bendog
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 46,279
- 9,698
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion. There's a legal distinction between being stopped on the street just so the gummit can check to see if everyone is not a fleeing felon (not that I'm aware of any gummit doing that) and between the gummit stopping every car at a checkpoint to see if all drivers are licensed.You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.
You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.
If you're being honest, anyway.
Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?
In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok. In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.
Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales. They are intended to make sure everyone on the road in gun commerce is legally entitled to buy a gun. Like license check points, some guys may be arrested, but in reality people are just told "you didn't pass the check, so I can't sell you the gun."
So, both license checks and background checks pose small inconveniences to every one in that their 4th and 2nd rights suffer a little bit of inconvenience. You agree felons can be prohibited from ownership. I don't see a distinction between the two. Do you?
I'll answer my own question, and not to argue so much as respond to the notion of felons owning guns and background check interferences.
Some felons have legit needs for guns and don't pose anymore threat than anyone else. Suppose I do time for selling drugs, get out and live in Southside Chi and work in a convenience/liquor store. I need a gun. LOL
Suppose my spouse regularly abuses me, and recently took it up notch, so I got a restraining order and moved to a shelter, but he's stalking me. I need a gun yesterday.