Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

[44 AMP]

The real probloem, from my point of view...

Is not the basic idea of ensuring a prohibited person doesn not buy a gun from a private seller, it is the fact that every single proposed law to "ensure" this tramples on the rights of the rest of us.

I, for one, find the idea of having to run a background check on someone I have known for a dozen years before I can sell him a gun, a distinctly unpleasent idea. Both the time, and the expense (that will certainly be involved, if not at first, eventually), is an onerous burden, and completely without need or any redeeming social benefit, except that of adding to the govt coffers from fees charged.

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue, especially if you are considering sanctions against those who sell (knowingly) to prohibited persons. But none of the proposed solutions (laws) ever has any provision for avoiding the check (and its cost) when you know the individual is not a prohibited person. They paint us all with the same brush, and the color is guilty until proven innocent. That is not right.

The background check by an FFL is part of the requirement for him doing business. I am not doing business. I am just selling a gun. Or a book. Or a chair. Or .....

 

[zukiphile]

However, honest people or nearly honest who are afraid they will be charged too if caught, won't sell without the NICS. Won't stop crime but then no law will. However, it might make a dent.

There is hardly any abridgement of a right that might not "make a dent". Does this rationale describe a rational relation between a law and a legitimate governmental end?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Does the view that there should be little regulation of the selling of firearms extend to all products? Or is it only guns due to the 2nd Amend. ? Or is a more libertarian philosophy.

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Does the cigarette position extend to other controlled recreational drugs?

Does the gun world think outside of guns on bans and control of dangerous things? Is the 2nd or general libertarian extreme views?

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill.

Which I think makes a pretty strong argument to strengthen the system. Thanks.

Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue,

And that is the issue that is the problem.

"shall not be infringed" to me says "Don't _uck with it."

It may mean that to you but that is not what it means to the courts who interpret the COTUS. If the law or regulation passes the courts muster it is not an infringement plain and simple regardless of what we think I'm afraid. The NICS is here to stay as Wildalaska has stated so the issue is whether to extend it to private sales.

 

[zukiphile]

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory.

This is a dubious assertion. We control many things even when there is no reasonbly apprehended danger present. We control what a cookie producer can print on the package about the fat content to protect people too thick (hardly any pun intended) to know that cookies consumed in quantity make people fat. We could make people register to buy cookies, and wait three days to pick them up. That "might put a dent" in the epidemic of obesity.

At different times and places, different restrictions have been imposed for different reasons, and even the same restriction can be suppported by different people for different reasons.

I've little doubt that some people support some restrictions as a matter of perceived safety, while other support restrictions as a matter of uncomplex intolerance.

Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by.

The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that.

Given the existence of a specific provision in the COTUS, the position that arms are a special case doesn't seem implausible. Would you agree?

That doesn't force one to conclude that all restrictions are forbidden, but it does support a particularly wide birth for the right.

I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.

I don't think you are the only person troubled by the mechanism by which the federal government controls MJ. The specific legislative scheme used seems odious to me; simply by switching a substance from one schedule to another, the federal government can somewhat arbitrarily prohibit a substance.

I am not an enthusiast for MJ legalisation, but the reach of federal regulatory authority and how it has come about is not a peculiarly libertarian concern.

But perhaps MJ and neurotoxins are tangential and not ideally analogous.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 2nd says "Arms".

How do you define that? The firearms of today didn't exist then. Do you want to go down the path of saying just the arms of the Revolutionary war are protected?

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected. Laser weapons are becoming possible now. In fact, hand held blinding (permanently - not distracting) weapons do exist but are controlled. Should they be open to all buyers?

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly. Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?

 

[zukiphile]

To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show?

"Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?

Not unduly so.

Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected.

I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.

If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then.

Just as the 1st Am. clearly does not apply to television and mormonism, right?

You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly.

I don't believe you intend that as a legal point, but a political one. As a political matter granting the government power to do whatever it can link to some worry about safety is untenable in a system of legally limited government.

Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed.

Let's pursue that.

You are free to build an Aztec temple. You can't sacrifice people until the eclipse comes, because that is already illegal. The ability to build an aztec temple doesn't make the 1st Am absolute. It just makes it meaningful.

If (for the sake of illustration and argument) you were perfectly free to purchase, own, possess and carry a select fire rifle, you still would not be free to kill people at the mall becuase you had a bad day. The application of the amendment would not be absolute simply because its terms are given substantial meaning.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Last I checked, neurotoxins aren't mentioned in the Constitution where's firearms are specifically mentioned.

Incorrect. It say ARMS. Weapons, in other words. No further definition is given.

So presumably swords, cannons, crossbows, bows, bludgeons, daggers, spears, and, oh yes, firearms.

I think the larger point may be that the arms, in whatever form, need to be sufficiently effective to overcome any force the bearer is likely to encounter. If they are not sufficiently effective, then the right will have been undermined.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I detect buried within this line of argument the fallacy of the excluded middle. Very few people argue that the 2d Am. applies to all conceivable weaponry.

Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit. If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?

Got to work now but it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

 

[zukiphile]

Got to work now ...

I sympathize and will be brief.

Some do - and where does one set the line? At 'assault weapons' - and the argument is whether FFL mediation at gun shows is legit.

I thought the issue was requiring all firearm transfers everywhere to take place only with approval of a government agency, not just ones at gun shows.

If every exercise of a specific right requires a license from the government, how is it a right?

If one argues for a continuum of regulation as you do, then the FFL mediation is legit if instantiated by the legislative process.

That does not follow. Noting that some restrictions on a right (say to vote or possess arms) against some people (say felons and the insane) does not imply that anything a legislature can pass is legitimate or constitutional.

Any limitation should at a minimum bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Arguably, a limitation of a right so plainly stated should only be on much greater scrutiny.

And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it?

Yes. Everyone who buys lead ammunition buys a neurotoxin.

...it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism.

Ken would be mistaken on that point. Simply because a current background check during a federally licensed transfer, i.e. between an FFL and a non-licensee, is constitutional, it does not also follow that requirement of such approval for transactions between non-licensees would also pass.

To abor "absolutism" in examination of the issue of further regulation, then assert further regulation as constitutional simply because some more modest regulation passed challenge is an absolutism of its own.

So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.

While those arguments are interesting, as the decision in Heller reminds us, give up on the legal argument and you pass up some valuable opportunities.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, I thought the issue was the gun show loophole but I've said all my brain can hold and commented on some of the stuff said.

Till the Talmud decides our political issues - I'll leave the battlefield on this one.

 

[Wildalaska]

Simply because a current background check during a federally licensed transfer, i.e. between an FFL and a non-licensee, is constitutional, it does not also follow that requirement of such approval for transactions between non-licensees would also pass.

It would if the Federal law was narrowly drawn...conversely a Federal law requiring California style private transfers probably wouldnt

WildcommerceAlaska ™

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

We recently had a local guy get mad at some people, dump gasoline on them and burn two of them to death. Don't even have to be 18 to buy a gallon.

You can't regulate everything.


I'm a number person. How many gun transfers are there in the US each year? How many of them are FTF without a FFL? How many of those are bad guys buying guns?

Are we willing to pass a law that will cost thousands of people millions of dollars in FFL fees each year and another stack of papers to maintain forever just to stop a few hundred people from buying guns that they will simply get somewhere else?

 

[DonR101395]

Which I think makes a pretty strong argument to strengthen the system. Thanks.

Or a pretty strong statement that the system is a waste of time and money in addition to being an infringement.
It just depends on if you are pro freedom or pro nanny state.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, I thought the issue was the gun show loophole but I've said all my brain can hold and commented on some of the stuff said.

Yeah we have drifted quite a bit into crime, and neurotoxins and aztec temples. The good news is that gun owners can disagree and don't have to hold to a party line. For that I thank the mods and the forum. Some of us believe that there can be reasonable controls on firearms and won't descend down the slippery slope to banned firearm ownership. Some think virtually any control of firearms is an infringement of their constituitional rights and that's OK too.

I'll leave the battlefield on this one.

As will I as I think I too have said my piece on this subject. I look forward to the next discussion

 

[Al Norris]

It's been a good discussion, even if it has drifted a few times.

All in all, I think just about everything has been said and we are all running in circles. So let's gracefully end this.

Thanks everyone for a great discussion.