"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."
As I said, no buyer has to prove anything, nor are they treated as criminals. The buyer fills out the form. The FFL calls in with the info, gets a go/nogo on the proposed transaction and it's done. No one is searched, nor are their rights violated. The only way info about anyone can end up in the dbase, is if they generate it themselves, by causing a court action that results in a felony conviction, adjudicated psychotic, or got involved in a domestic.
There's lots of other things that are rights violations. Like the domestic, gun bans, licencing, ect... to focus on. I don't see this as a violation, or anythng to be concerned over. To oppose it in the present political and social climate is negligent, because it would allow felons and psychotics to walk in and buy off the shelf, and has the pollitical impact of painting an a pic of gun owners as negligent, uncaring folks.
What do you think the background check is supposed to be doing if its not "proving" that one is not a criminal (or other prohibited person)?
If they are denied wrongly, and it does happen, then they must indeed prove that they are not a criminal, in the sense you apparently mean it. Meanwhile their rights are denied.
Or if the government just shuts down the system, as Pennsylvania has done, then rights are denies. Even under the so called "instant check" a persons rights can be denied for up to three days, and effectively longer because no dealer is going to sell a firearm to someone not approved by the system, even though the law says they may if more than 3 day elapse without returning either yes or no.
How did we survive for almost 200 years without background checks and with the ability to order a gun over the phone or through the mail?
You continue to ignore the fact that these checks do not deter criminals from getting guns. They get them on the street. However, even now, with a potential buyer being approved, most gun dealers will refuse to make the sale if they are suspicious.
I am convinced that you lawyers argue for laws because that is your bread and butter. The more laws there are, the more potential clients you have.
You argue not for our rights, but for your right to argue for a fee.
"-- If a politician [your fellow FReeper] isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about [you] his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. --"
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1894732/posts?page=6