See Portugal Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform (transformdrugs.org)
First off, why so presumptive? You can dissect my post all you like in attempt to obfuscat the point that your post, as someone else put it, is just a rambling search for a point. Conflating boarder security and gun bans muddies both issues and they are NOT directly related; was my point. So, now, are you wanting to discuss gun bans or boarder security?
It could be that Portugal doesn't have as much societal predilection for drug use as the rest of the EU. I agree that banning drugs is pointless. We learned that during prohibition but failed to remember it. While I truly hate what fentanyl is doing to our country, it may scare people from taking drugs. It should.
The goal of "universal background checks" is to background check every gun purchase. That's what the word "universal" means. There are already background checks in place for commercial sellers, so the challenge is to have some way to force private sellers to background check their perspective buyers, in order to comply with law and not put themselves at risk. The only way to do that is to hold all sellers responsible for selling to prohibited persons. And the only way to do that is to be able to trace a firearm from the prohibited person, back to the person or business who sold it to them. The only way to do that is to have a complete and accurate registry, which is not practically possible.
In YOUR self defined context. What most people think of, however, is that "new gun sales" have a requirement of some form of check on the buyer. SO! IF, something "is not practically possible" as YOU define it, the rest of the country needs to throw their hands in the air and give up? I don't think so!
There are already background checks, by federal law, on all "new gun sales" (See NICS). Therefore, I'm unsure what you might mean by "universal background checks" if you don't mean expanding that requirement to private "used" gun sales as well. I'm sorry, but how I define it is irrelevant. Something that is impractical is objectively impractical. Creating a complete and accurate registry is pre-requisite to effective universal background checks. Such a registry cannot be compiled, because it is impractical (impossible) to do so, and further, there are constitutional barriers that cannot presently be overcome. This is not a subjective opinion, it is just the fact.
OK, your approach is a firearms perspective. And, I'm sorry I haven't made myself more clear, my approach is from a people, for lack of a better word, perspective. I think more can and needs to be done to "control" people with firearms, because as we've all been told "guns don't kill people, people do". You're right trying to control ALL the guns in These United States would be impossible without some very UN-Constitutional methods. I guess NICS is better than nothing, it takes less than a half hour to complete, more needs to be done. Before anyone buys a firearm they should have to complete a training class (once in a lifetime, at least) that covers safety, safe storage and the basic four principals of safe gun handling. The should have to prove they are mentally capable of being responsible with a firearm and they should have nothing in their history that indicates they are prone to violence. NONE of that violates the Constitution. And I believe it would help dramatically in curbing gun violence of all types. Supporting my opinion is what's been done in my state to ensure Hunter Safety. Years ago some knuckle head (happened to be from Texas) shot two kids off a RED Motorcycle. A law was passed requiring all people born after a certain date to take a "Hunter Safety Class" before they could buy a hunting license. Hunting accidents have dropped dramatically since that law was passed. Education and minimal requirements AbsaByGodLutely make a difference.
I am surprised that it even needs to be said, but you do realize that 4kg of smuggled Cocaine costs exorbitantly more than 4kg of smuggled weed? The significance is that CLEARLY there is something else that drives the price other than just weight. Therefore, your conclusion that a gun would cost its weight in Cocaine can accurately be declared as sufficiently debunked.
I cannot agree more that people who have firearms should absolutely seek some basic firearm safety training. Making their ability to purchase a firearm contingent upon completion of a safety course is absolutely unconstitutional. On the other hand, requiring firearm dealers to make firearm safety training classes available to their customers after the sale would not be a bad thing.
I would like to see firearms safety classes get a chance to test their Constitutionality. It probably couldn't be a Federal law but it most definitely be a State law; on that all States should pass.
The class itself is not unconstitutional. Making the sale CONTINGENT upon completing the class, absolutely is. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Excuse me; there are many State and local laws that are more restrictive already adopted law. Proving your not an incompetent (with firearms) mental case is public safety not infringement.
How is it not an infringement requiring me to prove that I'm not something? I don't have to prove that I'm anything to practice my religion or to speak freely or to not incriminate myself in a court of law or to be free of unlawful searches or seizures.
When you drive you and your car are subject to searches if the officer suspects you've violated the law. IF you want a fire arm you background should be thoroughly looked into.
stops funding gangs and terrorsim for one, but also reduces OD's as people know what they are getting "5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results" April 7, 2009 ]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization "Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal" http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Just because law is "adopted" does not mean that it's constitutional. Adopted laws get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. An "infringement" is any lessening, erosion, or dilution of the right. Making your right to keep and bear arms contingent upon taking a safety class is EXACTLY like making your right to vote contingent upon taking a civics class.
This is not accurate. A police officer may only search you or your vehicle without your consent IF he can establish probable cause to do so. "Suspicion" is not probable cause.
no you're not without reasonable suspicion. There is implied consent but you are well within your rights to revoke that. There are already background checks. In order to complete a firearms transaction record they do a background check on you. If you're going to argue for laws you should know what laws we already have.
You would have a point if guns and ammo were complicated and difficult to make. Any amateur with a drill press can make one. Ammo is even easier. Perhaps we can test your War on Guns theory with something much more complicated to manufacture, hmmm. how about drugs? Hows that war on drugs working out?
I SAID; "if he suspects". Correct there are already background checks, expanding their scope would not be UN-Constitutional.
I accept your concession. But I think we're closer together than apart. The only point of contention is any requirement to take the class by the government prior to the sale. I think taking a safety course should be a part of owning a firearm, and it could be required by the firearm dealer as a condition of the sale, or even offered by the dealer as an included perk. The government could offer incentives and programs to firearm dealers to support that, but they can't make the sale or delivery of the firearm contingent upon taking the course. As an aside, I also think taking a civics course should be part of the voting process, and if you can't demonstrate your knowledge and proficiency with basic civics, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's unconstitutional too, but hey, we can dream...