Who here supports "background" checks? - Page 2

WAGCEVP · May 9, 2001, 08:16 PM

they are unconstitutional! They are a backdoor gun owner registration!
=====
-----------------Begin LSAS Article----------------
"Instant Check": Why Doesn't the NRA Check The Constitution?
Article in the LIBERTY POLE By Daniel Schultz of Lawyers Second Amendment
Society

The NRA has publicly offered its support of the so-called federal "instant
check" legislation that would purportedly create a computerized system to
check to see whether the purchaser of a firearm had a criminal or other
record that prohibited the purchaser from obtaining a firearm. The NRA
apparently believes that such a system would not be used by the government
to keep track of which citizens own firearms, how many firearms, and of what
type, accepting the assurances of the proponents of such a system. Such
trust flies in the face of common sense and the history of governmental
abuse of power in this country and elsewhere. But whether one trusts the
federal government to obey the law is not really the point. An "Instant
Check" system is beyond the authority of the government. Article I, Section
8 of the US Constitution delineates the subjects of congressional
legislative power. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is the power granted to
the federal congress to police the sales of firearms. Indeed, the text of
the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the writings of John Jay, James
Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers make clear that the
federal government was to have no local police powers , and certainly no
power over the citizen's unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
One positive thing resulting from President Clinton's many travails is that
reporters are having to examine the text of the Constitution in order to
write intelligently about the constitutional issues he has raised, be it his
assertion of "executive privilege", the meaning of the term "high crimes
and misdemeanors" or the procedure for impeachment. Likewise, on the
subject of gun registration and confiscation, the proponents of "instant
check" should first read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which
clearly provides no police power over citizen's inalienable right to keep
and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Months ago I wrote the NRA, asking it to provide me with evidence that the
US Congress has authority under the constitution to police firearms
purchases of law-abiding citizens. To date, I have not received a response.
I am a life member, but I part company with it when it becomes the advocate
for gun registration, which historically has always preceded gun
confiscation. From now on the money and time I would have given NRA will be
used to support Gunowners of America, which actively opposes "instant check"
legislation. I urge you to do the same.
-------End of LSAS Article----------

LSAS is Lawyers Second Amendment Society
http:www.thelsas.org

WAGCEVP · May 9, 2001, 08:17 PM

The Supreme Court, the Brady Law, and the National Instant Check
-- don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
For Immediate Release
July 1, 1997
Say "No" To Instant Registration Check
Don't Use Brady Decision as Springboard to Push Gun Control
A Message From Larry Pratt, Executive Director
(Springfield, VA) - The Supreme Court decision on the Brady law is a landmark victory not only for gun owners but for all people concerned that the federal government is too large and intrusive.

The Court ruled that Congress cannot commandeer the resources of a state to do its anti-gun bidding. This decision breathes new life into the 10th Amendment and our Republican form of government.

However, many people and organizations are using the ruling against Brady to push for an alternate form of gun control which is worse than that struck down by the Court. Gun owners won in this case, but now many pro-gun people are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing for a national instant registration check.

The Court ruled that the states cannot be compelled to perform background checks on gun purchasers. But now people are saying that the federal government should perform the task. Why would any sound thinking person suggest that it is better for the federal government to compile a list of gun owners, rather than the states.

Supporters of the instant registration check are either missing the point of Friday's ruling or are simply concerned with the unfunded mandate provisions of Brady. The unfunded mandate was one argument used to strike a blow at gun registration - it was not all we should have been concerned about. As Sheriff Richard Mack noted, it wasn't the unfunded part that bothered him, because you couldn't pay him to run the checks.

The ruling on Brady should be used as a stepping stone towards the restoration of the Second Amendment, not its destruction. The instant check will, in simple terms, lead to the registration of gun owners. Pro-gun Americans should not support the idea of all lawful citizens being forced to go to the government for permission prior to being allowed to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, will felons intent on committing crimes first seek government approval before obtaining a firearm illegally?

WAGCEVP · May 9, 2001, 08:25 PM

=======================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
=======================================
For release: December 3, 1998
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: [email protected]
=======================================
Abolish the instant check gun system
before innocent Americans are killed

WASHINGTON, DC -- The government's so-called "instant
background checks" for gun buyers should be abolished immediately
before any innocent Americans are robbed, raped, or murdered while
waiting to buy a firearm, the Libertarian Party said today.

The party's demand follows an admission by the FBI that because
of telephone and computer glitches, 34% of all gun buyers -- or 1,688
people on Monday alone -- were unable to buy a gun.

Meanwhile, just one-quarter of one percent of would-be
gun-buyers were rejected because of a criminal record -- meaning that
135 law-abiding citizens were denied a gun for every criminal rejected
during the first day of the new program.

"How many Americans have just been sentenced to death by
bureaucracy as a result of the government's failed instant check
system?" asked Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian
Party.

"If even one American is harmed while waiting for government
approval to defend themselves, it's one too many -- which is why these
background checks should be abolished immediately."

The national "instant check" system, which replaces the
five-day waiting period mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill, requires each
of the nation's 105,000 gun dealers to call the FBI to run an instant
criminal background check on anyone trying to buy a handgun, rifle, or
shotgun.

"The problem is that criminals are the only Americans who
benefit from such background checks, because they don't take them,"
Dasbach said. "Real criminals have no problem getting guns. In fact, a
recent Justice Department survey of convicted criminals found that 93%
had acquired their guns illegally.

"But by forcing law-abiding citizens to wait for days and weeks
to buy a firearm, the government has painted a target on their backs."

Forcing Americans to undergo background checks is not only
unsafe -- it's un-American and unconstitutional, too, Dasbach said.

"An instant check of the Constitution reminds us that the
government doesn't have the authority to restrict gun ownership --
period. It's outrageous for politicians to require a background check
as a condition of exercising any Constitutional right," he said.

"The government has no more right to demand that you submit to
a background check before exercising your Second Amendment right to buy
a gun than it does to require a background check before exercising your
First Amendment right to publish a newspaper or go to church."

However, Dasbach acknowledged one practical difference between
the First and Second Amendment rights in this case: "No lives are
immediately jeopardized by failure to publish a newspaper, but
innumerable lives have been put in danger this week by the government's
refusal to allow Americans to buy a gun to defend themselves."

And if you run an "instant check" on the behavior of Congress,
you'll see that it can't be trusted when it meddles with the
Constitution -- or our safety, said Dasbach.

"If you supported the Brady Bill, you trusted the politicians
when they said this law would just keep guns out of the hands of
criminals. Instead, innocent Americans have been unfairly denied a
fundamental right -- the right to protect themselves and their
families.

"In other words, Americans have once again had their liberty
sacrificed for the promise of safety. Unfortunately, the failure of the
instant-check system guarantees that many Americans will have neither."

The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072

For subscription changes, please mail to <[email protected]> with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.

Quartus · May 9, 2001, 08:30 PM

KAM_Indianapolis asked, "Do you support the un-fetterd access to firearms by felons?"

Absolutely, it's called the Second Amendment. The proper way to deal with a person who commits a crime is to punish them FOR THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED and then forget it. (In Clinton's case, that would be hanging.) If the punishment is appropriate, there will be very few repeat offenders.

JeffOTMG opined, "I do not have a problem with it as it is not intrusive."

How not, sir? You've just been told, "We don't trust you, and we have the right to make you wait [5 seconds or 5 days, it doesn't matter] until we decide you are fit to exercise your 2nd Amendment revocable privilege."

It is ALWAYS the principle that counts. It's not about how inconvenient the Government makes it when they violate the Constitution, it's about the violation.

Freedom ain't free. I think it was it Jefferson who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The liberals have gotten as far as they have in destroying our freedoms by getting one piece at a time - sometimes very small pieces. And we've let them. But those small pieces have added up, and continue to add up.

Check your history - tyrants have often used "law and order" as an excuse to strip away liberty. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Musslolini did it. Countless 2 bit 3rd world dictators have done it. Chicoms are doing it. Gentlemen, the United States Congress is doing it.

Will you help them? Or will you say no?

Cosmoline · May 9, 2001, 08:38 PM

I'm going to SUGGEST, just SUGGEST, that some real good has come out of background checks, though it's not at all what the Liberals expected. Namely, the instant check has helped take sound and fury away from the antis. At least at a national level, it's much more difficult for them to get anti-gun legislation through now that we legitimate gun owners have been forced to prove we're really legitimate. Their battle has now switched to the states, since they have much less hope of a federal ban. I can't prove it, but my guess is without the Brady Bill, the yinyangs in DC would have outlawed sale, or even possession, of .50 BMG's at the very least and perhaps even passed Kalifornia-style regulations. Now, the most the antis can hope for is an extension of the Brady Bill to private sales.

That said, I'm certainly not a big fan of background checks. One of the biggest problems is the "domestic violence" category, since the standard for getting one of those restraining orders is absurdly low in most states. These days they're a routine part of many hostile divorce proceedings. The first one to ask for one gets it, facts be damned, and can then use the order as ammunition against the other spouse. Very nasty stuff.

cuerno de chivo · May 9, 2001, 09:41 PM

I am TOTALLY AGAINST background checks among other TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL things that supposed pro-gunners support.

Don Gwinn · May 9, 2001, 10:20 PM

If an instant, no-problem check is not intrusive, then would it be intrusive for someone to enter your house through an open window in the middle of the night as long as you're not home and they only search through your stuff without taking anything? After all, they haven't endangered or inconvenienced you (and, presumably, you have nothing to hide) so where's the intrusion, right?

If you really don't find NICS intrusive, I'm betting you've never lived through the anger and humiliation of standing in a gun shop when the dealer announces that you've been denied. You know there's no reason for this, but everyone is looking at you and you feel like you have "CRIMINAL" branded across your forehead.
Why is this so terrible? Because at that moment, you understand what the check really is. Before you can exercise a human right, they're demanding that you prove that you're not guilty. They assume you're guilty but do a check just in case. You're nothing but another criminal nutball in their eyes and you didn't meet their standard of proof as to your fitness to own a weapon for self-defense.

And then the dealer calls back and gets an instant approval, and you realize that the fershlugginer system doesn't even friggin' work.

Words fail me.

MatthewM · May 9, 2001, 10:54 PM

1) Prison & Parol were originally intended as punishment. After the punishment has been meted out and the parol period completed, "felons" should automatically have their rights restored. It's in the legal code and these gun laws are phoney and go against the actual intent of the law.

2) Do you call someone who got drunk once in college an alcoholic when they are 50? Why label anyone who once committed a felony as a criminal?

3) Whatever you think of his personality, do you consider Liddy or Oliver North a "scumbag"?

4) The Bill of Rights calls those inumerated rights "UNALIENABLE". That means given to man by GOD and not to be abridged by our laws. What part of unalienable don't you understand.

5) I have personally worked with the Department of Justice and saw how 5 years ago they were well on their way to collecting an illegal database on everyone's DNA? Remember how the SS# wasn't supposed to be used for ID? Remember how we didn't have to give a fingerprint for a drivers license? Remember how we thought the government reading all our emails was searching our private messages without a warrant?

6) I know someone who is mentally ill and arrested for FELONY shoplifting for stealing a bag of potatoe chips.

7) Because a "felon" or a person who had a "restraining order" against them does not mean that they ever have or ever will use a gun in illegal violence against another.

All gun laws have nothing to do with preserving the peace, increasing your safety in your home, or any other noble cause. People by their nature want to go along to get along and that is what is being counted on and in some of the replies on this thread. It's the same thinking I read about amongst the Jews under Hitler, the Polish under Hitler, the French turncoats who wanted to keep their political power jobs of policeman and mayor and such.

Any politician who puts forward or supports laws that are against our constitution are breaking their oath and are against our form of government and are against us.
Any citizens who are lolled into going along with them are, well, $$^%##^$^$#%@@%$&%(*^)(*^, I just won't get into name calling....

KAM_Indianapolis · May 9, 2001, 11:10 PM

It's funny, I keep hearing this rhetoric "what part of infringe don't you understand." So I looked it up...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...y=infringe*1+0

infringe verb [T] FORMAL
to break (a rule, law etc.)

(formal) If you infringe a person's rights or their freedom, you prevent them from doing what they are legally allowed to do.

*************************

As stated by others, felons do not have the right to keep and bear arms. You can argue about non-violent vs violent all you want. The law of the land is what matters. If you're a felon and feel it's your right to carry a handgun, by all means, do so. If you're not and feel felons ought to have unfettered access to guns, go talk to your congress critters and the press, that's your right. I doubt you will get far.

Checking to see if I have been prohibited to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, does not prevent me from purchasing a firearm. It may delay it, it may be an inconvience, but it will not prevent me.

There are still private arms sales, there always will be, even if it violates some other law. You can always fashion your own firearm if you have the inclination.

If you don't like it, change the law. I think we have bigger fights to fight than this one. For the absolutist, our rights are already heavily erroded. We need to stem and stop the flood of really nasty regulations before we can erase the less onerous ones.

Q-Man · May 9, 2001, 11:17 PM

Back ground checks are wrong!

If a person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, why aren't they in prison, in the electric char, or in a penal colony?

MatthewM · May 9, 2001, 11:47 PM

KAM_Indianapolis,

Infringe: 2) to encroach or trespass (upon). ex Don't infringe upon his privacy. From the Latin "infringere" (to weaken or to break)

Sorry KAM, my dictionary is 4" thick and has 315,000 words. I've lost several scrabble turns where I used a correct word but the dictionary didn't know the word.

I looked back at the last few posts. No one used "what part of infringe". I DID use "what part of UNALIENABLE..."

Unalienable or Inalienable: Not capable of being repudiated.
syn: inviolable, aboslute, unassailable, inherent.
------------------------------------
You & others have said, "It's the law of the land & we are a nation of laws, so get over it".
In truth, we are a nation very specifically defined by our US Constitution. All "laws" which are contrary are invalid. Because polititians tend to pass invalid laws, we have courts and finally the Supreme Court. We also have elections and legislators who can rescind a law even after the Supreme court finds that law valid.

Our country and it's laws constently change and that is one reason we are here on TFL expressing ourselves rather than rushing out and blasting politicians.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 10, 2001, 08:03 AM

OK, How does the concept of the NIC system, prevent, or weaken your right to purchase a firearm?

Certainly I will agree that the way it is currently implimented can prevent a minority of people who have no criminal record from purchasing firearms. I see that as a flaw in the implimentation, not in the concept. The system should be improved.

I would guess the argument comes down to, do you believe the government is controlling your right to purchase a firearm by implimenting the NIC system?

The systems should only prevent you from purchasing if you are on the list of prohibited buyers.

Since I am not on the list I can purchase whatever firearms and as many firearms as I desire. Given this, are there any limits on my rights?

Quartus · May 10, 2001, 08:22 AM

"if you are on the list of prohibited buyers"

The Second Amendment prohibits the government from establishing any such class of "prohibited buyers".

Period.

Would the government have the Constitutional authority to establish a class of people who have had their 1st amendment rights taken away? A class of people who are not allowed to write letters to their Senator? Or not allowed to carry a protest sign at a rally? Or not allowed to BE at a rally? Or not allowed to attend the Church of their choice? Or are required to attend a State Church?

Whence cometh such authority? Certainly not from the Constitution.

The question, KAM, is not whether it is "the law of the land", but whether or not it is RIGHT. We know it's the law. We contend that it is WRONG, and further, that those who allow such abridgements of freedom in the name of "law and order" are the main reason we are in the mess we are in.

"They came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I said nothing..."

Do you know how the rest of that goes?

Kharn · May 10, 2001, 10:17 AM

The only background check I approve of is the shop owner asking anyone under 16: "Does your dad know you are buying a 10/22, how about an SKS?"

Kharn

Quartus · May 10, 2001, 12:15 PM

Works for me, Kharn!

kjm · May 10, 2001, 01:06 PM

OK, so a felon was convicted 20 years ago on a bicycle theft. Now he's older, has been supporting a family, and has been paying taxes, mortgage etc...
Suppose he's been accused of a murder that happened in another state where he's never been to, can the cops torture him (forced testimony) to get him to confess? Can they deny him a trial by jury? Can they draw and quarter him or burn him alive (though he might be completely innocent)?

That is your arguement for why felons cannot exercise their rights. You're arguement can be extrapolated accross a broad range of subjects and areas to shed light on your thinking processes. The constitution protects felons too. A felon cannot be denied rights because he's been convicted once before.

I might could even support the idea of banning felons from owning firearms if we actually had any grasp on what a felon is. A felon isn't a truckdriver who is driving a ton of marijuanna to Chicago from El Paso. He has hurt nobody, defrauded nobody, and has stolen nothing. There has been no victim, yet we lable him a felon because he offended the government and societal standards.

To me a felon is anyone who has caused a substantial amount of property damage, theft, loss of life, loss of liberty, assault, or some other well defined category of crime that hurts others in a substantial way. Not that he failed to notice that he placed a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower. That is not a felon to me nor was it to the founders. We need to get a grip on what a felon is before we begin to punish those who aren't real felons.

If a person formerly convicted of a felony, having paid his debt to society isn't secure in his constitutional rights, then who is? Lately all it takes is a 51% voice vote to create any class of felonies regardless of if there is a victim produced or not. This is in direct violation of the base of our laws which is in a particular philosophy outlined in the Declaration of independence: "That all men are created equal, and indowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that governments are constituted among men to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNED..."

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this, but I suppose I'm just a wierdo.

Jeff OTMG · May 10, 2001, 08:08 PM

MatthewM and kjm, you are correct, once the debt to society has been paid all rights should be fully restored. The problem we have is that many times people are released when, as Q-Man says, they shouldn't be out of jail and in the position to buy a gun in the first place.

kjm, I agree with you that some laws are felonies in some states and may not be a crime at all in others (carrying a handgun in New York City or doing it in Vermont comes to mind), but that is a problem of uniform definition across jurisdictions and under the 10th Amendment many things are suppose to be left to the states. However, I think that I would use my example rather than your drug trafficer to illustrate the point. There is a chance that the trafficer is a user as well and quite frankly having a pot smoking drug trafficer with a gun as a neighbor does not appeal to me.

I like Q-man's idea of incarceration. You get 10, you serve 10, not 2 or 3 with time off for good behavior. It was bad behavior that got them there in the first place.

Quote:

captainHoek- 'The Second Amendment prohibits the government from establishing any such class of "prohibited buyers".

That is not true. The 2nd Amendment provides for an individuals right to own firearms that the federal govt cannot infringe upon. The Supreme Court has repeated found that no right is absolute. Even the 1st Amendment right to free speech does not permit one to yell 'Fire' in a theater, nor does the right to bear arms include the right to own nuclear weapons. Hence the restrictions on convicted felons from voting and owning firearms. Remember the Constitution does not mean what it says, it means what the courts decide it means. Yes, the founding fathers also gave the court direction in how to interpret it, but it is still up to the courts to decide.

Quote:

captainHoek- You've just been told, "We don't trust you, and we have the right to make you wait [5 seconds or 5 days, it doesn't matter] until we decide you are fit to exercise your 2nd Amendment revocable privilege.".

But it does matter. 5 secs is not a substantial amount of time. 5 days is. You are confusing what is 'intrusive' with having your feelings hurt. This thread is about a background check, not waiting periods or record keeping.

Quote:

captainHoek- It is ALWAYS the principle that counts. It's not about how inconvenient the Government makes it when they violate the Constitution, it's about the violation.

True, but even an intrusive background check does not violate the 2nd Amendment IF it is not used to deny a person who may legally possess arms from doing so.

Quote:

captainHoek- The liberals have gotten as far as they have in destroying our freedoms by getting one piece at a time - sometimes very small pieces. And we've let them. But those small pieces have added up, and continue to add up. Check your history - tyrants have often used "law and order" as an excuse to strip away liberty. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Musslolini did it. Countless 2 bit 3rd world dictators have done it. Chicoms are doing it.

Once again you have taken the concept of a non-intrusive background check to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini stripping away liberty.

Don Gwinn

Quote:

Don Gwinn- If an instant, no-problem check is not intrusive, then would it be intrusive for someone to enter your house....

Don, I think that a background check and an uninvited home invasion are a bit different. The home invasion in itself is intrusive and an invasion of privacy. Just peeping in through an open window of your domicile is an invasion of privacy.

Quote:

Don Gwinn- If you really don't find NICS intrusive,.

I never said that I didn't find NICS intrusive. It is not intrusive to me because my CHL allows me to bypass it, but the NICS system is more than a background check. I means having to provide personal information that you do not get to retain control of in the forms of both the 4473 and the NICS record keeping. It can also take more than a couple of minutes to complete, that in itself is intrusive. Again, this thread is about background checks, not record keeping and not defacto waiting periods. I do not like the way NICS works, but it does not mean that I oppose background checks, just NICS background checks.

Note the first line in RHarris' original post that started this thread:
Who here supports background checks?

Cosmoline · May 10, 2001, 08:41 PM

Just a little bit of reality. If you think the Second Amendment, or any aspect of the Bill of Rights, is absolute, you are TOTALLY WRONG! Every sentence, every clause of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is, was, and always has been subject to interpretation. It may be that the instant checks are a perfectly Constitutional measure, or perhaps they're not. At this point we just don't know because the courts have abdicated their job of interpreting the Second Amendment. That's left the job to lay people and politicians, some of whom have a tendency to get carried away.

As far as ex-felons owning guns, by definition a "felony" is a crime historically punished by death. I say we return to the old ways and avoid the problem.

Quartus · May 10, 2001, 11:05 PM

Jeff wrote, "That is not true. The 2nd Amendment provides for an individuals right to own firearms that the federal govt cannot infringe upon."

<PICKY MODE ON>

Well, sort of. Substitute "arms" for firearms and you've got it. 2A recognizes my right to carry a 2 edged dagger, or a sword, for instance. (Don't know why you'd want to carry a sword for business, though. Maybe for fun.)

<PICKY MODE OFF>

"The Supreme Court has repeated found that no right is absolute."

The Supreme Court can "find" what it wants to. What the Constitution says is the law, though we don't practice it that way. But it is true that most rights are not absolute. But even that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not background checks are an infringment of the 2A.

And your comparison to restrictions on the First Amendment don't hold water. First of all, the 1A doesn't guarantee the right to yell FIRE, use profanity, or produce pornography. It has been expanded far beyond its original intent, while the others have been ignored or reduced. But my question hasn't been answered yet. We would (shudder!) actually join with liberals to object strongly if the guvmint tried to create a class of people who were denied their 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights. Why do we imagine that it's okay to do that with the 2A? And that is the ONLY rationale for background checks!!!!!

(Or would we? No, some of us(?) think it's just fine for one class of people - suspected drug dealers. Screw the 4th amendment as far as those people are concerned!)

"Once again you have taken the concept of a non-intrusive background check to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini stripping
away liberty."

Well of course! DUH! That's what it's all about! That's what all gun control has always been about! Read the literature of the antis, for crying out loud! They don't hide it! They spell it out! "We'll use "crime control" as an excuse to get in gun control! Use background checks to create a database so we can go back and confiscate!" THE ANTIS EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THIS IS THEIR INTENT!!!!! And they've done it elsewhere! Hello, Australia! What world do you live in that you think it won't happen here?

Do you know how to boil a frog?

BTW, someone please tell me two things:

1. Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the authority to "interpret" the Constitution? Yes, I know they've assumed that power, but where do they get the authority? (Power and authority are not the same.)

2. Why is it okay to take away the Constitutional rights of a class of people?

PDshooter · May 11, 2001, 12:05 AM

State background ck, only. Not FED,

Dennis · May 11, 2001, 07:52 AM

KAM,

“The law of the land is what matters.”

I agree. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution.

“If you're a felon and feel it's your right to carry a handgun, by all
means, do so. If you're not and feel felons ought to have unfettered
access to guns,...”

If find no comment about felons in the Second Amendment.
Therefore, once freed, the previously incarcerated again is a citizen
protected by the Bill of Rights. What I “feel” is irrelevant compared
to the Constitution.

“... go talk to your congress critters and the press, that's your right. I
doubt you will get far.”

I agree. Our various levels of government violate the Constitution
daily. The fact that we permit, encourage and enforce these
violations does not make them Constitutional. CaptainHoek makes the
point nicely.

-----

PD Shooter,

The Bill of Rights restricts ALL our many layers of government -
including the states, counties, townships, cities, etc. A Constitutional
violation by a State is not less Unconstitutional than the same
violation by our federal dynasty.

Not even San Antonio has the authority to violate the Second
Amendment - but they have, they do, and peaceful people are fined
and go to jail regularly after being convicted of unconstitutional laws.

And the people continue to elect the same tyrants (be they Republicans or
Democrats) in every election. It’s amazing and very, very sad.

Munro Williams · May 11, 2001, 08:28 AM

I used to work in a psych ward, and we once had a patient come in restrained by eight LEO's. The patient had to be immediately put into eight point restraints. He'd get a shot, go to sleep, then we would remove the restraints, because double restraints are not therapeutic. He'd wake up in a psychotic rage and we'd repeat the process. This went on for days. Eventually, he could walk around for a few minutes before going berserk. The minutes turned to hours.

One morning he walked up to the nurses' station as usual, and we were watching him like a hawk, without him knowing it. He asked us if any of us wanted a shotgun. This was lucid, so I asked him what kind it was, and we had a reality based conversation about firearms. He understood why I preferred black powder, which indicated a connection of a series of reality based concepts which showed that he was making great progress indeed. He finally admitted that he had pawned his shotgun, showed me the ticket, and then said, "Man, I got a mental problem. I don't need no shotgun!"

We didn't have to physically restrain him that day, and he started to take his medication orally. When he was on his medication, he was lucid and rational, he was the sweetest, brightest, and wittiest of folks. You wouldn't object to him dating your sister. But when he stopped taking his meds he was literally an unshackled monster.

Now, I ask you, should this man be allowed to own a firearm? Or even be allowed to drive a car?

scud · May 11, 2001, 08:40 AM

I don't support anything that can be used by my government against us. Today "most" people can buy guns w/ the background check in place but next week, when yet more misdemeanors are designated as reasons to prohibit posession, the power of their enforcement will be in the background check. The reasons to be denied will always grow, this week misdemeanors ( such as domestic dispute ), next week "those at risk of violence" - to be determined by the state, never know, could include right wing gun nuts, after all, we are all McVeigh's waiting to happen according to our enlightened media. You will never win with compromise, and it is always a loosing proposition to proactively legislate away peoples rights because of what they "might" do. Labgrade posted a good thread on that a while back.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 11, 2001, 10:07 AM

From peoples comments I take it that parolee's (of at least violent crimes), escaped convicts, the mentally deranged should not have the right to purchase firearms.

So what's the lest intrusive method of discovering this information? Lest intrusive to both the law-abiding gun purchaser, and the gun store owner/employee.

MatthewM · May 11, 2001, 10:27 AM

KAM,
That's easy, pass a law stating that someone mentally ill should be disallowed for 5 yrs & require another evaluation. Parolee's banned until parole over. Violent felons banned for 5 years.

Now, as far as "preventing"... How do you prevent a person who has never murdered from murdering? How do you prevent a habitual shoplifter from shoplifting?
With all other crimes there aren't any proactive measures taken, so why with guns? What is so special about them.
The only thing I can think of would be to maintain a database with name & SS# and drivers lic# and require that a dealer access the database check. He could initial his records that he did check it on so and so date. Good enough for me.

Sex offenders are required to register with the police dept where they live, yet many don't and there are no databases maintained so that you can make sure your neighbor is not a convicted sex offender. Why make buying guns a bigger deal than living next to a known child molestor?

May 9, 2001, 08:16 PM	#26
WAGCEVP Senior Member Join Date: August 13, 2000 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,989	I dispise back ground checks.... they are unconstitutional! They are a backdoor gun owner registration! ===== -----------------Begin LSAS Article---------------- "Instant Check": Why Doesn't the NRA Check The Constitution? Article in the LIBERTY POLE By Daniel Schultz of Lawyers Second Amendment Society The NRA has publicly offered its support of the so-called federal "instant check" legislation that would purportedly create a computerized system to check to see whether the purchaser of a firearm had a criminal or other record that prohibited the purchaser from obtaining a firearm. The NRA apparently believes that such a system would not be used by the government to keep track of which citizens own firearms, how many firearms, and of what type, accepting the assurances of the proponents of such a system. Such trust flies in the face of common sense and the history of governmental abuse of power in this country and elsewhere. But whether one trusts the federal government to obey the law is not really the point. An "Instant Check" system is beyond the authority of the government. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution delineates the subjects of congressional legislative power. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is the power granted to the federal congress to police the sales of firearms. Indeed, the text of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the writings of John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers make clear that the federal government was to have no local police powers , and certainly no power over the citizen's unalienable right to keep and bear arms. One positive thing resulting from President Clinton's many travails is that reporters are having to examine the text of the Constitution in order to write intelligently about the constitutional issues he has raised, be it his assertion of "executive privilege", the meaning of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" or the procedure for impeachment. Likewise, on the subject of gun registration and confiscation, the proponents of "instant check" should first read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which clearly provides no police power over citizen's inalienable right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Months ago I wrote the NRA, asking it to provide me with evidence that the US Congress has authority under the constitution to police firearms purchases of law-abiding citizens. To date, I have not received a response. I am a life member, but I part company with it when it becomes the advocate for gun registration, which historically has always preceded gun confiscation. From now on the money and time I would have given NRA will be used to support Gunowners of America, which actively opposes "instant check" legislation. I urge you to do the same. -------End of LSAS Article---------- LSAS is Lawyers Second Amendment Society http:www.thelsas.org

May 9, 2001, 08:17 PM	#27
WAGCEVP Senior Member Join Date: August 13, 2000 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,989	GOA on "instant Check" The Supreme Court, the Brady Law, and the National Instant Check -- don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory For Immediate Release July 1, 1997 Say "No" To Instant Registration Check Don't Use Brady Decision as Springboard to Push Gun Control A Message From Larry Pratt, Executive Director (Springfield, VA) - The Supreme Court decision on the Brady law is a landmark victory not only for gun owners but for all people concerned that the federal government is too large and intrusive. The Court ruled that Congress cannot commandeer the resources of a state to do its anti-gun bidding. This decision breathes new life into the 10th Amendment and our Republican form of government. However, many people and organizations are using the ruling against Brady to push for an alternate form of gun control which is worse than that struck down by the Court. Gun owners won in this case, but now many pro-gun people are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing for a national instant registration check. The Court ruled that the states cannot be compelled to perform background checks on gun purchasers. But now people are saying that the federal government should perform the task. Why would any sound thinking person suggest that it is better for the federal government to compile a list of gun owners, rather than the states. Supporters of the instant registration check are either missing the point of Friday's ruling or are simply concerned with the unfunded mandate provisions of Brady. The unfunded mandate was one argument used to strike a blow at gun registration - it was not all we should have been concerned about. As Sheriff Richard Mack noted, it wasn't the unfunded part that bothered him, because you couldn't pay him to run the checks. The ruling on Brady should be used as a stepping stone towards the restoration of the Second Amendment, not its destruction. The instant check will, in simple terms, lead to the registration of gun owners. Pro-gun Americans should not support the idea of all lawful citizens being forced to go to the government for permission prior to being allowed to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, will felons intent on committing crimes first seek government approval before obtaining a firearm illegally?

May 9, 2001, 08:25 PM	#28
WAGCEVP Senior Member Join Date: August 13, 2000 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,989	The Libertarian Take on the ic... ======================================= NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 ======================================= For release: December 3, 1998 ======================================= For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: [email protected] ======================================= Abolish the instant check gun system before innocent Americans are killed WASHINGTON, DC -- The government's so-called "instant background checks" for gun buyers should be abolished immediately before any innocent Americans are robbed, raped, or murdered while waiting to buy a firearm, the Libertarian Party said today. The party's demand follows an admission by the FBI that because of telephone and computer glitches, 34% of all gun buyers -- or 1,688 people on Monday alone -- were unable to buy a gun. Meanwhile, just one-quarter of one percent of would-be gun-buyers were rejected because of a criminal record -- meaning that 135 law-abiding citizens were denied a gun for every criminal rejected during the first day of the new program. "How many Americans have just been sentenced to death by bureaucracy as a result of the government's failed instant check system?" asked Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. "If even one American is harmed while waiting for government approval to defend themselves, it's one too many -- which is why these background checks should be abolished immediately." The national "instant check" system, which replaces the five-day waiting period mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill, requires each of the nation's 105,000 gun dealers to call the FBI to run an instant criminal background check on anyone trying to buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. "The problem is that criminals are the only Americans who benefit from such background checks, because they don't take them," Dasbach said. "Real criminals have no problem getting guns. In fact, a recent Justice Department survey of convicted criminals found that 93% had acquired their guns illegally. "But by forcing law-abiding citizens to wait for days and weeks to buy a firearm, the government has painted a target on their backs." Forcing Americans to undergo background checks is not only unsafe -- it's un-American and unconstitutional, too, Dasbach said. "An instant check of the Constitution reminds us that the government doesn't have the authority to restrict gun ownership -- period. It's outrageous for politicians to require a background check as a condition of exercising any Constitutional right," he said. "The government has no more right to demand that you submit to a background check before exercising your Second Amendment right to buy a gun than it does to require a background check before exercising your First Amendment right to publish a newspaper or go to church." However, Dasbach acknowledged one practical difference between the First and Second Amendment rights in this case: "No lives are immediately jeopardized by failure to publish a newspaper, but innumerable lives have been put in danger this week by the government's refusal to allow Americans to buy a gun to defend themselves." And if you run an "instant check" on the behavior of Congress, you'll see that it can't be trusted when it meddles with the Constitution -- or our safety, said Dasbach. "If you supported the Brady Bill, you trusted the politicians when they said this law would just keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Instead, innocent Americans have been unfairly denied a fundamental right -- the right to protect themselves and their families. "In other words, Americans have once again had their liberty sacrificed for the promise of safety. Unfortunately, the failure of the instant-check system guarantees that many Americans will have neither." The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 For subscription changes, please mail to <[email protected]> with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.

May 9, 2001, 08:30 PM	#29
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	You missed the point of 2A KAM_Indianapolis asked, "Do you support the un-fetterd access to firearms by felons?" Absolutely, it's called the Second Amendment. The proper way to deal with a person who commits a crime is to punish them FOR THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED and then forget it. (In Clinton's case, that would be hanging.) If the punishment is appropriate, there will be very few repeat offenders. JeffOTMG opined, "I do not have a problem with it as it is not intrusive." How not, sir? You've just been told, "We don't trust you, and we have the right to make you wait [5 seconds or 5 days, it doesn't matter] until we decide you are fit to exercise your 2nd Amendment revocable privilege." It is ALWAYS the principle that counts. It's not about how inconvenient the Government makes it when they violate the Constitution, it's about the violation. Freedom ain't free. I think it was it Jefferson who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The liberals have gotten as far as they have in destroying our freedoms by getting one piece at a time - sometimes very small pieces. And we've let them. But those small pieces have added up, and continue to add up. Check your history - tyrants have often used "law and order" as an excuse to strip away liberty. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Musslolini did it. Countless 2 bit 3rd world dictators have done it. Chicoms are doing it. Gentlemen, the United States Congress is doing it. Will you help them? Or will you say no?

May 10, 2001, 08:22 AM	#38
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	KAM, you still don't get it "if you are on the list of prohibited buyers" The Second Amendment prohibits the government from establishing any such class of "prohibited buyers". Period. Would the government have the Constitutional authority to establish a class of people who have had their 1st amendment rights taken away? A class of people who are not allowed to write letters to their Senator? Or not allowed to carry a protest sign at a rally? Or not allowed to BE at a rally? Or not allowed to attend the Church of their choice? Or are required to attend a State Church? Whence cometh such authority? Certainly not from the Constitution. The question, KAM, is not whether it is "the law of the land", but whether or not it is RIGHT. We know it's the law. We contend that it is WRONG, and further, that those who allow such abridgements of freedom in the name of "law and order" are the main reason we are in the mess we are in. "They came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I said nothing..." Do you know how the rest of that goes? __________________ . Better to know what you don't know than to think you know what you don't know.

May 9, 2001, 08:38 PM	#30
Cosmoline Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2000 Posts: 1,080	I'm going to SUGGEST, just SUGGEST, that some real good has come out of background checks, though it's not at all what the Liberals expected. Namely, the instant check has helped take sound and fury away from the antis. At least at a national level, it's much more difficult for them to get anti-gun legislation through now that we legitimate gun owners have been forced to prove we're really legitimate. Their battle has now switched to the states, since they have much less hope of a federal ban. I can't prove it, but my guess is without the Brady Bill, the yinyangs in DC would have outlawed sale, or even possession, of .50 BMG's at the very least and perhaps even passed Kalifornia-style regulations. Now, the most the antis can hope for is an extension of the Brady Bill to private sales. That said, I'm certainly not a big fan of background checks. One of the biggest problems is the "domestic violence" category, since the standard for getting one of those restraining orders is absurdly low in most states. These days they're a routine part of many hostile divorce proceedings. The first one to ask for one gets it, facts be damned, and can then use the order as ammunition against the other spouse. Very nasty stuff.

May 9, 2001, 09:41 PM	#31
cuerno de chivo Junior member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Posts: 919	I am TOTALLY AGAINST background checks among other TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL things that supposed pro-gunners support.

May 9, 2001, 10:20 PM	#32
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	If an instant, no-problem check is not intrusive, then would it be intrusive for someone to enter your house through an open window in the middle of the night as long as you're not home and they only search through your stuff without taking anything? After all, they haven't endangered or inconvenienced you (and, presumably, you have nothing to hide) so where's the intrusion, right? If you really don't find NICS intrusive, I'm betting you've never lived through the anger and humiliation of standing in a gun shop when the dealer announces that you've been denied. You know there's no reason for this, but everyone is looking at you and you feel like you have "CRIMINAL" branded across your forehead. Why is this so terrible? Because at that moment, you understand what the check really is. Before you can exercise a human right, they're demanding that you prove that you're not guilty. They assume you're guilty but do a check just in case. You're nothing but another criminal nutball in their eyes and you didn't meet their standard of proof as to your fitness to own a weapon for self-defense. And then the dealer calls back and gets an instant approval, and you realize that the fershlugginer system doesn't even friggin' work. Words fail me.

May 9, 2001, 10:54 PM	#33
MatthewM Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2001 Posts: 1,003	1) Prison & Parol were originally intended as punishment. After the punishment has been meted out and the parol period completed, "felons" should automatically have their rights restored. It's in the legal code and these gun laws are phoney and go against the actual intent of the law. 2) Do you call someone who got drunk once in college an alcoholic when they are 50? Why label anyone who once committed a felony as a criminal? 3) Whatever you think of his personality, do you consider Liddy or Oliver North a "scumbag"? 4) The Bill of Rights calls those inumerated rights "UNALIENABLE". That means given to man by GOD and not to be abridged by our laws. What part of unalienable don't you understand. 5) I have personally worked with the Department of Justice and saw how 5 years ago they were well on their way to collecting an illegal database on everyone's DNA? Remember how the SS# wasn't supposed to be used for ID? Remember how we didn't have to give a fingerprint for a drivers license? Remember how we thought the government reading all our emails was searching our private messages without a warrant? 6) I know someone who is mentally ill and arrested for FELONY shoplifting for stealing a bag of potatoe chips. 7) Because a "felon" or a person who had a "restraining order" against them does not mean that they ever have or ever will use a gun in illegal violence against another. All gun laws have nothing to do with preserving the peace, increasing your safety in your home, or any other noble cause. People by their nature want to go along to get along and that is what is being counted on and in some of the replies on this thread. It's the same thinking I read about amongst the Jews under Hitler, the Polish under Hitler, the French turncoats who wanted to keep their political power jobs of policeman and mayor and such. Any politician who puts forward or supports laws that are against our constitution are breaking their oath and are against our form of government and are against us. Any citizens who are lolled into going along with them are, well, $$^%##^$^$#%@@%$&%(^)(^, I just won't get into name calling....

May 9, 2001, 11:10 PM	#34
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	It's funny, I keep hearing this rhetoric "what part of infringe don't you understand." So I looked it up... http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...y=infringe1+0 infringe verb [T] FORMAL to break (a rule, law etc.) (formal) If you infringe a person's rights or their freedom, you prevent them from doing what they are legally allowed to do. ************************ As stated by others, felons do not have the right to keep and bear arms. You can argue about non-violent vs violent all you want. The law of the land is what matters. If you're a felon and feel it's your right to carry a handgun, by all means, do so. If you're not and feel felons ought to have unfettered access to guns, go talk to your congress critters and the press, that's your right. I doubt you will get far. Checking to see if I have been prohibited to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, does not prevent me from purchasing a firearm. It may delay it, it may be an inconvience, but it will not prevent me. There are still private arms sales, there always will be, even if it violates some other law. You can always fashion your own firearm if you have the inclination. If you don't like it, change the law. I think we have bigger fights to fight than this one. For the absolutist, our rights are already heavily erroded. We need to stem and stop the flood of really nasty regulations before we can erase the less onerous ones.

May 9, 2001, 11:17 PM	#35
Q-Man Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2001 Posts: 307	Back ground checks are wrong! If a person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, why aren't they in prison, in the electric char, or in a penal colony?

May 9, 2001, 11:47 PM	#36
MatthewM Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2001 Posts: 1,003	KAM_Indianapolis, Infringe: 2) to encroach or trespass (upon). ex Don't infringe upon his privacy. From the Latin "infringere" (to weaken or to break) Sorry KAM, my dictionary is 4" thick and has 315,000 words. I've lost several scrabble turns where I used a correct word but the dictionary didn't know the word. I looked back at the last few posts. No one used "what part of infringe". I DID use "what part of UNALIENABLE..." Unalienable or Inalienable: Not capable of being repudiated. syn: inviolable, aboslute, unassailable, inherent. ------------------------------------ You & others have said, "It's the law of the land & we are a nation of laws, so get over it". In truth, we are a nation very specifically defined by our US Constitution. All "laws" which are contrary are invalid. Because polititians tend to pass invalid laws, we have courts and finally the Supreme Court. We also have elections and legislators who can rescind a law even after the Supreme court finds that law valid. Our country and it's laws constently change and that is one reason we are here on TFL expressing ourselves rather than rushing out and blasting politicians.

May 10, 2001, 08:03 AM	#37
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	OK, How does the concept of the NIC system, prevent, or weaken your right to purchase a firearm? Certainly I will agree that the way it is currently implimented can prevent a minority of people who have no criminal record from purchasing firearms. I see that as a flaw in the implimentation, not in the concept. The system should be improved. I would guess the argument comes down to, do you believe the government is controlling your right to purchase a firearm by implimenting the NIC system? The systems should only prevent you from purchasing if you are on the list of prohibited buyers. Since I am not on the list I can purchase whatever firearms and as many firearms as I desire. Given this, are there any limits on my rights?

May 10, 2001, 10:17 AM	#39
Kharn Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,531	The only background check I approve of is the shop owner asking anyone under 16: "Does your dad know you are buying a 10/22, how about an SKS?" Kharn

May 10, 2001, 12:15 PM	#40
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	Works for me, Kharn!

May 10, 2001, 01:06 PM	#41
kjm Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: College Station, Texas Posts: 1,871	OK, so a felon was convicted 20 years ago on a bicycle theft. Now he's older, has been supporting a family, and has been paying taxes, mortgage etc... Suppose he's been accused of a murder that happened in another state where he's never been to, can the cops torture him (forced testimony) to get him to confess? Can they deny him a trial by jury? Can they draw and quarter him or burn him alive (though he might be completely innocent)? That is your arguement for why felons cannot exercise their rights. You're arguement can be extrapolated accross a broad range of subjects and areas to shed light on your thinking processes. The constitution protects felons too. A felon cannot be denied rights because he's been convicted once before. I might could even support the idea of banning felons from owning firearms if we actually had any grasp on what a felon is. A felon isn't a truckdriver who is driving a ton of marijuanna to Chicago from El Paso. He has hurt nobody, defrauded nobody, and has stolen nothing. There has been no victim, yet we lable him a felon because he offended the government and societal standards. To me a felon is anyone who has caused a substantial amount of property damage, theft, loss of life, loss of liberty, assault, or some other well defined category of crime that hurts others in a substantial way. Not that he failed to notice that he placed a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower. That is not a felon to me nor was it to the founders. We need to get a grip on what a felon is before we begin to punish those who aren't real felons. If a person formerly convicted of a felony, having paid his debt to society isn't secure in his constitutional rights, then who is? Lately all it takes is a 51% voice vote to create any class of felonies regardless of if there is a victim produced or not. This is in direct violation of the base of our laws which is in a particular philosophy outlined in the Declaration of independence: "That all men are created equal, and indowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that governments are constituted among men to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNED..." I don't see what is so hard to understand about this, but I suppose I'm just a wierdo.

May 10, 2001, 08:41 PM	#43
Cosmoline Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2000 Posts: 1,080	Just a little bit of reality. If you think the Second Amendment, or any aspect of the Bill of Rights, is absolute, you are TOTALLY WRONG! Every sentence, every clause of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is, was, and always has been subject to interpretation. It may be that the instant checks are a perfectly Constitutional measure, or perhaps they're not. At this point we just don't know because the courts have abdicated their job of interpreting the Second Amendment. That's left the job to lay people and politicians, some of whom have a tendency to get carried away. As far as ex-felons owning guns, by definition a "felony" is a crime historically punished by death. I say we return to the old ways and avoid the problem.

May 10, 2001, 11:05 PM	#44
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	Jeff wrote, "That is not true. The 2nd Amendment provides for an individuals right to own firearms that the federal govt cannot infringe upon." <PICKY MODE ON> Well, sort of. Substitute "arms" for firearms and you've got it. 2A recognizes my right to carry a 2 edged dagger, or a sword, for instance. (Don't know why you'd want to carry a sword for business, though. Maybe for fun.) <PICKY MODE OFF> "The Supreme Court has repeated found that no right is absolute." The Supreme Court can "find" what it wants to. What the Constitution says is the law, though we don't practice it that way. But it is true that most rights are not absolute. But even that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not background checks are an infringment of the 2A. And your comparison to restrictions on the First Amendment don't hold water. First of all, the 1A doesn't guarantee the right to yell FIRE, use profanity, or produce pornography. It has been expanded far beyond its original intent, while the others have been ignored or reduced. But my question hasn't been answered yet. We would (shudder!) actually join with liberals to object strongly if the guvmint tried to create a class of people who were denied their 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights. Why do we imagine that it's okay to do that with the 2A? And that is the ONLY rationale for background checks!!!!! (Or would we? No, some of us(?) think it's just fine for one class of people - suspected drug dealers. Screw the 4th amendment as far as those people are concerned!) "Once again you have taken the concept of a non-intrusive background check to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini stripping away liberty." Well of course! DUH! That's what it's all about! That's what all gun control has always been about! Read the literature of the antis, for crying out loud! They don't hide it! They spell it out! "We'll use "crime control" as an excuse to get in gun control! Use background checks to create a database so we can go back and confiscate!" THE ANTIS EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THIS IS THEIR INTENT!!!!! And they've done it elsewhere! Hello, Australia! What world do you live in that you think it won't happen here? Do you know how to boil a frog? BTW, someone please tell me two things: 1. Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the authority to "interpret" the Constitution? Yes, I know they've assumed that power, but where do they get the authority? (Power and authority are not the same.) 2. Why is it okay to take away the Constitutional rights of a class of people?

May 11, 2001, 12:05 AM	#45
PDshooter Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2000 Location: Indiana Posts: 607	State background ck, only. Not FED,

May 11, 2001, 07:52 AM	#46
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	KAM, “The law of the land is what matters.” I agree. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. “If you're a felon and feel it's your right to carry a handgun, by all means, do so. If you're not and feel felons ought to have unfettered access to guns,...” If find no comment about felons in the Second Amendment. Therefore, once freed, the previously incarcerated again is a citizen protected by the Bill of Rights. What I “feel” is irrelevant compared to the Constitution. “... go talk to your congress critters and the press, that's your right. I doubt you will get far.” I agree. Our various levels of government violate the Constitution daily. The fact that we permit, encourage and enforce these violations does not make them Constitutional. CaptainHoek makes the point nicely. ----- PD Shooter, The Bill of Rights restricts ALL our many layers of government - including the states, counties, townships, cities, etc. A Constitutional violation by a State is not less Unconstitutional than the same violation by our federal dynasty. Not even San Antonio has the authority to violate the Second Amendment - but they have, they do, and peaceful people are fined and go to jail regularly after being convicted of unconstitutional laws. And the people continue to elect the same tyrants (be they Republicans or Democrats) in every election. It’s amazing and very, very sad.

May 11, 2001, 08:28 AM	#47
Munro Williams Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2000 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 936	This is a complicated question I used to work in a psych ward, and we once had a patient come in restrained by eight LEO's. The patient had to be immediately put into eight point restraints. He'd get a shot, go to sleep, then we would remove the restraints, because double restraints are not therapeutic. He'd wake up in a psychotic rage and we'd repeat the process. This went on for days. Eventually, he could walk around for a few minutes before going berserk. The minutes turned to hours. One morning he walked up to the nurses' station as usual, and we were watching him like a hawk, without him knowing it. He asked us if any of us wanted a shotgun. This was lucid, so I asked him what kind it was, and we had a reality based conversation about firearms. He understood why I preferred black powder, which indicated a connection of a series of reality based concepts which showed that he was making great progress indeed. He finally admitted that he had pawned his shotgun, showed me the ticket, and then said, "Man, I got a mental problem. I don't need no shotgun!" We didn't have to physically restrain him that day, and he started to take his medication orally. When he was on his medication, he was lucid and rational, he was the sweetest, brightest, and wittiest of folks. You wouldn't object to him dating your sister. But when he stopped taking his meds he was literally an unshackled monster. Now, I ask you, should this man be allowed to own a firearm? Or even be allowed to drive a car?

May 11, 2001, 08:40 AM	#48
scud Senior Member Join Date: February 4, 2000 Location: Tampa FL Posts: 1,094	I don't support anything that can be used by my government against us. Today "most" people can buy guns w/ the background check in place but next week, when yet more misdemeanors are designated as reasons to prohibit posession, the power of their enforcement will be in the background check. The reasons to be denied will always grow, this week misdemeanors ( such as domestic dispute ), next week "those at risk of violence" - to be determined by the state, never know, could include right wing gun nuts, after all, we are all McVeigh's waiting to happen according to our enlightened media. You will never win with compromise, and it is always a loosing proposition to proactively legislate away peoples rights because of what they "might" do. Labgrade posted a good thread on that a while back.

May 11, 2001, 10:07 AM	#49
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	From peoples comments I take it that parolee's (of at least violent crimes), escaped convicts, the mentally deranged should not have the right to purchase firearms. So what's the lest intrusive method of discovering this information? Lest intrusive to both the law-abiding gun purchaser, and the gun store owner/employee.

May 11, 2001, 10:27 AM	#50
MatthewM Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2001 Posts: 1,003	KAM, That's easy, pass a law stating that someone mentally ill should be disallowed for 5 yrs & require another evaluation. Parolee's banned until parole over. Violent felons banned for 5 years. Now, as far as "preventing"... How do you prevent a person who has never murdered from murdering? How do you prevent a habitual shoplifter from shoplifting? With all other crimes there aren't any proactive measures taken, so why with guns? What is so special about them. The only thing I can think of would be to maintain a database with name & SS# and drivers lic# and require that a dealer access the database check. He could initial his records that he did check it on so and so date. Good enough for me. Sex offenders are required to register with the police dept where they live, yet many don't and there are no databases maintained so that you can make sure your neighbor is not a convicted sex offender. Why make buying guns a bigger deal than living next to a known child molestor?