Mass Shooting at Texas Home

Well, there it is. Background checks are labeled as fascism. We'll accept these killings as fact of life, and toss in the "thoughts and prayers" and tune back to the ball game. Or we just turn over in the couch and fart.

There is no liability, and there is no voter id holograph, - at least not in Florida. Maybe such thing could be added, but even then there is no requirement to check it while completing a sale. Remember that such requirement would be FASCISM

 

so you're a fan of background checks for private sales?

 

Caught his ***.


https://www.khou.com/article/news/c...says/285-21e72c49-baa6-4627-9284-97510ab9d0f1

 

yeah it was on all the news shows (CBS Cincinnati) at 11 tonight and I think earlier

 

I, and vast majority of my fellow responsible gun owners, are a fans of keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally insane people,

You, and your fellow fringe, wants to make it easier for them to arm themselves.

 

The point is it isn’t “they” or common. I don’t know anyone who says this about car owners or gun owners except people like you on PF. We are trying to figure out why a certain demographic is always the demographic using this terminology.

 

that's not the proper way to answer the question because it makes the fraudulent assumption that private sales background checks-which are neither able to be enforced, and easy to evade-will do anything useful

you want to pretend you have done something-like the silly attempts to ban gun sales with massive delays by the imposition of a "mental health screening"-while your proposals are worthless as a crime control measure.

 

Actually they would make a difference. You assume everyone would violate the laws (projection?), when in reality most gun owners would not mind completing the sale at a local dealer, where background check would be ran. Why would they comply? Because they don't mind playing a part in keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally insane people. Most people want that, so that leaves you in the small minority who not only oppose it, but fight against any effort to do it.

Because of people like you, we will one say reach a point where people say enough is enough and they will push through very strict gun control which every gun owner will hate. It will happen because the situation gets worse and absolutely nothing is done.

 

Most gun owners don't shoot people either. It is not the compliant gun people that cause all the trouble.

 

Me talk Texas, me no care about Florida man.
There are the things I've described in Texas, and IDK about fascism but the FFL requirements are unconstitutional per NYSRPA v Bruen's rule and the fact there are no analogous laws from the founding.

 

You don't know if that unknown person you see in a bar and sell your gun to is not going to shoot people.

 

I don't meet people in bars anymore and if I did there is a law against taking a gun in there with me. It would be illegal.

 

Ok, but they are still running background checks. If they are unconstitutional, then why are they still able to do them?

I get it you want to get rid of them, so criminals, mentally insane and illegals would have easier access, but please answer the question above.

 

I think FFL required checks can be justified under the bogus FDR expansion of the commerce clause-the PRINZ case struck down the imposition of duties and costs on state government. however, the commerce clause expansion is not sufficient to justify imposing INTRASTATE ONLY background check requirements on people who are PROHIBITED from engaging in INTER STATE commerce when it comes to firearms

 

Because the judicial process moves at a glacial pace. There are various cases working their way through various courts currently.
As I recall the one that has progressed farthest is at the circuit level en banc stage.

 

I don't if you have any law enforcement background, but how many criminals do you think actually obtain firearms in face to face transactions with people they don't know?

 

The other poster said they are unconstitutional, so I asked him the question.

Having said that, I'll bet you'd love to see them get rid of background checks because you find them inconvenient,

 

I love the compromise or we will do this-people like you have been trying to ban guns for years so that is a bullshit excuse. and we have two things the gun banners don't have-and one is the supreme court

 

I oppose them at a federal level since they violate the tenth and second amendment. at a state level they most likely would pass constitutional muster

BTW the best way to stop felons from having guns is making sure every felon caught with a gun gets hard time

 

IDK about that.
I mean I acknowledge they may try to let it slide on that basis, however I don't think that's good logic. Plus you missed wickard v filburn where basically nothing is intrastate anymore.

Commerce clause is prior to the bill of rights. Amendments alter the function of the constitution.
Any amendment takes out of consideration the ability to do the thing you're trying, even if prior authorized by the text.
So 2a and later 14a take the ability to regulate firearms away. Period.
That doesn't mean malum en se offenses can't be prosecuted, assault with a deadly weapon is still a thing, but simple possession can't be.
Which means we need to stop letting out the unreformed crazies since they get their rights back when they hit the street under this paradigm.

 

theoretically you are correct, the tenth and second amendment if correctly applied would prevent the federal firearms licensees' requirements to conduct background checks

 

How do you square the unqualified command of the 2a and 14tha incorporation with your opinion on state laws surviving?

As we've discussed before I seem to recall its "because that's what they'll do" rather than supported by the text. Which we can both acknowledge, while also pointing out where the plain text should take you.

 

my view on the incorporation is that a state still has the ability to demand background checks as long as they do not delay lawful purchasers obtaining firearms and anything more than nominal costs are not applied.

 

And you find that analogous federal law in the founding period (since that's what NYSRPA contemplates with its examination) where exactly?

Again: I tend to agree with you that that would be the decision, solomon style. That doesn't mean its correct.

 

I see. If States can enact any gun control without violating the Constitution, when why is the SC reviewing local restrictions, and ruling them unconstitutional?

No, the reality shows criminals are willing to take the risk of getting caught. The problem with reactive solutions is that (by definition) they apply only after the damage is already done.