Would Univeral Background checks be constitutional?

[Hershmeister]

If a federal universal background check law was passed mandating BG checks on all gun sales - both interstate and intra state, would it pass constitutional muster?

Would it matter if the checks were "free" vs having a payment required?

Under what legal argument could the Feds control intrastate sales?

Discuss

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No. Checking on anyone's background is an infringement, even if they are mentally ill. Some things are just going to happen.

They don't have a legal argument to control commerce inside a state. All they can do is extort their way in, the way they do it now.

[Hershmeister]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

The same legal arguments used to counter voter is laws would apply to universal background checks. That is, that requiring citizens to purchase an ID or otherwise place a burden o any kind on excercising their voting rights would disenfranchise minorities and the poor. A universal mandated background check would equally inhibit the 2nd amendment.

In TN you must pay the $10 BG check fee but you retain the option of a private sale, which may be why no legal suit has been brought against it. A Universal Backgriund check would also have a tranfer type fee paid to the dealer for his time and effort in handling a private sale.

IANAL

TGO attorneys - what say ye?

[Jonnin]

very little of modern law is "constitutional" yet it passes the SCOTUS by precedence or just activitst judges.  

 

In the same way that obamacare is "constitutional", so will be any gun control garbage.   The court will OK it, stamp it, and it will be the law of the land until the judges are replaced with conservatives --- which won't happen in at least 4 years.  The court, regardless of control, has a habit of not reversing itself in general, though it has happened it is not something to bet the farm on.

 

If background checks cost money, and they do, it is a TAX ON A RIGHT.   That is how we fight it, if it passes.  But then again, healthcare is NOT A TAX supposedly, except its a tax.   Difficult to win this one.

 

Individual states can tell the feds to go take a running jump but the feds can follow up by cutting off grants and other money.   Many states will find it difficult to function without handouts.   The BAFTE can try to enforce it but they do not have the resoruces.  NO ONE has the resources actually --- a few stings might net some people, esp expect to be stung if you try to sell or buy at a gun show or off questionable or the most popular websites.   But there is simply no way to stop people from selling guns without going to a FFL first without 10000x the manpower available.    They cannot even stop the bulk of the meth labs, let alone the bubbas that will sell guns to each other quietly. 

[Guest CCI]

Is there any thing else  in life that requires a back ground check?

[Will H]

Yeah, anything that makes buying a gun different than buying a loaf of bread is an infringement, but now that the SCOTUS is moving from "interpreting the constitution" to "interpreting what is best for society" I think it would be upheld.

[gnmwilliams]

No. But when has that stopped the government from doing anything?

[Jonnin]

Is there any thing else  in life that requires a back ground check?

Yes. 

Anything involving money: your job, buying a car, buying a house, getting a credit card, etc all run a "credit check" which has more personal info on you than the current gun background checks.

 

If you work for the govt, and get a clearence, you all but get anal probed, they ask your neigbors, family, co-workers, everyone about you.  They study your finances.  They want to know who your friends are.  Its DEEP.

 

Insurance: your health history, job, finances, and more are required including your SSN for who knows what backtracking.

 

Drivers or CCW ID cards -- same deal, background check is run on you. 

 

Most non govt jobs also check you out.   The exception seems to be if you work around kids at a school, where checks suddenly become lax. 

 

Any money transaction over a pittance due to Ws patriot act is investigated so they are sure you are not a terrorist.

 

I can keep going but mostly its related to income or money, THAT is something we CARE about.

[Oh Shoot]

15 states have partial or total ban on private firearm transfer, and none have been successfully constitutionally challenged.

 

- OS

[Hershmeister]

15 states have partial or total ban on private firearm transfer, and none have been successfully constitutionally challenged.

- OS

Are there cases that actually challenged the laws or are you just saying that none has ever been filed?

[Oh Shoot]

Are there cases that actually challenged the laws or are you just saying that none has ever been filed?

 

Only commenting that I know of no such law that has been overturned on any level. Some of them have been in place long enough for challenges to have worked their way all the way up if they had been filed.

 

But no, I don't know of any specific litigation involving any in any state.

 

- OS

[Guest PapaB]

An argument could be made under equal protection and I'm surprised a case hasn't already been filed since the 14th addresses the states rather than the feds. As long as certain groups are blocked from being in the nics system, background checks for only part of the populaton should be considered unconstitutional. As it stands now, individuals that have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution cannot be included in the system even though they're not allowed to own firearms. The same is true for those dishonorably discharged from the military. The rest of us are denied equal protection under the law because of those prohibitions.

[daddyo]

Of course not.

[JayC]

Almost none of them have been law for more than 30 years, which is how long it took to challenge the first handgun ban :)  Also, virtually any case law will be pre-McDonald so it was a challenge against the state constitution not in federal court.

 

For example here in TN, a state law requiring the state to perform a background check is clearly unconstitutional because our state constitution only allows the legislature to regulate the wearing of firearms, not the purchasing of firearms.  Many states don't have this restriction in their constitution.

 

Either way, we're at the start of the gun civil rights movement, just in the last 5 years we've had more positive case law than in the last 70 or 80 before that...  It's going to take us a generation to peel back all the bad laws that have been passed, if the republic stands that long.

 

Only commenting that I know of no such law that has been overturned on any level. Some of them have been in place long enough for challenges to have worked their way all the way up if they had been filed.

 

But no, I don't know of any specific litigation involving any in any state.

 

- OS

 

[RobertNashville]

Is there any thing else  in life that requires a back ground check?

Most jobs do :)

I know...not the same thing of course but background checks are sort of a fact of life today...maybe it's because of liability concerns or just people not trusting other people much anymore...heck...they even advertise background check services on TV to be used before going on a date with someone!

 

Just this past week I went through an pretty exhaustive BG check that took three work days (that went a lot further than the simply check they do for gun sales) and all so I could take a consulting position this week!

[RED333]

Rutherford county has a BC for their schools.

I repair cooking gear, had one done to work in the schools.

Navy sub service, cook, that one was a GOOD check.