Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AlexanderA, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    11,930
    Location:
    DFW Area
    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. :D

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  2. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,236
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    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)
     
  3. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    445
    That will lead to an executive order for a national registry.

    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.

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

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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

     
  5. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291

    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.
     
  6. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    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.
     
  7. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    :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.
    Both false. You really need to learn how the legal system works.
    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.
    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.
     
  8. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    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.

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

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     
  10. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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
    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.
     
  11. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    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.

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

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    1. The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.
    2. 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?
     
  13. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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"
    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.
    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.
     
  14. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    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.
     
  15. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Why not? Of course it could.
     
  16. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,496
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Why not? How about because without registration they wouldn't know when private sales were taking place.
     
  17. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     
  18. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    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.
     
  19. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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
     
  20. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Sheer nonsense.

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

    Whom do you think you're fooling?
     
  21. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    "It can't happen here"???

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

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  23. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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;

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  24. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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...
     
  25. Deanimator

    Deanimator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,466
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     

Share This Page