• 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!

Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

TheDemSocialist said:
So no laws were changed?
Click to expand...

no "laws" were changed when the FDR court rejected over 100 years of precedent and claimed that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate what a private farmer could grow on his own property for personal use-after early courts had held that the commerce clause said what it meant=congress could regulate COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES but not what a private citizen did in his own sovereign state


what you seem to fail to understand is that what gave the federal government power over licensed dealers was that you need a license to buy new firearms in interstate commerce. Private sellers are currently banned from interstate transactions and until they have such a license that allows them to do so, the federal government is going to have a hard time proving that people LIMITED to INTRA STATE sales are subject to commerce clause jurisdictional authority
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, the change will cause more folks to use an existing FFL dealer as a middle man (or buyer). It would be wiser to simply give 2 guns away (or to pawn them) than to risk going to prison for up to 5 years by selling them privately to non-FFL buyers. The odds are probably still slim that BATFE or the FBI would express interest in an occasional gun seller, but that risk is not ZERO and the penalties are steep.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure, but I thought someone from California told me all transactions including private, must have a BGC. So private individuals physically go to a gun store to have them run the BGC. I suspect the gun store charges some nominal fee for this.

Anyway, I seem to recall this.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not 100% sure, but I thought someone from California told me all transactions including private, must have a BGC. So private individuals physically go to a gun store to have them run the BGC. I suspect the gun store charges some nominal fee for this.

Anyway, I seem to recall this.
Click to expand...

that is correct. of course its hard to enforce sales of older guns without registration because unless one of the two parties to the transaction is a fink, neither is going to admit to the transaction taking place after that stupid law was passed.
 
akrunner88 said:
Background checks restrict the right's of those who can't pass background checks.

Closing gun loopholes restricts the rights of big money.

Traceability restricts the rights of those willing to distribute unlawfully, which isn't a right at all.

Nothing Obama proposed restricts the rights of law abiders. People need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

As usual someone has to post something that makes absolutely no sense. I guess this is that post. How does closing "loop holes" restrict the rights of big money? I gotta hear this.
 
TurtleDude said:
no "laws" were changed when the FDR court rejected over 100 years of precedent and claimed that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate what a private farmer could grow on his own property for personal use-after early courts had held that the commerce clause said what it meant=congress could regulate COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES but not what a private citizen did in his own sovereign state


what you seem to fail to understand is that what gave the federal government power over licensed dealers was that you need a license to buy new firearms in interstate commerce. Private sellers are currently banned from interstate transactions and until they have such a license that allows them to do so, the federal government is going to have a hard time proving that people LIMITED to INTRA STATE sales are subject to commerce clause jurisdictional authority
Click to expand...
Whoa!

If accurate, that's a big deal!

But that hasn't stopped the support for the commerce clause, since I've seem rulings claiming something "could" conceivably cross state lines, even though it wasn't in that specific case.

For all we know the court may rule the purchaser could conceivably leave the state with the gun.

Creative judicial activism knows no bounds, as I suspect you're more familiar than I.
 
Chomsky said:
Whoa!

If accurate, that's a big deal!

But that hasn't stopped the support for the commerce clause, since I've seem rulings claiming something "could" conceivably cross state lines, even though it wasn't in that specific case.

For all we know the court may rule the purchaser could conceivably leave the state with the gun.

Creative judicial activism knows no bounds, as I suspect you're more familiar than I.
Click to expand...

sadly true

the commerce clause jurisprudence is to American law what The electric kool aid acid tests were to the pharmaceutical industry
 
TurtleDude said:
that is correct. of course its hard to enforce sales of older guns without registration because unless one of the two parties to the transaction is a fink, neither is going to admit to the transaction taking place after that stupid law was passed.
Click to expand...
You know, not wanting to sound surreptitious or gangster, and not specifically referencing guns, but in our current databased & documented society, it's sometimes better to have things and activities that are off the grid.

When what we have and what we do is documented and out there, internet or otherwise, it's not too hard to find someone or some entity (incl govt) that wants a piece of the action.

Privacy is dying fast, so I cherish mine.
 
TurtleDude said:
no "laws" were changed when the FDR court rejected over 100 years of precedent and claimed that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate what a private farmer could grow on his own property for personal use-after early courts had held that the commerce clause said what it meant=congress could regulate COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES but not what a private citizen did in his own sovereign state


what you seem to fail to understand is that what gave the federal government power over licensed dealers was that you need a license to buy new firearms in interstate commerce. Private sellers are currently banned from interstate transactions and until they have such a license that allows them to do so, the federal government is going to have a hard time proving that people LIMITED to INTRA STATE sales are subject to commerce clause jurisdictional authority
Click to expand...

I respect you as a poster here......... I will give thanks to your overtly legal position that I will always be against 95% of the time.... But i like it 5% of the time...................
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

Hmmm... Every once in a while good ol Bill will say something I will have to agree with, and this is one of those times. I also believe that the vast majority of Republicans do not think that this measure of increasing background checks is not the right thing to do...
Click to expand...

O'Reilly has said a couple of smart things that were shocking. He stood up to Mitt Romney informing him that he might start WWIII by using military muscle to get his way. Though losing their debate, he corrected Jon Stewart about the difference of Debt and Deficit. And now this.

I think since him and Stewart hang out some intelligence gets brushed off onto him. Then he turns around and is an idiot the other 99% of the time.
 
Chomsky said:
You know, not wanting to sound surreptitious or gangster, and not specifically referencing guns, but in our current databased & documented society, it's sometimes better to have things and activities that are off the grid.

When what we have and what we do is documented and out there, internet or otherwise, it's not too hard to find someone or some entity (incl govt) that wants a piece of the action.

Privacy is dying fast, so I cherish mine.
Click to expand...

Speaking of this, I have been considering the acquisition of my first set of weapons, one pistol and one rifle. That because of all the current efforts to require all this nanny-state paperwork before being allowed to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed in any way.

If I do decide to finally do this? I certainly WON'T be using a Federally Licensed Dealer. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I'm not 100% sure, but I thought someone from California told me all transactions including private, must have a BGC. So private individuals physically go to a gun store to have them run the BGC. I suspect the gun store charges some nominal fee for this.

Anyway, I seem to recall this.
Click to expand...

That is a CA state law, the EA is "new" federal law. I imagine that the CA law makes the FFL become an interim owner for a substantial ($30?) fee plus CA sales tax (2X?).
 
Captain Adverse said:
Speaking of this, I have been considering the acquisition of my first set of weapons, one pistol and one rifle. That because of all the current efforts to require all this nanny-state paperwork before being allowed to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed in any way.

If I do decide to finally do this? I certainly WON'T be using a Federally License Dealer. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

most serious gun owners have firearms that are impossible to trace to them
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'm fairly sure they don't admit to ownership during surveys either. Not in THIS political climate anyway.
Click to expand...

I haven't the one or two times I was called. The Caller ID didn't come up with any answers so I had no idea who was calling.

one thing that the geeks doing the polling don't do is immerse themselves in the "gun culture" as people like I do. every week I am shooting a tournament, teaching a shooter, practicing. Today I was in Louisville for the big archery trade association show-not a gun show but I'd bet 98% of people there were gun owners given many of them are owners or buyers for shops that sell guns and bows, and lots of the exhibitors are part of companies that cater to both types of shooting sports. and I am in at least 2 different gun shops a week and at one time it was 3-4. and we talk and we observe and we see people we have never ever seen (in my 30 years since I moved back to SW Ohio after doing Law, Graduate and Undergraduate degrees hundreds of miles away) at these gun shops or ranges or shoots before. far more now than what I saw in the 80s, 90s or even 2009 or so

training classes sell out months in advance. our shooting leagues have 80-90 shooters a week rather than 20-35 I saw ten years ago. so I don't buy the crap anti gun pollsters try to foist on us
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'm fairly sure they don't admit to ownership during surveys either. Not in THIS political climate anyway.
Click to expand...

You've probably already posted, "Come and get 'em" on FB announcing that you have them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom