Armslist being sued by the Brady Bunch

[Hershmeister]

Since private sales are exclusively intra state, how exactly would the Feds create a rule or law prohibitin them?

They've already succeeded in prohibiting interstate private sales but I beleive this is the limit of their power barring any sort of inducement to the states like the highway money in exchange for speed limits.


I would expect blue liberal states to consider this kind of legislation but i do t see it coming from the Feds.

[Guest cardcutter]

I am curious. How did the felon get the gun anyway. Do they not have to ship to an FFL? I don't see how the bad guy could have got around it  and it still be the website's fault.

[monkeylizard]

Since private sales are exclusively intra state, how exactly would the Feds create a rule or law prohibitin them?

The affectation doctrine gives them that power. Even intrastate commerce that effects interstate commerce can be regulated by the fed. If I buy a Glock from a TN resident that affects interstate commerce because I now won't buy one from a seller in Utah.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Commerce clause arguments were originally concerned with tariffs between the states, not at all for the regulation

between individuals. It is grossly abused in many legal arguments, taxation being the largest one. Twisting the

affectation doctrine into regulation of individual sales from one to another would be a huge overstepping of the

Constitution.

 

Congress tries to use the commerce clause for anything they can't argue successfully otherwise.

[Guest cardcutter]

 

Congress tries to use the commerce clause for anything they can't argue successfully otherwise.

 

This +10. It is the blanket they use to cover every law they make.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Since private sales are exclusively intra state, how exactly would the Feds create a rule or law prohibitin them?

They've already succeeded in prohibiting interstate private sales but I beleive this is the limit of their power barring any sort of inducement to the states like the highway money in exchange for speed limits.


I would expect blue liberal states to consider this kind of legislation but i do t see it coming from the Feds.

I think that was even a reach requiring individuals to go through an FFL to make a sale. There is no reasoning with

that requirement that a criminal cares about. Why should two law abiding citizens have to go that route? Only answer

I can think of is to incriminate, or to submit to another ridiculous law.

[daddyo]

So, what we're really talking about here is registration. I thought that was a violation of the state constitution.

[Oh Shoot]

I think that was even a reach requiring individuals to go through an FFL to make a sale. There is no reasoning with

that requirement that a criminal cares about. Why should two law abiding citizens have to go that route? Only answer

I can think of is to incriminate, or to submit to another ridiculous law.

 

The liberal response is: it doesn't deny sales between two law abiding citizens, but prevents sales to prohibited persons. And who doesn't want to do that, eh?

 

And I have to admit, that yes, it would reduce sales to prohibited persons. How many, who knows? Will prohibited persons still be able to get guns? Sure, many will.

 

Fact is, it's totally unrealistic to assume that prohibited persons don't buy guns in this country daily through personal sales, and that it's much cheaper and easier, with wider selection,  than having to ferret out black market sources.

 

We can't know, but almost certainly some % of sales through TGO have gone to prohibited persons, just as an example, and of course during guns shows. No, it's not a "gun show loophole", but if you want cabbages, you go to a cabbage patch.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

So, what we're really talking about here is registration. I thought that was a violation of the state constitution.

 

The 4473 system already allows determination of the first owner. Subsequent FFL transfers have to be ferreted out through individual gunshops. Of course, it is likely to assume the feds will probably try to institute a national gun registry in conjunction with banning private sales, if that get rolling.

 

 

- OS

[Garufa]

The NRA response is: it doesn't deny sales between two law abiding citizens, but prevents sales to prohibited persons. And who doesn't want to do that, eh?

 

- OS

 

FTFY  ;)

[Oh Shoot]

FTFY  ;)

 

Agree that the NRA (and GOP) would probably only provide token resistance. The GOP would roll over easier than the NRA even, as they'd get some sop or other in some bill as payment.

 

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The liberal response is: it doesn't deny sales between two law abiding citizens, but prevents sales to prohibited persons. And who doesn't want to do that, eh?

 

And I have to admit, that yes, it would reduce sales to prohibited persons. How many, who knows? Will prohibited persons still be able to get guns? Sure, many will.

 

Fact is, it's totally unrealistic to assume that prohibited persons don't buy guns in this country daily through personal sales, and that it's much cheaper and easier, with wider selection,  than having to ferret out black market sources.

 

We can't know, but almost certainly some % of sales through TGO have gone to prohibited persons, just as an example, and of course during guns shows. No, it's not a "gun show loophole", but if you want cabbages, you go to a cabbage patch.

 

- OS

Denying and restricting and possibly recording that sale is the problem. A criminal, which such laws are supposed to

affect, are the exact ones who don't worry about those laws, but you and I know this. So it seems to me that any law

that restricts an individual(law abiding citizen) from having a transaction with another of the same doesn't pass muster

when having any law serves no purpose, other than to hinder the law abiding public.

It's just big brother making a criminal out of the rest of us.

 

The liberal argument assumes we are sheep and need to be herded. It also assumes everyone is a criminal until they

are controlled by the government to the government's liking, which is in direct conflict with the Constitution, know as,

We, the People.

[Oh Shoot]

Denying and restricting and possibly recording that sale is the problem. A criminal, which such laws are supposed to

affect, are the exact ones who don't worry about those laws, but you and I know this. ...

 

Nevertheless,  law abiding people sell firearms to felons everyday. Guaranteed. You or I may have done it.

 

Would fewer felons have guns if they couldn't buy them from you or me? I don't know. Does every person who is prohibited from buying a gun know the underground place to get one? I doubt it.

 

Only thing for sure is that if they can find them, the price would be a lot higher and the selection a lot worse. :)

 

- OS

Edited December 14, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[c.a.willard]

I hate to say this but we can all see the writings on the wall that some form of legislation against private sells is coming sooner or later it will happen.  I think the firearms community would be better served helping to shape that legislation rather than out right opposing it.  An example would be a annual firearm purchase permit.  Use that card in place of the NICS/TICS system.  As long as they made that card easy to get ie allow DOS to the TICS system to conduct a quick check on you and issue on the spot for say 15-20 dollars.  This would not get rid of every sell to unqualified individuals but i think it would limit them a great deal, and at the same time not be as heavy a burden on the firearms community as having to do a FFL transfer for personal sales.

[mikegideon]

You mean a FOID card? F#ck me.

[Chucktshoes]

I hate to say this but we can all see the writings on the wall that some form of legislation against private sells is coming sooner or later it will happen. I think the firearms community would be better served helping to shape that legislation rather than out right opposing it. An example would be a annual firearm purchase permit. Use that card in place of the NICS/TICS system. As long as they made that card easy to get ie allow DOS to the TICS system to conduct a quick check on you and issue on the spot for say 15-20 dollars. This would not get rid of every sell to unqualified individuals but i think it would limit them a great deal, and at the same time not be as heavy a burden on the firearms community as having to do a FFL transfer for personal sales.

Our enslavement by the government is inevitable. So, instead of fighting it, we should help fashion the shackles and chains so we can have some input into how they will fit. They won't be as burdensome then.

[c.a.willard]

Yea it's called compromise and its not that incredibly horrible of an idea.  If people would get off their high horse on both sides of the isle and actually meet in the middle our country might not be in the shape it currently is.  There is enough public support and support from gun lobbyist to implement an outright ban on private sales.  In fact manufacturers and FFL's would profit from it.  A purchase ID if properly implemented would not interfere with your rights and might actually help to limit guns in the hands of criminals.  My personal opinion is that the firearms community should be willing to compromise IOT help lower the rate of gun crime in the U.S.  Yes this only treats a symptom and not the cause of the violence but it is a start

[Chucktshoes]

Yea it's called compromise and its not that incredibly horrible of an idea.  If people would get off their high horse on both sides of the isle and actually meet in the middle our country might not be in the shape it currently is.  There is enough public support and support from gun lobbyist to implement an outright ban on private sales.  In fact manufacturers and FFL's would profit from it.  A purchase ID if properly implemented would not interfere with your rights and might actually help to limit guns in the hands of criminals.  My personal opinion is that the firearms community should be willing to compromise IOT help lower the rate of gun crime in the U.S.  Yes this only treats a symptom and not the cause of the violence but it is a start

In this case it is. We have only begun to reclaim some of the full breadth of our 2A rights from the unconstitutional encroachments of over a century of war on individual liberty by the progressive left. The idea of a national FOID is not only going to be ineffective to actually perform any useful purpose, it is just damn dumb. Not just no, but F NO!

[Chucktshoes]

If my position seems extreme, then you need a little historical perspective. I think this little story from LawDog explains better than I could.

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Source- http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html Edited December 14, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Denying and restricting and possibly recording that sale is the problem. A criminal, which such laws are supposed to
affect, are the exact ones who don't worry about those laws, but you and I know this. ...


Nevertheless, law abiding people sell firearms to felons everyday. Guaranteed. You or I may have done it.

Would fewer felons have guns if they couldn't buy them from you or me? I don't know. Does every person who is prohibited from buying a gun know the underground place to get one? I doubt it.

Only thing for sure is that if they can find them, the price would be a lot higher and the selection a lot worse. :)

- OS

But Mac, it's still an individual responsibility for that sale.
There is no reason to police sales of
firearms by the government, until such
time as the "Minority Report" comes of
age.
Sure, we may have unknowingly sold
a firearm that ended up in the hands
of a criminal, but that can happen with
transactions through an FFL, also.

I won't go down easy if they get some
kind of registration passed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yea it's called compromise and its not that incredibly horrible of an idea. If people would get off their high horse on both sides of the isle and actually meet in the middle our country might not be in the shape it currently is. There is enough public support and support from gun lobbyist to implement an outright ban on private sales. In fact manufacturers and FFL's would profit from it. A purchase ID if properly implemented would not interfere with your rights and might actually help to limit guns in the hands of criminals. My personal opinion is that the firearms community should be willing to compromise IOT help lower the rate of gun crime in the U.S. Yes this only treats a symptom and not the cause of the violence but it is a start

What's the only result of a compromise
between good and evil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

.....

Sure, we may have unknowingly sold
a firearm that ended up in the hands
of a criminal, ....

 

Diff is that "we" may have sold directly to a prohibited person. That's one part of the argument we face, and it really is undeniable that if they change the law, law abiding sellers can't do that any more.

 

Yes, it's Dr. Floyd Ferris from Atlas Shrugged  speaking to some extent, but there it is.

 

- OS

 

[Guest fauklin]

Yea it's called compromise and its not that incredibly horrible of an idea.  If people would get off their high horse on both sides of the isle and actually meet in the middle our country might not be in the shape it currently is.  There is enough public support and support from gun lobbyist to implement an outright ban on private sales.  In fact manufacturers and FFL's would profit from it.  A purchase ID if properly implemented would not interfere with your rights and might actually help to limit guns in the hands of criminals.  My personal opinion is that the firearms community should be willing to compromise IOT help lower the rate of gun crime in the U.S.  Yes this only treats a symptom and not the cause of the violence but it is a start

Compromise is how our Federal Govt. got as large, inefficient, and burdensome as it is today. The last thing we need now is compromise. I know plenty of folks that are angry at congress blocking Obama's agenda. I tell them that is what they are there for. IMO, the less the federal govt. is doing, the better off the people of this country are.

[c.a.willard]

The majority of people would not see that as a violation of your rights, just like they don't view the background check as a violation of rights.  There is likely enough public support to pass a law requiring all firearms transfers to go through an FFL.  I simply propose an alternative to that.  One that not only would allow individuals to still do private transfers but would also prevent you from having to do a background check every time you purchase.   My personal preference would be to see no new legislation and the repeal of some of the idiocy that has passed, however at this point i dont think that is very likely.   New legislation will come soon  the most likely of which is another AWB and some form of ban or limitation on private sales. 

[mikegideon]

The majority of people would not see that as a violation of your rights, just like they don't view the background check as a violation of rights.  There is likely enough public support to pass a law requiring all firearms transfers to go through an FFL.  I simply propose an alternative to that.  One that not only would allow individuals to still do private transfers but would also prevent you from having to do a background check every time you purchase.   My personal preference would be to see no new legislation and the repeal of some of the idiocy that has passed, however at this point i dont think that is very likely.   New legislation will come soon  the most likely of which is another AWB and some form of ban or limitation on private sales. 

Part of the reason Romney didn't get elected was because he signed an assault weapons ban years ago in a deep blue state.

 

Note to politicians: Go ahead and vote for one. I dare you. We NEVER forget. Hell, I'm still pissed at Bill Ruger.