Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

[brboyer]

I'll admit, I just don't see it. Can you explain how, or in what way, everybody's rights would be infringed?

Your proposal would force everyone to go through a background check.....everyone! Not to mention the fact that the background check itself is repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[brboyer]

This is true but what you're saying is that there should be no laws prohibiting minors from buying alcohol, because they're already getting it. Might as well make prostitution, crack, LSD, and heroine legal because people can get it.

Why is the government even involved in the personal choices people make? Until those choices infringing on someone else's rights, the .gov should keep their noses out it!

 

[brboyer]

The purpose of a background check is to verify that the person in question is able to purchase a gun. I question how you can call nearly 100,000,000 million purchases of guns by legal owners in ten years an infringement. How does that logic work? The NICS check stopped 70,000 people a year from buying guns from FFLs all while enabling many more owners to purchase guns.

By all means, post this data. I've even looked at the ATF breakdown of what investigations they did stemming from NICS denials. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/tables/bcft09st08.pdf


You may feel a background check is an infringement but the simple fact is that if you aren't wrongly denied, your right has not been infringed.
that and the background checks have been held to be constitutional as long as local law enforcement was not required to conduct them.

So because of a minute number of people do something the government does not want them to do, it's OK to force everyone to submit to some form of test and proved they are a 'good guy'

Expand your suggestion to any other Constitutionally protected right. Maybe the government should force us to take some test before voting, just in case we are in the less than 1% of people that have tyrannical leanings. Or how about a personality profile before you can go to the church of your choice or post on THR to make sure you have never been convicted of libel or slander before?

 

[Ivy Mike]

Your proposal would force everyone to go through a background check.....everyone! Not to mention the fact that the background check itself is repugnant to the Constitution.

Hate to break it to you, but the supreme court disagrees.
You have to give a little in your interpretation. If you want the government to have the ability to remove rights via due process, you need to allow government the ability to determine who is and is not disqualified.

 

[chipcom]

I applaud ngnrd and others for at least presenting alternatives to what the state of NY has done. Granted I as others do not believe these changes or anything else I've seen proposed here or in DC or NY would have prevented the tragedies at places like Newtown, Columbine or Jonesboro; however, to offer no workable alternative to what the talking heads in DC are planning is no better than just throwing your hands up and surrendering. This issue is not going away quietly, and all the posturing and bravado on this and other gun related boards against such ideas do nothing to solve the problem. How about instead of bitching about how this idea won't work, we come up with one that will. Solutions don't have to come from DC politicians. Hell, this country wasn't founded by politicians. It was founded by ordinary people like you and me, and ngnrd. And building more prisons is really not the answer unless you know where the nation's money tree is located. Think of it from the left's position, banning firearms is the most economical way to address the problem. It doesn't cost the average taxpayer much too simply make it illegal for others to buy certain weapons or accessories. Granted it won't prevent future tragedies, but that's not really their agenda is it. Like I've said before, if Obama was sincerely interested in protecting children, he'd push for the repeal of leagalized abortion that has killed 50 million babies since Roe v Wade. If gun owners are not willing to present the nation with a workable solution, then we have no right to bitch about the consequences of what happens next. Just my 2 cents.

A workable solution to what? Gun violence? How about we cure the common cold while we are at it too. You cure things by attacking root causes, not making our symptoms feel a little better while allowing the disease to keep eating away.

 

[chipcom]

Maybe this is the confusion... There would have to be some court order already in place that restricts them from firearm ownership, not some arbitrary metrics. The courts don't just grab random people off the streets and say "poof! you can no longer own a gun. Have a nice day." There are mechanisms in place that already serve this function. I am discussing a way to get that information to the seller in a private firearm transaction. I'm not trying to somehow get people on some no fly list. I'm talking about "publishing" the lists that everybody is already on. The prohibited person is already on a list of "bad guys" and everybody else makes up the list of "good guys". There is no new information that would be used.

For instance, I can go to a government website and look to see if there are sexual deviants living in my area. I wouldn't ever condone hassling those individuals. But I sure would want to know if my child walked past their house every day to get to the bus stop. And, you already pay for this database to be maintained. I never hear anybody, except an occasional sex offender, calling to dismantle the sex offender registries. Seriously... what's the difference?

The problem is the process that gets you tagged as not legally able to purchase.

If you walk into a gun store and they turn you down because your DL, for example, has you flagged as not legal, you're not going to be very happy, are you. You'll be even unhappier when you find that nobody can tell you WHY you were flagged, cuz it's a secret. Again, no-fly lists are one great example. Ask anyone who discovered they were on one if they ever got an answer as to why, if they could even figure out who to ask.

 

[Ivy Mike]

So because of a minute number of people do something the government does not want them to do, it's OK to force everyone to submit to some form of test and proved they are a 'good guy'

Expand your suggestion to any other Constitutionally protected right. Maybe the government should force us to take some test before voting, just in case we are in the less than 1% of people that have tyrannical leanings. Or how about a personality profile before you can go to the church of your choice or post on THR to make sure you have never been convicted of libel or slander before?

Lets do that. Lets explore your idea of a background check before exercising rights.
A test for voting is not the same as a background check. Would you support the idea of a background check to ensure that someone who has been stripped of the right to vote does not go in and cheapen the right for the rest of us? Oh wait, you mean they can't even get registered? Do you believe voter registration infringes on your right to vote? Or is the minor inconvenience of having to give information to a poll worker (or write it down and drop the form off at your local DMV) acceptable in order to guard against unqualified people voting in our country?

Freedom of speech does not kill people as the word is spoken or written and there are methods of redress should someone lie about you. The word is not a physical weapon capable of great bodily injury.
In other words, you are talking apples and oranges. Yes, speech, voting and gun ownership are rights but the responsibilities that go with those rights are different.


Still waiting on that data you talked about earlier.

 

[chipcom]

What laws do you think I am proposing?

Again, I'm not looking to get some new silver bullet law enacted. I'm just discussing a tool that could be used by sellers that would provide some assurance that the person they are handing their firearm to isn't prohibited from owning a firearm.

tagging people with the equivalent of the mark of the devil with no oversight of the process involved and no ability to challenge or even ask why they were tagged is isn't a tool, it's needless oppression.

 

[chipcom]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

700k guns kept out of criminal hands all within the confines of the constitution and with the blessing of the NRA.
and right on the website I cited is information about appealing an incorrect denial.

how many of those 700k were wrongfully denied? What is the process of appeal, if any? The devil is in the details...based on history, I don't trust any government agency not to abuse their power to advance political ends. If you do, I have some swamp land that I'm sure you'll jump at the chance to buy.

 

[Ivy Mike]

A workable solution to what? Gun violence? How about we cure the common cold while we are at it too. You cure things by attacking root causes, not making our symptoms feel a little better while allowing the disease to keep eating away.

I absolutely agree with attacking the root causes.

Start by voting against republicans who do everything they can to keep drugs from being legalized and further the culture of gang violence that plagues our cities and keeps those gun murder rates high.

 

[Ivy Mike]

how many of those 700k were wrongfully denied? What is the process of appeal, if any? The devil is in the details...based on history, I don't trust any government agency not to abuse their power to advance political ends. If you do, I have some swamp land that I'm sure you'll jump at the chance to buy.

Click the link I posted in the post you quoted if you're not too busy in your swampland. You'll find information on appealing a wrongful denial.

 

[ngnrd]

tagging people with the equivalent of the mark of the devil with no oversight of the process involved and no ability to challenge or even ask why they were tagged is isn't a tool, it's needless oppression.

Apparently, you have not read the whole thread. Please, don't make baseless comments just to try to derail the discussion.

1- The "tags" would only be given to those that have been stripped of their right to own firearms via lawful court order

2- There would have to be an appeal/investigation process in place to address false positives

3- There is no oppression. Just a check of an already existing State database that included information regarding criminals that have ALREADY had their rights lawfully revoked.

There's no conspiracy here. There's no method to deny lawful purchase. There's no infringement.

 

[brboyer]

Lets do that. Lets explore your idea of a background check before exercising rights.
A test for voting is not the same as a background check. Would you support the idea of a background check to ensure that someone who has been stripped of the right to vote does not go in and cheapen the right for the rest of us? Oh wait, you mean they can't even get registered? Do you believe voter registration infringes on your right to vote? Or is the minor inconvenience of having to give information to a poll worker (or write it down and drop the form off at your local DMV) acceptable in order to guard against unqualified people voting in our country?

Freedom of speech does not kill people as the word is spoken or written and there are methods of redress should someone lie about you. The word is not a physical weapon capable of great bodily injury.
In other words, you are talking apples and oranges. Yes, speech, voting and gun ownership are rights but the responsibilities that go with those rights are different.


Still waiting on that data you talked about earlier.

You should have to prove you live where you are supposed to vote, you know to make sure you vote only once and only in your district.

You cannot vote if you are locked up for a crime that includes civil rights being plased on hold while in prision.

Also, it's hard to commit a crime on innocent people if you are locked up.

How about we just punish people for doing bad stuff, instead of what we think they might do?

If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.

 

[ngnrd]

The problem is the process that gets you tagged as not legally able to purchase.

If you walk into a gun store and they turn you down because your DL, for example, has you flagged as not legal, you're not going to be very happy, are you. You'll be even unhappier when you find that nobody can tell you WHY you were flagged, cuz it's a secret. Again, no-fly lists are one great example. Ask anyone who discovered they were on one if they ever got an answer as to why, if they could even figure out who to ask.

If you are too lazy to look at your ID card and see that it is stamped "NO FIREARMS" before you walk into a gun store and get turned down for a firearms purchase, I don't really think you are justified in "not being happy" about it. That's just silly.

 

[ngnrd]

If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.

And people were accusing me of living in a fairy tale world... sheesh. Let's at least try to keep the conversation based in reality, shall we?

 

[soonerfan85]

Let's talk about the background checks to buy paper. And bibles. And a laptop. And a bus ticket. And a horse. And a car. And a home.
RIGHTS.
Those of you who endorse ANY method of restricting a RIGHT are officially my enemy.

Divide and conquer.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

We're acting just like the gun grabbers would have us act.

 

[brboyer]

And people were accusing me of living in a fairy tale world... sheesh. Let's at least try to keep the conversation based in reality, shall we?

That is the problem. My solution is simple and efficient and does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks in order to ineffectively try to prevent possible future crime by criminals (folks that don't follow the law anyway.)

 

[ngnrd]

The other thing that hasn't been discussed is the ACLU would never go for it. Having an arrest record (disqualifying event) puts your personal information in a protected class.

First, the ACLU does not make the law of the land.

Second, maybe you didn't read my first post. It clearly said that this would be modeled on an existing system being used in Alaska that tags ID's with "NO ALCOHOL". It doesn't keep repeat offenders from stealing booze out of their mother's liquor cabinet. But, it does keep a significant portion of them from loading up at the liquor store or bar. It's not perfect, but it is a tool that servers and cashiers can use to try to keep booze away from those that have standing court orders prohibiting their possession of alcohol.

That being said, I will no longer respond to your posts until you answer the questions I posed to you in post #67.

 

[Ivy Mike]

You should have to prove you live where you are supposed to vote, you know to make sure you vote only once and only in your district.

You cannot vote if you are locked up for a crime that includes civil rights being plased on hold while in prision.

Also, it's hard to commit a crime on innocent people if you are locked up.

How about we just punish people for doing bad stuff, instead of what we think they might do?

If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.

They HAVE been punished for actually doing bad stuff. Thats why they lost the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ngnrd]

... does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks

That's the sticking point on this entire discussion. You (and others) believe that any kind of check to ensure that you are not a prohibited person is a violation of your rights. But, that is just not the case in the country we live in. The courts have confirmed, and re-confirmed the need for checks. And these confirmations are just as valid as the Heller decision that everybody here (myself included) supports.

So, are you now going to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because you need to realize that you can't have it both ways. You may not like it, but you need to make a decision: respect the decisions of the courts, or don't. Just don't think for a minute that you get to pick and choose which court rulings you will accept, and which ones you will ignore. It doesn't work like that.

Now, when you're done snarling and gnashing your teeth, just ask, and I will gladly help you down off of your high horse. That way maybe we can find a way to see eye to eye.

 

[Ivy Mike]

That is the problem. My solution is simple and efficient and does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks in order to ineffectively try to prevent possible future crime by criminals (folks that don't follow the law anyway.)

Background checks do not violate the constitution either and the supreme court has said so.

 

[JohnBT]

"Freedom of speech does not kill people"

Then why are there laws against inciting riots [18 USCS § 2102] and yelling fire in a theater? Hmm?

 

[brboyer]

That's the sticking point on this entire discussion. You (and others) believe that any kind of check to ensure that you are not a prohibited person is a violation of your rights. But, that is just not the case in the country we live in. The courts have confirmed, and re-confirmed the need for checks. And these confirmations are just as valid as the Heller decision that everybody here (myself included) supports.

So, are you now going to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because you need to realize that you can't have it both ways. You may not like it, but you need to make a decision: respect the decisions of the courts, or don't. Just don't think for a minute that you get to pick and choose which court rulings you will accept, and which ones you will ignore. It doesn't work like that.

Now, when you're done snarling and gnashing your teeth, just ask, and I will gladly help you down off of your high horse. That way maybe we can find a way to see eye to eye.

Please provide me with these court rulings.

 

[brboyer]

Background checks do not violate the constitution either and the supreme court has said so.

Please provide a cite to this decision.

 

[beatledog7]

First: Do you understand that a court has the power to strip certain rights of criminals, as a condition of either incarceration, or parole? Note that I didn't ask if you agreed with it, just that you understand it.

Yes. But that criminal knew the law when he chose to commit his crime, thereby voluntarily surrendering those rights should he be caught and convicted.

And second: Would you willingly sell a firearm to a person if you knew that individual was barred by the courts from possessing firearms?

No. But I don't have to know that because I'm not obligated to conduct such a check. However, assuming that guy wants a gun really bad, he will simply steal a gun if he can't buy one. So your background check law won't solve anything.

ngnrd, you seem intelligent. How can you keep missing that point?