I don't believe they do anything useful which is what the DUKE study found. I also don't believe the federal government's use of the commerce clause is either constitutional from a tenth or second amendment standpoint. Since you want to ban people from owning 11 round magazines (now) or 10 round magazines (soon) your opinion is worthless on the subject since you support an incremental destruction of our right to keep and bear arms
Once the legal owner of the firearm claims that it was stolen from their possession, law enforcement will have no compelling reason to investigate the matter beyond that, as they will have no grounds for doubting the legitimacy of the claim. It will be the word of the individual with no criminal record, against the word of the prohibited individual found in illegal possession of a firearm, who may or may not have utilized it for the purpose of committing a murder.
meanwhile you demand picture IDs for folks to be able to vote and proof of citizenship when they register. why don't you simply take people's word for it when they say they are a registered voter and a citizen?
background checks make sure you are a lawful resident of the USA and a US citizen. they make sure you have no felony convictions. they make sure there are no warrants for your arrest. they make sure a judge has never forced you into a mental hospital. ...and you oppose this. wow, just wow.
Knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. I gotta give it to them. The anti-gun folks used Rahm Emmanuel's maxim to the fullest in Florida.
i dont support the age limit. if you're old enough to vote and die for this country, you should be able to buy a gun, assuming you can pass a comprehensive background check and gun safety/training course and exam.
You are not being honest. Your support of gun bans is well known. You can deny it but I will call you on it.....every time.
background checks keep guns out of the hands of folks who do not have the RIGHT to possess guns, or should not possess guns. the fact you object to something like a background check to buy a gun, is very disturbing.
hundreds of your posts show that you desire to make everyone in the USA suffer the same idiotic laws that citizens of NYC live under. You constantly support those laws and demand the rest of us be subjected to them
really-can you find a supreme court case that agrees with you when it comes to merely OWNING a firearm
you as usual don't understand State governments have the power to demand background checks. I don't think the federal government does. and there is no evidence they have decreased violent crime can you PROVE otherwise?
several states require training and an exam for concealed carry. never been struck down by the Supreme Court.
background check simply means they make sure you have the legal right to posses a gun, subject to Federal gun laws. there is no honest reason to object to such a thing. its one thing to object to failures and red tape in the system, that can be corrected, but to object to the mere concept of a background check is very very disturbing. without a ****ing background check, convicted felons can buy guns. Folks wanted for murder can buy guns. Folks with a warrant for their arrest can buy guns. such a situation would be intolerance and inexcusable in a modern society.
what if a person doesn't believe that the federal government has the proper power to demand it? felons get guns constantly. Its a federal felony to do so=almost every other crime is "deterred" by the threat of punishment. why do we need something else for this non-violent malum prohibitum offense your last assertion is an opinion that cannot be proven truthful
you misread what I said its unconstitutional to require that to OWN a gun. I never said it was unconstitutional to CCWs
many folks believe the Feds don't have the right to tax income or require folks to file an income tax form. its their tough nuggies. fight it in court and live with the ruling.
Had the firearm been acquired through a straw purchase, or was stolen from its legal owner, no difference would have been made.