The member BryanVA, a seasoned and experienced prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, addressed the shortcomings, and lack of legitimacy, with such a proposal. Even if background checks are required, someone can easily sell a firearm to a prohibited individual, and if asked later claim that they had not seen it in quite some time and simply report it as being stolen. It would come down to the word of the prohibited individual who is committing a felony by illegally possessing a firearm, against the word of someone with no criminal record. Credibility alone would discourage the filing of charges against the individual who sold the firearm, and the prohibited individual would need to testify that he committed a felony, which is a violation of their right against self-incrimination.
Of interest should be the fact that any AR-15 manufactured more than fifty years ago now qualifies as a relic due to their age. As time passes more and more AR-15s will qualify as relics due to their age of manufacture.
Let's start with Hillary Clinton's statement where she said the Supreme Court got it wrong (in the Heller decision) because she only objects to one subordinate issue in the decision that was unrelated to the Supreme Court's decision that struck down the DC law that prohibited hand gun ownership. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton-said-heller-gun-rights-case-was-ab/ No where have I ever read a statement by Hillary Clinton condemning the main decision in Heller that related to the right of a person to have a hand gun in their home for the purpose of self defense. That allegation is false unless supported but then we find that the NRA and Republicans are known for making false allegations. Additionally objecting to a decision by the Supreme Court related to an Amendment does not constitute an objection to the Amendment. So even if Hillary Clinton opposed the entire Heller decision it doesn't imply any objection to the Second Amendment. It expresses an objection to how the Second Amendment is being interpreted and I can actually document cases where the Supreme Court's decision violated it's own interpretation of the Constitution. In fact I know of one Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution and then immediately violated that interpretation in it's decision on the case. We need to read the Second Amendment again for clarification: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right" in the Second Amendment is to "Keep and Bear" and not the arms themselves. All natural rights are inherent in the person and the "arms" are not inherent in the person. First and foremost we notice that "firearms" aren't mentioned at all. Yes, originally the Second Amendment did, by necessity, cover firearms because the standard musket was required by the people that formed the militias that provided for the defense of the new nation. As with all things we've become more specialized in the last 200 years and any necessity for the militia has been replaced by the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines as well as the National Guard that is under the authority of the governor the state for it's respective units. The American people no longer need civilian militias so that part of the Second Amendment is no longer applicable and it only applied to "long arms" (i.e. muskets and rifles) anyway. The NRA and radical right-wing groups misrepresent the intent of the founders when they claim that militias were to protect the American people from the tyranny of government. The founders never intended that and in fact prevented the necessity for it by creating the United States as a Constitutional government with the delegated authority to suppress insurrections (Article I Section . The founders also provided us, under the Constitution, the means to adjudicate any violations (well almost any violation) to the Constitution. The need to "rebel" is eliminated by the ability to adjudicate disputes that create injustice. The Second Amendment doesn't offer any protections when it come to "commerce" in firearms. Several of the statements on Clinton's advocacy for gun regulations relate to "commerce" that is not a Right of the Person/People. Commerce is a statutory privilege where, ideally, the statutory and regulatory provisions protect us from violations of our Natural Rights which is, ironically, what the Republicans often oppose in our statutory laws and regulation of commerce. By usage of the general word "Arms" the Second Amendment left the authority to defining what type of "Arms" were necessary for a person to exercise their actual Natural Right of "self defense against acts of aggression" to the Congress. We already have certain prohibitions related to "arms" that are not related to the person's defense of themselves or their family. We can't own nuclear arms because they're offensive and not defensive in nature. We can't on conventional bombs either for the same reason. Fully automatic weapons can be owned but the regulator procedures are very strict requiring registration of the firearm and licensing of he owner. Background checks don't infringed upon anyone's right to Keep and Bear which is what the Second Amendment protects and it's a "commerce" provision related to the transfer of the firearm. Imposition of requirements related to the firearm itself is not an infringement upon the right to Keep and Bear. Finally the claim that Hillary Clinton has ever expressed the desire to "confiscate firearms" is a blatant lie and it would also be unconstitutional to confiscate a legally purchased and own firearm anyway. She has proposed a national firearm buyback program, similar to Australia's (noted in the link) but this is a voluntary program and no one's firearms are being confiscated or will ever be confiscated in the United States (without a Constitutional amendment to authorize it). I disagree with Hillary Clinton on numerous issues but never once has she ever come out in opposition to the Second Amendment. Just because person want to regulate or just because they disagree with parts or all of a Supreme Court decision doesn't imply that the oppose the provision in the Constitution. They're disagreeing with the interpretation and not the provision itself. Bottom line all of this represents is that Republicans and the NRA are willing to lie, cheat, and steal because they simply make up anything they want and expect people to believe it. Of course we have to understand the audience they're targeting. If the people listening to the NRA believe half of what the NRA claims then they're just not smart enough to recognize or perhaps to even care about the truth.
There is a necessity for evidence to support the conviction but it's not an insurmountable obstacle in all cases. Yes, it could come down to the testimony of a person that committed a crime against a person never convicted of a crime but that alone doesn't discredit the testimony. It can also be noted that it would be easy to discredit the seller's testimony in some cases (e.g. the seller reports the date of the theft after other people see the firearm in the possession of the prohibited person). Additionally the seller wouldn't be intentionally selling a firearm to a prohibited person typically and if the person isn't prohibited it's "no harm, no foul" under the provision because they wouldn't be on the FBI NICS database at the time of the transfer. On the other hand just a few cases of people being sent to prison for not using the database and selling to a prohibited person would seriously cut down on the number of sellers not using the system to run the background check. Personally, as gun owner, I really want private access to the FBI NICS database. I've sold firearms and didn't want to inadvertently sell them to a prohibited person so I've limited my sales to FFL's. That probably costs me money because the FFL has to resale the gun for a profit but that' s better than me selling a firearm to someone that's under a temporary restraining order so they can go murder their estranged wife. If the database was voluntary, easily accessed by computer or cell phone, was free to use, and required the minimum information necessary to verify the person is not prohibited then I don't understand any arguments by responsible gun owners as to why they wouldn't use it. BTW - Our current background checks and my proposed private access to the FBI NICS database needs a provision that isn't currently provided. There needs to be a one-touch button that would instantly notify law enforcement if the person shows up as being prohibited and police need to respond immediately to that call. Currently if a person fails the background check nothing happens and they just walk out of the door to go purchase a firearm elsewhere (often from irresponsible private gun owners). We're blocking one sale but not blocking the eventual purchase. The police, if compelled to respond, can then investigate the person attempting to purchase. Sometimes the FBI NICS database is wrong but if it's not the attempted purchase is a felony that needs to be prosecuted.
I think Trump owns at least 3 handguns and got NYC carry permits. I don't think Hillary can boast that. But Trump isn't a gun enthusiast like Teddy Roosevelt---we'll see who he appoints to Federal Courts.
Still drinkin the Kool Aid??? If Hillary and Obama even gave one hoot in Hell about the 2nd Amendment, they would not have allowed cities like Chicago and Washington DC to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment under their watch. Not only could citizens not bear arms in those cities, they could not even keep a 200 year old flintlock pistol in any working form in their own homes. This is like two cities selling slaves in their downtown squares in defiance of the 13th Amendment and them not doing anything about it. The Tooth Fairy is more believable than Obama's and Hillary's passion for the 2nd.
We don't need a "one touch" button. The perp has filled out a form with his/her name and address. Pretty easy to track them down. You are correct that the felony act of lying on the Form 4473 is insufficiently prosecuted. On the most recent Brady Act Enforcement report, the data shows 34k+ felons and 20k other prohibited persons failed the background check. 13 of that 45k were found guilty of that crime. Let's enforce that law before trying to impose another, otherwise background checks for private sales will have the same or worse effectiveness.
I don't think he PLANS to do anything, based on his NRA support and the continued support he enjoys from 2A supporters, however, he has in the past SAID he supports suspending due process via no-fly-list bans. If, god forbid, there is another mass shooting, then who knows what he will do? I don't count Trump as an ally for gun rights, yet.
Which is meaningless with regard to US politics. Even when Democrats have a majority in both houses, they shy away from gun control as they know it is a quick and easy way lose control of those houses.
Hillary repeated her opposition to Heller over and over; it was not until her 3rd debate with Trump that she walked back her opposition to Heller by implying - not actually stating, but implying - she only disagreed with the gun storage portion of the ruling. No honest person believes this was the portion of Heller she took issue with, especially given the fact that most people do not knoe about the gun storage provision of the ruling. And, since you did not address the reaming points I raised - each and every with citations proving the veracity of the claim - I can only surmise that you accept them as statements of her hostility toward the right to keep and bear arms, and that you stand corrected.
That argument isn’t supported in law. That claim is akin to allowing government suppression or censorship of any speech that isn’t purely speech, whether it’s from quill and ink or the latest iPhone. The need for a militia is a sufficient but not necessary condition to justify the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A review of various state Constitutions will show that. As far as the arms of the militia being limited to “long arms”, one would have to ignore the common arming of a period military officer of sword and sidearm to accept that This point could be argued, but it’s moot. We could own fully automatic weapons without restriction from their invention until 1934. Self-defense is not the only lawful use for a firearm. The use of the Commerce Clause is an unjustifiable attempt to subvert the 2nd Amendment. A example is that intrastate state commerce in firearms is also restricted by the feds. Since the Commerce Clause is limited to interstate commerce, there is no legal justification to use it to block someone selling post-1986 fully automatic weapons produced in say, Montana, to the citizens of Montana, but here we are. Is a gift “commerce”? Being Constitutional isn’t the only requirement for a new law – it should also be effective, enforceable and necessary. No one has shown that background checks on private sales are any, much less all of these. Another unsupported claim Australia’s program, which Sec. Clinton praised, was not “voluntary” in that refusal to accept the government buy-back opened one up to prosecution. Threat of prosecution makes it mandatory. I don’t actually believe that Clinton knew all of the details of the buy-back/confiscation, so I’m willing to give her a pass on that. However, the claim that no one’s firearms will be confiscated doesn’t appear to have merit in light of recent laws in Connecticut and New York that require current owners of “assault weapons” to get rid of them. Whether you’re forced to sell them or turn them into the government, being forced to do so or face arrest and prosecution is “confiscation”. We can also look at the incidents post-Katrina where law enforcement confiscated lawfully owned firearms as another counterexample to your claim. There’s certainly no need to attack the 2nd openly when one can subvert it. Multiple state laws exist in obvious non-compliance with SCOTUS decisions like Miller, Heller and McDonald, and complicit federal appeals courts allow them to get away with it. First example: In their decision regarding the banning of "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" in Connecticut and New York, the majority opinion of the 2nd Circuit Court stated: "In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment." However, the laws were upheld. Second example: The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Still, the court in FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK THOMAS, J., dissenting concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” This also applies to the Democrats and organizations like VPC, Brady, etc. Ibid.
Well, we can't count on that in 2 years. Historically, the party with the Presidency loses seats in the House and/or Senate in mid-term elections.
Keep telling yourself that champ. All you've done is point to outliers and otherwise make my point for me.
I'm not convinced that Trump will select strict 2A judges. IMO, he is not a true constitutionalist conservative.
Trump is a RINO and a progressive. Conservative Republicans will be opposing anything he suggests that is progressive.
Trump is an opportunist. He now has an opportunity to be great, I hope he does not blow it. If he follows through in his promise to American voters then he will be a great President.
Trump is a Businessman, he is not Stupid as far as Business, from simple observation in Business, it is easy to see what fails and what works. Gun Control is why Hillary Clinton lost her gambit, had She been Pro-Gun, She would be crowing Victory now. The People arguing against Trump, simply don't like him and wanted Hillary, but couldn't justify her because of her Anti-Gun stance. I know a lady that runs a food cart, she does not make much money, why ? She prepares and sells food she likes, not what the customers want, and this costs her Business. Politics is Business too, however, not every Politician is an effective Business person.
The first two appointments to his cabinet are conservative and dems are up in arms that his top advisor is an extreme conservative. The list of possible Justices that he put together during his campaign were all very conservative picks. He will pick from this list, he has no reason to start a fight among his supporters of gun owners, evangelicals and establishment conservatives. He wants to be successful and doing a 180 on his Justice picks would start a rocky road for himself. Especially with the make up of congress. He will need them to get anything done.
I read Art of The Deal a few years before Trump announced and kind of see what he's about. If fact I supported him when he announced his run. I still believe a majority of Dems will stay away from gun control in campaigns, they can spout about gun control all they want in DC. Do you notice the ones that do speak out are people like Pelosi, safe in her district? As for Trump he sees people are pretty much on their own out here in real America. We have a saying here "When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
It's the other way around.... the dems have to make concessions if they want to get just one thing passed. Repubs just need a handful of dem votes to get things done. If these few dems play ball then maybe these dems that play can get some of their legislation passed. Try putting a vice versa on that and see how that looks. No gun legislation is getting through the new congress, if they couldn't do it with the current congress, they sure have no chance now.
They both have to make concessions. The dems do not need to present anything for two years. They can say no to everything. Trump will cave because he NEEDS to fulfill his campaign promises. And he will sell you out.
Indeed -- the Dems cannot stop anything in the house; with 25 senate seats up for grabs in 2018 - 10 in red states - the Dems cannot afford to filibuster everything.
