The background check does not amount to a limitation of the person's right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the check, is to deny those who don't have any right to possess guns, from obtaining them through licensed dealers. It's a limitation placed on the fed licensed FFL that's engaged in interstate commerce. The approval is given to the FFL for the transaction, not the person buying.
"-- There's no right not to be subject to [background checks] --"
This 'concept' turns the principles of our Constitution upside down.
The background check does not amount to a limitation of the person's right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the check, is to deny those who don't have any right to possess guns, from obtaining them through licensed dealers.
Licensing dealers is an infringement.
The purpose of the check is to establish the concept that government has a 'legitimate' power to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
It's [ a background check] a limitation placed on the fed licensed FFL that's engaged in interstate commerce.
Lawyerly wordplay, -- a background check is a limitation placed on the individual that's engaged in the commerce of buying a gun.
The approval is given to the FFL for the transaction, not the person buying.
The approval is given to the licensed gov't agent, -- which 'permits' the person to buy a gun.
-- Obviously, the persons right to buy arms has been infringed by the permit process itself.
Unless you engage in lawyerly wordplay, Spunkets style.... .
Are you serious?
Do you really believe that load of bull?
An infringement is an infringement regardless of the middlemen involved.
The onus should be in the form of punishment for the person whose rights have been abrogated via due process. Buy (steal) or possess a gun when you are prohibited and face harsh penalties. As it is now, the innocent and law abiding are treated as criminals who must prove their innocence in order to exercise their rights. That’s just plain wrong.