Skip to main content

View Diary: America has never had a Background Check System for Gun Purchases (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Keep in mind there is a substantial body (9+ / 0-)

    of case law built on every one of the Ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights that is not found in the wording of the original text.  The courts interpret those texts and in doing so have explicated rights and limitations that are not immediately obvious unless you do research on those rulings.  

    However, IMHO, such a law would violate provisions of the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments.  It might violate rights under the 2nd Amendment, but not sure on that.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:58:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The RCRA law would indicate you are wrong (7+ / 0-)

      People who produce, transport or otherwise obtain hazardous wastes have strict cradle to grave liability, which they cannot escape unless someone else contractually assumes their liability for them.

      •  Owning, trading, selling, buying, "hazardous" (12+ / 0-)

        wastes is not a specific constitutionally protected right.

        Now if the "hazardous" waste you referenced was ink in ink pens, how do you thing that would fly?

        They may be able to regulate what the manufacturer does when making said, like no lead bullets, for example.

        What it seems you're trying to do is equate firearm ownership or the exercise of that right to a hazardous material.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 02:15:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Trading, selling guns is not Constitutionally (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, Smoh, S F Hippie, twigg, leftreborn

          Protected either..sorry.

          "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

          by Bisbonian on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:12:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Commerce clause? (4+ / 0-)

            What about handing them down to younger generations in same family?

            How do you regulate me trading my father's 12 gauge to my cousin for a steak dinner?

            Or me just giving it to him?

            Let's try to keep this in perspective here.  Would the State have the right to stop me from bequeathing my quill pen and inkwell set?  Can they stop me from teaching my religion to my children? What about that printing press in the basement?

            If the claim is public safety they have to do a better job than that.  The pen is mightier than the sword.  The printing press even more.  Religions brainwash and control people into hating one another to the extreme of killing each other and have done so for centuries.

            Once that line is crossed that line then I'm coming for your free speech, free press and most assuredly your religion on the grounds those rights have killed billions and we must be protected against them, society must be protected and society's safety is paramount, right?

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 01:06:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You could give it to your nephew, but would still (0+ / 0-)

              be liable for anything he did with it.

              Unless of course, he passed a background check, accepted liability, and you recorded all that with the federal government.

              Nowhere in there is anyone stopped from having a gun.  They are just being held accountable for their actions.

        •  the 2nd Amendment is not absolute (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, S F Hippie, twigg, vcmvo2

          Any more than the 1st Amendment is.

          It can be, and has been, restricted.


      •  No one has a Constitutional civil right... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, KVoimakas, theatre goon produce and to dispose of hazardous wastes, but they do to keep and bear arms. What you are suggesting is an impermissible interference with a civil right similar to what Republicans are attempting to do with voting rights. It particularly would interfere with the ability of the poor and minorities to exercise their second amendment rights.

        As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

        by wishbone on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:44:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  strawman argument (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not saying that would stop you from keeping and bearing arms.

          It would simply make you accountable for your actions.

          I know that's a radical concept for gun owners, but the rest of us are tired of picking up your messes and paying for their funerals.

          •  " ...your messes..." (0+ / 0-)

            Whose messes? Criminals and the criminally insane create the "messes" you refer to and always have. Your so called solutions fail to focus on criminal behavior, but instead penalize those who harm no one in exercising their Constitutional rights. Most gun owners would support measures to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane. Propose some.

            As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

            by wishbone on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 04:39:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  not true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals can get access to them.

              Legal gun owners sell their guns to people with nary a thought as to whether those people are felons or mentally ill.

              Legal gun owners kill their children and their neighbors' children by leaving loaded guns lying around.

              The liability I refer to wouldn't cost you a penny if you were as guilt free as you claim to be.  

              •  "Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals.. (0+ / 0-)

                ...can get access to them."

                And jewelry stores and banks get robbed by criminals as well. If you persist in going after the law abiding with your schemes to interfere with the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights you will simply alienate millions of honest citizens who vote, and it will not be helpful to our party. Nuff said. Have a nice day.

                As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

                by wishbone on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:37:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  bogus analogy (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If thief steals a diamond ring, he won't use it to kill someone.

                  If he steals a gun, he very likely will.

                  So the standard of liability for securing guns is vastly higher than that for securing jewelry, cash, or other non-lethal items.

                  Bottom line, a criminal can only get useable possession of your gun through gross or willful negligence on your part.  

                  Holding people liable for their actions is an honored tradition among all societies, ours included, so I think you'd be surprised at the level of support there would be for applying that bedrock principle of civilization to gun owners as well as the rest of us.

    •  It wouldn't violate any of those (8+ / 0-)

      There would be a 5th argument, but "reporting" a theft is not incriminating as there would be no penalty.

      The SCOTUS has always given the Federal government wide latitude to make laws respecting public safety.

      2nd doesn't apply ... These are laws specifically allowing the keeping of guns, not abridging that right. SCOTUS has already indicated that regulations are permissible ... and they already exist without challenge ... thousands of them.

      4th amendment rights are not infringed by either the car registration, nor the authorities ability to make regular inspections.

      Given the potential harm caused by guns in the wrong hands, it would be perfectly reasonable that a felony conviction could follow the failure to obey the law regarding safe-keeping and reporting of loss or theft ... so I really don't see an 8th amendment challenge succeeding.

      Going back to the 2nd ... There are highly restrictive laws regarding automatic weapons, and no one has ever brought a 2nd amendment case about those laws, suggesting that no one actually believes that the restrictions would be overturned.

      Just my lay opinion :)

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 12:28:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site