Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

JohnKSa · Feb 17, 2013

There is nothing to prevent them from prosecuting you if you are caught commiting this offense in the act, or afteward if there is proof you did it. Just like any other law.

That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I pointed this out in my first point.

If you sell your gun to an informant or under cover cop without going to NICS, then you go to jail.

That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I mentioned stings as one of these situations in my first post.

No. No registration is required. It can be enforced just like other laws...

I'll try once more and if this still doesn't get through to you then I'll concede that while your repetition will not make what you repeat true, it apparently makes it true to you.

Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.

YES, as I have stated more than once, and as you have stated, there are SOME circumstances where proof might be available to show that a law had been broken, but in the GENERAL case, the law would not be enforceable because in the GENERAL case it wouldn't even be possible to prove that a crime took place, let alone to pin it on someone.

...Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales in the first place.

Well, you and I believe that, but many in Congress don't. Even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with you and me, that won't necessarily prevent a tremendous amount of trouble from coming to pass in the interval between Congress passing a law and the Supreme Court overturning it.

If we can educate people now as to the reasons why it's a bad idea (in ADDITION to it's being outside the federal government's power) to instate universal background checks then we may be able to prevent that trouble from coming to pass in the first place.

Trying to argue against this law SOLELY on the basis that such laws are outside the intended purview of Congress is like trying to argue with someone who is trying to kill you that they can't do it because it's illegal. They may not be legally able to kill you, but you won't be any less dead for the fact that the murderer had to step outside the law to end your life. In that situation, you would likely have been better off if you could have convinced the bystanders why it was a good idea for them to come to your rescue rather than simply pointing out to them that it would be against the law for the bad guy to kill you.

Same with this case. If we can convince people why universal background checks are a bad idea vs. simply repeating that Congress can't/shouldn't do it, it could save everyone a lot of trouble.

Ryanxia · Feb 17, 2013

Even if they make a Bill that sounds all good and nice but may be vague, couldn't the president make executive orders on how to enforce it? Similar to Clinton did? (I could be wrong just asking)

blaisenguns · Feb 17, 2013

I think you're missing the point of my response. Nothing I said was intended to imply that we have to (or should have to) prove innocence. The point was that for a law to be feasible, there needs to be a reasonable plan for enforcement. If a law is passed that will obvously, ultimately require registration to make enforcement feasible, then people need to understand that a push for registration will be coming in the future. They also need to understand that push will be strengthened by the fact that it is required to enforce an existing law.

That will lead to an executive order for a national registry.

If, you sell me a gun in a parking lot and I go and tell my LEO handler what happened. Here is the gun, audio and video recording. Then you go to jail.
Or, you advertise a gun for sale and an undercover cop buys it from you without a FFL background check. Then you go to jail.
Or, you get busted for something else, then you stupidly admit to more crimes (amazingly this is one of the most common ways to land in jail)

A. The recording you made was illegal and inadmissible in court unless I consented to it.
B. That is entrapment and is of questionable legality on behalf of the cops.
C. Anyone who says anything to the police without a lawyer present is a fool, however if I ask for a lawyer anything said is inadmissible in court after that point.

This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES

Everyone remember when Feinstein said exactly this in '95? I was 5 and I do.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

AlexanderA said:
Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.

No. Simply "moved" is not enough. SCOTUS has already rejected such a claim by Congress in USA v Lopez.
Please read SCOTUS cases Lopez, also Morrison. Or read this thread; http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

"The Bass Court set aside the conviction because although the Government had demonstrated that Bass had possessed a firearm, it had failed "to show the requisite nexus with interstate commerce"
...
The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.
...
but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated "

Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [n.3] Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity,
... Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

SCOTUS
USA v Lopez

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

JohnKSa said:
That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I pointed this out in my first point.That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I mentioned stings as one of these situations in my first post.I'll try once more and if this still doesn't get through to you then I'll concede that while your repetition will not make what you repeat true, it apparently makes it true to you.

Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.

YES, as I have stated more than once, and as you have stated, there are SOME circumstances where proof might be available to show that a law had been broken, but in the GENERAL case, the law would not be enforceable because in the GENERAL case it wouldn't even be possible to prove that a crime took place, let alone to pin it on someone.Well, you and I believe that, but many in Congress don't. Even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with you and me, that won't necessarily prevent a tremendous amount of trouble from coming to pass in the interval between Congress passing a law and the Supreme Court overturning it.

If we can educate people now as to the reasons why it's a bad idea (in ADDITION to it's being outside the federal government's power) to instate universal background checks then we may be able to prevent that trouble from coming to pass in the first place.

Trying to argue against this law SOLELY on the basis that such laws are outside the intended purview of Congress is like trying to argue with someone who is trying to kill you that they can't do it because it's illegal. They may not be legally able to kill you, but you won't be any less dead for the fact that the murderer had to step outside the law to end your life. In that situation, you would likely have been better off if you could have convinced the bystanders why it was a good idea for them to come to your rescue rather than simply pointing out to them that it would be against the law for the bad guy to kill you.

Same with this case. If we can convince people why universal background checks are a bad idea vs. simply repeating that Congress can't/shouldn't do it, it could save everyone a lot of trouble.

First you admit there are cases where it can be possible to prosecute, just like every other law. Then you say it's "impossible". I don't get how you get from one point to the next. It is easily possible. The only way anyone is ever convicted of any crime, in any case, is when there is PROOF of a crime. Like getting caught in the act, testimony or other evidence after the fact. Registration is not needed to enforce the millions of other laws on the books now.

Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause. Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted. It sounds like tin foil hattery, because it is. It does not have to follow any more than confiscation must follow registration. Our fear that it could is not going to convince the moderates of this position now because it's not on the table and it's simply not true.

What is on the table, UBC's, is a vast expansion of federal power into private actions. Congress simply does not have the power to regulate private sales anymore than they can ban the Amish or Budhism.
We must educate people that Congress's power is not unlimited and this is beyond thier power. Too many people, even gun owners think they can as long as they get 51% of the vote. No.

Texan Scott · Feb 17, 2013

Yes, but go find the memo. READ the memo. SPREAD copies of the memo.

"Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", published by the National Institute of Justice (DOJ research arm) on January 4, 2013 by Dr. Greg Ridgeway, PhD.

He basically advocates going BIG on gun control or going home. This is end-game stuff.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK... 9 easy pages. READ IT.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

blaisenguns said:
That will lead to an executive order for a national registry.

:banghead:
No. Please learn how our government works. EO's cannot do that. Please stop repeating these absurd myths. They make all gun owners look dumb.

A. The recording you made was illegal and inadmissible in court unless I consented to it.
B. That is entrapment and is of questionable legality on behalf of the cops.

Both false. You really need to learn how the legal system works.

C. Anyone who says anything to the police without a lawyer present is a fool, however if I ask for a lawyer anything said is inadmissible in court after that point.

You'd be stunned to learn how many people in prison are there because of the info they freely gave to police., but yes, most criminals are dumb.

Everyone remember when Feinstein said exactly this in '95? I was 5 and I do.

I don't care if she said she wants to be queen and have us all kiss her feet. That's not going to happen either.

316SS · Feb 17, 2013

SCOTUS USA vs LOPEZ said:
The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.

We aren't talking about mere possession, we are talking about sale or transfer, which is an economic activity and arguably is beyond the scope of the Lopez decision.

joeschmoe said:
Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause. Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted. It sounds like tin foil hattery, because it is.

Registration and confiscation have been discussed openly at both state and federal levels. To deny that is to deny an objective fact.

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted.

Anyone who favors the sham "universal background check" is either:

ignorant.
lying.

It can ONLY be enforced via REGISTRATION.

Tell the class where registration led in Chicago.

NO, I REFUSE.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

316SS said:
We aren't talking about mere possession, we are talking about sale or transfer, which is an economic activity and arguably is beyond the scope of the Lopez decision.

Lopez was in possesion to sell his gun at school. That is not enough to bring into the commerce clause. The law itself is not for regulating commerce, but crime. Like the GFSZ act in Lopez, UBC's are an attempt at violence control, not regulate economic activity. The court rejected the governments grab at power.

"Section 922(q)[GFSZ] is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [n.3] Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity" SCOTUS- US v Lopez

"The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce." SCOTUS- USA v MORRISON

Registration and confiscation have been discussed openly at both state and federal levels. To deny that is to deny an objective fact.

We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

316SS · Feb 17, 2013

joeschmoe said:
Lopez was in possesion to sell his gun at school. That is not enough to bring into the commerce clause.

The law in question (GFSZA) had nothing to do with sale or transfer, but only possession. That is why the commerce clause did not apply. The proposed law requiring a BGC as a condition of all transfers is another animal entirely. No matter how shrilly you proclaim "they can't do that!", I'll paraphrase Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: Just watch them.

joeschmoe said:
We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

Slightly more sophisticated folks recognize such a thing as context. In any case, extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.
Anti-gun extremists are driving the push for gun control.

Pretending otherwise makes you look duplicitous.

Tell everyone what followed from registration in Chicago.

I know that anti-gunners think gun owners were born yesterday, but what TIME yesterday?

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

316SS said:
The law in question (GFSZA) had nothing to do with sale or transfer, but only possession. That is why the commerce clause did not apply.

No. It was thrown out because the whole law was a criminal law, not part of a larger economic policy. Just like UBC's. "Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity"

The proposed law requiring a BGC as a condition of all transfers is another animal entirely. No matter how shrilly you proclaim "they can't do that!", I'll paraphrase Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: Just watch them.

He was Canadian who bows to a queen. This is a Republic and we don't bow. I'm going off what SCOTUS has already thrown out and limited Congress on. Not just my wish of what I hope for. They said these are police power reserved to the states. Intrastate sales must have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce for Congress to regulate. Congress does not have the power to regualte private sales. If they could they could regulate anything, and SCOTUS has said they can't.

Slightly more sophisticated folks recognize such a thing as context. In any case, extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's. We fight them one at a time, and they will lose on each point and never get to the next stage. That's how we defeat incrementalism.

316SS · Feb 17, 2013

Deanimator said:
The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.

I think joeschmoe has shown earlier in the thread that a UBC law could be enforced in limited, specific circumstances without registration. However, we deny the experiences of our friends in the UK, Canada, and Australia, who have warned us that universal background checks are simply a stepping stone toward a severe curtailing of private firearm ownership, at our peril.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

Deanimator said:
[*]The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.

Why not? Of course it could.

jerkface11 · Feb 17, 2013

Why not? How about because without registration they wouldn't know when private sales were taking place.

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's.

I don't CARE what they THINK they're supporting. I care what they're ACTUALLY supporting, which is REGISTRATION, from which flows BANS and CONFISCATION.

Perhaps you missed the video of New York Democrat legislators asking Republicans not to talk about the proposed CONFISCATIONS of so-called "assault weapons" and normal capacity magazines.

Explain to everyone who benefits from helping the other side conceal its REAL intentions, and the absolutely ESSENTIAL role of creating a NEED for REGISTRATION.

316SS · Feb 17, 2013

joeschmoe said:
You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's. We fight them one at a time, and they will lose on each point and never get to the next stage. That's how we defeat incrementalism.

Well I think we've arrived at the heart of our disagreement, because I believe if we don't call out anti-gunners on their end game, in all its horror, early, often, and loudly, we'll find ourselves living it soon enough. As I alluded to in my post above, there are examples of this progression in very recent history in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

However, we deny the experiences of our friends in the UK, Canada, and Australia, who have warned us that universal background checks are simply a stepping stone toward a severe curtailing of private firearm ownership, at our peril.

Why look to foreign countries when you need look no farther than Chicago?

What is the ONLY way to enforce a sham "universal background check"?

How was Chicago's handgun BAN implemented?

universal background check => registration => bans and confiscations

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

Why not? Of course it could.

Sheer nonsense.

How would anyone know when a firearm changed hands WITHOUT registration?

Whom do you think you're fooling?

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.

"It can't happen here"???

It's already happened here, in Chicago. I know, I lived there when it did.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

Deanimator said:
Sheer nonsense.

How would anyone know when a firearm changed hands WITHOUT registration?

Whom do you think you're fooling?

How do you know when drugs are sold? When there is evidence of a crime.
Same as other laws on the books now.

By;
getting caught in the act
informant
sting operation
as part of another investigation gathering evidence
confession of guilt
etc

Ask millions of Americans in prison how they got caught.

joeschmoe · Feb 17, 2013

316SS said:
Well I think we've arrived at the heart of our disagreement, because I believe if we don't call out anti-gunners on their end game, in all its horror, early, often, and loudly, we'll find ourselves living it soon enough. As I alluded to in my post above, there are examples of this progression in very recent history in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.

Then we disagree. I don't care if they're end game is to see us all in chains kissing thier feet. Not going to happen either. I will fight them each step of the way. They will lose each step of the way and they can dream of slaves. All they want all they will get is defeat today and tomorrow.

Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales or ban arms. Fear of confiscation and slavery is a red herring.

ETA; those coutries are monarchies who bow to a queen and don't have anything like the 2nd amendment. We don't bow here. It's absurd to suggest that over 80 million are just going to "turn them in" like the aussies did. I think that's "naive".

This seems fitting here;

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

How do you know when drugs are sold?

What percentage of drug sales are KNOWN??? Never mind the percentage prosecuted.

When were drugs EVER hard to get for anyone who wanted them, even though there's NO legal way to obtain most of them?

If you think that ANYBODY would fall for such foolishness, you clearly think that gun owners are as stupid as the girl in the Allstate commercial.

Don't tell me, you're a French model too.

Bon jour...

Deanimator · Feb 17, 2013

I will fight them each step of the way.

HOW? By giving them the opening they so desperately need???

It would be FAR more accurate for you to say, "I will fight FOR them each step of the way."

The only question is whether you're intentionally serving as their stalking horse or through ignorance and lack of clear thinking. In the end it makes little difference.

Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads