Author Topic: Universal Background Check (Read 11180 times)

Blakenzy · « **on:** January 20, 2013, 03:40:45 PM »

From what I see, amongst all the noise about gun control and what not, the one topic that I perceive to be the most prevalent and sought by anti-gun forces is the "Universal Background Check". It seems that this is one thing the White House and others will be pushing hard for. It's what I keep hearing every time a high profile gun grabber opens his/her mouth. Confiscation, bans are very touchy (and easily challenged) subjects and I think will receive far more resistance and attention than a "mere mandatory background check". Because if you are an honest person, what do you have to hide.. right? I fear this is something people might let their guard down on.

What could happen:

It could make any face to face transfer without an FFL in between to make the check and document the transaction a felony, thus funneling ALL firearm movements towards Federal scrutiny in a single, centralized system. The background check could include ALL updated personal data of the buyer, seller and of firearm(s) purchased. I believe that then, if no specific limitation was made when passing the law, records of the "background check" could be kept on file indefinitely. And that's the dangerous part. All firearms bought by law abiding people traced, as of 2013. Then you have a covert registration system in place.

So what do you think?

Tallpine · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2013, 03:47:34 PM »

I think that they should require a Background Check on all transfers of marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc

longeyes · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2013, 04:51:55 PM »

Information is power.

This equates to giving the Feds total power. Where is OUR equivalent power? We are excluded from most of the process of government, increasingly.

Transparency has to be mutual.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2013, 05:11:48 PM »

There are huge numbers of guns in circulation that are untraceable to the current owner. So long as you know and trust explicitly who you buy or sell a gun from/to, banning private sales is unenforceable.

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2013, 07:32:01 PM »

What Constitutional basis could the Federal gov't claim to regulate private intrastate transfers? My understanding is FFLs are regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but that doesn't apply to private-party sales, as I see it.

HankB · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2013, 08:10:17 PM »

Quote from: Angel Eyes on January 20, 2013, 07:32:01 PM

What Constitutional basis could the Federal gov't claim to regulate private intrastate transfers? My understanding is FFLs are regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but that doesn't apply to private-party sales, as I see it.

Because you make the transfer within a state you reduce demand for firearms from another state, so by not engaging in interstate commerce, you affect interstate commerce, and therefore are engaging in interstate commerce, and can be regulated.

Now do you understand, comrade?

Marnoot · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2013, 08:22:06 PM »

Quote from: HankB on January 20, 2013, 08:10:17 PM

Because you make the transfer within a state you reduce demand for firearms from another state, so by not engaging in interstate commerce, you affect interstate commerce, and therefore are engaging in interstate commerce, and can be regulated.

Ding ding ding! The feds (including SCOTUS) have basically decided that everything affects interstate commerce, and thus they have authority over everything.

SteveS · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2013, 08:27:25 PM »

Quote from: Marnoot on January 20, 2013, 08:22:06 PM

Ding ding ding! The feds (including SCOTUS) have basically decided that everything affects interstate commerce, and thus they have authority over everything.

Yep. There are some states that are looking at legislation that says guns produced locally are not subject to federal control, but this hasn't been tested in court. If the SC says marijuana grown locally, for personal use, is subject to the the ICC, then I do not hold out much hope for guns.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2013, 08:47:51 PM »

Quote from: SteveS on January 20, 2013, 08:27:25 PM

Yep. There are some states that are looking at legislation that says guns produced locally are not subject to federal control, but this hasn't been tested in court. If the SC says marijuana grown locally, for personal use, is subject to the the ICC, then I do not hold out much hope for guns.

Not entirely.
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

Also this regarding Interstate Commerce.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/336/case.html

Stetson · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2013, 09:24:07 PM »

I'm all for Universal Background checks as long as I can carry anywhere in the universe

Tallpine · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2013, 09:44:22 PM »

Quote from: Stetson on January 20, 2013, 09:24:07 PM

I'm all for Universal Background checks as long as I can carry anywhere in the universe

You're not allowed to carry laser pistols. Those are banned by the Alliance.

Stetson · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2013, 10:00:20 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on January 20, 2013, 09:44:22 PM

You're not allowed to carry laser pistols. Those are banned by the Alliance.

It's a safe queen anyway

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2013, 10:00:30 PM »

I think universal background checks are a great idea. In fact, I think they should install NICS phone booths on every second or third street corner in every city in the U.S. so all the drug dealers can call in their background checks when swapping drugs for guns, right there on the spot. I'm sure if we make it easy for them they'll be happy to go along.

Right?

Beuller?

Scout26 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2013, 10:02:50 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on January 20, 2013, 08:47:51 PM

Not entirely.
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

Also this regarding Interstate Commerce.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/336/case.html

Care to provide the Reader's Digest version?

Lee · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:28:23 PM »

I'm probably the Lone Ranger on this one, but I think you choose your battles. I'm not opposed to non -family gun transfers running through an efficient (fast and accurate) check system...at least at large gun shows. Under the current "system" I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of ever tracking illicit gun sales. There will always be people who will lie, cheat, steal, and circumvent the law...it doesn't mean that you should make no effort to enforce it. When I buy used guns from induividiuals at gun shows in Ohio, I often worry that the gun might be stolen. When I sell them, a always wonder if the buyer has a record...or worse, works for Bloomberg. I've seen the same shady gun dealers hanging outside Ohio gun shows for 20 years. I also know every "private collector" dealers inside the shows. They are the ones who's guns are worth $50 more than the same gun sitting on the FFL dealer's table 10 feet away. I just dont know where we're headed, if we're not willing to make some effort to sort out the bad apples. Just my opinion.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:45:55 PM »

Quote from: scout26 on January 20, 2013, 10:02:50 PM

Care to provide the Reader's Digest version?

No?

The short of it - Court to the Feds (in the case referenced): The interstate commerce clause doesn't mean what you think it means.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:04:15 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 21, 2013, 08:28:23 PM

I'm probably the Lone Ranger on this one, but I think you choose your battles. I'm not opposed to non -family gun transfers running through an efficient (fast and accurate) check system...at least at large gun shows. Under the current "system" I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of ever tracking illicit gun sales. There will always be people who will lie, cheat, steal, and circumvent the law...it doesn't mean that you should make no effort to enforce it. When I buy used guns from induividiuals at gun shows in Ohio, I often worry that the gun might be stolen. When I sell them, a always wonder if the buyer has a record...or worse, works for Bloomberg. I've seen the same shady gun dealers hanging outside Ohio gun shows for 20 years. I also know every "private collector" dealers inside the shows. They are the ones who's guns are worth $50 more than the same gun sitting on the FFL dealer's table 10 feet away. I just dont know where we're headed, if we're not willing to make some effort to sort out the bad apples. Just my opinion.

No picking battles. No compromise of rights. Face to face sales have been legal here since before this country existed.

cordex · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:51:46 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 21, 2013, 08:28:23 PM

I'm probably the Lone Ranger on this one,

I hope so.

Lee · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:12:32 PM »

Should an ID be required to vote?
Seems like most conservatives believe that it should...including me.
It doesn't infringe my right...it strengthens it. It proves who I am and that I haven't done anything to forfeit my right.

RevDisk · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »

Tis why my state operates its own checks. So can your state.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2013, 12:41:35 AM »

Quote from: Lee on January 21, 2013, 10:12:32 PM

Should an ID be required to vote?
Seems like most conservatives believe that it should...including me.
It doesn't infringe my right...it strengthens it. It proves who I am and that I haven't done anything to forfeit my right.

Voting is a civil right. Keeping arms is a natural right. An important difference.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2013, 06:39:00 AM »

Quote from: Lee on January 21, 2013, 10:12:32 PM

Should an ID be required to vote?
Seems like most conservatives believe that it should...including me.
It doesn't infringe my right...it strengthens it. It proves who I am and that I haven't done anything to forfeit my right.

also, the background check is a permission slip to buy a gun. The direct comparison would be to show a driver's license to prove state residency.

SteveS · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2013, 07:51:11 AM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on January 20, 2013, 08:47:51 PM

Not entirely.
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

Also this regarding Interstate Commerce.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/336/case.html

I am eagerly awaiting the results of the Montana case. IMO, this will go to the Supreme Court. As for the Reader's Digest Condensed version, it deals with a Montana law that would exempt locally produced and retained firearms from the NFA and GCA, under the premise that they have not moved in or affect interstate commerce (IC). IIRC, the 9th Circuit will hear oral arguments in March.

As for the second case, the Supreme Ct. has backed away from it's holding in Bass. If you look at Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977), they essentially said that after looking at it again, a minimal nexus is only required. If this was the end of the IC issue and this case was one used to decide an IC case, then I would be confident that Montana and Mr. Marbut would easily win. Unfortunately, we have US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005); and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). All of these cases have indicated an expansion of the IC Clause and they have only seemed willing to limit the federal gov't if we are looking at a non-economic activity. I think they are wrong, but since Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), we have been stuck with the notion that something that affects IC, even if it doesn't move in IC, is enough to bring it under federal control.

With the way it stands, I am just not confident that the SC won't find some IC affect in locally made guns and decide that they fall under federal control.

freakazoid · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2013, 08:40:02 AM »

Quote

I also know every "private collector" dealers inside the shows. They are the ones who's guns are worth $50 more than the same gun sitting on the FFL dealer's table 10 feet away.

Quote

Should an ID be required to vote?

The purpose for an ID to vote isn't for the same reason.

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2013, 09:07:42 AM »

Quote

All firearms bought by law abiding people traced, as of 2013. Then you have a covert registration system in place.

So what do you think?

I think they would then have a media frenzy whenever they try to trace a gun but can't because it was transferred before 2013, and the push would be to register all guns, to make us safer.

News:

Author Topic: Universal Background Check (Read 11180 times)