Why should there be “universal background checks” for firearms sales and transfers?

[Flash]

So machine guns and sawed off shotguns for all...including mental patients.

Great plan

You are confused about this, being a Moon Bat.

"Shall not be infringed" means that the government can't restrict anyone from owning a firearm. That is the law of the land.

If there are to be a deviation from that then it needs to be for a damn good reason.

In jurisprudence there is a method of applying exceptions to individual Constitutional rights. It is called "Strict Scrutiny". That means that a very strong test must be applied to a law that deprives an American of their individual liberty that is protected in the Constitution.

The problem with gun laws is that the Feds, State and Local government have not applied Strict Scrutiny to gun control laws and that is the reason many of them are so oppressive and bat shit crazy, like magazine bans, banning certain firearms and preventing citizens from even protecting their homes like Dick Heller was prevented from doing.

Hopefully this case from New York that is being considered by the Supreme Court will fix that. What we need is for the Supreme to tell the Fed, States and Locals to knock off all that oppressive shit. If a gun law is passed, like preventing the mentally ill from owning a machine gun, then it will pass the scrutiny of being strictly looked at as to outweigh the harm done to individual Liberty.

Of course you assholes Moon Bats would not like that because your agenda is not public safety but to take firearms away from Conservative White people so you won't have opposition to making this country a Socialist shithole.

 

[Lesh]

"Shall not be infringed" means that the government can't restrict anyone from owning a firearm. That is the law of the land.

Obviously not true.

Certain individuals (mentally unstable and criminals for instance) are and should be restricted.

Certain types of guns and weapons are and should be restricted...sawed off shotguns, machine guns, explosive devices...

 

[Slade3200]

It is not a felony to buy a gun from a private party, but making it a felony would not reduce criminals from doing it because they already intend to commit a crime with a firearms that has a greater penalty than the illegal purchase would have.

It wouldn’t prevent but it would reduce. Less people would be apt to sell with risks of felonies and it provides for an additional barrier for a criminal to get a weapon and use it. More time more barriers more risk,,, all add to reduce in gun violence

 

[Flash]

Certain types of guns and weapons are and should be restricted...sawed off shotguns, machine guns, explosive devices...

That is your fucking opinion Moon Bat.

By the way, machine guns are legal to own. I have one. I just had to pay that stupid $200 tax on it and that is despicable and illegal. If your Constitutional rights are taxed then they really aren't rights, are they?

 

[task0778]

Background checks are not unconstitutional "to date this is not the case." Really? What does "to date" mean?

It means up to and including now. Maybe a future court will declare background checks to be unconstitutional, but that day has not arrived yet.

The Constitution has had a number of Amendments added to it, but the basic wording is unchanged since the get-go, right? BUT - the world is constantly changing and those words have to be interpreted to cover new problems and situations that didn't exist 200+ years ago. Take for instance the development of modern day guns, which are quite different from what the framers knew. So, in order to preserve public safety and security, Congress passed a law that outlawed certain weapons of war for private use. IOW, we aren't supposed to be buying and using tanks, bazookas, and machine guns. Which is obviously a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, no? But the law exists anyway, and until the day comes when the Supreme Court declares that law to be unconstitutional, it is the law of the land. That law, along with the one that requires background checks mandatory for all retailers (excluding private sales) is in fact constitutional. You don't get to declare any existing law to be unconstitutional, that is not within your purview. You can have and share your opinion on it, but we should not be living in a world where anybody can say this law or that law is unconstitutional and I will ignore it. That's what the democrats do, and it ain't right for them and it ain't right for you either.

 

[Slade3200]

That is your fucking opinion Moon Bat.

By the way, machine guns are legal to own. I have one. I just had to pay that stupid $200 tax on it and that is despicable and illegal. If your Constitutional rights are taxed then they really aren't rights, are they?

Haha, what a stupid statement.

 

[Woodznutz]

it all ends up being who is in charge,, there is one side that will always say the other is mentally ill because they dont believe as we do,,

The danger of the "mental illness" diagnosis is that it would likely target people whose families fear that they are at risk for suicide and 'intervene on their behalf', leading to what might be a skewed examination result by doctors engaged by the state to 'find these people' and disarm them before they harm themselves.

Many anti's see the mental illness diagnosis as a tool to disarm large numbers of 'would-be-suicides'. And while millions suffer from various forms of mental illness few suicides can be attributed to it.

 

[Flash]

Haha, what a stupid statement.

No Moon Bat, you are once again confused. The stupidity is taxing Constitutional rights.

I suppose you idiot Moon Bats think it is also OK to tax free speech and going to church? How about taxing due process? Is that what you assholes think you can do?

You shitheads hate the Bill of Rights, don't you? Either that or you don't know any more about the Constitution than you dumbasses know about History, Economics, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

 

[Slade3200]

No Moon Bat, you are once again confused. The stupidity is taxing Constitutional rights.

I suppose you idiot Moon Bats think it is also OK to tax free speech and going to church? How about taxing due process? Is that what you assholes think you can do?

You shitheads hate the Bill of Rights, don't you? Either that or you don't know any more about the Constitution than you dumbasses know about History, Economics, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

Oh right because nobody pays tax when the pay for a billboard or TV advertisement, right?!

 

[Lesh]

That is your fucking opinion Moon Bat.

By the way, machine guns are legal to own. I have one. I just had to pay that stupid $200 tax on it and that is despicable and illegal. If your Constitutional rights are taxed then they really aren't rights, are they?

It is NOT my opinion

There ARE restrictions on machine guns, sawed off shotguns and felons and mentally ill people people owning guns

FACT

 

[Flash]

Oh right because nobody pays tax when the pay for a billboard or TV advertisement, right?!

My god that is a stupid analogy. Are you really that fucking stupid?

The $200 NFA tax is a Federal stamp specifically for the ownership of the arm.

The relevant analogy would be a poll tax that you had to pay to vote, which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

If you pay a sales tax on a billboard it is for the services to put the billboard up, not a tax on the content.

I swear you Moon bats are the dumbest mutherfvkers on the face of the earth.

What other stupidity do you have for us today, Moon Bat?

 

[Slade3200]

My god that is a stupid analogy. Are you really that fucking stupid?

The $200 NFA tax is a Federal stamp specifically for the ownership of the arm.

The relevant analogy would be a poll tax that you had to pay to vote, which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

If you pay a sales tax on a billboard it is for the services to put the billboard up, not a tax on the content.

I swear you Moon bats are the dumbest mutherfvkers on the face of the earth.

What other stupidity do you have for us today, Moon Bat?

You don’t think you’re paying for the service of manufacturing and selling the weapon?! The flash isn’t very bright today

 

[Flash]

It is NOT my opinion

There ARE restrictions on machine guns, sawed off shotguns and felons and mentally ill people people owning guns

FACT

You are confused Moon Bat. Those restrictions are illegal. The only time they have been challenged in court was in the Miller case where the court said that arms in general use by the military are protected under the Second Amendment. Miller's sawed off shotgun was deemed illegal to own because it wasn't in general use by the military. That was an an erroneous judgement by the Court because the military had used sawed off shotguns in WWI for trench warfare but the Court didn't know that.

The fact is that the filthy ass Feds, States and Locals get away with all kinds of illegal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Hopefully this New York case before the Supreme Court will fix all that oppression.

In the menatime you stupid ignorant hate filled Moon Bats can go fuck yourself.

 

[Flash]

You don’t think you’re paying for the service of manufacturing and selling the weapon?! The flash isn’t very bright today

You are confused Moon Bat. Stop being a dumbass. It just makes you look like a fool when you post your ignorant shit.

The NFA tax stamp is a direct Federal tax on the ownership of the firearm. That is what the NFA law is all about you dumb mutherfvker. It was specifically created in the 1930s to put the cost of a NFA regulated item out of the reach of normal people. $200 was like four months salary for a lot of people back then. Just like the $2 poll tax was designed to keep poor Negroes from voting.

In addition to the NFA you have to pay any sales taxes or other taxes involved in the manufacture and distribution just like any other commodity.

 

[Slade3200]

You are confused Moon Bat. Stop being a dumbass. It just makes you look like a fool when you post your ignorant shit.

The NFA tax stamp is a direct Federal tax on the ownership of the firearm. That is what the NFA law is all about you dumb mutherfvker. It was specifically created in the 1930s to put the cost of a NFA regulated item out of the reach of normal people. $200 was like four months salary for a lot of people back then. Just like the $2 poll tax was designed to keep poor Negroes from voting.

In addition to the NFA you have to pay any sales taxes or other taxes involved in the manufacture and distribution just like any other commodity.

No shit because it was deemed a public safety hazard and our government has decided to regulate it for almost 100 years now. I’m not the one confused here.

 

[task0778]

The Constitution gives the Federal Government certain powers and it limits certain powers of the Federal and State governments. Out side of those enumerated Federal powers, there actually IS NO governmental authority. This limit is 100% absolute. The Supreme Court can't grant the Federal Government power that the Constitution did not give the Government or the Court. How can they simply make up power they don't have?

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That section is where Congress was granted the authority to pass laws that are not specified in the Constitution. James Madison recognized that if we gave Congress the power to determine what is and is not for the general welfare of the United States, then every portion of our lives would be under the control of Congress. As we see today, Congress has inserted itself into education, traffic laws, and a host of other issues. Because Congress routinely delegates their powers to the executive and judicial branches, we now live in a nation where literally everything is a federal case.

Similarly, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed." There are no exception clauses and no one can provide any constitutional reference to suggest that there are exceptions. There can't be any exceptions because, as I discussed earlier, outside of the Constitution, the Government has absolutely zero authority. If it's not written in the Constitution, then the Government just plain can not do it.

Yes, they can, and have done so many times. It all depends on your interpretation of what "infringed" means. But the Congress and the President cannot simply do whatever they want, the Supreme court has the final say over what is constitutional and what isn't. Plus, they are also constrained by the ballot box, if they go too far they can be voted our of office and they know it. In the case of background checks, it is widely accepted that requiring a background check does not infringe the rights of any law-abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun.

So many make reasonable (though incorrect in my opinion) that it's a good thing to prevent felony litterers from owning a gun, or a Naval officer kicked out of the Navy for having an affair - a limitation not applied outside of the military. OK, we disagree. But to make those laws constitutional requires a constitutional amendment.

No. When the US Congress passes legislation and the President signs it, that law IS constitutional by default. Why? Because it was passed and signed as the US Constitution prescribes. The President can't make up laws on his own authority and neither can the Congress; such laws are unconstitutional. And when a constitutional law is challenged in court, the Judicial Branch can make the determination as to whether the law has a basis in the Constitution.

As far as background checks are concerned, In March of 1981, the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan led to further gun legislation with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to now require background checks for the purchase of firearms from a retailer. The Brady Act, as it’s known today, also led to the development of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which launched in 1998, and is the current law on background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.

That is the law of the land and it IS constitutional until the Supreme Court says it isn't. They make that call, we don't.

 

[Delldude]

Do you not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed"? There is no such thing as a legal issue that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm outside of prison or on private property where the owner forbids it.

No chance a drug conviction or domestic violence issue would show up on a BC?

 

[Flash]

No shit because it was deemed a public safety hazard and our government has decided to regulate it for almost 100 years now. I’m not the one confused here.

...and illegal. The Democrats in Jim Crow South thought it was a public safety issue to tax the Negroes on voting. You can't legally tax a Consitional right no matter how much you filthy ass Libtards want to do or how much you little shitheads get away with it.

The only time the NFA tax stamp was ruled on by the Court was when they found that an arm could be taxed because it wasn't in general use by the military. That means (according to the Miller ruling) is that they can tax my AR-15s but can't legally tax my M-16.

If that ever became the case there would be a lot of M-16 conversion kits sold, wouldn't there be?

 

[Delldude]

Absolutely not. Due process grants zero authority to the Government. If they didn't have the authority prior to the 14th Amendment then they don't have the authority after the 14th Amendment. The due process clause protects people from the government randomly or unreasonably acting on the authorities they already had.

To suggest that all that is required is due process is to claim that the Constitution no longer matters at all and doesn't restrict the Government at all, as long as they get some judge to order something.

With due process, can the government imprison someone for a crime without a trial? Can they strip a defendant of the ability to have an attorney? With due process, can the government try someone a second time for the same crime?

The very sad thing is that so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives and constitutionalists fall for stupid ideas like the one you are claiming. Really, with stupid shit like that it could be that our cause is lost.

The way it works is they violate your rights, then you can fight it out in court.

 

[Slade3200]

...and illegal. The Democrats in Jim Crow South thought it was a public safety issue to tax the Negroes on voting. You can't legally tax a Consitional right no matter how much you filthy ass Libtards want to do or how much you little shitheads get away with it.

The only time the NFA tax stamp was ruled on by the Court was when they found that an arm could be taxed because it wasn't in general use by the military. That means (according to the Miller ruling) is that they can tax my AR-15s but can't legally tax my M-16.

If that ever became the case there would be a lot of M-16 conversion kits sold, wouldn't there be?

Don’t know and don’t care. Just find it funny when wingnuts cry about laws being illegal and then call others confused