Posted on 09/17/2007 11:37:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Bloomberg and Lautenburg will declare all of us terrorists, if they see it as a way to grab guns, and if we let them get away with it. ANYthing that these guys want, I'm against - just on principle.
Bloomberg’s interpretation of terrorist = law abiding citizen.
"Sentence first, trial after!!" -- Queen of Hearts
Wait until they use the “patriot” act to come after gun owners. It will happen in the next 10 years.
Not only detained. We all know that terrorist suspects have no right to a trial. Congress should just pass legislation that not only permits, but requires that gun dealers immediately shoot dead anybody denied a clearance to own guns by the government.
Wait .... Why wait for the terrorist to attempt to purchase a gun. Why not require gun dealers to hunt down terrorist suspects and kill them where they live? Much safer for the gun dealers.
No ... Wait .... Why not require ANYBODY to hunt down terrorist suspects?
On a slightly different matter, how do I contact the FBI to report my suspicions regarding possible terrorist suspects? I know of some who would deny me my right to keep and bear arms and who would kill me, my family, and my pets to do so.
I wonder how many boogeymen have WALKED ACROSS THE BORDER with whatever partyfavors the third world had to offer? NOTICE to terror guys: Dont give your info to the US government...or else...
But just let me refuse to pay a damn seatbelt ticket and theyll lock me up...
Can you explain how the NICS is unconstitutional?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Whether it's the three comma version, like here, or the one comma version, the gist is clear. It's a right the people had before the government was established.
The background check itself is not unconstitutional. It's possible that a particular disqualifier can be, such as the Lautenburg rules.
I know what the word infringe means. THe background check does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The background check applies to the transaction the FFL would like to close. the transaction will go through, unless their’s a record in the NICS dbase that disqualifies the person the FFL is proposing to transfer to.
Very true, the FAA and the USAF couldn't reorient fast enough to stop the terrorists once they put their plan into motion. The militia was "on the spot", as they always are, and dealt with the terrorists as best they could, and effectively at that. How much better it would have been if the passengers in first class could have just shot the terrorists before they even got close to getting into the cockpit? But of course they were in an unarmed victims zone, even though they refused to be "pure" victims.
Or that you are willing to TAKE and DEFEND.
But what's new about that? However it is somewhat new for Americans and for those rights specifically protected by the Constitution.
Last time the government tried to actually confiscate guns, rather than control sales of them, to include punishing those who don't go by those rules, it started a Revolution. The Government really ought to think about that.
Why hasn’t this criminal been arrested?
What do you think the approval to purchase is? It's government permission for the dealer to sell you a firearm. Thus you are begging the government for permission to exercise a right which the constitution says "shall not be infringed". Begging to exercise a right is an infringement on that right. There are no permits required to print and sell or give away newspapers, other than those which apply to all businesses. There are no permits required to establish a church or religious group, nor to preach your version of whatever religion you wish. The same is supposed to be true of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
That's not so say that misuse of the right can't be punished, such as libel and slander but there can be no prior restraint because of what you might do.
The list of "non allowed" persons is itself mostly unconstitutional. The only prohibited persons should be those currently incarcerated, or whose individual sentence prohibited ownership or possession of arms.
To top it off, the law doesn't even really restrain criminals, who can not be punished for lying on the form, since to tell the truth would be a form of self incrimination, which would a violation of the fifth amendment, which is one of the amendments that even the ACLU supports.
There is no approval for purchase. The FFL gets a yes, or no answer saying there are no records, or their are and the buyer is IDed as a prohibited person.
"It's government permission for the dealer to sell you a firearm."
The dealer is licensed as allowed per the commerce clause. The dealer does not get pemission to sell. Per the terms of his license, he is required to submit the buyer's name so a check can be run to see if their are any records that so the person is a prohibited person.
"There are no permits required to establish a church or religious group, nor to preach your version of whatever religion you wish."
No permits are needed to buy a gun. One does not ask for permission, nor is it given.
"there can be no prior restraint because of what you might do."
There is no prior restraint involved in a background check. The only records held, are those that have no right to buy a gun. THe check is so the FFL does not sell a gun to a prohibited person.
"The list of "non allowed" persons is itself mostly unconstitutional. The only prohibited persons should be those currently incarcerated, or whose individual sentence prohibited ownership or possession of arms."
No. Felons are excluded by attainder. That means they forfeited their rights when they committed the felony. If the legislature wants to give some felons their rights back, they can. Congress, including recent R majorities, have continued to prevent the ATF from allowing that remedy to be accessible. Enemies of the US obviously have no right to buy, or possess weapons. Those that are adjudicated by hte equivalent of a court, a danger to themselves, or others, due to mental defect, likewise have no right to have a gun.
"To top it off, the law doesn't even really restrain criminals, who can not be punished for lying on the form, since to tell the truth would be a form of self incrimination, which would a violation of the fifth amendment, which is one of the amendments that even the ACLU supports."
Fine. The FFL will know the person is a prohibited person, and the transaction will not occur. The person can then go to the illegal gun market. THey will not get guns in the legitimate market.
Attainder is only valid due process if the restrictions are part of an individual sentence. That's way it once was, prior to IIRC the 1968 Gun Control Act, at the federal level. Many states' laws still reflect that a felon's rights are restored upon completion of his sentence.
we know who many of them are, and we're not doing anything about it.
So...go bother people who aren't "them"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.