Universal background check equals gun registration

[1969912 0]

Quote

I suggest that there are very few illegal firearms in the US. (example home made guns or those converted to automatic fire)

Homemade guns are legal.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[OHCHUTE 0]

Like gun owners, some of who are the wealthest in this nation don't have lawyers. NOT SO. Law suits are being filed againt NY

The lawyers love it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/APdd33997445624680886e79b5bd351a4e.html

[millertime24 8]

Quote

prove those three statements. That's right - you cannot because you do not have the data.....

Prove how many times a day I break the speed limit (illegal). That's right - you cannot because you do not have the data.

And if I do it 10 times but a cop only gets me once the "data" claims I've only done it once. So applying the same logic to straw purchases for guns and guns stolen what NEW law would prevent these same events from happening?

Muff #5048

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

prove those three statements. That's right - you cannot because you do not have the data.....

Prove how many times a day I break the speed limit (illegal). That's right - you cannot because you do not have the data.

And if I do it 10 times but a cop only gets me once the "data" claims I've only done it once. So applying the same logic to straw purchases for guns and guns stolen what NEW law would prevent these same events from happening?

The ONLY way you could prevent a straw purchase is to TRACk THE GUN via IT technology showing where the gun ended up. Currently the technology is not in place. NO LAW could prevent a straw purchase. In fact, a felon is not allowed to own a gun but his wife living in the same house is allowed. i e Gordon Liddy. So she owns the gun. Like Gordon can't touch the gun, or go with his wife to the range to shoot it.
Preventing staw purchase via law is a pipe dream.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

I suggest that there are very few illegal firearms in the US. (example home made guns or those converted to automatic fire)

Homemade guns are legal.

So, even less illegal guns.

[dpreguy 14]

Oh great. Another judge with an agenda instead of a brain. So I guess that this same judge wouldn't mind a $340 fee for a three year privilege to vote?

[Andy9o8 0]

I realize thiis is a wasted point, but not every judge who issues a ruling on a hot button issue has an "agenda". Every case in court has a winner and a loser. I can disagree with a judge's legal analysis without presuming an insidious motive.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I realize thiis is a wasted point, but not every judge who issues a ruling on a hot button issue has an "agenda". Every case in court has a winner and a loser. I can disagree with a judge's legal analysis without presuming an insidious motive.

I would tend to agree with this
But it does raise a question for me

If judges, would take the time to lean about the law or right they are ruling on (example, 2nd A and reading the Federalist papers) would they, in your opinion (and I know this is very subjective) be wrong as often?

I am thinking many of them are lazy

But I am outside the system and a really would like to know what you think about this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If judges, would take the time to lean about the law or right they are ruling on (example, 2nd A and reading the Federalist papers) would they, in your opinion (and I know this is very subjective) be wrong as often?

Possibly not. But there's also plenty of room for honest intellectual disagreement among judges - that's half the reason there are so many split decisions on appellate court rulings. The other reason is, quite honestly, the same personal and/or ideological bias among judges as everyone else has. Ideally, that shouldn't come into play, but in reality of course it does.

Quote

I am thinking many of them are lazy

My experience is that about 20% of state court judges and 5% of federal court judges are lazy. Unfortunate, but that's probably not out of line with what we all find out there in the regular workplace in any field.

I invite comment from other lawyers out there, who may think I'm full of beans.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

If judges, would take the time to lean about the law or right they are ruling on (example, 2nd A and reading the Federalist papers) would they, in your opinion (and I know this is very subjective) be wrong as often?

Possibly not. But there's also plenty of room for honest intellectual disagreement among judges - that's half the reason there are so many split decisions on appellate court rulings. The other reason is, quite honestly, the same personal and/or ideological bias among judges as everyone else has. Ideally, that shouldn't come into play, but in reality of course it does.

Quote

I am thinking many of them are lazy

My experience is that about 20% of state court judges and 5% of federal court judges are lazy. Unfortunate, but that's probably not out of line with what we all find out there in the regular workplace in any field.

Thanks

This all makes sense
Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dpreguy 14]

I am comfortable in calling the judge's decision "agenda based" as it requires hundreds of dollars, and if you own multiple handguns, maybe thousands of dollars to exercise/enjoy a constitutional right. And in New York City, a renewal of those fees every three years.

Poll taxes (paying to vote) has been ruled an unconstitutional burden that would have a chilling effect, or worse, upon voting - a constitutional right. I doubt this judge would allow charging a fee to vote.

In my opinion, viewing his reasoning: This judge is anti gun and probably wouldn't have balked at any fee, regardless of it's magnitude, to own a handgun in your home in New York. That mindset equals an agenda to me. Not paying the fee means you can be charged and arrested for owning an unregistered handgun in New York. Arrest, followed by seizure for evidence (no, you won't get it back) will basically eliminate a New York resident's ability to have a gun in their home, unless one has a lot of money. That was/is the transparent intent of the NY legislature and Gov Cuomo in the first place. Hopefully a lawsuit in fed court will prevail and strike this scheme as unconstitutional.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

o person should have to pay to talk on a corner (free speech), or have to pay to go to church,(freedom of religion) to vote(no poll tax) or pay anything to own a firearm. I don't understand why those who oppose having to pay to vote feel that gun owners should have to pay anything to own a gun.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on this point. One NYC-area federal judge recently ruled that a $340 fee every 3 years for licensing was not overly burdensome, and thus was not unconstitutional. On balance, after considering both sides' arguments and the judge's reasoning, I disagreed with that judge; I would have ruled the opposite, on constitutional grounds.

How would you feel about mandatory liability insurance, to help cover the high costs to society of gun ownership?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

o person should have to pay to talk on a corner (free speech), or have to pay to go to church,(freedom of religion) to vote(no poll tax) or pay anything to own a firearm. I don't understand why those who oppose having to pay to vote feel that gun owners should have to pay anything to own a gun.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on this point. One NYC-area federal judge recently ruled that a $340 fee every 3 years for licensing was not overly burdensome, and thus was not unconstitutional. On balance, after considering both sides' arguments and the judge's reasoning, I disagreed with that judge; I would have ruled the opposite, on constitutional grounds.

How would you feel about mandatory liability insurance, to help cover the high costs to society of gun ownership?

Only if mandatory liability insurace is required for anyone who opens their mouths in public

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

o person should have to pay to talk on a corner (free speech), or have to pay to go to church,(freedom of religion) to vote(no poll tax) or pay anything to own a firearm. I don't understand why those who oppose having to pay to vote feel that gun owners should have to pay anything to own a gun.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on this point. One NYC-area federal judge recently ruled that a $340 fee every 3 years for licensing was not overly burdensome, and thus was not unconstitutional. On balance, after considering both sides' arguments and the judge's reasoning, I disagreed with that judge; I would have ruled the opposite, on constitutional grounds.

How would you feel about mandatory liability insurance, to help cover the high costs to society of gun ownership?

As background to my answer, I'll note first some more detail about how I feel about gun licensing or registration fees: I'd allow a small, very un-burdensome (not much more than nominal) fee to defray a small (almost token) amount of the administrative cost to the general population of taxpayers. (Total or partial waivers would also be available in cases of financial hardship.) The rest of the money to pay for it would have to come out of the general fund paid-into by taxpayers, just as we derive, for example, funds to pay for military, police, fire protection and filling potholes in roads (including roads we never use, just as some thus-burdened taxpayers will never own a gun).

Initially, mandatory gun liability insurance seems logical in theory, but I have real problems with its constitutionality, because it amounts to a financial burden to exercise a constitutional right. By comparative examples, poll taxes to exercise the right to vote were declared unconstitutional on such grounds; and I've never, ever liked the concept of a requirement to obtain a permit, much less to pay a fee for one, to stage a First Amendment-protected demonstration.

As to the comparison to vehicle registration, intellectually the comparison is reasonable, but as a matter of US Constitutional law, they do not compare. That's because the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, while the right to own a vehicle is not. It may be that that's a reflection of the late-18th Century times, when muskets existed but motor vehicles did not; but it is what it is. Hypothetically, had the American revolution occurred in the late 20th Century, and the Brits had been confiscating rebellious colonists' cars to tactically restrict their mobility, the resulting Constitution might very well enumerate a right to keep and drag-race a Chevy, by God. So no, on balance, I would rule mandatory user-paid gun liability insurance to be unconstitutional. The only luke-warm exception might be akin to what I said above about licensing fees: a government-provided insurance fund, and nothing more than nominal premiums to the users.

[dpreguy 14]

Insurance: Any scheme that ID's a particular gun with make model and serial number connected with the name and address of the owner is a registration scheme. Same transparent intent, different scheme. Also, "mandatory" means a citizen not only has to pay to exercise a constitutional right, but a failure to pay will have consequences of some sort, which could, and New York probably would be confiscation of the uninsured gun.

We now have a list of persons who cannot purchase guns at guns stores. The list is about 15 or more categories, but starts with convicted felons, those under restraining orders, whose charged as felons, etc. . Now, add to the list the mental defectives, and the ones who are about to blow (James Holmes Aurora movie and Adam Lanza Newtown) who could have been and should have been on the list too, and we are now intelligently getting somewhere. How to do this? Holmes was under psych care and the psychiatrist who was meeting with him asked campus security Auroria Campus to bar him from the university, and asked for campus security escort etc should have been able to at least submit his name to be on the "can't purchase" list. She knew he was a dangerous patient and( my term=about to blow) and did nothing. She is now being sued. Maybe because there wasn't anything she could do? Don't know about that. Adam Lanza's mother (maybe this is urban legend now and not true) anyway we have all heard speculation that she was about to try to commit him when he killed her. Yes this is speculation , but his brother upon hearing what Adam Lanza had done wasn't at all surprised. So, at the very least, the psychiatrist at Auroria campus and Adam Lanza's mother and his brother should have been able to submit his name to be on a list of "can't purchase firarms" persons. ( Yes I know Adam L didn't buy them he stole them from his mom) I don't remember if Laughner /Gabrail Giffords had persons who know if he was gong to blow.
How this reporting would occur and how to keep persons who just don't like someone from putting their enemies on the list etc. is something that would have to be figured out, but efforts or plans or procedures to let those who are counseling patients and close associates, family members, and including the high school kids who were reading the posts of the Columbine shooters, should be able to report these mentally unstable persons and at the very least submit their names to someone who can evaluate these reports of mental suspects, who would, after evaluation of these reports, put some of these reported persons on the 'can't buy' list until that person can be cleared. Once again, reporting with a motive has to have a biteback, but it seems to me that almost all of these shooters had someone who knew they were about to "blow". The actual procedure of how all of this idealistic idea would be accomplished is open to all with creative and fair minded persons. The "Willowbrookers"-mentall health professionals, who would on principle, oppose ANY such reporting will predictably oppose it. In my opinion, some idea such as this would at least be trying to go after the actual problem = gun sales to those who shouldn't have them. The whole thrust now is wrong headed. Going after gun ownership of those who would never even think of using them illegally. This is just my idea, sticky wicket, of how to proceed to accomplish the goal of most: Keep guns from those who shouldn't have them; and leave the rest of the gun owning populace alone and free of fees and governmental interference.

[Andy9o8 0]

Registration's going to happen, Red Dawn fears notwithstanding. That's the reality. Legislation will pass, and the courts will ultimatey uphold it in one form or another. You may not like it, you may rail against it, but it's going to happen.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Registration's going to happen, Red Dawn fears notwithstanding. That's the reality. Legislation will pass, and the courts will ultimatey uphold it in one form or another. You may not like it, you may rail against it, but it's going to happen.

I dont think so

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[D22369 0]

I dont beleive for a minute that this data is destroyed
***

oh hell no they arent trashing that info, its just tucked away - prolly for "statistical info" or some other trash like that...

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[OHCHUTE 0]

We live in a criminal industrial corporate society. They'll pass more laws and bust more people. Lawyers and the state will make more money off of fines. Look what FAA did with airspace. More airspace restrictions caused 6,000 pilots to get accused of airspace violation who before the restrictions were law abiding citizens. Some father passes a gun to his son and will get busted for an illegal gun transfer. They're out to produce more felons via more rules.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

We live in a criminal industrial corporate society.

No, we live in a military-industrial compl....



Yeah.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

We live in a criminal industrial corporate society. They'll pass more laws and bust more people. Lawyers and the state will make more money off of fines. Look what FAA did with airspace. More airspace restrictions caused 6,000 pilots to get accused of airspace violation who before the restrictions were law abiding citizens. Some father passes a gun to his son and will get busted for an illegal gun transfer. They're out to produce more felons via more rules.

What do you expect when we have for-profit prisons?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.