• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
If that was really true, then there would be no difficulty at all in getting the Constitution amended in order to supersede the Second Amendment, and to allow the right affirmed therein to be infringed to the degree of requiring these checks as a prerequisite for exercising that right. That no credible effort has been made to propose such an amendment proves that those who claim there is this much support are flat-out lying.

Um... we already have background checks, and SCOTUS doesn't see them as an "infringement". So... um, no need to amend the constitution.

I love how some folks throw that word "infringe" around like it's the be-all, end-all to understanding the 2nd Amendment.

"Infringing on the freedom of the press" is in the First Amendment, but Libel and child porn are still illegal.

Maybe NAMBLA and the NRA should pool their legal resources and stop all this "infringement" of rights.:roll:


 
The premise of the argument was that background checks are incompatible with interstate commerce laws. I want to know how?

1: You again avoid a direct question put to you.

2: No that is not the premise of the arguement which was put before you by Turtledude. Turtledude was talking about intrastate commerce. Not interstate commerce.

Here I'll even repost it for you AGAIN.

tell us Catawba-given your expansive understanding of constitutional law-how is this proposed law going to get past LOPEZ and what exactly is the connection to INTERSTATE COMMERCE given that I can only sell a personal weapon to someone who lives in my own state?

He was asking you how interstate commerce is connected to an intrastate commerce act. You responded by saying...

How do you prove that gun does not cross state lines once you sell it?

Trying to assert that if a gun moves across state lines it automatically becomes an interstate commerce issue. Totally ignoring the fact that the gun was sold intrastate and that once sold that gun moving across state lines is irrelevent because it is no longer an act connected to commerce.

So no Catawba, we are not discussing interstate commerce. We are discussing intrastate commerce. Something which the federal government has no legal control over. That would include forcing private sellers to conduct background checks while selling guns intrastate.

Now since you apparently are having a hard time keeping up with the discussion I will again ask you the same question I did in my previous....lets see if you can actually answer it this time.

How does the government have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce? IE private sellers in a state selling to people in that state. Which is what they are trying to do by insisting that private sellers must do background checks.
 
If the buyer and the seller are in the same state (typical private gun sale) then there is no interstate commerce.

You didn't answer my question, how does a background check interfere with with interstate commerce?
 
Um... we already have background checks, and SCOTUS doesn't see them as an "infringement". So... um, no need to amend the constitution.

I love how some folks throw that word "infringe" around like it's the be-all, end-all to understanding the 2nd Amendment.

"Infringing on the freedom of the press" is in the First Amendment, but Libel and child porn are still illegal.

Maybe NAMBLA and the NRA should pool their legal resources and stop all this "infringement" of rights.:roll:



You know...for someone that named themselves "mr4anarchy" you sure do like to support the government alot don't you?
 
1: You again avoid a direct question put to you.

2: No that is not the premise of the arguement which was put before you by Turtledude. Turtledude was talking about intrastate commerce. Not interstate commerce.

Here I'll even repost it for you AGAIN.



He was asking you how interstate commerce is connected to an intrastate commerce act. You responded by saying...



Trying to assert that if a gun moves across state lines it automatically becomes an interstate commerce issue. Totally ignoring the fact that the gun was sold intrastate and that once sold that gun moving across state lines is irrelevent because it is no longer an act connected to commerce.

So no Catawba, we are not discussing interstate commerce. We are discussing intrastate commerce. Something which the federal government has no legal control over. That would include forcing private sellers to conduct background checks while selling guns intrastate.

Now since you apparently are having a hard time keeping up with the discussion I will again ask you the same question I did in my previous....lets see if you can actually answer it this time.

How does the government have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce? IE private sellers in a state selling to people in that state. Which is what they are trying to do by insisting that private sellers must do background checks.



No one has explained how background checks are in conflict with any commerce laws......................
 
No one has explained how background checks are in conflict with any commerce laws......................

Apparently you have not be reading. Or just plain D ignoreing what has been said. Lets see if big bold print will get it across to you...

The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. Private sellers conduct intrastate commerce. Something which the Federal Government has no authority over.

Understand it yet? Now answer my question.
 
Apparently you have not be reading. Or just plain D ignoreing what has been said. Lets see if big bold print will get it across to you...

The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. Private sellers conduct intrastate commerce. Something which the Federal Government has no authority over.

Understand it yet? Now answer my question.


Firearms dealers do not conduct intrastate commerce?
 
Until you answer my question you will not get any more of yours answered.

Fine, until the premise is proved, your questions are irrelevant.
 
Fine, until the premise is proved, your questions are irrelevant.

Figures. Of course we all know that you considered the question "irrelevent" from the get go. Which is why you continueally ignored it and even if I answered ALL your questions you would still do the two-step and avoid answering the question. For the simple fact that it does not allow a path for your gun grabbing idiotic idealogy. Gun grabbers LOVE to ignore the Constitution whenever it doesn't benefit them but the moment they think that it even slightly benefits them they run straight to it.
 
Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks

"The rest are an assortment of private sellers, many looking to sell or trade individual guns or downsize large personal collections. But among them are private sellers who look very much like licensed dealers.

It is not uncommon, members of the industry said, for these individuals to set up at show after show, flipping guns, as it were, and engaging in what is essentially a professional gun-dealing operation — without the regulation that goes along with it. And that practice is irritating to more than just those sounding the alarm about the dangers of unfettered gun sales.

Bill Bernstein, owner of East Side Gun Shop in East Nashville, objects to these ostensibly casual sellers on business grounds. Strictly speaking, they don’t pose direct competition to his business, since he stays away from gun shows. But their regular activities end up looking very similar to his, just without the rules, regulation and red tape.

“It’s their ‘private collection,’ ” he said, “[but] their private collection changes every week, and every week or every gun show they’re out there with a different table of guns, buying, selling, trading. I’m sorry, to me that person is an unlicensed dealer.”

Bernstein said the problem is with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives’ somewhat amorphous definition of the term “dealer.” The bureau defines a dealer as a person “who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms ... with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.” At the point when a person is selling and trading firearms as a means to obtain other firearms, which they then intend to sell and trade, they’re encroaching on that definition, Bernstein said.

I wanted to engage in this business,” he said, “I went and got a license. I have to go through inspections periodically, I have to present records to ATF when they come calling — and they did last week — I have to pay sales tax on whatever I sell. And these guys don’t.

"Under the guise of a casual private sale, these unlicensed dealers are able to operate outside of rules and regulations, such as required background checks, that would typically govern sales of similar volume and frequency. On the flip side, they create a quasi-legitimate market where individuals who would otherwise be prohibited from obtaining a firearm can purchase one. It is a felony to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person, but without a required background check, the situation effectively becomes one of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” regardless of the intentions of the dealer."

Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks | Nashville City Paper
 
Last edited:
Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks

"The rest are an assortment of private sellers, many looking to sell or trade individual guns or downsize large personal collections. But among them are private sellers who look very much like licensed dealers.

It is not uncommon, members of the industry said, for these individuals to set up at show after show, flipping guns, as it were, and engaging in what is essentially a professional gun-dealing operation — without the regulation that goes along with it. And that practice is irritating to more than just those sounding the alarm about the dangers of unfettered gun sales.

Bill Bernstein, owner of East Side Gun Shop in East Nashville, objects to these ostensibly casual sellers on business grounds. Strictly speaking, they don’t pose direct competition to his business, since he stays away from gun shows. But their regular activities end up looking very similar to his, just without the rules, regulation and red tape.

“It’s their ‘private collection,’ ” he said, “[but] their private collection changes every week, and every week or every gun show they’re out there with a different table of guns, buying, selling, trading. I’m sorry, to me that person is an unlicensed dealer.”

Bernstein said the problem is with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives’ somewhat amorphous definition of the term “dealer.” The bureau defines a dealer as a person “who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms ... with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.” At the point when a person is selling and trading firearms as a means to obtain other firearms, which they then intend to sell and trade, they’re encroaching on that definition, Bernstein said.

I wanted to engage in this business,” he said, “I went and got a license. I have to go through inspections periodically, I have to present records to ATF when they come calling — and they did last week — I have to pay sales tax on whatever I sell. And these guys don’t.

"Under the guise of a casual private sale, these unlicensed dealers are able to operate outside of rules and regulations, such as required background checks, that would typically govern sales of similar volume and frequency. On the flip side, they create a quasi-legitimate market where individuals who would otherwise be prohibited from obtaining a firearm can purchase one. It is a felony to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person, but without a required background check, the situation effectively becomes one of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” regardless of the intentions of the dealer."

Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks | Nashville City Paper

There are already laws that address this subject area just as is done with car dealers...
 
There are already laws that address this subject area just as is done with car dealers...

Obviously they don't address the problem of private gun dealers in 40 states, which is why extending background checks is being taken up for debate in Congress after Easter break.
 
Obviously they don't address the problem of private gun dealers in 40 states, which is why extending background checks is being taken up for debate in Congress after Easter break.

If a person is in the business of regularly purchasing guns to then sell for a profit an FFL is required and all Federal laws and regulations must be followed...
 
If a person is in the business of regularly purchasing guns to then sell for a profit an FFL is required and all Federal laws and regulations must be followed...


Not at all.

Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks

"The rest are an assortment of private sellers, many looking to sell or trade individual guns or downsize large personal collections. But among them are private sellers who look very much like licensed dealers.

It is not uncommon, members of the industry said, for these individuals to set up at show after show, flipping guns, as it were, and engaging in what is essentially a professional gun-dealing operation — without the regulation that goes along with it. And that practice is irritating to more than just those sounding the alarm about the dangers of unfettered gun sales.

Bill Bernstein, owner of East Side Gun Shop in East Nashville, objects to these ostensibly casual sellers on business grounds. Strictly speaking, they don’t pose direct competition to his business, since he stays away from gun shows. But their regular activities end up looking very similar to his, just without the rules, regulation and red tape.

“It’s their ‘private collection,’ ” he said, “[but] their private collection changes every week, and every week or every gun show they’re out there with a different table of guns, buying, selling, trading. I’m sorry, to me that person is an unlicensed dealer.”

Bernstein said the problem is with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives’ somewhat amorphous definition of the term “dealer.” The bureau defines a dealer as a person “who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms ... with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.” At the point when a person is selling and trading firearms as a means to obtain other firearms, which they then intend to sell and trade, they’re encroaching on that definition, Bernstein said.

I wanted to engage in this business,” he said, “I went and got a license. I have to go through inspections periodically, I have to present records to ATF when they come calling — and they did last week — I have to pay sales tax on whatever I sell. And these guys don’t.

"Under the guise of a casual private sale, these unlicensed dealers are able to operate outside of rules and regulations, such as required background checks, that would typically govern sales of similar volume and frequency. On the flip side, they create a quasi-legitimate market where individuals who would otherwise be prohibited from obtaining a firearm can purchase one. It is a felony to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person, but without a required background check, the situation effectively becomes one of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” regardless of the intentions of the dealer."

Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks | Nashville City Paper
......................
 
Not at all.


......................

You can reply with this BS all you like but you need to read 18 USC 921 as it contains the following...

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means ... (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section
921(a)(11)(A), 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, but such term shall
not include 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;

(22) The term "with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit" means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of
firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary
gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating
a personal firearms collection ...

http://http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/921.html

So, the persons described in your "reference" are in violation of current law...
 
You didn't answer my question, how does a background check interfere with with interstate commerce?

Your "question" seems to morph a bit with each post. The point is that BG checks have nothing directly to do with interstate commerce. Would it be constitutional to refuse to sell flamable liquids, cars, knives or any other "potentially dangerous" product to a convicted felon or mentally "challenged" citizen? Don't get me wrong here, as I do not object to restricting the rights of folks after due process convictions/adjudications. What I fail to see is any linkage of BG checks and interstate commerce at all.

What is nonsense, is that simply because FFL dealers now are the only "private" folks with NICS database access, that they be forced to perform additional nanny duties to sanction private gun (ammo?) sales for which they have no interest. To give them a "false" interest the gov't must invent a "service fee", essentailly a bribe, to make it "profitable" for them to play along. I am sure that car dealers would feel better if they were required to play middle man, for a 10% fee, to sanction all "private" car sales too.

The only reason that the FFL dealers were "chosen" for that position is that they now are the official (unofficial?) gun sale "record keepers" for the federal (state?) gov't, a very controversial role. Since they are not "technically" gov't employees, they can be said not to be keeping records "for the gov't" but they are required by law to do so, allowing the gov't 100% access to them (at any time) w/o any search warrants or court orders at all. An ingenious scheme to have the federal gov't keep very accurate and complete records of all US gun sales w/o actually "really" doing so legally.
 
You know...for someone that named themselves "mr4anarchy" you sure do like to support the government alot don't you?

I'm a walking contradiction.

I'm justing pointing out that "infringe" or similar words are all over the 1st Amendment. And we don't allow human sacrifices for Pagans.
 
I'm a walking contradiction.

I'm justing pointing out that "infringe" or similar words are all over the 1st Amendment. And we don't allow human sacrifices for Pagans.

I do not recall "infringe" being mentioned in the First...
 
You can reply with this BS all you like but you need to read 18 USC 921 as it contains the following...

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means ... (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section
921(a)(11)(A), 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, but such term shall
not include 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;

(22) The term "with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit" means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of
firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary
gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating
a personal firearms collection ...

http://http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/921.html

So, the persons described in your "reference" are in violation of current law...


Private sellers fall through a loophole that allows them avoid that definition in 40 states, that is why it is being taken up by Congress as soon as they return from Easter break.
 
Private sellers fall through a loophole that allows them avoid that definition in 40 states, that is why it is being taken up by Congress as soon as they return from Easter break.

Don't act like your stupid. This is the U.S. Code. Your bitch is that it's not being enforced. If we would simply apply the laws on the books, your concerns would be alleviated...
 
Your "question" seems to morph a bit with each post. The point is that BG checks have nothing directly to do with interstate commerce. Would it be constitutional to refuse to sell flamable liquids, cars, knives or any other "potentially dangerous" product to a convicted felon or mentally "challenged" citizen? Don't get me wrong here, as I do not object to restricting the rights of folks after due process convictions/adjudications. What I fail to see is any linkage of BG checks and interstate commerce at all.

Me either, perhaps you can explain that to the TurtleDude.

there is no proper constitutional basis for the federal government to mandate these checks which-by law-only involve INTRASTATE activity



What is nonsense, is that simply because FFL dealers now are the only "private" folks with NICS database access, that they be forced to perform additional nanny duties to sanction private gun (ammo?) sales for which they have no interest. To give them a "false" interest the gov't must invent a "service fee", essentailly a bribe, to make it "profitable" for them to play along. I am sure that car dealers would feel better if they were required to play middle man, for a 10% fee, to sanction all "private" car sales too.

The only reason that the FFL dealers were "chosen" for that position is that they now are the official (unofficial?) gun sale "record keepers" for the federal (state?) gov't, a very controversial role. Since they are not "technically" gov't employees, they can be said not to be keeping records "for the gov't" but they are required by law to do so, allowing the gov't 100% access to them (at any time) w/o any search warrants or court orders at all. An ingenious scheme to have the federal gov't keep very accurate and complete records of all US gun sales w/o actually "really" doing so legally.

If you think you have a case, it should not be too hard to find some gun manufactures to take it court!
 
Me either, perhaps you can explain that to the TurtleDude.







If you think you have a case, it should not be too hard to find some gun manufactures to take it court!

Are you kidding me? Gun manufacturers would like gun resales to be harder (and much more expensive), as it helps them sell more new guns. ;)
 
Don't act like your stupid. This is the U.S. Code. Your bitch is that it's not being enforced. If we would simply apply the laws on the books, your concerns would be alleviated...

We will see if that is a legitimate argument if it is brought in the debate this month in Congress. My guess is that it won't be.
 
Back
Top Bottom