• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Dems partner with gun-control activists amid ‘summer of gun violence’

WSUwarrior said:
The FBI, DOJ, and CDC have all done multiple studies that concluded that there is not a single gun law that has a discernible effect on lowering crime....and that includes periods of time where gun laws were much more severe than they are now.

Its pointless to implement a UBC.
Click to expand...

Link one such study from each organization.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you also support states rights regarding intrastate commerce and regulations on such sales?
Click to expand...

Nope. There is a vested Federal interest in universal background checks.
 
MrT said:
Last I saw, the percentage of Americans that support universal background checks stands around 80%. My hope is that the Democrats can limit the legislation to that goal and hopefully keep the gun crazies from de-railing another reasonable piece of legislation because of some tin foil hat wearing fear that it will lead to gun confiscation/banning.
Click to expand...

If there's really so much support for that or any other violation of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then why isn't there any credible effort underway to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment? That is the only legitimate way that any such policy can ever be made into a legitimate law, and if there was 80% support for such an amendment, then that would be plenty to assure that it happened.
 
Deuce said:
Nope. There is a vested Federal interest in universal background checks.
Click to expand...

One can similarly argue there's a vested Federal Interested in assuring full faith and credit amongst licenses issued by a state.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Senate Democrats call 2015 the 'summer of gun violence' - Washington Times

"Senate Democrats joined with gun-control activists Tuesday on Capitol Hill to demand tougher firearms laws in response to recent shootings in Charleston, Chattanooga and Lafayette, which they dubbed the “summer of gun violence.”
They called for the resurrection of legislation that would expand criminal background checks for gun buyers and close the so-called gun show loophole."


Good idea. Chase the vote the other way. This isn't even about the loophole as much as making a political statement. I accept that. It is what politics is about. It is entertaining that they do this and every time it chases votes to the conservative side and it is good for gun sales.
Click to expand...

That's not a loophole.
Loophole
: a means of escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Click to expand...

The original intent of Gun Control Act and FOPA did not include a desire to run a background check on every single gun sale ever. Congress ONLY applied this law to licensed gun dealers for two reasons:
1. Federally licensed firearms dealers are subject to numerous record keeping requirements. Since they can receive firearms within interstate commerce, they are subject to federal regulations based on the FDR expansion of the commerce clause.
2. Congress specifically declined to make private sellers-who by federal law cannot sell guns interstate, exempt from this new law.
~a. Because private sellers do not have to keep records
~b. Because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR
The rule only applied to FFL holders. No FFL means no expectation to perform a background check. Likewise you don't need to use a licensed auto dealer to sell your car.

****
So you people think this is about guns and gun violence and all that.

It's not.

This is about applying interstate commerce regulation to private people. This isn't about firearms or crime at all. Wake the **** up already.
 
Jerry said:
That's not a loophole.


The original intent of Gun Control Act and FOPA did not include a desire to run a background check on every single gun sale ever. Congress ONLY applied this law to licensed gun dealers for two reasons:
1. Federally licensed firearms dealers are subject to numerous record keeping requirements. Since they can receive firearms within interstate commerce, they are subject to federal regulations based on the FDR expansion of the commerce clause.
2. Congress specifically declined to make private sellers-who by federal law cannot sell guns interstate, exempt from this new law.
~a. Because private sellers do not have to keep records
~b. Because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR
The rule only applied to FFL holders. No FFL means no expectation to perform a background check. Likewise you don't need to use a licensed auto dealer to sell your car.

The reason anti-gun wants universal background checks is to create a registry of who owns what, and the purpose of that registry is confiscation. This is how they did it in the UK, this is how they did it in Canada, this is how they did it in Australia. We see it coming a mile away.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would use the argument that the left uses on voter fraud (it isn't happening) but I won't because there are so many more good arguments against this without lowering myself to use that lame argument.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If there's really so much support for that or any other violation of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then why isn't there any credible effort underway to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment? That is the only legitimate way that any such policy can ever be made into a legitimate law, and if there was 80% support for such an amendment, then that would be plenty to assure that it happened.
Click to expand...

Background checks are not a violation of your second amendment right.
 
Jerry said:
That's not a loophole.


The original intent of Gun Control Act and FOPA did not include a desire to run a background check on every single gun sale ever. Congress ONLY applied this law to licensed gun dealers for two reasons:
1. Federally licensed firearms dealers are subject to numerous record keeping requirements. Since they can receive firearms within interstate commerce, they are subject to federal regulations based on the FDR expansion of the commerce clause.
2. Congress specifically declined to make private sellers-who by federal law cannot sell guns interstate, exempt from this new law.
~a. Because private sellers do not have to keep records
~b. Because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR
The rule only applied to FFL holders. No FFL means no expectation to perform a background check. Likewise you don't need to use a licensed auto dealer to sell your car.

****
So you people think this is about guns and gun violence and all that.

It's not.

This is about applying interstate commerce regulation to private people. This isn't about firearms or crime at all. Wake the **** up already.
Click to expand...

It is illegal for a private seller to sell a firearm to a felon, correct? The intent of the statute is to prevent people from selling firearms to felons, right? However, that law requires the seller to know or have a reasonable belief that the person to whom they are selling is not allowed to purchase the firearm. The lack of a background check provides a loophole through which a person can sell that firearm because they lack the requisite mens rea associated with illegally selling the firearm to someone disallowed from purchasing the gun.

Again, I do not buy the argument that this law should be rejected because you are worried about gun confiscation and this law would put us slightly closer to that end of the continuum. Furthermore, comparing the steps taken by other countries which did not have a constitutionally protected right to own guns to the United States is also un-convincing.

Now then, the potential commerce clause arguments against expanding this law to include all sells of firearms seems interesting and I will consider that issue further. My initial thought is that the dormant commerce clause would permit such an expansion.
 
Deuce said:
SSM bans are unconstitutional and therefore not "states' rights."

You may refer to the Supreme Court for further details.
Click to expand...


One can argue constitutionality of "keep and BEAR arms" too. And "Full faith and Credit" like DLs besides.
 
MrT said:
Background checks are not a violation of your second amendment right.
Click to expand...

What part of “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is unclear to you.

Yes, any interference of any sort, on the part of government, with the exercise of this right, is absolutely forbidden by the Second Amendment. If you don't like it, then try to get an amendment ratified that overturns the Second Amendment. That is the only legitimate way to enact any gun control laws in this nation.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
What part of “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is unclear to you.

Yes, any interference of any sort, on the part of government, with the exercise of this right, is absolutely forbidden by the Second Amendment. If you don't like it, then try to get an amendment ratified that overturns the Second Amendment. That is the only legitimate way to enact any gun control laws in this nation.
Click to expand...

Oh come the **** on. How about you go ahead and define "right to bear and keep arms" because the language doesn't make it clear. Are you allowed to own a grenade launcher? How about a flamethrower? How about a missile? Or a nuke?

EVERY constitutional right has limits. Accept that fact and move on.
 
NonoBadDog said:
That is your local govt. I agree with you on the tougher sentences.
Click to expand...

That's easier said than done. The city of Seattle passed tighter gun control laws for parks and community centers but the state Constitution did not allow that. So it was challenged in the courts and struck down. Quite publicly in the media.

It was nice to see the system work for a change.
 
MrT said:
No, I don't think anyone is asserting that you have to do background check before giving a gun as a gift.
Click to expand...

Except that that is exactly the legislation that DID pass here in WA St last year. :(

No private sales, loans, or gifting without background checks. (highly simplified version)
 
Deuce said:
Nope. There is a vested Federal interest in universal background checks.
Click to expand...

Yes and it's not a good one....if you think there wont be electronic trails for ownership for 'use in the future' I've got some beachfront property for ya in North Dakota.
 
Lursa said:
Except that that is exactly the legislation that DID pass here in WA St last year. :(

No private sales, loans, or gifting without background checks. (highly simplified version)
Click to expand...

Appreciate the heads up, someone points out that NJ also had a similar law. I will be curious to hear whether Washington's additional law had any noticeable affect on disallowed individuals obtaining firearms.
 
Lursa said:
That's easier said than done. The city of Seattle passed tighter gun control laws for parks and community centers but the state Constitution did not allow that. So it was challenged in the courts and struck down. Quite publicly in the media.

It was nice to see the system work for a change.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with Chicago is it has so many problems that never will be addressed.
 
MrT said:
It is illegal for a private seller to sell a firearm to a felon, correct? The intent of the statute is to prevent people from selling firearms to felons, right? However, that law requires the seller to know or have a reasonable belief that the person to whom they are selling is not allowed to purchase the firearm. The lack of a background check provides a loophole through which a person can sell that firearm because they lack the requisite mens rea associated with illegally selling the firearm to someone disallowed from purchasing the gun.

Again, I do not buy the argument that this law should be rejected because you are worried about gun confiscation and this law would put us slightly closer to that end of the continuum. Furthermore, comparing the steps taken by other countries which did not have a constitutionally protected right to own guns to the United States is also un-convincing.

Now then, the potential commerce clause arguments against expanding this law to include all sells of firearms seems interesting and I will consider that issue further. My initial thought is that the dormant commerce clause would permit such an expansion.
Click to expand...
Just enforce the law on the felon if they're ever found to be in posession. Problem solved.
 
MrT said:
Last I saw, the percentage of Americans that support universal background checks stands around 80%. My hope is that the Democrats can limit the legislation to that goal and hopefully keep the gun crazies from de-railing another reasonable piece of legislation because of some tin foil hat wearing fear that it will lead to gun confiscation/banning.
Click to expand...
Universal backround cecks block people who have no criminal history and is thus an infringement.
 
MrT said:
How about you go ahead and define "right to bear and keep arms" because the language doesn't make it clear.
Click to expand...
Ok.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."
Click to expand...

So, let's go down the list:

  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
 
MrT said:
How about you go ahead and define "right to bear and keep arms" because the language doesn't make it clear.
Click to expand...
...also...


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."
Click to expand...


Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
 
Jerry said:
Just enforce the law on the felon if they're ever found to be in posession. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

...except that the felon is IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM. That is still a problem.
 
Jerry said:
Universal backround cecks block people who have no criminal history and is thus an infringement.
Click to expand...

Only if there is a mistake in the paperwork. That is not an infringement because the person can easily rectify the problem and still obtain the firearm.
 
Jerry said:
...also...





Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Click to expand...

You see how you had to quote a Supreme Court case in order to define that term? That is precisely the point I was trying to make to Bob Blaylock who claimed that any infringement is a violation of the amendment because "what part of shall not infringe do you not understand."

That is a bull**** reasoning and it requires elaboration and explanation from the Supreme Court. And you know what? That very case you are citing also notes that the Government is entitled to restrict the second amendment using the same strict scrutiny test applied to every other constitutional right.
 
MrT said:
Oh come the **** on. How about you go ahead and define "right to bear and keep arms" because the language doesn't make it clear. Are you allowed to own a grenade launcher? How about a flamethrower? How about a missile? Or a nuke?

EVERY constitutional right has limits. Accept that fact and move on.
Click to expand...

Actually, a person CAN own a grenade launcher or flamethrower. The nuke thing is pretty over the top since not even all countries can have a nuke.
 
MrT said:
...except that the felon is IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM. That is still a problem.
Click to expand...

That is why they call them CRIMINALS. They don't care about the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom