Why are none of us asking for this legislation

[findingZzero]

A worthy question, roo. Here is why:

1. Because it is a prior restraint on a constitutional right.

2. Because it is unenforceable. An unenforcebable law creates disrespect for the rule of law and the civil society as a whole.

3. Because it is a proven failure. From 1974 to 1998, far beyond the memory of the median age of INGO, every handgun transfer in Indiana had to be completed through a dealer. The compliance rate was less than minimal and it stopped no criminals. It was an utter failure.

1. Debatable. (I'll let other do that as I'm not a constitutional scholar).

2. An unsupportable statement followed by a true statement. Unenforcible? Methinks you give up too easily. Could it be you are arguing for the other side? Let's give FedEx/UPS a go at it. Logistics.

3. Really? Do you know how many gun deaths were prevented by those background checks? Certainly not all. Does that mean we shouldn't have any. Since criminals don't obey laws, let's not have laws? Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. When digging yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. I could do another cliche`, but 2 in a row makes me sleepy.

 

[rooster]

A worthy question, roo. Here is why:

1. Because it is a prior restraint on a constitutional right.

2. Because it is unenforceable. An unenforcebable law creates disrespect for the rule of law and the civil society as a whole.

3. Because it is a proven failure. From 1974 to 1998, far beyond the memory of the median age of INGO, every handgun transfer in Indiana had to be completed through a dealer. The compliance rate was less than minimal and it stopped no criminals. It was an utter failure.

1. Valid Point but we have already lost that debate to an extent. There are limits already and therefor a legal precedent to have more or we wouldnt be having the gun control talk
2.Most people are law abiding citizens and will make a honest effort to comply with whatever crazy laws are on the books
3. That ended before I was able to purchase firearms so I will have to do some research. I was unaware of that.

In all honesty I am mostly playing devils advocate on this subject and I do not support new laws unless they are for the removal of target rich enviroments, I mean gun free zones.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

. Valid Point but we have already lost that debate to an extent. There are limits already and therefor a legal precedent to have more or we wouldnt be having the gun control talk
2.Most people are law abiding citizens and will make a honest effort to comply with whatever crazy laws are on the books
3. That ended before I was able to purchase firearms so I will have to do some research. I was unaware of that.

1. We only lose what we give up. I ain't giving up.

2. Law abiding citizens rapidly lose respect for the rule of law when the rule of law proves to be a horse's behind. If a law is unenforceable, what good is it? Further, like rot in a potato bin, the feckless law spreads to others.

3. Yes and what do you think the compliance rate was with such a law?

 

[cosermann]

3. There's no such thing as a private firearms transfer in Michigan where the government isn't involved through their registration system.

Hasn't done a thing for violence in Michigan. Most violent cities in the U.S.? - How about Camden (NJ), Flint (MI), Saginaw (MI), Detroit (MI), and St. Louis (MO).

Three of the top 5 go to Michigan (and we all know about gun control in NJ). Way to go Michigan. Way to go handgun registration.

 

[rooster]

1. We only lose what we give up. I ain't giving up.

2. Law abiding citizens rapidly lose respect for the rule of law when the rule of law proves to be a horse's behind. If a law is unenforceable, what good is it? Further, like rot in a potato bin, the feckless law spreads to others.

3. Yes and what do you think the compliance rate was with such a law?

regulating the 2nd amend was justified by English common law dating back to the 1300's as a legal precedent. its crap I know but its what the court keeps saying.

 

[Hookeye]

Did the shooter's mother buy her guns without a background check?
If so, would that have made her son not murder her and then steal the guns?

Oh right, if she bought them all through an FFL he wouldn't have gone to a gun free zone and murdered more people.

Compliance to laws is by a threshold number, not content.

 

[ryan3326]

I don't see how they would screen for "mental illnesses" in firearms purchases. If there is an ability to label someone with a mental illness, or maybe an increased risk of violence - would we have the equivelent of the "no fly" list for guns. Innocent, unsuspecting folks who only find out they are on this list when they are denied a gun purchase.
This "slippery slope" could eventually lead to a myriad of characteristics banning you from buying a firearm. Arrests for intoxication, DUI, nuesance, behind on your taxes (you might consider attacking the IRS), being bullied at school and on and on... who could come up with a list of all of the characteristics that could trigger a person to go nuts. Unfortunately we cannot even enact any new common sense laws because we have seen how politicians with agendas work.

 

[cosermann]

There is no solution to the Sandy Hook tragedy that involves more legal restrictions consistent with a free state.

The best solution that can be hoped for is that we would not continue to be legally DENIED the MEANS to effectively respond to such situations as they arise (which is the current state of affairs as it concerns public schools).

The current legal framework and what is often the standard police response - maximize the potential for casualties.

(Although the standard police response is changing.)

 

[chris46131]

Just cause it makes a good poster doesn't make it true. Stop thinking in slogans and exercise that flabby brain......
Fire codes, electrical codes, building codes.

I am not here to educate you, just to **** you off.

I'm glad you think it worthy of a poster, but it's just a personal opinion. Plus, have you never read a building code you thought was ridiculous?

I assure you my brain is in fine shape. I have it on a bacon-rich diet.

 

[jLr]

For goodness sakes, CRIMINALS get there guns by any means, a NICS check on private sales will not stop theft.

Geez.

Then maybe we should make theft illegal.

 

[AJMD429]

Why are we not demanding that private sales get the same access to background checks that store sales do. I see questions on here regularly of people asking about the CYA of FTF sales. This would ensure that all who are mentally ill cannot try to circumvent the laws by skirting the background check?

BECAUSEthere are two factors to consider:

1. potential good the law would do
2. potential HARM the new law would do

Most people even if they support the new law, would admit that it is not likely to make much difference, but will fall back on "if it saves just one life..." Even if 100% effective, the maximum number of lives saved by stopping 'school shootings' would be in the dozens-per-year category. Important lives, but you have to think in REAL numbers if you're going to evaluate risk/benefit.

However, anyone who studies history and international 'gun control' data would immediately realize that REGISTRATION is the precursor to confiscation, which is the precursor to GENOCIDE. Genocide simply does NOT happen unless the citizenry is first disarmed, which begins with registration. Since genocide is a very REAL and current problem, and accounts for around 5,000 lives lost PER DAY in the world, at 1/25th of the population, we'd be having around 200 lives lost PER DAY, if we emulated the rest of the world and started the registration/confiscation cascade.

Some would argue that a 'background check' is not 'registration', and truly, the law was written specifically to PROHIBIT registration from happening, which is why the NRA accepted the 'background check' law. BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ADMITTED THEY IGNORE THE PROHIBITION ON CREATING A PERMANENT REGISTRATION DATABASE. That fact alone should make people very wary of their motives.

 

[ddenny5]

Should we have a background check when selling a used car to make sure someone doesn't have a DUI?

I like that. Can I use that?

 

[JettaKnight]

So thinking out loud, one possible solution is federal or state issued FOIDs. Want to sell a gun? Scan or phone in the guy's FOID and get instant confirmation that a sale is OK. Gun shows, dealers, etc. have scan stations like at Meijer's price scanners.

Upside:
No more "I need to see a LTCH to sell to you privately" or ambiguity.
No more Form 4473, just a quick scan of the FOID barcode.

Downside:
Ripe for abuse by gov't.
Rules for obtaining and maintaining FOID could change and be onerous.

Just thinking out loud, I'm not advocating this, just stirring the pot.