No one is searched, so your argument's empty.
From Pratt: "Moreover, the background check is based on a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused ("Why do you need a gun?") to prove his innocence -- a total reversal of the presumption of innocence required in our legal system."
Ridiculous. Nothing is presumed, and the buyer doesn't have to prove, or say anything about "why". The check applies to the validity of the transaction. FFLs are not allowed to sell to prohibited persons.
Again from Pratt: " If we were to do away with the Instant Background Check, the question is frequently asked, how would we keep guns out of the wrong hands. The answer is, we would be as successful without the check as with it. How do we know?
The Centers for Disease Control, an anti-gun federal agency, has examined several studies that focused on guns and crime. Their conclusion? They found that there is no impact from gun control laws, including the Brady Law, on crime."
This is simply illogical propaganda. The intent of the background check is to keep felons and psychotics from obtaining firearms in the legitimate market. to that end, it is near 100% effective.
"An equivalent to the background check to buy a gun would be to run a background check on people before they can become reporters or preachers -- or before they can send letters to the editor."
Background checks are run on these people. They're also run for various other pre-hires, such as teachers, sales persons, lock smiths, ect...
"why are we violating the Constitution which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns?"
the Constitution gives Congress the express authority to regulate interstate commerce. Commerce is all inclusive and there's no exclusions, such as the gun market given. A background check involves limiting the commerce to those with the right to do so, and excluding those that have forfeited their right to do so. There's no problem with Constitutionality.
"In order to satisfy the federales' lust for prohibiting gun ownership, McCarthy's measure would require that the states send the feds 90% of all relevant information needed to know all who "should" be prohibited from owning guns. What is relevant? The bill does not say. Give a bureaucrat an inch and he will take a mile."
LOL! The bill is explicit about what info is required. That is any info that is evidence, that a person is disqualified, under 18USC922xx. I don't think Pratt could find his ass if it was handed to him.
No one is searched, so your argument's empty.
Empty logic. -- You admit the database is searched to see if the individual is a "prohibited person".
Pratt:
"why are we violating the Constitution which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns?"
the Constitution gives Congress the express authority to regulate interstate commerce.
No, -- it says Congress can regulate commerce, " among the several States", -- not among the people within the States. -- And "to regulate" does not authorize prohibitions.
Commerce is all inclusive and there's no exclusions, such as the gun market given.
Thank you Sarah, for your unsupported opinion.
A background check involves limiting the commerce to those with the right to do so, and excluding those that have forfeited their right to do so. There's no problem with Constitutionality.
Depriving persons of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; -- always raises "problems with Constitutionality"
You've simply 'bought into' the authoritarian gov't view that gun rights can be infringed by so-called 'reasonable regulations'
But by their prospective employers, not by the government. There is no "license to Preach" (except in China and the old Soviet Union). There also is no "License to write a letter to the editor", or to your Congressman for that matter). There isn't even a license to *be* the editor of a newspaper, dispite all the damage they do.
The intent of the background check is to keep felons and psychotics from obtaining firearms in the legitimate market. to that end, it is near 100% effective. So? That still doesn't mean these people don't get guns. Most of 'em don't even try "legitimate" markets, they steal 'em or buy from those who do.
Intent doesn't matter, results do and the laws have not noticiably reduced "firearms violence" or violence in general. In fact the opposite occurred.
Concealed carry laws, including Vermont and Alaska style, do reduce criminal misuse of firearms. As John Lott put it, and proved, "More Guns, Less Crime".