Expanded background checks fails in Senate

[Lakhota]

Manchin Blames NRA For Background Checks Bill Failure

 

[JimH52]

Obama is probably not near as bummed as many of you Loons were on election night....

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as there is an expectation that a person can procure a gun in a reasonable amount of time, then background checks and registration fall right in line with the intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior restraint.
Still waiitng for you to demonstrate my position unsound.
Else, you're still just huffing and puffing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, expanded background checks did NOT fail in the Senate, it hasn't come up for a vote. Let it come up for a vote and then if it gets more no votes than yes votes then you can yammer and yap about how expanded background checks failed in the Senate. Until then the only ones who have failed are the cowards who won't let it come up for a vote

Interesting.... So what was the vote for yesterday?

Yesterday's vote was a vote to bring it to a vote. It wasn't a vote for background checks.

Yesterday's vote was a vote to bring it to a vote

OK what is "IT"?

 

[Lakhota]

Gun Violence Victims Detained, Put Through Background Check For Yelling 'Shame On You' At Senators

 

[Lakhota]

Morning Joe Host Shames Senators Who Killed Gun Reform: 'We're The 90 Percent And We're Going To Win'

Amen, Joe!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Morning Joe Host Shames Senators Who Killed Gun Reform: 'We're The 90 Percent And We're Going To Win'

Amen, Joe!

their is no 90% that's all bullshit.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Morning Joe Host Shames Senators Who Killed Gun Reform: 'We're The 90 Percent And We're Going To Win'

Amen, Joe!

Joe is a shame, along with obamaturd, the dimwits, and you idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun Violence Victims Detained, Put Through Background Check For Yelling 'Shame On You' At Senators

maybe she should buy a gun.

 

[Lakhota]

FACT: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]​

Much More: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System

 

[hortysir]

FACT: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]​

Much More: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System

Would it have prevented Sandy Hook?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

FACT: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]​

Much More: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System

Repeating the same lie doesn't change any thing, it's still a lie.

 

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

More: Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA After Gun Control Defeat In Senate

 

[FA_Q2]

Prior restraint is a figment of the gun nuts' imagination.

You having a brain is a figment of your imagination.

Prior restraint is a legal concept that concerns the 1st amendment and censorship. It has been attempted as an argument in 2nd amendment cases and has been shot down.

So fuck off.

 

[FA_Q2]

Larger more comprehensive law I guess then. The NUMBER of laws is not the problem. It is the VOLUME that exists and I would venture a guess that this would have added several books worth of volume after it was said and done with what the states would have to do in order to comply.

Really, it required a gun registry where all your firearms would be tracked and traceable. I am not comfortable with such a law. I guess that we have just thrown privacy and the right to be secure in your person and things right out the window with this one because this is a right that you don’t like….

How can you rationalize those two concepts – the right to privacy and the requirement to register all weapons?

The "right to privacy"?

Other than privacy concerning self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and housing soldiers, there is no constitutional guarantee to privacy.

The Constitution DOES however, clearly state the purpose for granting the right to bear arms.

And that purpose is, specifically, to be able to quickly and effectively form militias.

That purpose is served the right to bear arms, but it is ALSO served by both registries and background checks for weapon owners.

As long as there is an expectation that a person can procure a gun in a reasonable amount of time, then background checks and registration fall right in line with the intent of the Second Amendment.

I guess we can re-address abortion as a right then as that is an extension of the natural right to privacy. The SCOTUS was pretty clear, that right exists as a natural function of the numerated rights you have and to deny that is silly let alone completely lacking in any real legal sense.

It is funny that I hear this coming from you. It is rare that anyone other than the far right makes the claim that privacy is not a right. Are you adopting their standards?

 

[Lakhota]

FACT: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]​

Much More: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System

Repeating the same lie doesn't change any thing, it's still a lie.

Prove it's a lie - with "credible" sources. You have an interesting mental trait - everything is a lie unless you believe it. Interesting...

 

[OriginalShroom]

Much More: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System

Repeating the same lie doesn't change any thing, it's still a lie.

Prove it's a lie - with "credible" sources. You have an interesting mental trait - everything is a lie unless you believe it. Interesting...

Prove that is true without using a hack group of gun grabbers as a source.. Even worse you are using Soros funded Media Matters as a source...

 

[Lakhota]

Repeating the same lie doesn't change any thing, it's still a lie.

Prove it's a lie - with "credible" sources. You have an interesting mental trait - everything is a lie unless you believe it. Interesting...

Prove that is true without using a hack group of gun grabbers as a source.. Even worse you are using Soros funded Media Matters as a source...

My post wasn't addressed to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, I hate to belabor a point, but, I have two questions:
So, that being said, I have 2 questions:
1. If you bitched and moaned about "Operation Fast and Furious", how the FUCK can you say that you are against background checks?

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

Nonsense.

‘Prior restraint’ refers to First Amendment jurisprudence where the state seeks to prevent dissemination of information or ideas:

Prior Restraint

In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.

Prior Restraint | LII / Legal Information Institute

The phrase you’re searching for is undue burden:

Undue-burden test is a constitutional test to decide the constitutionality of particular law. State regulations affecting undue burdens are regulated by the courts under the test.

Undue-Burden Test Law & Legal Definition

And background checks do not manifest an undue burden to one exercising his Second Amendment rights, as no court of law has made such a determination. Moreover, background checks are far less burdensome than other laws upheld by state and Federal courts as Constitutional:

Generally, Second Amendment challenges by civil plaintiffs have been unsuccessful. In the wake of the Heller decision, for example, the District of Columbia adopted comprehensive firearms laws. In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the federal district court’s decision rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to many of those laws, including D.C.’s firearms registration system, ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, one-handgun-a-month law, and law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.xv

Federal and state courts have also upheld laws requiring the registration of all firearms,xvi requiring an applicant for a license to carry a concealed weapon to show “good cause,” “proper cause,” or “need,” or qualify as a “suitable person,” xvii prohibiting the issuance of a concealed carry permit based on a misdemeanor assault conviction,xviii requiring an applicant for a handgun possession license to be a state residentxix or pay an administrative fee,xx requiring an applicant for a concealed carry license to be at least twenty-one years old,xxi prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition to individuals younger than twenty-one years old, xxii or to individuals who does not reside in any U.S. state,xxiii prohibiting domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms,xxiv prohibiting the possession of firearms in places of worship, xxv in common areas of public housing units,xxvi and within college campus facilities and at campus events, xxvii and regulating gun shows held on public property.xxviii

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Post-Heller-Summary-2.15.13.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Larger more comprehensive law I guess then. The NUMBER of laws is not the problem. It is the VOLUME that exists and I would venture a guess that this would have added several books worth of volume after it was said and done with what the states would have to do in order to comply.

Really, it required a gun registry where all your firearms would be tracked and traceable. I am not comfortable with such a law. I guess that we have just thrown privacy and the right to be secure in your person and things right out the window with this one because this is a right that you don’t like….

How can you rationalize those two concepts – the right to privacy and the requirement to register all weapons?

The "right to privacy"?

Other than privacy concerning self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and housing soldiers, there is no constitutional guarantee to privacy.

The Constitution DOES however, clearly state the purpose for granting the right to bear arms.

And that purpose is, specifically, to be able to quickly and effectively form militias.

That purpose is served the right to bear arms, but it is ALSO served by both registries and background checks for weapon owners.

As long as there is an expectation that a person can procure a gun in a reasonable amount of time, then background checks and registration fall right in line with the intent of the Second Amendment.

I guess we can re-address abortion as a right then as that is an extension of the natural right to privacy. The SCOTUS was pretty clear, that right exists as a natural function of the numerated rights you have and to deny that is silly let alone completely lacking in any real legal sense.

It is funny that I hear this coming from you. It is rare that anyone other than the far right makes the claim that privacy is not a right. Are you adopting their standards?

It’s more a matter of being consistent.

One cannot advocate for privacy rights yet maintain there is no right to self-defense and the right of the individual to possess a handgun.

Conversely, one cannot advocate for self-defense rights and the individual right to possess a handgun yet maintain there is no right to privacy with regard to abortion.

Both rights are the same in that they place restrictions on the state’s authority to regulate one’s civil liberties, whether that concerns the right to obtain a firearm or an abortion.

The focus should be on restricting the power of the state, not the activities of a citizen in the context of a Constitutionally protected right.