Who here supports "background" checks? - Page 3

DAVID NANCARROW · May 11, 2001, 10:55 AM

I support background checks in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM! I really don't believe any government can be trusted to stay within their Constitutional boundaries. The RICO law was aimed at drug runners and organized crime members carrying large amounts of cash and shady property holdings-allowing LE to seize. Problem is the law is being abused left and right. Same with back ground checks. The Second Amendment only serves to confirm a God given right. A Federal Judge in Texas is on the right path: Emerson vs US I believe is the case. The good Judge has ruled that Federal gun laws are unconstitutional! Hope this turns out to be the the tip of the spear that takes away the chains on honest citizens. Getting rid of Louie The Terrible is a good step foreward IMHO. Don't want elected officials stomping on my rights, and sure don't need appointed officials doing the same thing!

Quartus · May 11, 2001, 10:04 PM

"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."

First, where'd you get that from this thread? I didn't see that.

KAM, there shouldn't BE any such thing as a 'parolee'. Prison is a very stupid way to punish those who commit a crime. Corporal punishment and requiring restitution work. Crime colleges don't.

Folks, this is as much a part of the gun control problem as the antis. We need a criminal JUSTICE system, not a psycho-babble playground. As long as the current system continues, we are fighting a very uphill battle to get all of these unconstitutional laws overturned. The boogeyman of the "felons" is too easy for the antis to conjure up. The majority considers 'safety' to be more important than liberty. What if murderers were caught, convicted, and executed within weeks, rather than the current average of 17 YEARS? What if purse snatchers were flogged and required to pay back 3 times what they stole? You'd see the crime rate fall through the floor, taking the antis biggest argument with it.

(This is so obvious, I've even got a liberal femiNazi at work who agrees with me on this!)

And as for the mentally deranged, they are probably the only people who should be locked up. Someone as psychotic as an earlier post described should not be roaming the streets. They have demonstrated that they cannot function rationally.

Of coiurse, with lots of armed honest people about those folks are less of a threat. Still, they are a threat.

BTW, I had to help wrestle such a person to the ground once, and hold him for police, while the psych nurse who had the bad judgement to bring him to her father's house screamed, "Don't hurt him!" Had I not been preoccupied, I think I'd have broken one of my mother's rules and smacked her. It's not fun being around such, and the general populace shouldn't have to. Keep them away from guns? They should be kept away from cars, knives, household cleaners, children... The list goes on.

tc556guy · May 12, 2001, 07:57 AM

As long as it's an instant check, I can live with it.

tc556guy · May 12, 2001, 08:01 AM

If you guys think that released felons should have ALL their rights restored, I think you need to rethink that. Prison is short-term containment only, not rehabilitation. I don't want a pedophile or rapist to be able to lawfully buy a firearm when they are released from prison. Their actions have shown that they cannot be trusted to act in a civilized manner within the rule of law. They have chosen to break the law; they should live with the consequences!

Quartus · May 12, 2001, 08:59 AM

tcsd1236 wrote:

"I don't want a pedophile or rapist to be able to lawfully buy a firearm when they are released from prison."

I don't want them PUT in prison in the first place. (Except while awaiting trial, of course.) I want them executed, promptly. BTW, sex offenders rarely use firearms. Bad example.

"They have chosen to break the law; they should live with the consequences!"

Yes, THEY have. Why should I live with the consequesnces? And how long should, say, a bank robber live with the consequences? All his life?

And all of this completely misses the point of background checks. Their stated purpose is to create a de facto registration of firearms, for the purpose of later confiscation. Why is that so hard to understand? What, do you guys trust the government? Or are you so afraid of gang bangers that you are glad to take the risk of losing your freedom so that Big Brother will take care of you?

"Those who give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And, I might add, they will eventually have neither.

Keiller TN · May 12, 2001, 10:29 AM

If there are background checks for gun purchases, then why not for cars? The buyer may have a history of drunk driving, etc., etc.
Any record of the sale should be erased once I'm cleared for the sale. Otherwise, the background check becomes a de facto registration, like Dennis said.

[Edited by Keiller TN on 05-12-2001 at 03:50 PM]

Dennis · May 12, 2001, 10:34 AM

Munro,

“This is a complicated question.”

No, sir, it is not.

If a person is suspected of murder, he is secured (in jail) pending
evaluation (magistrated) and evaluated (indicted and tried for his/her
crime).

If a person is suspected of mental disability, he should be secured (as
appropriate) pending evaluation (by appropriate psychologists) and
evaluated (by the courts using the psychiatric evaluation).

If one is convicted of murder, he is separated from society (prison or
death).

If one is “convicted” of a mental problem, he must undergo
appropriate treatment (eg training, medication, separation from
society, etc.).

To lower everyone to the level of the potential mentally disabled is no
less immoral than to lower everyone to the level of a potential
murderer.

Do not permit “social training” to blind common sense.

tc556guy · May 12, 2001, 11:33 AM

Anyone can lawfully own a car, they just cannot take it out onto the public highway, or even lawfully register it if they are suspended/ revoked.
Admittedly, the sex offender was a bad example; I used it as an example of a criminal who usually doesn't reform.
With the hulabaloo over the death penalty for accused MURDERERS, I doubt you'd ever see the death penalty for sex crimes, as much as most would like to see it. Plus, there is a wide variance between the states as to what constitutes a sex crime. Up here in NY, a person has to be 17 years old to give informed consent to have sex; down south I hear it goes as low as 13 or 14. There are people convicted of "sex crimes" in states like mine that wouldn't have been arrested down South.

Dennis: The mental health advocates lobby tirelessly to minimize the restrictions on mental patients. Many mental patients do not recognize that they are a harm to society. They take their meds, then say "hey, I'm fine, I don't need these pills." After going off the meds, they revert to their dementia. The system is really screwed up because we've let the inmates out of the asylum.

Dennis · May 12, 2001, 10:54 PM

Tcsd,
Uh huh. I had some experience with that during my EMS days. It happens with folks with mental disabilities who are on truly heavy-duty meds, it happens with epileptics, and people with high blood pressure.

When the threat is no longer perceived to be as great a problem as the cost and side effects of the medication, many patients stop taking their meds - frequently with grave results. (No pun intended!)

Sorry, but if they get into trouble, it's their fault (or the fault of their guardian). If they can not function in society without hurting other people, then they need more supervision - perhaps in a closed environment.

jimc · May 13, 2001, 12:38 AM

kam
after reading the whole 3 pages about bg checks. it has come across that you are the gun owner who feels that ak-47's as well as any style of semi-auto military look-a-like gun should be banned because it has "no sporting purpose"
i hear from people like you every once in a while in gun stores. i do not like nor care for bg checks. i have no problem passing them and it does not prevent me from buying guns. but your "logic' belongs on the pages of HCI or some other anti gun web site
and if you truely believe that these checks are slowing down felons from buying guns, you are living in a dream world.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 13, 2001, 10:05 AM

jimc - you hardly know me (and the M1 Garand in my gun cabinet might be in disagreement with you), and I would disagree with you that my posts indicate some lack of logic.

When looking at a law we need only look at it's constitutionality, not whether it is effective. I've yet to see a law taken off the books because it was ineffective (except maybe the 18th Amendment.)

I am asking the question and have yet to really see an effective answer on whether a background check is an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

If you can't convince the choir, you aren't likely to convince anyone else either.

As far as the question about felons being allowed to own weapons. I would love to live in a world where people didn't commit felonies. But that is as unlikely as an overnight overhaul of our flawed penal system. As such, we need laws which deal with the realities of today, without infringing on the rights of the majority.

MatthewM · May 13, 2001, 02:13 PM

Kam,

>"As such, we need laws which deal with the realities of today, without infringing on the rights of the majority."

That is the only purpose of "background checks". All laws infringe on someones rights. If the background check does not do what it is claimed to do, then it should obviously be done away with. If I was in Reno & stopped by a pawn shop and found a really great pistol at a fantastic price, I should be able to pay for it and walk out the store. I can do that with a fishing pole or a baseball bat, why not a gun? I quote you as saying no one has shown you where it infringes on the rights of anyone with a clean record. Every single purchase is held up due to the waiting period that comes with the background check. That infringes on the rights of every single purchaser.
Even without any waiting period, every purchase creates an entry in the database of who owns a gun and where they live. This is never done with any other sporting equipment and can only serve a negative purpose. In every case where a crime is committed with a gun, the perp is caught without the use of a "trace" on the gun. The gun itself has no bearing on the crime committed and since the perp is already caught, there is no purpose in tracing the history of the gun.

The only purpose in keeping any records about serial numbers and owners is in checking to see if a gun is stolen. There seems to be no desire amongst any law inforcement or government officials to curb theft of firearms. There is no national database kept in re stolen firearms and if you call or visit a police station & ask them about the status of a particular firearm, they refuse to look it up for you.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 13, 2001, 05:54 PM

So far, no one, in 3 pages of this thread, has brought up the concept of prior restraint. This is one thing that constitutionally could constitute an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms in regards to background checks.

The Supreme Court has ruled at various times that prior restraint is allowable in some circumstances in regards to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Gag orders are one particular case in which it is allowable.

Now, I would argue that the government has made a case (however weak you feel it is) for preventing felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms from federally licensed dealers. Whether you agree that there should be a class of prohibited persons and who should be in that class is a seperate issue. The case can be made to proscibe violent felons from legally purchasing firearms, especially when you consider recividism(sp?) and the current prison system. Just because a violent criminal has served their time is no guarantee that they will not be a repeat offender.

Now looking at NICS, after you have been cleared to purchase a firearm, do you need further licensing or approval to keep that firearm in your home? Do you need further licensing or permission to use that firearm in your home, or on your land? There are certainly no Federal laws requiring you to gain permission prior to using your weapon.

I realize that there are prior restraints on the carrying of weapons in public (in some states), but once licensed you do not have to seek permission to fire said weapon, and do not need permission each time you want to carry it. That is a completely seperate issue though.

So at issue is whether the "background check" or NICS is a prior restraint to your ability to keep and bear arms. Has this "background check" taken away your right to keep and bear arms?

I believe there is a necessity to having a class of people proscribed from purchasing a firearm legally. I also believe that an instant check system is the least intrusive method of doing so. I agree with everyone that there are flaws (delays, false negatives, records being kept), with the system that has been implemented. The check may temporarily prevent someone from purchasing a firearm, but there are processes in place to ensure that if you are not prohibited you will not be prevented.

It isn't good enough that you think it is un-constitutional, you must know why.

Now, as to why I am dragging this thread out. Who here hates when a gun control zealot makes impassioned pleas for gun control based soley on emotions and trumped up "facts". If we can not logically and factually argue for or against a particular issue, we are doomed to sounding like the emotional liberals we hate.

So please don't attack me for speaking my mind, I do, and will always defend out rights with vigor and conviction. Just because I disagree with some of you on this issue, don't for a second believe that I disagree with you on all issues.

...

Footnote: I'm as much against licensing and registration as the next person on here. The keeping of NICS information is clearly in violation of the law. Perhaps with the new administration we will get a fair shot at overturning this practice.

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

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/s...ion/amdt1.html

The Doctrine of Prior Restraint

``[L]iberty of the press, historically considered and taken up by the Federal Constitution, has meant, principally although not exclusively, immunity from previous restraints or censorship.''\43\ ``Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court
bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.''\44\ Government ``thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.''\45\ Under the English licensing system, which expired in 1695, all printing presses and printers were licensed and nothing could be published without prior approval of the state or church authorities. The great struggle for liberty of the press was for the right to publish without a license that which for a long time could be published only with a license.\46\

\43\Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931).
\44\Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).
\45\Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419
(1971); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
\46\Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713-14
(1931): Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).

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

Jeff OTMG · May 13, 2001, 08:16 PM

KAM, it is no use. Many here do not understand that a background check is NOT the same thing as NICS. I see people referring to data collection, records keeping, and registration thinking that it is part of a background check. It isn't. Those who argue for no restrictions also would argue that handguns and ammo should be for sale prepackaged at the checkout stand. After all are not children protected by the Constitution as adults are? They would also argue that explosive, nuclear, and biological weapons are protected. It was the SC who imposed those restrictions. To impose an age limit, or any limitation, would be a restriction on the Second Amendment.

captainHoek, since 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)) the Supreme Court has interpreted Article III, Section 1 to mean that they interpret the Constitution. Article III Sec 1 states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." the court being the Judicial Branch of our govt. For them to be able to interpret the Constitution is the whole purpose, it keeps the other branches in check. The Constitution is the law of the land. Every law is based on compliance with it. If it were not for the Judicial Branch and the SC the legislative and executive braches could pass whatever laws were popular. The SC DOES have the right to interpret the Constitution. If not them, then who?

[quote]Well of course! DUH! That's what it's all about! That's what all gun control has always been about![quote]
As far as gun control does, yes, but that is not what we are talking about on this thread. This thread is specifically about background checks as I stated earlier. I have already stated my opposition to anything beyond the checks and then only when conducted properly.

Quartus · May 13, 2001, 08:33 PM

Quote:

the Supreme Court has interpreted Article III, Section 1 to mean that they interpret the Constitution.

Try that in the Army and see how far you get. "I've decided to give myself the authority to give myself and my buddies 60 days paid leave every year, instead of 30." No body can give itself authority. Not Joe PFC, not the Supreme Court. Power, yes. Authority, no.

And, yes, background checks ARE about gun control. On the surface, they are about the unconstitutional practice of denying 2A rights to a class of people. In the background, they are about creating a database as mentioned before. And quibling about any differences between "background checks" and NICS is just that - quibling.

BTW, I'll take a stab at it off the top of my head. "Recidivism" ? Say that 5 times real fast!

Much more to say on the very real distinction between what OUGHT to be in the criminal injustice system and what IS, but supper is waiting...

Good evening, gentlemen!

Dennis · May 13, 2001, 10:06 PM

Jeff,
"Many here do not understand that a background check is NOT the same thing as NICS."

IF that's so, it may because the two concepts have not been properly separated.
-----

All,

I am against background checks as they are being done.

- NICS is gun and gun OWNER registration, pure and simple. When they check my name and find nothing adverse, it all should end right there - but it does not. They record my name, my government identification number (SSN), what I am buying, and its serial number. That is NOT a background check! That is registration which has been forbidden by Congress (no, I don't have a cite) but ATF does what it darned well pleases and our government does NOTHING to protect us from government felons.

If I have a CHL (I do), they do not need NICS to register me as a gun owner. They already have my name, SSN, address, fingerprints and background check on file. And (Ordnung Muss Sein!) if I do NOT notify them of any address change within 30 days I can lose my CHL. Tell me I'm not "registered"!

- If the background check is intended to prevent purchase by prior felons, it is addtional punishment outside a court of law and beyond what the judge and/or jury imposed. It also is against that pesky "... shall not be infringed" thingy in the Second Amendment. (Duh!) Oh, and while there is no "guarantee" that the prior felon will not again do wrong, please note there is no guarantee that a NON-prior offender will not do wrong. So, your point is????

- If a prior felon wants a gun:
--- He will steal one, possible endangering the victim of his burglary or robbery,
--- He will buy one, from someone who already endangered the victim of someone's burglary or robbery,
--- He will make manufacture a firearm or obtain one made by someone else, or
--- He will obtain one from a foreign source. (Oh, goody. If you liked sending young Americans overseas to fight and die in the War On Drugs, you will LOVE the War On Guns!)

Therefore, the only felon prevented from obtaining a gun is the felon who goes straight! So you punish the rehabilitated felon (who perhaps cheated on is income tax or fell way behind on his child support) without interfering with the bad guys. Yeah. Heck of a deal!

-----

WARNING!

I just came back from the Million Mom March v. Second Amendment Sisters rally in Austin! Friends, my batteries are charged and I'm ready to take on the enemies of Freedom and Liberty bare-handed - just as soon as I can hobble over to them. Danged busted up back!

jimc · May 15, 2001, 12:47 AM

the yellow sheet has the SS# as an option, therefore not required.
as for keeping or not keeping a record of purchases.
go and buy 3 handguns at the same time.
know what happens? the seller has to notify the local sheriff that a multiple gun purchase has been made, and a record of it IS kept on file, as well as contact by sheriff's dept. and IIRC that atf branch in your area is also notified as well.
so if i want to buy the spouse, kid, and myself handguns at the same time, because i live 1/2 days drive to dealer with guns on hand, the leo's have to be called! why and what for? what can i not do with one gun that i can do with 3??
and on the ccw's, about notifying your issuing sheriff. if once approved for a ccw, what difference does it make where you reside in the state? does moving from county X to cty Z mean you are more likely to commit a crime because you have a ccw?
but to be fair to you kam i will concede one point. and that is.
the same (well a fair amount of) gun owners who do not want a "paper trail" of gun buys, because they are afraid of the powers that be "knowing they have guns"
seem to have no qualm or even realize, that when they took a hunter safety class, that the gov't now has a permanent record of you as a gun owner!!

Dead · May 15, 2001, 05:41 AM

jimc,

It is 2 guns... And the form is sent to the ATF.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 15, 2001, 09:52 AM

"but to be fair to you kam i will concede one point. and that is. the same (well a fair amount of) gun owners who do not want a "paper trail" of gun buys, because they are afraid of the powers that be "knowing they have guns"
seem to have no qualm or even realize, that when they took a hunter safety class, that the gov't now has a permanent record of you as a gun owner!! "

Which actually brings up another question. Everyone is concerned with the NICS system providing a paper trail, and being a form of gun/owner registration.

Isn't Form 4473 doing the exact same thing? Although much harder for the government to access the paper trail isn't it a defacto registration scheme.

KAM_Indianapolis · May 15, 2001, 10:04 AM

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=1641

Allowing government officials alone to define when an activity transgresses the “harm” restrictions regarding rights, or allowing any narrowing at all of the scope of activities associated with a right, puts that right on a slippery slope to oblivion. This is because those who work for the government automatically tend to usurp as much social power as possible, and the ability to limit human activities is a key component of social power. The key to this dilemma is to very strictly limit the definition of harm and the calculation of highly probable.

When the government restricts any activity that does not directly harm another person, or which does not create a condition of high probability of harm another person, or which will not produce substantial harm to the public or society, or which actually makes society safer, then government violates its fundamental mandate to maintain as free a society as possible within the constraints of reasonable safety. In the case of U.S. federal government, such restrictions may violate an actual legal mandate – the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are not necessarily non-existent, and are not necessary limitable by the government. In sum, restrictions of non-harmful or beneficial activities is certainly immoral, and government infringement of recognized rights is incontestably both immoral and illegal.

*****************************Allowing government officials alone to define when an activity transgresses the “harm” restrictions regarding rights, or allowing any narrowing at all of the scope of activities associated with a right, puts that right on a slippery slope to oblivion. This is because those who work for the government automatically tend to usurp as much social power as possible, and the ability to limit human activities is a key component of social power. The key to this dilemma is to very strictly limit the definition of harm and the calculation of highly probable.

When the government restricts any activity that does not directly harm another person, or which does not create a condition of high probability of harm another person, or which will not produce substantial harm to the public or society, or which actually makes society safer, then government violates its fundamental mandate to maintain as free a society as possible within the constraints of reasonable safety. In the case of U.S. federal government, such restrictions may violate an actual legal mandate – the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are not necessarily non-existent, and are not necessary limitable by the government. In sum, restrictions of non-harmful or beneficial activities is certainly immoral, and government infringement of recognized rights is incontestably both immoral and illegal.

DAVID NANCARROW · May 15, 2001, 10:43 AM

I think Ben Franklin said it best:"He who demands safety and liberty deserves neither."

Calcitanium · May 15, 2001, 10:58 AM

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

Jeff OTMG · May 15, 2001, 07:33 PM

captainHoek, from your last response you appear to be avoiding responding to the intent of my posts so I am trying to simplify it. We have 3 branches of govt. I contend that the Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. If, as you say, the Supreme Court does not have the right to interpret the Constitution to determine whether laws passed by the legislative and executive branches are Constitutional, I have three questions.

1. Since, according you you, the SC does not have the 'right' to interpret the Constitution, who is charged with interpreting the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws that have been passed?

2. Since I know your answer to question 1 is not the SC, what then is the purpose of the Judicial Branch if not to act as a check against the congress (legislative branch) and the president (executive branch)?

3. Again Article III Sec 1 states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." Why isn't the U.S. judicial power the responsibility of the Supreme Court when it clearly says it is, or what exactly do you think Article III Section 1 of the Constitution means?

I suspect that you may have read the Bill of Rights at some point, well, at least the 2nd Amendment, but have never even read the U.S. Constitution or you would have never taken the position that you did. No matter, I anxiously await an explanation of your position and answers to my questions.

Borf · May 15, 2001, 09:46 PM

I'll submit to any background check they want if they get rid of the "yellow forms"

Dennis · May 15, 2001, 10:06 PM

And I will not submit willingly until the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is again uninfringed by applications and documentations - as it was when I used to buy guns over the counter and by mail order.

The only Constitutional documentation of a firearms sale is money or a money substitute.

Okay, okay, I'll compromise too - if the seller is nice, I'll throw in a handshake.

May 11, 2001, 10:04 PM	#52
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	KAM wrote: "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." First, where'd you get that from this thread? I didn't see that. KAM, there shouldn't BE any such thing as a 'parolee'. Prison is a very stupid way to punish those who commit a crime. Corporal punishment and requiring restitution work. Crime colleges don't. Folks, this is as much a part of the gun control problem as the antis. We need a criminal JUSTICE system, not a psycho-babble playground. As long as the current system continues, we are fighting a very uphill battle to get all of these unconstitutional laws overturned. The boogeyman of the "felons" is too easy for the antis to conjure up. The majority considers 'safety' to be more important than liberty. What if murderers were caught, convicted, and executed within weeks, rather than the current average of 17 YEARS? What if purse snatchers were flogged and required to pay back 3 times what they stole? You'd see the crime rate fall through the floor, taking the antis biggest argument with it. (This is so obvious, I've even got a liberal femiNazi at work who agrees with me on this!) And as for the mentally deranged, they are probably the only people who should be locked up. Someone as psychotic as an earlier post described should not be roaming the streets. They have demonstrated that they cannot function rationally. Of coiurse, with lots of armed honest people about those folks are less of a threat. Still, they are a threat. BTW, I had to help wrestle such a person to the ground once, and hold him for police, while the psych nurse who had the bad judgement to bring him to her father's house screamed, "Don't hurt him!" Had I not been preoccupied, I think I'd have broken one of my mother's rules and smacked her. It's not fun being around such, and the general populace shouldn't have to. Keep them away from guns? They should be kept away from cars, knives, household cleaners, children... The list goes on.

May 13, 2001, 05:54 PM	#63
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	I really hate doing other peoples work for them... So far, no one, in 3 pages of this thread, has brought up the concept of prior restraint. This is one thing that constitutionally could constitute an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms in regards to background checks. The Supreme Court has ruled at various times that prior restraint is allowable in some circumstances in regards to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Gag orders are one particular case in which it is allowable. Now, I would argue that the government has made a case (however weak you feel it is) for preventing felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms from federally licensed dealers. Whether you agree that there should be a class of prohibited persons and who should be in that class is a seperate issue. The case can be made to proscibe violent felons from legally purchasing firearms, especially when you consider recividism(sp?) and the current prison system. Just because a violent criminal has served their time is no guarantee that they will not be a repeat offender. Now looking at NICS, after you have been cleared to purchase a firearm, do you need further licensing or approval to keep that firearm in your home? Do you need further licensing or permission to use that firearm in your home, or on your land? There are certainly no Federal laws requiring you to gain permission prior to using your weapon. I realize that there are prior restraints on the carrying of weapons in public (in some states), but once licensed you do not have to seek permission to fire said weapon, and do not need permission each time you want to carry it. That is a completely seperate issue though. So at issue is whether the "background check" or NICS is a prior restraint to your ability to keep and bear arms. Has this "background check" taken away your right to keep and bear arms? I believe there is a necessity to having a class of people proscribed from purchasing a firearm legally. I also believe that an instant check system is the least intrusive method of doing so. I agree with everyone that there are flaws (delays, false negatives, records being kept), with the system that has been implemented. The check may temporarily prevent someone from purchasing a firearm, but there are processes in place to ensure that if you are not prohibited you will not be prevented. It isn't good enough that you think it is un-constitutional, you must know why. Now, as to why I am dragging this thread out. Who here hates when a gun control zealot makes impassioned pleas for gun control based soley on emotions and trumped up "facts". If we can not logically and factually argue for or against a particular issue, we are doomed to sounding like the emotional liberals we hate. So please don't attack me for speaking my mind, I do, and will always defend out rights with vigor and conviction. Just because I disagree with some of you on this issue, don't for a second believe that I disagree with you on all issues. ... Footnote: I'm as much against licensing and registration as the next person on here. The keeping of NICS information is clearly in violation of the law. Perhaps with the new administration we will get a fair shot at overturning this practice. *************** http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/s...ion/amdt1.html The Doctrine of Prior Restraint ``[L]iberty of the press, historically considered and taken up by the Federal Constitution, has meant, principally although not exclusively, immunity from previous restraints or censorship.''\43\ ``Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.''\44\ Government ``thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.''\45\ Under the English licensing system, which expired in 1695, all printing presses and printers were licensed and nothing could be published without prior approval of the state or church authorities. The great struggle for liberty of the press was for the right to publish without a license that which for a long time could be published only with a license.\46\ \43\Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931). \44\Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). \45\Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971). \46\Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713-14 (1931): Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938). ***************

May 15, 2001, 05:41 AM	#68
Dead Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 2000 Location: AoW Land, USA Posts: 1,968	jimc, It is 2 guns... And the form is sent to the ATF. __________________ Dead [Black Ops] www.therallypoint.org

May 15, 2001, 10:04 AM	#70
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	Interesting Article on Rights http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=1641 Allowing government officials alone to define when an activity transgresses the “harm” restrictions regarding rights, or allowing any narrowing at all of the scope of activities associated with a right, puts that right on a slippery slope to oblivion. This is because those who work for the government automatically tend to usurp as much social power as possible, and the ability to limit human activities is a key component of social power. The key to this dilemma is to very strictly limit the definition of harm and the calculation of highly probable. When the government restricts any activity that does not directly harm another person, or which does not create a condition of high probability of harm another person, or which will not produce substantial harm to the public or society, or which actually makes society safer, then government violates its fundamental mandate to maintain as free a society as possible within the constraints of reasonable safety. In the case of U.S. federal government, such restrictions may violate an actual legal mandate – the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are not necessarily non-existent, and are not necessary limitable by the government. In sum, restrictions of non-harmful or beneficial activities is certainly immoral, and government infringement of recognized rights is incontestably both immoral and illegal. *****************************Allowing government officials alone to define when an activity transgresses the “harm” restrictions regarding rights, or allowing any narrowing at all of the scope of activities associated with a right, puts that right on a slippery slope to oblivion. This is because those who work for the government automatically tend to usurp as much social power as possible, and the ability to limit human activities is a key component of social power. The key to this dilemma is to very strictly limit the definition of harm and the calculation of highly probable. When the government restricts any activity that does not directly harm another person, or which does not create a condition of high probability of harm another person, or which will not produce substantial harm to the public or society, or which actually makes society safer, then government violates its fundamental mandate to maintain as free a society as possible within the constraints of reasonable safety. In the case of U.S. federal government, such restrictions may violate an actual legal mandate – the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are not necessarily non-existent, and are not necessary limitable by the government. In sum, restrictions of non-harmful or beneficial activities is certainly immoral, and government infringement of recognized rights is incontestably both immoral and illegal.

May 15, 2001, 09:46 PM	#74
Borf Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2001 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 424	a simple compromise I'll submit to any background check they want if they get rid of the "yellow forms"

May 11, 2001, 10:55 AM	#51
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	I support background checks in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM! I really don't believe any government can be trusted to stay within their Constitutional boundaries. The RICO law was aimed at drug runners and organized crime members carrying large amounts of cash and shady property holdings-allowing LE to seize. Problem is the law is being abused left and right. Same with back ground checks. The Second Amendment only serves to confirm a God given right. A Federal Judge in Texas is on the right path: Emerson vs US I believe is the case. The good Judge has ruled that Federal gun laws are unconstitutional! Hope this turns out to be the the tip of the spear that takes away the chains on honest citizens. Getting rid of Louie The Terrible is a good step foreward IMHO. Don't want elected officials stomping on my rights, and sure don't need appointed officials doing the same thing!

May 12, 2001, 07:57 AM	#53
tc556guy Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 763	As long as it's an instant check, I can live with it.

May 12, 2001, 08:01 AM	#54
tc556guy Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 763	If you guys think that released felons should have ALL their rights restored, I think you need to rethink that. Prison is short-term containment only, not rehabilitation. I don't want a pedophile or rapist to be able to lawfully buy a firearm when they are released from prison. Their actions have shown that they cannot be trusted to act in a civilized manner within the rule of law. They have chosen to break the law; they should live with the consequences!

May 12, 2001, 08:59 AM	#55
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	tcsd1236 wrote: "I don't want a pedophile or rapist to be able to lawfully buy a firearm when they are released from prison." I don't want them PUT in prison in the first place. (Except while awaiting trial, of course.) I want them executed, promptly. BTW, sex offenders rarely use firearms. Bad example. "They have chosen to break the law; they should live with the consequences!" Yes, THEY have. Why should I live with the consequesnces? And how long should, say, a bank robber live with the consequences? All his life? And all of this completely misses the point of background checks. Their stated purpose is to create a de facto registration of firearms, for the purpose of later confiscation. Why is that so hard to understand? What, do you guys trust the government? Or are you so afraid of gang bangers that you are glad to take the risk of losing your freedom so that Big Brother will take care of you? "Those who give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And, I might add, they will eventually have neither.

May 12, 2001, 10:29 AM	#56
Keiller TN Senior Member Join Date: January 18, 2000 Posts: 483	If there are background checks for gun purchases, then why not for cars? The buyer may have a history of drunk driving, etc., etc. Any record of the sale should be erased once I'm cleared for the sale. Otherwise, the background check becomes a de facto registration, like Dennis said. [Edited by Keiller TN on 05-12-2001 at 03:50 PM]

May 12, 2001, 10:34 AM	#57
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Munro, “This is a complicated question.” No, sir, it is not. If a person is suspected of murder, he is secured (in jail) pending evaluation (magistrated) and evaluated (indicted and tried for his/her crime). If a person is suspected of mental disability, he should be secured (as appropriate) pending evaluation (by appropriate psychologists) and evaluated (by the courts using the psychiatric evaluation). If one is convicted of murder, he is separated from society (prison or death). If one is “convicted” of a mental problem, he must undergo appropriate treatment (eg training, medication, separation from society, etc.). To lower everyone to the level of the potential mentally disabled is no less immoral than to lower everyone to the level of a potential murderer. Do not permit “social training” to blind common sense.

May 12, 2001, 11:33 AM	#58
tc556guy Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 763	Anyone can lawfully own a car, they just cannot take it out onto the public highway, or even lawfully register it if they are suspended/ revoked. Admittedly, the sex offender was a bad example; I used it as an example of a criminal who usually doesn't reform. With the hulabaloo over the death penalty for accused MURDERERS, I doubt you'd ever see the death penalty for sex crimes, as much as most would like to see it. Plus, there is a wide variance between the states as to what constitutes a sex crime. Up here in NY, a person has to be 17 years old to give informed consent to have sex; down south I hear it goes as low as 13 or 14. There are people convicted of "sex crimes" in states like mine that wouldn't have been arrested down South. Dennis: The mental health advocates lobby tirelessly to minimize the restrictions on mental patients. Many mental patients do not recognize that they are a harm to society. They take their meds, then say "hey, I'm fine, I don't need these pills." After going off the meds, they revert to their dementia. The system is really screwed up because we've let the inmates out of the asylum.

May 12, 2001, 10:54 PM	#59
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Tcsd, Uh huh. I had some experience with that during my EMS days. It happens with folks with mental disabilities who are on truly heavy-duty meds, it happens with epileptics, and people with high blood pressure. When the threat is no longer perceived to be as great a problem as the cost and side effects of the medication, many patients stop taking their meds - frequently with grave results. (No pun intended!) Sorry, but if they get into trouble, it's their fault (or the fault of their guardian). If they can not function in society without hurting other people, then they need more supervision - perhaps in a closed environment.

May 13, 2001, 12:38 AM	#60
jimc Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 1999 Location: colo Posts: 378	kam after reading the whole 3 pages about bg checks. it has come across that you are the gun owner who feels that ak-47's as well as any style of semi-auto military look-a-like gun should be banned because it has "no sporting purpose" i hear from people like you every once in a while in gun stores. i do not like nor care for bg checks. i have no problem passing them and it does not prevent me from buying guns. but your "logic' belongs on the pages of HCI or some other anti gun web site and if you truely believe that these checks are slowing down felons from buying guns, you are living in a dream world.

May 13, 2001, 10:05 AM	#61
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	jimc - you hardly know me (and the M1 Garand in my gun cabinet might be in disagreement with you), and I would disagree with you that my posts indicate some lack of logic. When looking at a law we need only look at it's constitutionality, not whether it is effective. I've yet to see a law taken off the books because it was ineffective (except maybe the 18th Amendment.) I am asking the question and have yet to really see an effective answer on whether a background check is an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't convince the choir, you aren't likely to convince anyone else either. As far as the question about felons being allowed to own weapons. I would love to live in a world where people didn't commit felonies. But that is as unlikely as an overnight overhaul of our flawed penal system. As such, we need laws which deal with the realities of today, without infringing on the rights of the majority.

May 13, 2001, 02:13 PM	#62
MatthewM Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2001 Posts: 1,003	Kam, >"As such, we need laws which deal with the realities of today, without infringing on the rights of the majority." That is the only purpose of "background checks". All laws infringe on someones rights. If the background check does not do what it is claimed to do, then it should obviously be done away with. If I was in Reno & stopped by a pawn shop and found a really great pistol at a fantastic price, I should be able to pay for it and walk out the store. I can do that with a fishing pole or a baseball bat, why not a gun? I quote you as saying no one has shown you where it infringes on the rights of anyone with a clean record. Every single purchase is held up due to the waiting period that comes with the background check. That infringes on the rights of every single purchaser. Even without any waiting period, every purchase creates an entry in the database of who owns a gun and where they live. This is never done with any other sporting equipment and can only serve a negative purpose. In every case where a crime is committed with a gun, the perp is caught without the use of a "trace" on the gun. The gun itself has no bearing on the crime committed and since the perp is already caught, there is no purpose in tracing the history of the gun. The only purpose in keeping any records about serial numbers and owners is in checking to see if a gun is stolen. There seems to be no desire amongst any law inforcement or government officials to curb theft of firearms. There is no national database kept in re stolen firearms and if you call or visit a police station & ask them about the status of a particular firearm, they refuse to look it up for you.

May 13, 2001, 08:16 PM	#64
Jeff OTMG Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1998 Location: OKC, OK & Austin, Tx Posts: 3,707	KAM, it is no use. Many here do not understand that a background check is NOT the same thing as NICS. I see people referring to data collection, records keeping, and registration thinking that it is part of a background check. It isn't. Those who argue for no restrictions also would argue that handguns and ammo should be for sale prepackaged at the checkout stand. After all are not children protected by the Constitution as adults are? They would also argue that explosive, nuclear, and biological weapons are protected. It was the SC who imposed those restrictions. To impose an age limit, or any limitation, would be a restriction on the Second Amendment. captainHoek, since 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)) the Supreme Court has interpreted Article III, Section 1 to mean that they interpret the Constitution. Article III Sec 1 states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." the court being the Judicial Branch of our govt. For them to be able to interpret the Constitution is the whole purpose, it keeps the other branches in check. The Constitution is the law of the land. Every law is based on compliance with it. If it were not for the Judicial Branch and the SC the legislative and executive braches could pass whatever laws were popular. The SC DOES have the right to interpret the Constitution. If not them, then who? [quote]Well of course! DUH! That's what it's all about! That's what all gun control has always been about![quote] As far as gun control does, yes, but that is not what we are talking about on this thread. This thread is specifically about background checks as I stated earlier. I have already stated my opposition to anything beyond the checks and then only when conducted properly.

May 13, 2001, 10:06 PM	#66
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Jeff, "Many here do not understand that a background check is NOT the same thing as NICS." IF that's so, it may because the two concepts have not been properly separated. ----- All, I am against background checks as they are being done. - NICS is gun and gun OWNER registration, pure and simple. When they check my name and find nothing adverse, it all should end right there - but it does not. They record my name, my government identification number (SSN), what I am buying, and its serial number. That is NOT a background check! That is registration which has been forbidden by Congress (no, I don't have a cite) but ATF does what it darned well pleases and our government does NOTHING to protect us from government felons. If I have a CHL (I do), they do not need NICS to register me as a gun owner. They already have my name, SSN, address, fingerprints and background check on file. And (Ordnung Muss Sein!) if I do NOT notify them of any address change within 30 days I can lose my CHL. Tell me I'm not "registered"! - If the background check is intended to prevent purchase by prior felons, it is addtional punishment outside a court of law and beyond what the judge and/or jury imposed. It also is against that pesky "... shall not be infringed" thingy in the Second Amendment. (Duh!) Oh, and while there is no "guarantee" that the prior felon will not again do wrong, please note there is no guarantee that a NON-prior offender will not do wrong. So, your point is???? - If a prior felon wants a gun: --- He will steal one, possible endangering the victim of his burglary or robbery, --- He will buy one, from someone who already endangered the victim of someone's burglary or robbery, --- He will make manufacture a firearm or obtain one made by someone else, or --- He will obtain one from a foreign source. (Oh, goody. If you liked sending young Americans overseas to fight and die in the War On Drugs, you will LOVE the War On Guns!) Therefore, the only felon prevented from obtaining a gun is the felon who goes straight! So you punish the rehabilitated felon (who perhaps cheated on is income tax or fell way behind on his child support) without interfering with the bad guys. Yeah. Heck of a deal! ----- WARNING! I just came back from the Million Mom March v. Second Amendment Sisters rally in Austin! Friends, my batteries are charged and I'm ready to take on the enemies of Freedom and Liberty bare-handed - just as soon as I can hobble over to them. Danged busted up back!

May 15, 2001, 12:47 AM	#67
jimc Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 1999 Location: colo Posts: 378	the yellow sheet has the SS# as an option, therefore not required. as for keeping or not keeping a record of purchases. go and buy 3 handguns at the same time. know what happens? the seller has to notify the local sheriff that a multiple gun purchase has been made, and a record of it IS kept on file, as well as contact by sheriff's dept. and IIRC that atf branch in your area is also notified as well. so if i want to buy the spouse, kid, and myself handguns at the same time, because i live 1/2 days drive to dealer with guns on hand, the leo's have to be called! why and what for? what can i not do with one gun that i can do with 3?? and on the ccw's, about notifying your issuing sheriff. if once approved for a ccw, what difference does it make where you reside in the state? does moving from county X to cty Z mean you are more likely to commit a crime because you have a ccw? but to be fair to you kam i will concede one point. and that is. the same (well a fair amount of) gun owners who do not want a "paper trail" of gun buys, because they are afraid of the powers that be "knowing they have guns" seem to have no qualm or even realize, that when they took a hunter safety class, that the gov't now has a permanent record of you as a gun owner!!

May 15, 2001, 09:52 AM	#69
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 612	"but to be fair to you kam i will concede one point. and that is. the same (well a fair amount of) gun owners who do not want a "paper trail" of gun buys, because they are afraid of the powers that be "knowing they have guns" seem to have no qualm or even realize, that when they took a hunter safety class, that the gov't now has a permanent record of you as a gun owner!! " Which actually brings up another question. Everyone is concerned with the NICS system providing a paper trail, and being a form of gun/owner registration. Isn't Form 4473 doing the exact same thing? Although much harder for the government to access the paper trail isn't it a defacto registration scheme.

May 15, 2001, 10:43 AM	#71
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	I think Ben Franklin said it best:"He who demands safety and liberty deserves neither."

May 15, 2001, 10:58 AM	#72
Calcitanium Member Join Date: December 7, 2000 Posts: 33	"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

May 15, 2001, 07:33 PM	#73
Jeff OTMG Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1998 Location: OKC, OK & Austin, Tx Posts: 3,707	captainHoek, from your last response you appear to be avoiding responding to the intent of my posts so I am trying to simplify it. We have 3 branches of govt. I contend that the Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. If, as you say, the Supreme Court does not have the right to interpret the Constitution to determine whether laws passed by the legislative and executive branches are Constitutional, I have three questions. 1. Since, according you you, the SC does not have the 'right' to interpret the Constitution, who is charged with interpreting the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws that have been passed? 2. Since I know your answer to question 1 is not the SC, what then is the purpose of the Judicial Branch if not to act as a check against the congress (legislative branch) and the president (executive branch)? 3. Again Article III Sec 1 states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." Why isn't the U.S. judicial power the responsibility of the Supreme Court when it clearly says it is, or what exactly do you think Article III Section 1 of the Constitution means? I suspect that you may have read the Bill of Rights at some point, well, at least the 2nd Amendment, but have never even read the U.S. Constitution or you would have never taken the position that you did. No matter, I anxiously await an explanation of your position and answers to my questions.

May 15, 2001, 10:06 PM	#75
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	And I will not submit willingly until the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is again uninfringed by applications and documentations - as it was when I used to buy guns over the counter and by mail order. The only Constitutional documentation of a firearms sale is money or a money substitute. Okay, okay, I'll compromise too - if the seller is nice, I'll throw in a handshake.