Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2013, 3:33 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Universal checks constitutional?

So, I just read an article that made me think a bit.

Is requiring gun shows to perform background checks on EVERYONE at the Federal level constitutional?

Requiring them at FFLs without a state law mandating it seems squiffy at best, because the feds can only handle interstate commerce, but if I'm still living in my home state(PA), at a gun show in my home state, and I want to sell a gun to a guy that lives in that same state, the reason I don't need to run a background check is two fold. a) no state law requires me to do so, and b) federal law does not apply as I'm not selling across state lines.

California has such a law that says all sales must be done through an FFL, but most states do not. How exactly can the Feds do this? They have no regulation on in state commerce like this.

Made me wonder. Maybe one of you have an idea.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2013, 3:45 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,535
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The federal government's abuse of the commerce clause to do just about anything borders on the absurd. We'll probably need a supreme court ruling curtailing the commerce clause though before we can get the feds' fingers out of everything.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2013, 3:52 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

According to the government, the power of interstate commerce grants dominion over everything including growing your own plants in your own backyard with your own seeds and water from your tap. You birth has effects on interstate commerce to them so they have the power to make any law relating to you that they see fit.

If UBC was passed it would be a requirement that everyone go through an FFL most likely......
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:01 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
According to the government, the power of interstate commerce grants dominion over everything including growing your own plants in your own backyard with your own seeds and water from your tap. You birth has effects on interstate commerce to them so they have the power to make any law relating to you that they see fit.

If UBC was passed it would be a requirement that everyone go through an FFL most likely......
That's a given because they're not going to give everyone access to NICS.

That's too easy to abuse.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:06 PM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
According to the government, the power of interstate commerce grants dominion over everything including growing your own plants in your own backyard with your own seeds and water from your tap. You birth has effects on interstate commerce to them so they have the power to make any law relating to you that they see fit.

If UBC was passed it would be a requirement that everyone go through an FFL most likely......
I agree. Unless SCOTUS summons the intellectual honesty to overturn itself in Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), the Fed can pretty much regulate every breath you take under the insane overreach of "interstate commerce".

I wish this thread had never come up. Any court that would allow Gonzales to exist cannot be trusted to flush a toilet, let alone be trusted with our 2A rights.

Our only hope is that Gura was not involved in Gonzales...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:08 PM
littlejake littlejake is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 2,136
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The government abused the interstate commerce clause on the theory that everything at some point in time crossed a state line. Even if it was just some of the raw material that went into production. They extrapolate that to impose the commerce clause on everything.
__________________
Life Member NRA and 2A Foundation. Member FPC.
My posts are my own opinions and do not reflect those of any organization I am a member of.
Nothing I post should be construed as legal advice; if you need legal advice, see a lawyer.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt (1759-1806)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:12 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
So, I just read an article that made me think a bit.

Is requiring gun shows to perform background checks on EVERYONE at the Federal level constitutional?

Requiring them at FFLs without a state law mandating it seems squiffy at best, because the feds can only handle interstate commerce, but if I'm still living in my home state(PA), at a gun show in my home state, and I want to sell a gun to a guy that lives in that same state, the reason I don't need to run a background check is two fold. a) no state law requires me to do so, and b) federal law does not apply as I'm not selling across state lines.

California has such a law that says all sales must be done through an FFL, but most states do not. How exactly can the Feds do this? They have no regulation on in state commerce like this.

Made me wonder. Maybe one of you have an idea.
To respond to this , we must understand the problem the anti's face.

Suffice it to say in the 1990s exempting private face to face sales from the Brady Background Check wasn't an act of charity by the Anti's . Back then they wanted ALL firearms sold through an FFL, but the Commerce Clause by its nature cannot be applied to intra-state sales.

The legal chain works like this: Commerce Clause says interstate commerce is subject to Federal Regulation, which is where the NFA and the 1968 GCA derive their enforcement authority. The Brady Bill is built on the 1968 GCA, so it too derives its power from the Commerce Clause. That's why it can't be extended to private sales without an Act of Congress, and there's no way anyone in my state or many others are going to support that.

The trouble with California is that the State government DOES have the authority to enact local restrictions on face to face sales where the Federal government does not.Sadly, the politicians in Sacramento are more then happy picking up where Washington D.C. left off on the subject of private gun sales.


The trouble the anti's face extending this on a national level is risking a court case which puts the Commerce Clause to the test. That law is the bottom block of the Federal Gun Control Jenga tower. If the SCOTUS rules a future Commerce clause-based national background check regulation as unconstitutional, the whole tower comes tumbling down. Bye bye NFA and GCA....and Brady Background Check system.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:21 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts ensured that ACA passed as a tax, rather than an "interstate commerce" regulation. This implies there is not much appetite at the SCOTUS level to expand the commerce clause.

Next few years will certainly be interesting. An overreach on gun regulation, if handled properly on all technicalities, might have long lasting implications on what the feds can do. We are talking much broader implications than just the gun laws.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:37 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
To respond to this , we must understand the problem the anti's face.


The trouble the anti's face extending this on a national level is risking a court case which puts the Commerce Clause to the test. That law is the bottom block of the Federal Gun Control Jenga tower. If the SCOTUS rules a future Commerce clause-based national background check regulation as unconstitutional, the whole tower comes tumbling down. Bye bye NFA and GCA....and Brady Background Check system.
Snipped out the middle.

And that, right there in bold, is a pipe dream. A very beautiful one at that.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:39 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts ensured that ACA passed as a tax, rather than an "interstate commerce" regulation. This implies there is not much appetite at the SCOTUS level to expand the commerce clause.

Next few years will certainly be interesting. An overreach on gun regulation, if handled properly on all technicalities, might have long lasting implications on what the feds can do. We are talking much broader implications than just the gun laws.
If they push it far enough I imagine SCOTUS will snap at some point(not sure on this point yet) and tell the feds to go screw themselves and it'll unravel a LOT of stuff.

What that point is, however, I'll not speculate on.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:46 PM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,191
iTrader: 52 / 98%
Default

The federal abuse of the commerce clause is one of the worst jokes running in American jurisprudence. The founding fathers never intended the federal government to have such sweeping power to regulate our lives.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:50 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ventura
Posts: 10,386
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
According to the government, the power of interstate commerce grants dominion over everything including growing your own plants in your own backyard with your own seeds and water from your tap. You birth has effects on interstate commerce to them so they have the power to make any law relating to you that they see fit.

If UBC was passed it would be a requirement that everyone go through an FFL most likely......
and its exactly that kind of BS that starts EVERY war of independence...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:24 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
And that, right there in bold, is a pipe dream. A very beautiful one at that.
Never say "never."

SCOTUS evaluates form as much as they evaluate content. The legislators must find the framework that enables the type of legislation they want to have. We can either invalidate the framework or the content.

From what I see, no anti-gun legislator is concerned with how to frame the bill in order to pass the Constitutional muster. It's an afterthought for them. This is good news for us.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:39 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

A federal required background check before transferring a firearm that does not create registration of firearms is probably Constitutional as its a natural outgrowth of the power to organize the militia. It may not be a good idea policy wise, or it might be ok if implemented right since its already a federal felony to sell a firearm to someone who you know or should have known is prohibited.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:50 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
A federal required background check before transferring a firearm that does not create registration of firearms is probably Constitutional as its a natural outgrowth of the power to organize the militia. It may not be a good idea policy wise, or it might be ok if implemented right since its already a federal felony to sell a firearm to someone who you know or should have known is prohibited.

-Gene
I can agree with that one, but if the property isn't leaving the state, it should have no bearing on interstate commerce.

Then again, they've also pulled this same bullsniz with growing your own crops. "It affects the market value because you're not buying". The whole point of "grow your own" is so that you don't HAVE to buy.

Idiocy abounds. Almost as stupid as the "you can't collect rainwater" idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:31 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
I can agree with that one, but if the property isn't leaving the state, it should have no bearing on interstate commerce.
If, as Gene postulated, the power to require background checks stems from the power to organize the militia, then interstate commerce is irrelevant because Congress' militia powers are a separate and independent basis for Congressional action. Interstate commerce is just one of the several grants of legislative power listed in Article I, Section 8.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:36 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,924
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I don't understand how the public is made any safer by requiring me, presently a gun owner many times over, to submit to a background check. Whatever bad I might prefer to do could be done without the addition of another gun. The same is true of anyone else who presently owns a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:37 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6tac View Post
If, as Gene postulated, the power to require background checks stems from the power to organize the militia, then interstate commerce is irrelevant because Congress' militia powers are a separate and independent basis for Congressional action. Interstate commerce is just one of the several grants of legislative power listed in Article I, Section 8.
I'd like to argue that "organizing the militia" would be the State's right, and not the fed's.

But that's just me.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:40 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
I'd like to argue that "organizing the militia" would be the State's right, and not the fed's.

But that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article I, Section 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I guess the Framers would have agreed with you insofar as the appointment of officers and carrying out training, but not with respect to all other aspects of organizing, arming, and disciplining. They probably wanted Congress to be able to prescribe uniform regulations, so that you didn't have some states sending out ragtag militias that can't navigate their way out of a paper bag and being a drag on the states that actually trained their militias.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:44 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

if you are going to "regulate" the militia, then certainly checking on the person to make sure they are of "sane mind and fit to bear arms" is something I could see the founders getting behind.

but that isn't what regulate means in historical sense. Regulated meant well trained and similarly equipped. a regular was synonymous with a trained soldier. as in "the french couldnt muster even 1500 regulars"
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:51 PM
NameNotTaken NameNotTaken is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
The federal government's abuse of the commerce clause to do just about anything borders on the absurd. We'll probably need a supreme court ruling curtailing the commerce clause though before we can get the feds' fingers out of everything.
I Agree but good luck with that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:53 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NameNotTaken View Post
I Agree but good luck with that.
Yeah, the Court had an opportunity to fix it in Gonzales v. Raich, but Scalia let his hatred of drugs override his principles when it comes to the commerce clause.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:54 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
if you are going to "regulate" the militia, then certainly checking on the person to make sure they are of "sane mind and fit to bear arms" is something I could see the founders getting behind.

but that isn't what regulate means in historical sense. Regulated meant well trained and similarly equipped. a regular was synonymous with a trained soldier. as in "the french couldnt muster even 1500 regulars"
The founders didn't though.

There was no "national database" for background checks. The crazy people were just shoved in the jails with the criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:56 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6tac View Post
Yeah, the Court had an opportunity to fix it in Gonzales v. Raich, but Scalia let his hatred of drugs override his principles when it comes to the commerce clause.
I loved that one.

"It affects the national market for marijuana..."

You'd think he wouldn't give a rat's backside what it'd do to the market. Anything that reduces it's market value is a boon, because when it's not worth crap, they stop selling it.

That's why drugs are the big business they are... they're illegal, not exactly easy to get in some areas, and there's a HIGH demand for them. The risk involved is well worth the rewards to these people.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:13 AM
phrogg111's Avatar
phrogg111 phrogg111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Folsom
Posts: 710
iTrader: 10 / 92%
Default

Universal background checks are not unconstitutional IF:

1. They are not overly costly ($35 is unconstitutional. $5-8 is not. The NICS check system is free to use. Wtf.)
2. They are required for everyone - no exemptions on law enforcement.
3. They DO NOT result in registration by make, model, or serial number.

Registration is the biggest issue here.

Registration is not useful for preventing crime or enforcing laws.

Registration is for taking guns away from people, or unconstitutionally taxing a protected right.
__________________
Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

There is no privilege to keep and bear arms.

Arms are for killing people. All other uses of an arm are illegitimate uses.

Know your rights. When stopped by police and not doing anything wrong, tell them you don't consent to searches. They are allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to them. Just say nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:21 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogg111 View Post
Universal background checks are not unconstitutional IF:

1. They are not overly costly ($35 is unconstitutional. $5-8 is not. The NICS check system is free to use. Wtf.)
2. They are required for everyone - no exemptions on law enforcement.
3. They DO NOT result in registration by make, model, or serial number.

Registration is the biggest issue here.

Registration is not useful for preventing crime or enforcing laws.

Registration is for taking guns away from people, or unconstitutionally taxing a protected right.
Two questions:

1. Why is $35 unconstitutional? Curious why that number vs say $11? or $299?

2. If registration is guaranteed for tracking purpose only, to trace a gun from manufacturer to purchaser and so on but accessible only if the gun is used in a crime, is that still unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds, and if not, why not?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:51 AM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Two questions:

1. Why is $35 unconstitutional? Curious why that number vs say $11? or $299?

2. If registration is guaranteed for tracking purpose only, to trace a gun from manufacturer to purchaser and so on but accessible only if the gun is used in a crime, is that still unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds, and if not, why not?
On no. 2, if the government only ever used itfor that, maybe. They wont. They never do. They always end up using data for other stuff. Remember SSN not supposed to be a unique identifier? See where that turned up...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:09 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
On no. 2, if the government only ever used itfor that, maybe. They wont. They never do. They always end up using data for other stuff. Remember SSN not supposed to be a unique identifier? See where that turned up...
Fair enough. The nature of data is to be used in ways never originally intended, that is why you need to limit intent from the very beginning.

I think much of the Heller process through the courts, not only the supreme court decision, basically said that registration *might* be constitutional. I assume the thought would be there would clear intent and limits on the usage of registration data. The supreme court specifically did not address the licensing issue because the plantiff did not take issue with the licensing requirement.

In this the fighting of the Heller case was brilliant because it focussed very sharply, allowing the Supreme Court a way to make a clear decision to protect handguns. The lawyers did not try to do too much, which is often key to victory in the appeals courts, in particular the Supreme Court.

Last edited by rootuser; 02-02-2013 at 1:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:12 AM
phrogg111's Avatar
phrogg111 phrogg111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Folsom
Posts: 710
iTrader: 10 / 92%
Default

The mere fact that the government has a list of people's serial numbers means that they can take those guns away.

It should be mandated that tou keep a central list of your serial numberin case one of your guns is stolen. Even I have one of those, and it's updated.
__________________
Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

There is no privilege to keep and bear arms.

Arms are for killing people. All other uses of an arm are illegitimate uses.

Know your rights. When stopped by police and not doing anything wrong, tell them you don't consent to searches. They are allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to them. Just say nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:34 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogg111 View Post
The mere fact that the government has a list of people's serial numbers means that they can take those guns away.

It should be mandated that tou keep a central list of your serial numberin case one of your guns is stolen. Even I have one of those, and it's updated.
We did see a confiscation in California, so I completely understand the thought, but you can't rely on the owner to "Keep a list" because there is no way to track guns used in crimes. A lot of guns "go missing" and people "forget" to report it (unsavory types).

Because of the problem with the confiscation in California, I think it needs to be clear as to what the data can and cannot be used for in advance. Specifically, the data would not be available to the states (example purpose) for them to confiscate.

Also you could not list model in the registration, thus making it impossible to differntiate. A gun would just be the serial number and a make. It could be identified if used in a crime as at that point it would be in the hands of police. They could track who purchased it and the hands it travelled through.

Either way, we already have a lot more info given on California for handguns than that.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-02-2013, 7:10 AM
MrTokarev's Avatar
MrTokarev MrTokarev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogg111 View Post
Universal background checks are not unconstitutional IF:

1. They are not overly costly ($35 is unconstitutional. $5-8 is not. The NICS check system is free to use. Wtf.)
2. They are required for everyone - no exemptions on law enforcement.
3. They DO NOT result in registration by make, model, or serial number.

Registration is the biggest issue here.

Registration is not useful for preventing crime or enforcing laws.

Registration is for taking guns away from people, or unconstitutionally taxing a protected right.
Background checks are registration. You don't think every DROS you've ever filled out has been stored somewhere for government use?

The government knows who we are, where we live and most of the guns we own. Sounds like registration to me.
__________________
NRA-ILA Lawmaker Contact Tool

“When you want to kill a man, you must shoot for the heart and the Winchester is the best weapon."
-Ramon, A Fistful of Dollars

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKinzey
The chuckleheaded tinfoil-asshatter racist (yes! that's a couple of names and a label!)

Last edited by MrTokarev; 02-02-2013 at 7:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:27 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,924
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogg111 View Post
The mere fact that the government has a list of people's serial numbers means that they can take those guns away.
So what? The "mere fact" that one must complete a background check means they can prevent ownership.

Background checks may or may not be unconstitutional. Registration may or may not be unconstitutional. But whether one is or is not is entirely separate from the other.

As a practical matter background checks without registration is a rather pointless endeavor.

Last edited by dfletcher; 02-02-2013 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:05 PM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
As a practical matter background checks without registration is a rather pointless endeavor.
Why would you think this? Registration is useless, both in practice and theory. Perhaps all those lost guns the govt is finding scattered about the landscape can be returned to their lawful owners? Do you think confiscation is a valid purpose?

Background checks check the person, and that's all that matters. Is the person OK to own?

If not, that person gets no gun (perhaps excepting some collectibles, they're all dangerous, so we don't care which gun...we don't want you to have any of them) and if so, you seem OK, why should the govt give a crap if you chose a Springfield XDm or a Glock 34?

Last edited by stamina; 02-02-2013 at 1:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:41 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,924
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stamina View Post
Why would you think this? Registration is useless, both in practice and theory. Perhaps all those lost guns the govt is finding scattered about the landscape can be returned to their lawful owners? Do you think confiscation is a valid purpose?

Background checks check the person, and that's all that matters. Is the person OK to own?

If not, that person gets no gun (perhaps excepting some collectibles, they're all dangerous, so we don't care which gun...we don't want you to have any of them) and if so, you seem OK, why should the govt give a crap if you chose a Springfield XDm or a Glock 34?
I agree registration is also useless, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was addressing the issue of linking the two as a method of supposing constitutionalty, not usefullness.

When I say "as a practical matter" I mean that with background checks the state will also want registration as a method of ensuring compliance. That a check on the individual could be accomplished technically is beside the point. The state is not going to be content with a background check and no way, of their own accord, to ensure compliance. The state will also set penalties for noncompliance.

Background checks and registration are an "in for a dime, in for a dollar" proposition. Accepting one means the next must follow. People are otherwise deluding themselves if they think background checks will stand alone.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:14 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Two questions:

1. Why is $35 unconstitutional? Curious why that number vs say $11? or $299?
A reasonable metric might be to relate the fee back to the minimum wage. $35 represents about 5 hours of a person's time when they're getting minimum wage. The question becomes: how much of a person's time investment can the government demand for exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right?


Quote:
2. If registration is guaranteed for tracking purpose only, to trace a gun from manufacturer to purchaser and so on but accessible only if the gun is used in a crime, is that still unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds, and if not, why not?
Registration is never guaranteed for tracking purposes only. There are never any guarantees when it comes to the government behaving itself. Indeed, it is largely for that very reason that we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

If the government could be trusted to behave itself, then there would be no issue with allowing government unbridled discretion over the exercise of fundamental Constitutional rights. It is precisely because it cannot be trusted that such discretion is Unconstitutional.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:17 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As for background checks, they may be Constitutional, but I would argue that they are Constitutional only if one can challenge a denial in court.

As it is, the background check system is wide open to massive abuse. Imagine the TSA no-fly list finding its way into the NICS system, for instance...

Giving the government the power to deny the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right on an individual basis is a very dangerous path to tread. I know of no other such right that the government exercises that kind of power over. Even felons do not give up their right of free speech, or their right to be secure in their papers and effects from unwarranted searches and seizures, or any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (the right to vote is not enumerated).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-02-2013 at 2:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:27 PM
aklover_91 aklover_91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
We did see a confiscation in California, so I completely understand the thought, but you can't rely on the owner to "Keep a list" because there is no way to track guns used in crimes. A lot of guns "go missing" and people "forget" to report it (unsavory types).
Because somebody willing to let a gun 'go missing' isn't going to be willing to turn on a Dremel and 'accidentally drop it' on the serial number, right?

So now if you want to keep an eye on that, you need random mandatory inspections of what people actually have.

Where's it stop?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:41 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

I can see no implementation of universal background checks that are independent of firearm registration and a requirement that all transactions be handled by an agent of the state. Are there ways to make a less-burdensome system? Sure, but the system is still a system in the final analysis. As we know that heavy regulation drives lawful commerce underground, perhaps universal background checks are the government's way of creating a large black market from which to justify further regulations, expansion of power, and law enforcement expenditures.

Welcome to the War on Guns.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-02-2013, 4:10 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Fair enough. The nature of data is to be used in ways never originally intended, that is why you need to limit intent from the very beginning.

I think much of the Heller process through the courts, not only the supreme court decision, basically said that registration *might* be constitutional. I assume the thought would be there would clear intent and limits on the usage of registration data. The supreme court specifically did not address the licensing issue because the plantiff did not take issue with the licensing requirement.

In this the fighting of the Heller case was brilliant because it focussed very sharply, allowing the Supreme Court a way to make a clear decision to protect handguns. The lawyers did not try to do too much, which is often key to victory in the appeals courts, in particular the Supreme Court.
Thing is, even if you limit it from the start, it never stays that way. Look at the federal government. Most of what it does now was never fathomed for it to be doing in the beginning. It was never supposed to get this big, and it had limits on it.

They started testing those limits, then ignoring them, when it became clear that the populace didn't give a crap.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-02-2013, 4:21 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aklover_91 View Post
Because somebody willing to let a gun 'go missing' isn't going to be willing to turn on a Dremel and 'accidentally drop it' on the serial number, right?

So now if you want to keep an eye on that, you need random mandatory inspections of what people actually have.

Where's it stop?
Some of the older guns don't even *have* serials.

Partner inherited a Walther P-38 from his grandfather, who "acquired" it in World War 2. This gun is one of the ones that they shoved off the assembly line in a hurry near the end of the war. This gun has no serial number.

Because of it's age, it's also not registered.

I'm absolutely 120% certain that this is NOT a unique case.

Not to mention, criminals aren't stupid. Crazy people aren't stupid. Pansies and cowards, yes. Stupid, no. The guy responsible for Aurora at the theater. Sure, might have purchased them legally at some point. He may even have been mentally unstable at that point. Thing is, people spoken to after the fact told police that they suspected something was wrong with him. They just never said anything. Had they said something, intervention could have prevented the incident.

Newtown. Kid was disturbed, and rightly should have been denied possession. He was turned away when he found out about a background check and a wait period. So he stole them. Registration isn't going to do jack or sheet for stolen firearms. Even if you can trace them back to the previous owner.. someone with a large number of guns they don't often shoot may not even know they were stolen. Especially if they're kept away from home for some reason. There are people that have so much crap stashed in their house they can't even make a path from the bathroom to the kitchen, and you'd think they knew where their guns were?

Then there's the crowd that won't report stolen guns out of fear of having all of them taken if it turns out that stolen one was used in a crime. Never mind that there may be a blown open safe and they'd at least tried to secure them. They'll take them all because obviously this person is an irresponsible turd.

Then there's the whole Katrina incident. That was unacceptable.

My understanding of how it works in Pennsylvania is that for most guns, they do a background check to see if you can buy it, and the information is to be destroyed after 72 hours. That, is how it should be. Unfortunately I cannot trust our government enough to not track who is doing a background check, because when you do it, you have to give a reason as to why you're running it. -_-
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.