Skip to main content

View Diary: Towards common ground on guns: Universal Background Checks (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You'd probably be wrong (7+ / 0-)

    The more outspoken gun fans I have on other social channels are pretty much against universal background checks, because they believe that in order to implement them you'd have to register all guns - and that is the first step to government confiscation.

    Get them past that hurdle and they might be more inclined to go along with you, but even then I think the gun activist crowd is set against imposing any kind of new controls on gun ownership.

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

    by Phoenix Rising on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:30:02 PM PST

    •  If Diarist is Quoting a Real Statistic About %'s (7+ / 0-)

      that support background checks, it would seem we don't need to convince any more citizens.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:39:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's an irrational fear. (6+ / 0-)

      I don't believe in backdoors and I am pretty sure that the Democratic Party is trying for exactly what they say they are.   I know that some here on Daily Kos are for gun registration(myself included).  I don't see universal background checks as a path to do gun registration.

      Obama is the sort that would say that he wanted gun registration if that was his goal.   The Kossacks here that support that are similar.

      Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

      by pistolSO on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:41:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's Simply the Mechanics (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, Dogs are fuzzy, Catesby

        Without registration, there is simply no way to enforce universal background checks. If I have a Winchester shotgun, which is not registered, and you want to buy it, I can sell it to you and there is no record of the transfer. ONLY if my shotgun was registered would there be any real need to go to a dealer and incur the additional cost of having a background check run.

        Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

        by The Baculum King on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 04:17:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It might be possible to get compliance to the law (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CA wildwoman

          without registration.   Another set of reforms proposed include stiffer penalties to straw purchasers and I think most people have the decency to not want to let a fugitive, a person convicted of domestic abuse or a person adjudicated too mentally ill to have a gun to have a gun.   You could also find a way to give tax credits for people who voluntarily enter their gun information into a secure database.

          I think some PSAs aimed at gun owners after universal background checks are passed will do some help in encouraging them to do the background checks.

          Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

          by pistolSO on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 04:27:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CA wildwoman

          In California, long guns aren't registered (yet: that changes next year). But you can still buy and sell them as private parties. What happens is that you go into an FFL, which means the 4473 and state Dealer Record of Sale for the buyer, as well as the state waiting period and background check.

          So the make, model, and serial number of the gun are captured at the point of sale. The only clumsy part of this is that while the state doesn't keep a long gun registry yet, there is a handgun registry. But even though you have to go through an FFL to sell the handgun, the state registry doesn't automatically update. You'd need to fill out a separate form and mail it in to record that it's no longer in your possession. I don't remember if there's a fee involved.

    •  the ones who fear confiscation are also the (7+ / 0-)

      ones who think states can nullify federal laws, that the moon landing was staged and that Obama is a secret Muslim.  That may be 27% or so of the population.  However, among responsible gun owners, I think you will find little resistance to more in depth registration and even support once they figure out that such a system would assist in recovering stolen weapons

      •  Hey, you are wrong. Factually wrong. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky Kid, Catesby

        There certainly are things that lie outside of the federal jurisdiction to legislate. Remember, one of the most common foundations upon which federal legislation rests is the interstate commerce clause - and if it doesn't have any affect on commerce from state to state then the list of viable legal foundations for a new bit of US Code becomes much shorter.

        Case in point is the affordable care act - the federal level of government is not allowed to do that mandate under the commerce clause. However, the law is allowed under the congress's specific power to tax. If it couldn't have been considered a tax, it might have been ruled unconstitutional. Who knows what might have been in a what if scenario, what I know is that the ACA ruling is proof of my claim.

        So, it is factually true that the states can nullify a federal law, but ONLY if the federal law is not rooted in one of the specific powers that were granted to the federal level of government.

        And for our foreign participants, let's get this straight... The UK government is constructed so that it holds powers and rights and grants rights to those citizens.
        It's the other way around over here. The people over here are the originators of powers and rights, and we delegate specific powers to the various levels of government. Notice that the first amendment isn't written as if the people were being granted permission to speak, it is written as a prohibition against any laws that would infringe on speech.

        It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

        by JayFromPA on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 03:19:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  please clarify: you are saying nullification (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          exlrrp, mrblifil

          such as John C Calhoun championed is valid or that I am wrong that people exist who believe states have the power of nullification?

          •  I am saying (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catesby, gerrilea, CA wildwoman

            for a very narrow set of circumstances, nullification exists.

            VERY NARROW.

            Calhoun tried to apply it to a set of circumstances where nullification was not a legal option.
            He was wrong, because he thought the states were able to nullify anything. His view was too broad.
            Many folks walk around right now thinking that the federal government can make any law and that such law will have automatic supremacy over any state law - they are wrong, their view is too narrow.

            And "nullification" more as a verb, not the noun form. As used in the sentence, "The state of texas nullified the healthcare mandate through the commerce clause, but the mandate survived because it also involves the power to tax that was specifically delegated to the congress."


            The federal government is given powers and abilities by the people. The constitution specifically gives the federal congress the power to tax. The constitution specifically assigns the power to declare war to the congress, while specifically giving the power of commander in chief to the executive. The constitution specifically gives the congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

            While the federal government may pass any law it wants, only those laws that involve the powers that the Fed branches were specifically given will withstand a challenge.

            Case in point, the affordable care act.

            28 states challenged the constitutionality of the affordable care act. See them listed here

            And according to the ruling itself, in this PDF
            on page 2 we get:

            The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, orenumerates, the Federal Government’s powers. Congressmay, for example, “coin Money,” “establish Post Offices,”and “raise and support Armies.” Art. I, §8, cls. 5, 7, 12. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).The Constitution’s express conferral of some powersmakes clear that it does not grant others.
            So that supports my claim that there are things the feds cannot do.

            Then there are many pages of the ruling where they go over the claim that the federal government can mandate because of commerce, which is not the legalese that folks usually expect from scotus, before finally on page 27 they state:

            The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”
            So, the states prevailed on that argument. They and their people are not subject to the mandate through the commerce clause.

            However, starting on page 31, we get:

            That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, itis necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1
            And that one comes through for the Feds.

            Of note is that the court treats the 'penalty' as if it were a tax, not caring all that much about what it is named but caring more about what it actually does. In that way, with attention to the function and not the label, essentially the states nullified the mandate/commerce clause pairing because it was unconstitutional. That's the fundamental core of the theory, that a state believes something is unconstitutional and challenges it. For slavery, the south challenged the law and lost - so clearly the right of blacks to vote was constitutional. For the Care Act, 28 states challenged the law and won a minor battle - because an aspect of the law was unconstitutional.

            I'm sorry if that's still not clear to you. I hope it's enough that I can point to states being successful in saying something the feds did wasn't allowed, and that example being from just last year.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

            by JayFromPA on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 05:46:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  interstate commerce is an example of where (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayFromPA, mrblifil, CA wildwoman

              the federal government has been able to assert itself into what before was considered the province of the state.  Despite nullification being possible in very narrow and well defined circumstances, at the same time, nullification as understood at Red State and Hot Air is no longer possible

              •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, CA wildwoman

                Yep, commerce has been a winning angle for the feds for a long time. But this time it they were shut down. And a good thing too, I think it's a good thing to remind folks that there are limitations that can't be surpassed.

                I haven't heard of Hot Air before.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                by JayFromPA on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 06:21:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Registration Leads Directly to Confiscation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy

        Ask anybody in California who registered their SKS.

        Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

        by The Baculum King on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 04:18:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  more information please; not doubting you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CA wildwoman

          but I am unfamiliar what you are referring to and there have been so many assertions in this discussion.  I welcome all information but when I google the issue I find that the sites I am directed to are all advocacy sites

        •  If they were going house to house to confiscate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alain2112, mrblifil, CA wildwoman

          guns they wouldn't necessarily need gun registrations.  You all are tagged and have been tagged for years.

          Lists of gun purchases from stores.

          Lists of ammunition purchases from stores.

          Shooting range transactions.

          Membership lists to pro-gun organizations (like the NRA itself).

          Lists of purchases of certain bumper stickers.

          Credit card or check purchases from any store or organization ties to gun purchases or pro-gun material.

          I don't think there were actually any SKS guns confiscated.  I'm not finding any numbers of guns confiscated.  I'm not finding any door to door confiscation. The most I have been able to find is a gif picture of a letter that said that retro-registration wasn't legal.  And to be legal your registration had to be pre-1982 or something like that.  And the 1998 amnesty registrations weren't legal.

          My gun control petition was shot down.

          by 88kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 05:25:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doing a google search 'CA SKS confiscation' leads (0+ / 0-)

          to a bunch of oft repeated but unsubstantiated sentences about gun confiscation (SKS) by a lot of pro-gun sites.

          There are some stories of stupidity where a weapon that was unsecured & used in a criminal situation was kept by the police -well duh!
          Lots of 'I just' & 'but I only' and the like.

          One NRA member made a public show in January 1998 of turning his SKS in to local law enforcement when the laws changed in 1997.

          Dan Lungren was a big part of the legal confusion & stupidity at the time - well, duh again!

          Man, there's a whole lot of crazies out there who love their guns more than life itself - their own life & the lives of people around them.

          And they don't understand why their neighbors aren't on their side.

          Personally, I would like there to be a list of these people, for community safety.
          And extensive background checks with an updated national database.

          Something that doesn't make good sense, makes bad sense. That means someone is being deliberately hurtful & selfish. Look for motives behind actions & words.

          by CA wildwoman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:52:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Statistics disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA wildwoman, pistolSO

      Support for robust background check over 90%. There are very few public polling issues that return such a result.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site