The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
@Lawman still waiting on your thoughts about the situation in Oregon....
Click to expand...

They are guilty of criminal trespassing and will be charged as such.

The fact that they are armed has nothing to do with that.

But go ahead and expound on the situation using your vast experience in law enforcement. I'm sure you have some sort of formal training in that area... Oh wait.

And we are all still waiting to hear your thoughts on the legality of an executive order preventing free access to the Internet or a lawyer until you pass a back ground check.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Okay, so now we have a preview of what the EOs actually are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/u...e-will-act-on-gun-control-in-coming-days.html

Instead, Mr. Obama will merely clarify that existing laws require anyone making a living from selling guns to register as a licensed gun dealer and conduct background checks.
Click to expand...

(...this is actually all ready part of existing law...)

n addition to background checks, Mr. Obama will direct agencies to engage in more gun research, encourage more federal prosecution of domestic violence cases, crack down on gun purchases by corporations and trusts, and request new funding for 200 law enforcement agents and better access to mental health care.
Click to expand...
 
More detail in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d539e8-b2fb-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
Click to expand...

Sounds like good stuff to me.

Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.
Click to expand...

Close the business card loophole!
 
Hacker15e said:
Close the business card loophole!
Click to expand...
PaulAllenShot.gif
 
Personally, I neither see anything in the EOs that will have any significant impact on the kinds of crime that the gun-control folks bleat loudest about, nor do I see anything that is really a problem so far as the RKBA goes.

<shrug>

So, much ado about nothing IMHO.
 
Hacker15e said:
Personally, I neither see anything in the EOs that will have any significant impact on the kinds of crime that the gun-control folks bleat loudest about, nor do I see anything that is really a problem so far as the RKBA goes.

<shrug>

So, much ado about nothing IMHO.
Click to expand...

Nope, though I also don't see anything in there to get anyone upset about. I still would advocate for universal background checks to cover private sales. That will stop a nut job shooter or terrorist, but it will impact the flow of guns to cities and high crime areas. I think that is the one place where we could make significant gains, and as you said earlier Hacker, doing so would be good reason for getting rid of a bunch of other restrictions on law abiding citizens.

You know who is happy about all of this once again? Dealers. Once again we have a spike in sales because of rumors of bans that were never on the table. I wonder if the industry gives kickbacks to the NRA for getting everyone riled up over nothing (not sure they did that here, but they sure have in the past).
 
Dealers are also the #1 lobbyists for "universal background checks", as they'll be the ones collecting the NICS fees for doing the checks and the ones who will benefit most monetarily.

IMHO, any "UBC" deal will have to include user-level access for no cost to the buyer or seller, else it is a "poll tax".
 
Hacker15e said:
IMHO, any "UBC" deal will have to include user-level access for no cost to the buyer or seller, else it is a "poll tax".
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree to that. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and you can have that without private sales. A dealer effectively rolls the cost of the check into their prices, so maybe the private seller will need to do the same. The cost of the check should be reasonable and even subsidized if need be, but if you want that hec of a deal on a used gun, an extra $5 or $10 in the purchase price should not be any more of a hindrance than sales tax through the dealer.

It is an interesting concern though. Has anyone written anything useful on the legality?
 
Hacker15e said:
Dealers are also the #1 lobbyists for "universal background checks", as they'll be the ones collecting the NICS fees for doing the checks and the ones who will benefit most monetarily.

IMHO, any "UBC" deal will have to include user-level access for no cost to the buyer or seller, else it is a "poll tax".
Click to expand...

We had a "UBC" bill vetoed a few years ago. The compromise offered was exactly what you suggest, free access at the user level and included liability protections for those who used the system in a firearms transaction.

The supporters of the original bill scoffed at the idea of no fees paid to the state, and no middle man with the expected fees paid to them. They certainly felt the carrot to encourage use of the system offered by the liability protection was totally unacceptable.

So, "UBC" didn't pass. Seems pretty clear "UBCs" weren't the intent of the legislations supporters at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Acadia said:
I don't know if I agree to that. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and you can have that without private sales.
Click to expand...

Under a theoretical UBC law, every firearms transfer will have a NICS check. Without it being entirely taxpayer funded, it will be impossible to acquire a firearm without a government tax on it first.

This is squarely a poll tax on a protected right, and there is a series of caselaw saying a poll tax is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Mcdonald established that the 2A was also incorporated under the equal protection clause of the 14th.

Let's recall that Wainright says that the 6th Amendment right to have an attorney also means that the government must provide one if the citizen can't afford it.

Seems like pretty clear caselaw to me.

But, as Seggy is fond of pointing out, unlike him, I don't have a law degree, so I'm not smart enough to read cases and understand how caselaw precedent works.
 
Hacker15e said:
This is squarely a poll tax on a protected right, and there is a series of caselaw saying a poll tax is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Mcdonald established that the 2A was also incorporated under the equal protection clause of the 14th.
Click to expand...

I think that sounds reasonable at the basic level, but I question if the protected right extends to the convenience of a private sale. We don't call the cost of postage for an absentee ballot a tax; it is the price of doing it that way when a cost free option exists. Also, how can states legally charge a sales tax on a protected right?

Ditto on my knowledge of the legalities. I have no idea what would be true, but I think it is interesting to wonder about.
 
Acadia said:
I think that sounds reasonable at the basic level, but I question if the protected right extends to the convenience of a private sale. We don't call the cost of postage for an absentee ballot a tax; it is the price of doing it that way when a cost free option exists. .
Click to expand...

If UBCs are enacted, a free option won't exist to obtain a firearm that doesn't include a government tax.
 
Acadia said:
I think that sounds reasonable at the basic level, but I question if the protected right extends to the convenience of a private sale. We don't call the cost of postage for an absentee ballot a tax; it is the price of doing it that way when a cost free option exists. Also, how can states legally charge a sales tax on a protected right?

Ditto on my knowledge of the legalities. I have no idea what would be true, but I think it is interesting to wonder about.
Click to expand...

It's exactly that reason that the "fear" has a base.

Imagine if the government could restrict the sale or expedience of sale of any other piece of private property. Then imagine the government Un-funding that background system (which has happened at state levels). You see examples of that all the time with permits in states that are more restrictive with issue. It now takes obscenely long to get a firearm. In New Jersey a woman died waiting on her permit to purchase a firearm after she was killed by her ex. That woman's wait was strictly administrative in the ability of the system to process her right to own a firearm against her background record.

Better yet now that the FFLs know you have no choice but to use them the sale and transfer fees become raised to the rate where only those with means can own a firearm.

That's probably the best argument since it's exactly the one the left is using to overturn voter ID laws as disenfranchising those without financial means to get an ID. If the state becomes the sole go between in gun ownership controlling the funding to do checks, requiring everybody use an FFL, and being the sole entity to issue FFLs the ability for the state to just defund and restrict the 2nd amendment to the point of impotence is just too easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just like i said make a big announcement gun and ammo sales spike and CHA CHING mo money for the Big O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top