Why aren't criminal background checks required for all gun sales?

This is the new initiative challenging the NRA I was referring to yesterday Texas Nate

Did you know that there is no federal requirement for criminal background checks for all gun sales? As a gun owner and avid shooter, I believe in a strong second amendment. But in today's world, it's crazy to allow convicted criminals and suspected terrorists to be able to buy an unlimited number of easily concealable, high powered weapons from unlicensed arms dealers and at thousands of gun shows without even asking to see an ID or running a simple background check.

More than 50 percent of guns sold in our country are sold by private, unlicensed arms dealers, but only federally licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks.  In fact, there are documented cases in which Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and IRA terrorists have exploited a loophole in the gun laws to purchase military style, high capacity weapons at legal gun shows where anybody can walk in and can buy guns without having to show ID or go through a simple background check. This is madness.

In the wake of Virginia Tech, the worst gun-related massacre in US history, the only response that some members of Congress are considering is to include some mental health records in the National Instant Check System (NICS) database. But only federally licensed gun dealers use the NICS. This won't do anything about the unlicensed arms dealers that sell up 50 percent of the guns in our country. The sad reality is that the equivalent of a Virginia Tech and Columbine High School massacre happen every day in the US.

You have to have an ID to write a check at your local grocery store, but suspected terrorists and convicted criminals can walk into a gun show and buy an unlimited number of weapons without even having to show ID. It's unconscionable, and the loophole must be closed. The only real obstacle to common sense background check laws is the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association is virtually holding the President and Congress hostage.

The NRA uses political influence and scare tactics to intimidate state and national elected officials. These tactics have contributed greatly to the 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 injuries that happen every year in our country. We cannot sit idly by while 16 children are killed every single day by gun injuries. The recent accidental killing of 8 year old Liquarry Jefferson in Boston by his 7 year old cousin was not a statistical blip - he was another child killed needlessly while gun lobby rhetoric fuels the gravestone industry and largely preventable gun violence.

On July 10, Stop Handgun Violence unveiled its newest billboard near Fenway Park in Boston. We're sending a very powerful message to the President, Congress and the NRA - that Massachusetts, the birthplace of the American Revolution - is holding the President and Congress accountable for allowing the gun lobby to dictate a failed national gun policy.

Stop Handgun Violence is working to prevent gun violence by enacting a handful of effective, uniform national laws and initiatives without banning guns.

Stop Handgun Violence is going to bring common sense to the national debate. Common sense solutions such as closing the background check loophole, promoting safe storage, micro stamping and personalized guns, strong support for law enforcement are necessary to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and prevent the majority of gun violence.

Stop Handgun Violence is challenging legislators, gun owners, activists, and everyone else who's sick of the senseless killings to take guns out of the hands of criminals with a sensible, workable national gun policy requiring background checks, stronger gun trafficking laws, and more support for law enforcement.

Our government has been held hostage by the NRA's extremist agenda for too long.  Let's set it free.

Tags: NRA (all tags)



Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

I believe in a strong Second Amendment too. After all it is in the Constitution. I don't think we can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we want to follow and which ones we don't.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-10 06:00AM | 0 recs
Patently absurd
This is utter drivel.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says licensed dealers have to run federal background checks but arms dealers operating at gun shows should be exempt.
Background checks are the Constitutional law of the land. The gun show loophole is just a loophole that needs to be closed.
I believe the Second Amendment says "well-regulated militia" does it not?
by Texas Nate 2007-07-10 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

Yup. Here is the amendment.

"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."

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-10 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd
so what part of preventing convicted criminals from buying guns at gun shows is unconstitutional?
Are you proposing eliminating the existing laws requiring background checks elsewhere?
Remember John Hinckley?
by Texas Nate 2007-07-10 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd
Well, that would be infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I understand that you don't like it that anyone can buy a gun. Guns are scary. But the Constitution is what it is. If you want to remove the right to keep and bear arms, fine. But you'll have to do it with a Constitutional amendment. You can't use the Constitution only when it suits your personal beliefs.
by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-10 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

The Brady bill is the law of the land. It's passed supreme court muster. The gun show loophole is just that, a loophole. It doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

by Texas Nate 2007-07-10 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

Now, based on reading that amendment, would you say that having to wait on a background check to purchase a firearm, and possibly being denied the right to get a firearm is an infringement of the right to bear arms?

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-10 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd
Well it's already the law of the land that WalMart has to run background checks. I believe that passed Constitutional muster as well.
Nothing in the Bill of Rights says that we have to allow convicted criminals and the mentally infirm have the right to bear arms.
Well regulated and all that.
by Texas Nate 2007-07-10 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

This is just silly. No right is absolute. Look, what the poster is proposing is just common sense - make sure that people who are buying guns aren't terrorists or armed robbers.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a suicide pact.

by Seth Oldmixon 2007-07-10 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd
If the government infringes upon someone's right to keep and bear arms, then the government is acting in violation of the Constitution. I understand that you think that it's common sense that someone with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to legally buy a gun. If you believe that should be the law of the land, then fine. But you can't just ignore the Constitution on it. If you want to infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms, then you'll need to amend the Constitution to that effect. Amendments have been overturned before, and always with other amendments. The law as it now exists says that the government isn't allowed to infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. If you want to infringe on that right, great, but you can't just go ahead and do that without amending the Constitution first.
by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-10 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law. Neither the text of the 2nd Amendment (see: well regulated), nor  the Supreme Court's decisions on the right to bear arms support your contentions.

by Seth Oldmixon 2007-07-10 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

Federally licensed dealers are required to run background checks regardless of where they sell their guns.  This includes gun shows, and the vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers; it simply isn't economically viable for someone who is not an FFA to pay the necessary fees for setting up shop at a show; the volume required to break even would be sufficient to require the individual to obtain an FFA license anyway.  The "gun show loophole" is a big lie perpetrated by groups whose ultimate agenda is the complete criminalization of private firearms ownership.

Private gun owners selling a single firearm are not required to run background checks, but this is hardly limited to private sellers in gun shows (where such sales are actually rather rare).  Part of the problem with enacting such a requirement is that currently private sellers have no way to access NICS.  Before you even think about requiring background checks for ALL sales, you'd better come up for a means to enable private sellers to actually run them.

Another problem will occur when someone wants to gift a firearm to a relative; should a grandfather be required to run an NICS check on his young grandson when passing down an heirloom rifle?

Also, I'm unaware of any part of the US Constitution that requires background checks.  Could you cite the Article or Amendment?  While you're at it, look up the context of "well-regulated" as it is used in the Second Amendment, and point out where the Amendment says that militia membership is a requirement for gun ownership.  I can never find that part.

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

welcome to MyDD Dimensio. I was expecting more trolls to pop out of the woodwork.

by Texas Nate 2007-07-10 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

I guess it is easier to label anyone who challenges your claims a "troll" than actually address any rebuttal.

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

Tell us more about you? Why so passionate on the issue? Why so suspiciously well-informed? Why the sudden interested in MyDD comment threads?

by Texas Nate 2007-07-11 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Patently absurd

My "passion" is a result of a desire to correct obvious falsehoods.  I do not understand why you suggest that it is "suspicious" that I am well-informed.  Are you suggesting that having knowledge of a subject is evidence of trolling? Are you suggesting that someone who corrects falsehoods with statements of fact is a "troll"?

I noticed this discussion in a Digg link, and I decided to examine.  Upon examination, I discovered the repetition of the "gun show loophole" myth, and I responded by pointing out that the claim of such a loophole is false and misleading.

by Dimensio 2007-07-11 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

The fact that it's harder for me to get a rental car than an AK-47 is just nuts. And, dead on - the NRA is the main problem here.

by Seth Oldmixon 2007-07-10 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

You are correct.  Rental car companies need to lighten up.

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

Mr. Jeremy, you must be kidding.  I don't "believe" but thing the government should completely follow and implement the U.S. Constitution, and I also conclude that the gun show loop-hole should be filled in with a huge load of legislative concrete.

Mr. Jeremy we have the First Amendment, but we can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.  OMG, the world is not "black and white", "love it or leave it", "you're with us or against us", sometimes you have to be a big boy and use your brain and employ reasoning like an adult.

On a related issue, I once heard that the ATF does not keep a computerized list of guns and gun owners even if these guns were used in crimes.  Does anyone know if this is still true?

NRA, just more folks trying to profit at the expense of others.

by BSelznick 2007-07-10 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

There is no "gun show loophole".  The loophole is a myth perpetrated by anti-gunners.  Gun sales in gun shows are, legally, no different than gun sales outside of gun shows.  Sales by FFA licenced dealers require a background check in and out of gun shows and private sales do not require a background check in or out of a gun show.

There is no national gun registry.  A few states require gun registration, but such measures have proven completely ineffective at fighting crime, and such registries are thh exception, not the rule.  There is no national registry of firearms or firearms owners, and there really is no reason to have them.

I'm not sure why there should be a registry of guns used in crimes.  People who are convicted of felonies are not allowed to own guns in the first place, so there would be no need to track felons who own legally guns (since there are none who do so legally).  For the life of me, I also can't really think of a reason to track guns that have been used in crimes; if the gun has been found after the crime, it will be held as evidence attached to the crime, and if a gun is used in a crime but then later sold (perhaps at police auction) to someone with no felony record, I see no reason why it should deserve special scrutiny.  It isn't as though someone is more likely to commit a crime if they happen to have a gun that was used in a crime in the past.

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 12:10PM | 0 recs

Ugh, what utter crap.

No such thing as a 'gun show loophole'.  Dealers have to do background checks no matter where they sell.  Private transactions between individuals do not, nor should they.  

I will say that the initiative does so very good use of emotional charged, intellectually vacuous phrasing and word choice.  I'm sure you'll terrify many ignorant, frightened people into supporting this...idiocy.

If I remember the numbers correctly, only 2% of the firearms used in crimes were purchased at a gun show.  I don't know the percentage of those that were private transactions versus purchases through a dealer and would have included a passed NICS check.  Regardless, it's a tiny, tiny portion of firearms used in crimes.

I'd also be very interested in the 83 people per day figure as it likely, as many previous studies do, includes suicides, self defense and possibly even criminals shot by police.

As a note, I consider myself a progressive, a liberal, even.  I just believe that people don't need the government attempting to parent them and that gun control efforts, particularly those that use misleading data and emotional manipulation as opposed to logic and reason, are a infringement on a vital and sacred right.

by Phoronus 2007-07-10 06:49AM | 0 recs
I slightly disagree

I sympathize with the goal of the diary.  As a gun owner and NRA member, I agree the gun show loophole needs to be closed.  

But the rhetoric of the piece doesn't wash with me.  

The NRA is not at fault because a 7-year old capped his cousin.  That's the fault of the gun owner, and the author well knows it.  General Motors is not responsible if someone gets in a Suburban and runs their neighbor over.  Unless Little 10-yr old Timmy is going to a gun show and buying his very own assault rifle, this "think of the children" reasoning is the responsibility of the parents.  

It's illogical, emotion-driven arguments like these that really tick me off.  There are any number of good arguments for reasonable regulation of firearms.  And as I stated, I am in full agreement with the goal the diary sets out - namely closing the gun show loophole - but "OMG teh NRA kills 30,000 a year" (or rather "contributed greatly")is a ridiculous assertion.  Such an argument carries the same intellectual weight as suggesting that Democrats are complicit in murder for supporting a woman's right to choose.  I believe we can do better than this in arguing for sensible laws.

by NicholasWalter 2007-07-10 06:54AM | 0 recs
Please stop saying it...

I am a Virginia Tech alumni, and it pains me every time I see the tragedy that occured there refered to as 'Virginia Tech'.  We are a good school, and Hokies are good people, who have suffered badly from this tragedy.  Please don't make our school synonymous with this.

Please, when discussing this, say the Shootings at VT, or something along those lines, to emphasize the shooting and massacre, and not just the name of my beloved school.

by Matusleo 2007-07-10 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

Why is this crap on the front page?

We've just finally recovered from the damage the gun whiners did to our party. There's an A1 story in today's WaPo on civil liberty violations and somebody wants to try and blur the lines between which party stands for rights and which doesn't?

The fact this was even considered for the front page is probably the worst strategic blunder ever on mydd (including Bowers war on Texas).

by Bob Brigham 2007-07-10 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

Gun whiners? Oh please. The ease of access to guns in America is absolutely rediculous. Criminals and the mentally ill are able to gain access to guns far too easily and as a result far too many innocent people are killed and seriously injured every year. No senseable gun owner whether they be a hunter, farmer or adult that owns a gun for use at the shooting range or self defense in the home has any problem with senseable gun control measures.

Gun extremists and their groups like the NRA are the only ones that have problems with senseable gun control measures. I would note that the second amendment doesn't even guarentee people the right to have a gun at all. It's been purposefully misinterpreted for a very long time. Unless you're a member of a well regulated militia (that would be the army, navy, airforce, national guard, or a domestic law enforcement agency) then you're only really allowed to have a gun because of enabling state and federal legislation not the second amendment which clearly doesn't apply to invividuals who aren't in a well regulated militia. I have no problem with individuals who aren't members of aforementioned well regulated militias owning guns via enabling federal and state legislation so long as senseable gun control measures are required. Whether you think this is particularly politically popular doesn't matter. The law is the law and the deaths and maimings that result due to a lack of senseable gun control measures are what matters.

by Quinton 2007-07-10 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

Interesting.  How, exactly, have you determined that "...the right of THE PEOPLE (emphasis mine) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." applies only to members of a militia?  Also, please provide the legal prescedent that only the branches of the US-controlled military are a "militia".  While you're at it, spell out what you believe is "reasonable gun control".

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

The full second amendment reads:
"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."

Funnily enough extremely pro-gun people (like the NRA and it seems yourself) only like to quote and talk about the second part of the sentence and completely ignore the first part as if it doesn't matter. Proper reading of the amendment makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon revolves around the needs of a well regulated militia. The need being that the members of such a militia, in order to function, need to be armed. The second amendment has been purposefully misinterperted for a long time. That doesn't change it's proper meaning.

I didn't say that only "US-controled military" are a militia. The most literal translation from what a militia was when the second amendment was written and ratified and what a current day milita would be is the national guard, which though it can be federalized is actually a state controled force not a US controled force. I also think it's entirely reasonable for other entities to come under the label of militia, which I listed before: federal, state, county and local law enforcement agencies and the US army, airforce, navy and the like. None of these things have anything to do with individials at large.

I'm not an expert on the issue of firearms control but I think a senseable place to start is a short waiting period, background checks, registration of firearms, requirements for guns to be stored in a safe way and banning on certain firearms that serve no legitemate purpose. On the last point I'm thinking of semi-automatic hand guns with huge clips that have no reasonable use for hunting, farming or self defense. Other restrictions to deal with straw purchasers who buy guns in very large numbers and then sell them on to criminals and other things of that nature that law enforcement agencies and other experts can make a case for that would reduce crimes committed with illegal firearms. Unlike a poster in either this thread or the one on the same topic the day before I don't think that people should be able to buy sub-machine guns or full-out machine guns.

Finally I'd ask you just what well regulated militia you believe you are a member of?

by Quinton 2007-07-10 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

It would seem that the Second Amendment states that, because there is a need for a militia, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I still do not understand how you have inferred from reading the text that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms can be infringed if those people are not members of the militia.  The Second Amendment makes now allowances for infringement for the subset of "THE PEOPLE" who are not members of a militia.

What do you believe that a waiting period will accomplish?  Some states have waiting periods while others do not.  Can you cite an observed benefit that the former have that the latter do not?

Background checks are already required for any firearm purchase made through an FFA.  You are suggesting that we enact something already in place.

What, exactly, do you believe that national firearms registration will accomplish, besides providing a convenient registry for government agencies to use when deciding to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens (as has happened in Illinois, which has mandatory firearms registration).  Be specific as to what such registration will accomplish.  Provide evidence that such registration will accomplish your stated goals.  You may look to Canada as an example, as that country has spent several million (if not billion) dollars on a national firearms registry.  Perhaps you can explain what they have accomplished after the expendenture of that money.

What do you believe is a "safe way" to store firearms?  Be specific, and explain how a firearm may be rapidly deployed for home defense when in such storage.

How, exactly, is it to be determined that a firearm has "no legitimate purpose"?  Can you provide an example of a firearm with "no legitimate purpose?"

Why do you believe that semi-automatic handguns with "huge clips" (by which I assume you mean "magazines", though your use of the word "huge" does not give me an impression of scale; some would say that any magazine holding more than 10 rounds is "huge", while others would reserve the label of "huge" for magazines that hold thirty rounds or more) serve no legitimate self-defense purpose?  What of target shooting?  It is far less cumbersome to target shoot with large-capacity magazines.  Do you have evidence that restricting magazine size will produce an actual societal benefit?  If so, please reference this evidence.

Why do you advocate laws against straw purchases when such actions are already illegal?  Do you believe that you can stop already criminal actions by passing more laws against the already illegal action?

Given that no more than three criminal homicides (and I may be mis-remembering, it may be two or even one) have been committed with a legally owned fully automatic firearm since 1934, why do you advocate preventing citizens from obtaining them?  Are you unaware that such firearms are already heavily restricted by federal law, and that a federal background check is required in order to obtain such a firearm legally?  What positive effect do you believe that banning such firearms -- which, when legally owned, are almost never used in crimes -- will have, and what research supports your claim?

You should note that "well-regulated", in the context of the Second Amendment, most likeley referred to the usage of the term in use at the time.  In the late 18th century, "well-regulated" meant well-controlled, or self-disciplined (for example, someone with a "well regulated" mind would be an individual who keeps their wits about themself, not someone whose thoughts are subject to government control).  Regarding the militia, federal law (Section 311 of US Code Title 10) defines the "unorganized militia" as all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 42 and who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (which falls under the "organized militia").  As I am a male who falls within that age range, I am technically a part of the "unorganized militia".  However, as you have yet to demonstrate that the Second Amendment, while spelling out the need for a militia, only protects members of the militia from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, I do not understand the relevance of your question.

by Dimensio 2007-07-10 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

I've already plainly explained how the second amendment should be properly interpreted. You disagree with me on that and there's nothing more I can say about the words used that I've not already done. I said I wasn't a firearm control expert so I don't have facts and figures and cites for everything I mentioned or that you mention. Others do of course and they would have to provide that when pressing for changes in the law. You asked what sorts of gun control measures I would consider senseable so I listed some. Some of them already exist and some don't. I listed the sorts of things that seem senseable to me. I demonstrated my point regarding the second amendment just fine and you don't at all fail to see my point in asking what well regulated militia you are a member of. The point was that as you aren't a member of one the groups that I mentioned that you don't have any second amendment rights at all. Any rights you have to own or use a firearm are only provided by enabling federal and state legislation. I have no problem with such enabling legislation as long as suitable gun control measures are included as part of it.

Even if you believe in the currently prevailing interpretation of the second amendment it doesn't confer absolute rights and restrictions upon the right would be entirely reasonable just as there are restrictions on freedom of speech for instance.

by Quinton 2007-07-11 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

So you are unable to explain how an amendment that states, quite clearly, that the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed only applies to a subset of the people, even though absolutely nothing within the amendment would suggest such selective application, and you are also unable to explain how anything that you have proposed regarding firearms restrictions would benefit society?  It would appear that you have not actually thought about the position that you espouse, and your overall position seems to be wholly irrational.  You are espousing positions and making statements that you cannot support with any facts.

I cannot understand how you have determined that an amendment that states that the right of "THE PEOPLE", with no qualifiers (note that the amendment does not exclude non-militia members from "THE PEOPLE") does not apply to me.  Moreover, you have failed to explain how I am not a member of a militia even though I have pointed out the specific federal statute that defines the militia of which I am a member.  It is as though you are deliberately ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your agenda, and you are even making up legal interpretations that have no basis in either Constitutional or Federal law.  There is no existing federal law that requires membership in a branch of the US Armed Forces as a qualifier for being a member of a "militia", which would be an especially difficult claim given that no offical US Armed Forces branch existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.  Your position would imply that the Second Amendment did not apply to anyone at the time of its implementation.

Even if the Second Amendment only applies to individuals in a militia, which you have yet to demonstrate, your position regarding militia membership has no basis whatsoever in actual law.

by Dimensio 2007-07-11 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

I have explained my point, you just disagree with it, which is fine. To restate it the first part of the sentence is what restricts the right to militia members. What the militia was at that point in history is roughly equivilant to what the national guard is today. Further if the second amendment does only extend rights to individuals in a current day version of a militia (as described upthread) then there doesn't need to be any other law to say so as the amendment itself would clearly act as the law of the land.

I would note that you didn't respond to my later point that even if one interpretes the second amendment as it currently tends to be that restrictions upon the rights to conferes are entirely reasonable just as there are restrictions upon other rights such as the freedom of speech for instance. We've been back and forth on this and neither of us are going to move so there's no point in continuing. Putting aside the different interpretation of the second amendment I hope we could agree on some senseable firearm control measures as super majorities in the country in fact do.

by Quinton 2007-07-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

You have yet to explain how your "interpretation" is supported by the wording of the amendment, which states that the right belongs to "the people" without qualifier, not merely those people involved in a militia.  If the writers of the Second Amendment only intended for the right of members of the militia not to be infringed, then why did they not write "the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

I do not oppose "reasonable" regulation of firearms usage; just as one may not claim that the First Amendment protects inciting a panic in public, the Second Amendment does not protect discharging a firearm recklessly in public.  However, I have asked you to provide examples of reasonable firearms restrictions.  You provided a list of what you believe are reasonable restrictions, but you failed to explain why the restrictions that you proposed are reasonable.  I asked you to justify the restrictions that you proposed.  You have, thus far, not done this.  For example, I asked why you believe that civillian ownership of fully automatic firearms should be prohibited given that less than three (and possibly only one) criminal homicide with such a firearm has been committed since 1934.  I also asked you how it can be determined that a firearm serves "no legitimate purpose" in response to your claim that such firearms should be prohibited.  I also asked you to explain the benefit that will occur if mandatory registration of all firearms is required, but you have not done this.  You did not even explain what you meant by "huge" semiautomatic handgun magazines, even though you propose banning them.  How, exactly, can a proposal to ban an item be evaluated when you do not adequately define the item being banned?

If you cannot explain why your proposals are reasonable, then your claim of supporting "reasonable" firearms restrictions is not justified.

by Dimensio 2007-07-11 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

NO INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN! In 1939 SCOTUS ruled in the case U. S. V Miller (307 U.S. 174), that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." That ruling has NEVER been overruled by the Supreme Court.

That ruling, along with the Militia Act of 1905, and the establishment of the National Guard in 1915/1916, establishes the fact that no individual has any Constitutional right to own a gun. The Federal and State Governments have the right to establish laws which strictly regulate the purchase, and ownership of firearms.But they do not have the political guts to do this.

For 68 years the NRA has knowingly lied through their corporate a-hole, brainwashing people to believe they have a right that the Supreme Court says they do not have. The NRA is secretly trying to get a case before The Roberts Court, because they believe they have the five votes to overturn U.S. V Miller.

by michett 2007-07-13 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why aren't criminal background checks required

The USSC ruled, in US v. Miller, only that an individual's right to keep and bear arms only extends to arms that may be used by a member of a militia.  They did not rule that only members of a militia may keep and bear arms.  Your statement is supported neither by the US Constitution nor the USSC ruling.  

Why are you lying?  Is that the only means by which gun grabbers can support their agenda of total civillian disarmament?

by Dimensio 2007-07-19 06:12AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads