transfer a firearm without a NICs check.
They have not yet enacted a law. There are two proposed bills. One has gone to the Senate. Its fate in the Senate is not Sure.
HR 8 only mandates that every (barring a tiny few) firearms transactions must go through an FFL.
Even if that means having to drive all the way across Wyoming to the one closest FFL.

HR 1446 would eliminate the current automatic Procede and substitute an indefinite number of 10 day delays, each of which the purchaser would have to file and follow up on.

The two are not linked.
They are not certain, either.
Both have been passed in the House before, repeatedly.
Both have withered on the vine in the Senate, and not on Party lines.

What if they then defund the FBI's NICs processing? Back door gun ban.
Then thirty States would be forced to provide their own black list checking, which would constitute and illegal Taking by the fedgov, and wind up in court.
Please, too, it's NICS, the National Instant Check System. A NIC is a Network Interface Card.

because the FBI will not respond to the background check
NFA actually involves a proper Background Investigation, which is why they need so much more inforation than a 4473 contains.
NICS is just a database maintained by FBI, that contains most of the reported Prohibited Persons by name and address.
FBI does not actually "do" anything when a NICS call comes in. A clerk at a phone (or a dumb terminal for echeck) queries the list and compares the name given to the ones on the list. Getting a Match means Deny. No Match get a Proceed, any other result get Delay.
 
I do understand the points that others have made above and see the legitimacy of them. out of curiosity I checked to see how private sales are regulated in the states. Here is the requirement in my state: PA


Pennsylvania
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111, et seq:private sales of handguns or short-barreled rifles/shotguns may only be conducted in the county sheriff's office or the place of business of a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer.
No background check requirement for private sales of rifles or shotguns (regular sized).

Using this URL you can check out any state:
https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

i
n terms of my state UBC legislation would not be a meaningful change for me, and that would be tru in quite a few states. Anyway, I’m on the fence when it comes to federal UBC legislation.

The difference it, while you do have to go to a Sheriff's office or FFL now for private sale, there is no background check. HR 8 will require a NICS check for all firearms transfers. And you will need to go to a dealer, not the other options open to you now. I have done many private transfers at such places because it is a safe place to meet and that's not a big deal. But HR 8 will require a transfer through the dealer itself and there will be a cost for that. Dealers won't be doing NICS checks for free. In some places that fee is exorbitant.

Also as CapnMac said, "HR 1446 would eliminate the current automatic Procede and substitute an indefinite number of 10 day delays, each of which the purchaser would have to file and follow up on."

HR8 and HR 1446 are separate bills, but if both passed, together they would be a big problem. If only one is passed now, then the other could be passed at some point in the future.
 
In Wisconsin, the state does the background check for handguns, so I would think that state law would apply in those cases.
 
so I would think that state law would apply in those cases.
And, sadly, that's not addressed in HB 8, it's a sore point of contention in the Senate rectification hearings (and got it tabled in the last Congress, even before Mitch left it off the committee schedules altogether).
There's a legitimate "read" of the current text that says both a FedGov and a State check would have to be performed.
We don't actually know. Which really, really makes this bad fodder for Legal.
 
And, sadly, that's not addressed in HB 8, it's a sore point of contention in the Senate rectification hearings (and got it tabled in the last Congress, even before Mitch left it off the committee schedules altogether).
There's a legitimate "read" of the current text that says both a FedGov and a State check would have to be performed.
We don't actually know. Which really, really makes this bad fodder for Legal.

Just know that people not involved in the discussion learn a great deal from these threads. Even just pointing out what we don't know is very informative. If you need to close a thread, so be it. But a lot of this discussion is very helpful for understanding proposed legislation, much more so than media reports.
 
I've attended a few lectures on the Constitution from professors of Constitutional law. Uniformly they all say the Commerce Clause may be the most abused part of the Constitution. You can bet it will be abused some more with this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top